**: x*g º ' ,ºr "...ºr rººf º wº ** * * : - ;
* ... : :" ºr ... sº jº *...*& *º.
*******º.
* § }
* * 2. . ...} ' ' - .
sº

Avºwevº. % cºcº 2–2.Ée ext Qe-ºw-wº- ove *6-caº. z-a tº a cºº • **
2. º … ("exºlº 4.444 .
R E P 0 R T
JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
ON THE
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS;
TOGETHER WITH THE
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE,
M I N U T E S 0 F E W I D E N C E,
A N D IN DE X.
*::=rs---------
t
*
; := * . -a-, - ... • , , , -
i nºw ** - v - - - -, -- * * * * *** - *. r -
; * RANSPORTA," Cº. i.it ... . .
-------º- * ~ *********--------------> --- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
P A R T I,
Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed,
- 1 August 1891.
L O N DO N :
PRINTED FOR HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE,
BY THE HANSARD PUBLISHING UNION, LIMITED.
And to be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from
EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, EAST HARDING STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C.,
and 32, ABINGDON STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.; or
JOHN MENZIES & Co., 12, HANoveR STREET, EDINBURGH, and
88 and 90, WEST NILE STREET, GLASGow; or
HODGES, FIGGIS, & Co., 104, GRAFTox STREET, DUBLIN.
A 394. €
REPORT –
IIST OF PETITIONERS
Transportation
Library
HP
/ ? § 3
. A 45
} % ºf
Pt. 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
INIDEX.
p.
D.
vi
xii
. 1687
^.
Ordered,—[Friday, 6th March 1891]:-THAT all Bills of the present Session to confirm
Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under “The Railway and Canal Traffic Act,
1888,” containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum
Rates and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and
Commons. sº
1.
THAT a Message be sent to the Lords to communicate this Resolution, and desire their
COIn CULTTen Ce,
^
Ordered,—[Monday, 16th March 1891]: —THAT the following Bills be committed to a
Select Committee of Five Members, nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined
with a Committee of Five Lords:– |
Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
London and North Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill.
London and South Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Provisional Order Bill.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill,
Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
THAT all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills or Orders scheduled thereto
presented Five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the
Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or
Agents be heard in favour of or against the Bills, and Counsel heard in support of the
Bills.
*
THAT a Message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint their Lordships that the said Bills
have been committed to Five Members of this House, to be joined with a Committee of
Five Lords, pursuant to the Resolution of the House relative to Provisional Orders
Confirmation (Rates and Charges) Bill of the 6th day of March last, and to the Message of
the 10th day of March, signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution.
º
[Twesday, T7th March 1891]:-Message from the Lords,--THAT they have appointed a.
Committee, consisting of Five Lords, to join with the Committee of the Commons (pursuant,
to Message of this House), for the consideration of the following Bills, viz.:-
Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill,
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill,
Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill,
London and North Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill, --
London and South Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill,
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Provisional Order Bill, &
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill,
Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill,
South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill,

(81.)a a 2 and
and the Lords propose that the said Joint Committee do meet in Room A., at Twelve o’clock
on Thursday the 9th of April next.
Committee nominated of,
Mr. Colman. - Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.
Mr. Hanbury. Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Hunter.
[Wednesday, 18th Manch 1891]:—THAT part of the Message from the Lords, of the 17th
instant, wherein their Lordships acquaint this House, “That they have appointed a Committee
of Five Lords to join with the Committee of the Commons on Railway Rates and Charges
Provisional Order Bills (pursuant to the Message of this House); and that the Lords propose
that the said Joint Committee do meet in Room A., at Twelve o’clock on Thursday the 9th of
April next,” considered.
On denied, THAT the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee
of the Lords on Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order Bills do meet the Lords’
Committee in Room A., at Twelve o’clock on Thursday the 9th day of April next, as proposed
by their Lordships.
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Ordered,—[Friday, 20th March 1891]:-THAT Mr. Colman and Sir Henry Selwin-
Ibbetson be discharged from further attendance, and appoint in substitution: Sir Joseph
Bailey and Mr. Dickson.
Ordered,—[Mom day, 23rd Manch 1891]:--THAT Three be the Quorum of the Committee.
R. E. P. O. R. T.
THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE to whom the following Provisional Order Bills,
viz., The London and North Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill; The Great Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order
Bill : The Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill; The
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill; The
Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill; The
London and South Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order
Bill: The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Provisional Order Bill ; The South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Provisional Order Bill; The London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and
Charges) Provisional Order Bill were referred, have Reported that they have considered
the Orders therein contained ; that the said Orders ought to be confirmed ; and have
agreed to Report the Bills, with Amendments, to the House.
17 July 1891.
*Cºmme
(81.)a
à,
3
vi
LIST OF PETITIONERS’ COUNSEL AND AGENTS AGAINST THE WARIOUS
PROVISIONAL ORDER.S.
AGAINST THE GREAT EASTERN RAILwAY
COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVI-
SIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of Messrs. J. and J. Colman :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. A. F.
Murison appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs.
Agents.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom,
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge, appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Great Eastern Railway
Company : -
Mr. Pember, Q.C., Mr. Saunders Q.C., and
Mr. Moon appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Mr. Edward Moore appears as Agent.
Wyatt and Company appear as
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in Sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Assurance Society :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear
as Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards in Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharp
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association:
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. B., owne appears as
and Company £lS
appear
Agent.
AGAINST THE GREAT NORTHERN RAIL-
wAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PRO-
VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Great Northern Railway
Company :
Mr. Pope, Q.C., and Mr. Cripps, Q.C., appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Nelson, Barr, and Nilson appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster:
Counsel reserved. -
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition. -
The Petition of Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and
Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Neish and Howell appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in Sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition. -
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Coimmerce and Agri-
culture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in Sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Cilfton Colliery Com-
pany (Limited) and the Mapperly Colliery
Company (Limited):
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Kingsford,
appear as Agents.
Dorman, and Company
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Assurance Society:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q C., appears as Coun-
sel in support of this Petition.
Messrs.
as Agents.
Walter Webb and Company appear
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards in Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and
Agents.
Company appear as
The
[ vii )
The Petition of the Derbyshire, Nottingham-
shire, and Leicestershire Colliery Owners'
Association :
Counsel reserved. - -
Messrs. Durnford and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
Bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. Yates, appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
and Company appear as
A GAINST THE GREAT WESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PRO-
VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster: .
Counsel reserved. -
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and
Lakin :
Mr. Darlington appears as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Mr. James W. Reid appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters’ Association:
Mr. Shaw appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition. v, -
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents. -is
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others: - -
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Freighters on the Mon-
mouthshire Railways:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Landowners, Traders,
and Colliery Owners, and Trading and Colliery
Companies, and the Associated Coal Owners of
South Wales :
Mr. Ram and Mr. Shaw appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bel/
Agents.
The Petition of the Monmouthshire County
Council:
appear as
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Dyson and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition. t
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition. -
The Petition of the
Council:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. J. Shaw
appear as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Marquess of Bute and
Earl of Dumfries :
Mr. Bidder, Q.C., and Mr. Woodfall appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Grahames and Company appear as
Agents. -
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association :
Glamorgan County.
Mr. Woodfall appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Great Western Railway
Company: -
Mr. Pember, Q.C., Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr.
Moon appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Mr. R. R. Nelson appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Associations of Traders and Freighters’
and Traders representing the South Stafford-
shire District:
Counsel reserved. -
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards of
Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. . .
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents. -
The Petition of the Ebbw Vale Steel, Iron,
and Coal Company (Limited):
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
appear as.
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire.
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q. C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
(81.)a
a 4 AGAINST
{ viii )
AGAINST THE LONDON AND NORTH
WESTERN RAILWAY (RATES AND CHARGEs)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. -
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters' Association :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of William Norwood and James
Cross (as Trustees under the Will of John
Hutchinson, deceased):
Mr. Stallard appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition. -
Messrs. Dewin and Company appear as
Agents. .8)
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Mr. Poyser appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Garston Dock Traffic
Association, Freighters, Shippers, Traders, and
Manufacturers :
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C.,
Counsel in support of this Petition.
appears as
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Corporation of St.
Helen’s :
Mr. E. Forbes Lankester appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear
Agents.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent.
3S
The Petition of Landowners, Traders, and
Colliery Owners, and Trading and Colliery Com-
panies, and the Associated Coal Owners of South
Wales :
Mr. A. J. Ram and Mr. Joseph Shaw appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bell appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Whitehead appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. r
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as, Agent.
The Petition of the West Cumberland Iron-
masters’ Association :
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Hargreaves and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Cumberland Coal Associa-
tion : .
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Hargreaves and Company appear as
Agents. *
The Petition of Robert Donald Thomson, and
Clifton Colliery Company (Limited), and George
Edward Checkland :
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition,
Messrs. Kingsford, Dorman and Company
appear as Agents.
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners' Association : -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Mersey Docks and Har-
bour Board: -
Mr. T. G. Carver appears as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters' Association :
Mr. Woodfall appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent.
The Petition of the London
Western Railway Company :
Mr. Pope, Q.C., Mr. Littler, C.B., Q.C., and Mr.
Moon appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Mr. C. H. Mason appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Associations of Traders and Freighters,
and Traders representing the South Staffordshire
District:
Counsel reserved.
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of Traders and Slate Quarry
Proprietors and Lessees and Traders of North
Wales: *
Mr. Darlington appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Mr. J. H. Cobb appears as Agent.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal
Owners’ Assurance Society:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of Sarah Tomlinson :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. T. G.
Carver appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations of Lancashire and
Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Saint Helen’s and Dis-
trict Coal Proprietors’ Association (against
alterations):
and North
and Company appear as
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Fowler and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The
[
ix J
The Petition of the Railway Carriage and
Waggon Builders' Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Martin and Leslie appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Lancashire and
Cheshire Coal Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Freighters and Shippers
of Coal : - .
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of Messrs. Richard Evans and
Company (Limited):
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C.,
Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents:
The Petition of the Garswood Hall Collieries
Company (Limited) and others: .
Counsel reserved. e.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the iancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
Agents.
The Petition of the National Sea Fisheries
Association :
Mr. Richards appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
M. J. W. Towse appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. Richards appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition. -
Mr. J. W. Bray Browne appears as Agent.
The Petition of Messrs. Cross, Tetley, and
Company:
Mr. Castle, Q.C., appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Wyatt
Agents.
and Company appear as
appears as
appear as
and Company
AGAINST THE LONDON AND SOUTH
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND
CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
&
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom,
and others :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the London
Western Railway Company:
Mr. Pember, Q.C., Mr. Noble, and Mr. Acworth
appear as Counsel in support of this Petition.
and South
appear as
Messrs. Bircham and Company appear as
Agents." -
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition. -
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Corpo-
rations, Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture,
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the North Cornwall Railway
Company : .
Counsel reserved. -
Messrs. Burchell and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards of
Lancashire and Cheshire: -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Plymouth, Devonport,
and South Western Junction Railway Com-
pany :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Burchell and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations, and other
bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham, Fish, Game,
and Poulterers’ Association: -
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
and Company appear as
and Company appear as
AGAINST THE LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND
SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES
AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Corporation of Brighton:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Lush
Wilson appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Railway Company :
Mr. Saunders, Q.C., and Mr. Freeman appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Dyson and Company appear as
Agents.
(81.)a e
b - The
[
1.
X
The Petition ºf the Corporation of London
(against alterations): :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others :
Counsel reserved. -
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Compang appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
Agents.
8,S
appear
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poulterers’ Association:
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
AGAINST THE LONDON, CHATHAM, AND
Dov ER RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND
CHARGEs) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturing Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Pryor Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition. -
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others:
Counsel reserved. *
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition. - -
The Petition of the Westry of St. Mary,
Newington :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Lush
Wilson appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs.
Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire: -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear
Agents.
Lowlers and
Company appear as
àS
The Petition of the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Martin and Leslie appear as Agents
in support of this Petition. -
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
Bodies: 4.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. -
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
AGAINST THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COM-
PANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL
ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster :
Council reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters’ Association : -
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others :
3,S
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of Messrs. Brunner, Monde, and
Company : -
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Neish and Howell appear as Agents in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of Landowners, Traders, and
Colliery Owners and Trading and Colliery Com-
panies and the Associated Coalowners of South
Wales :
Mr. Ram and Mr. Shaw appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition. -
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bell appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Corpo-
rations, Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture,
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The
[
|
xi
The Petition of Robert Donald Thomson,
the Clifton Colliery Company, Limited, George
Edward Checkland, and the Mapperley Colliery
Company, Limited :
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Kingsford, Dorman and Company
appear as Agents.
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Association: -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Coun-
sel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association : -
Mr. Woodfall appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition. -
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Association of Traders and Freigh-
ters and Traders representing the South Staf-
fordshire District :
Counsel reserved:
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Midland Railway Com-
pany : -
Mr. Bidder, Q.C., Mr. Saunders, Q.C., and
Mr. Acworth appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. !
Messrs. Beale and Company
appear as
Agents. -
The Petition of the Furness Railway Com-
pany :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. John Charles Ball
support of this Petition.
. The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear
Agents. -
The Petition of the Corporation of Leicester:
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Dyson and Company
Agents. -
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners' Assurance Society :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Coun-
sel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear
as Agents,
The Petition of the Derbyshire, Notting-
hamshire, and Leicestershire Colliery Owners’
Association : -
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Durnford and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Lancashire and
Cheshire Coal Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
appears as Agent in
&S
appear as
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents. - - t -
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations, and
other bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition. - -
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents. º
AGAINST THE SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY
COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVI-
SIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom,
and others: .
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Penition.
The Petition of the South Eastern Railway
Company :
Mr. Littler, C.B., Q.C., Mr. Worsley Taylor,
Q.C., and Mr. Boyle appear as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Messrs. R. W. Cooper and Sons appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others:
Counsel reserved. .
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition. -
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council, and Municipal Corporations, and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire. *
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers' Association:
Mr. H. C. Richards appeared as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
and Company appear as
AGAINST RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations, and other
bodies : -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
Agents.
appear as
(81.)a.
b 2
xii - PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
PRO CE ED INGS OF THE COMM ITTEE.
Thursday, 9th April 1891.
PRESENT :
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Wodehouse.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON was called to the Chair.
The Committee deliberated. -
Resolved, “That the Committee do sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and
Fridays, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.”
Resolved, “That the London and North Western Railway Company (Rates aud Charges)
Provisional Order Bill be first proceeded with, and that Petitioners against identical clauses in the
other Orders be heard, as if they had petitioned against such clauses in the London and North
Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Mr. Mwir Mackenzie was heard, on behalf of the Board of Trade, to state the provisions of
the Provisional Order Confirmation Bills.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 14th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. . Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Wodehouse.
Lord Belper. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Preamble postponed.
Clauses 1–2 postponed.
Schedule postponed.
Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges.
Section I (Division of Schedule) postponed.
Section 2 (Maximum Conveyance Rates) considered.
Mr. Balfowº Browne, on behalf of the Petition of the Mansion House United Association,
W8,S heard in support of an Amendment in line 4, to insert, after the word “of,” the words
“locomotive power and.” .
Words inserted.
Mr. Balfour Browne was heard in support of an Amendment, to insert, after “Company,”
the words “and every other expense incidental to such conveyance.”
Mr. Bidden' , Was heard in favour of adding, at the end of the proposed Amendment, the
words “not hereinafter provided.”
Amendment to proposed Amendment, agreed to. -
Amendment,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xiii
\,
*-
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Another Amendment made.
Mr. Wills, in support of the Petition of Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and Lakin, against the Great
Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill, proposed the omission
of the words “to lime or lias-lime in bulk,” in Sub-section (a), and called Mr. Michael Hemºry
Lakim, who was sworn, and examined. -
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the railway companies, called Mr. Hemºry Lambert, who was
sworn, and examined. º s
Amendment disagreed to.
Mr. Pope was heard in support of an Amendment to add at the end of Sub-section (a) the
words “ammoniacal liquor, creosote, coal tar, gas tar, gas, water, or gravel tarred for paving,
carried in such a manner as will injure the trucks of the railway companies,” and called Mr.
George Findlay and Mr. Richard Hooper Twelvetrees, who were sworn, and examined.
Lord Balfown of Burleigh and Mr. Cowptemay Boyle were heard on behalf of the Board of
Trade.
3 3
Motion made, and Question proposed, after the second “bulk,” to insert the words
“ammoniacal liquor, creosote, coal tar, gas tar, gas water, or gravel tarred for paving, carried
in such a manner as will injure the trucks of the railway company.”—Question put, That these
words be there inserted.—The Committee divided : |
Contents, 9. Not Content, 1.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Hunter.
Sub-section (6), line 17, Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope, to leave out the words “included
in Class A. of this classification, or lime or lias-lime in bulk, or salt in bulk,” in order to insert
the words “specified in Sub-section A. of this Section” instead thereof.
Amendment made.
Mr. Cliffon'd was heard, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, in support of an
Amendment to leave out all the words, in line 18, after the word “trucks '' to the end of the
sub-section, in order to insert the following words: “the charge authorised for conveyance
shall be reduced by a sum equal to the sum authorised by this schedule for the provision of
trucks by the company.” -
Mr. Yates, on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Traders' Conference, was heard in
support of the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Pope and Mr. Bidder, on behalf of the railway companies, were heard against the
proposed Amendment. *
Mr. Cliffon'd was heard in reply.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard on behalf of the Board of Trade.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient that the reduction in charge
when trucks are provided by the trader, be fixed in the Bill.—Question put.-The Committee
divided :
Contents, 7. Not Contents, 3.
Earl of Belmore. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Earl of Camperdown. Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed that the Committee would prefer the principle of a fixed sum, instead of a
reference to arbitration, if a clause could be brought up.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)a b 3
xiv. - PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 15th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. 4 Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. - Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 2 further considered.
Mr. Balfowr Browne, on behalf of the Corporation of Brighton, proposed the following
Amendment —“The rates and charges of the company for goods and animals when legally
conveyed by the company at owner's risk shall in case of difference between the company and
the traders on whose behalf the same are conveyed, be determined by an arbitrator appointed
by the Board of Trade.” - -
Consideration of Amendment postponed.
Further consideration of Section 2 postponed.
Section 3 considered.
Mr. Dan'limgton, on behalf of the Corporation of Leicester, was heard in favour of the
Section being struck out, and called Mr. William Arthwr Darbishire, who was sworn, and
examined. -
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, on behalf of the Corporation of Leicester, withdrew his Amendment
to omit the section. -
Section further considered.
Mr. Mwrison, on behalf of Messrs. Colmam, temporarily withdrew his Amendment.
Mr. Shaw, on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Coal Owners, and Mr. Woodfall,
for the Marquess of Bute, were heard in Support of an Amendment, to insert, in page 3, line 23,
after the word “charge,” the words “over and above the rate for conveyance.”
The Committee refused to insert the Amendment.
Mr. Shaw was heard to propose an Amendment in page 3, line 25, after the word “duties”
to insert the words “and services in respect of such use and accommodation.”
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the Marquess of Bute, was heard in support of the proposed
Amendment.
Mr. Cow'temay Boyle was heard on behalf of the Board of Trade.
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed words,
Mr. Shaw was heard to propose an Amendment to leave out in line 27 the words “as carriers
thereof before or after conveyance,” in order to insert the words, “when such accommodation is
used by the trader.”
The Committee decided not to make the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Poysey, on behalf of the Chemical Manure Manufacturers' Association of the United
Kingdom, was heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 3, line 25, after “ coal
drops" to leave out all the words to the end of the section in order to insert the words “which
is especially provided by them for the reception and delivery of merchandise.”
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Poysey was also heard in support of the following proviso:—“Provided that, where
merchandise is loaded or unloaded elsewhere than in a shed or building of the company, the
company may not charge any station terminal in respect thereof. Maximum station terminals
shall be charged in accordance with the following scale.”
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters' Association,
was heard in support of the following Amendment to be added to Section 3:—
“Provided that the company may not charge for the performance of duties undertaken by
them for their own convenience or protection, such as signalling, pointsmen, and the cost Of
working junctions, watching goods, the use of gas and other lighting, and that the company
may not charge a station terminal at the end of a railway where such a railway joins the dock
lines of the company’s dock, and shipping charges are applicable, or at any point on the
company’s railway where such railway or any part thereof joins a siding not belonging to the
company.” .
Mr. Bidden was heard against the Amendment.
Lord
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xv.
Lord Balfowr of Burleigh was heard on behalf of the Board of Trade.
The Committee refused to insert the Amendments.
Mr. Balfow, Browne, having proposed to bring up at the end of the consideration of the
Bill Amendments which would amount to a new Bill. .
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided that Mr. Balfour Browne's proposal could not be entertained, but
that he must move Amendments to each of the Sections, as the Sections are brought up in the
ordinary way. -
Mr. Balfow, Browne, on behalf of the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Coal Associa-
tions, was heard in support of an Amendment to substitute, in line 24, the words “exclusive of
coal drops,” for “inclusive of coal drops,” and called Mr. Arthwºr Marshall Chambers, who was
Sworn, and examined. - - -
The Committee refused to make the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Balfowr Browme was heard in support of an Amendment, in line 27, after the word
“carriers,” to insert the words “by road.”
Further consideration of the Amendment postpomed.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Thursday, 16th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. - Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. - Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 3 further considered.
Mr. Darlington was heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 3, line 28, after
the word “conveyance,” to insert the words “Provided always that the actual sum chargeable
as a station telminal for any particular class of traffic shall not exceed such amount as may be
reasonably sufficient, regard being had to the average annual quantity of such traffic, and to
the accommodation provided for and actually used by such traffic at the station where such
station terminal is charged.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Balfow'r Browne was heard in support of an Amendment :—In line 6, after “carriers
thereof,” to insert the words “by rail and by road.”
The Committee decided not to insert the Amendment.
Mr. Woodfall and Mr. Shaw were heard, on behalf of the landowners, traders, and colliery
Owners of South Wales, and of the Marquess of Bute, in support of the following Amendment, in
page 3, line 28, after the word “conveyance,” to insert the words, “Provided that the actual
Sum chargeable as station terminal in respect of such consignment shall be such reasonable sum
within the maximum as shall in case of dispute be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed
by the Board of Trade, or by the Railway and Canal Commission, having regard to the actual
station accommodation reasonably necessary to be provided in each case.”
Mr. Balfowr Browne was heard in support of the said Amendment.
Mr. Bidder, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the Amendment.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient to add a proviso to Section 3,
“That in case of dispute the actual sum chargeable as station terminal in respect of each .
consignment shall be such reasonable sum within the maximum as shall be determined by an
(81.)a * b 4 arbitrator
xvi PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade”—(Earl of Camperdown).-Question put.—The
Committee divided :
Contents, 6. Not Contents, 4.
Earl of Camperdown. . Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Lord Belper. Earl of Belmore.
Lord Houghton. - Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury. . Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson. © g
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed that the Committee were prepared to add the proviso in the form which
they had amended it, leaving out the last words, and the proviso would run, “Provided that
the actual sum chargeable as station terminal in respect of each consignment shall be such
reasonable sum within the maximum as shall in case of dispute be determined by an arbitrator
to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Section 3 postponed.
Section 2 further considered.
Mr. Balfown Browme was heard in support of his Amendment, proposed on behalf of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference of Municipal Corporations, in page 3, line 12, to omit
the words “provided that,” and insert the words “such maximum rate shall be divided as
follows: (1) Maximum tolls (that is to say), the charges for the uses of the line of railway,
together with the cost of maintenance and signalling ; (2) Maximum haulage rates (that is to
say), the charges for the use of locomotive power, and of brake vans and their equipment, and
for marshalling and shunting; (3) Maximum truck rates (that is to say), the charges for the
provision of trucks or waggons for the carriage of the merchandise; ” and called Sir John
Hanºwood and Mr. Man'shall Stevens, who were sworn, and examined.
The Committee deliberated.
Mr. Pope, for the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Parties informed that the Committee would insert Sub-sections I and 2, but that they
would reserve their decision upon Sub-section 3 until they saw how it was proposed to deal
with the question at the end of Sub-section (b) of Section 2.
Section 2 further postpomed.
Section 3 further considered.
Mr. Balfow, Browave was heard in support of another Amendment, to leave out, in page 3,
line 25, from the word “provided '' to the end of the Section, in order to insert the words “at
a station at which merchandise is loaded or unloaded at the request of the trader;” and
re-called Mr. Marshall Stevems who was further examined.
The Committee determined not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Section 3 further postponed.
Section 4.
Mr. Balfow, Browave, on behalf of the Mansion House United Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment, to insert in page 3, line 34, after the word “may ” the
following words : “Subject to the proviso hereinafter contained.” The said proviso being as
follows:– “Provided always that any trader shall, at his option, be entitled to perform the said
services, or any one or more of them respectively, or any part thereof, by himself, or his
agents, and for that purpose shall have access to the company's stations, subject as hereinafter
provided, and shall receive a rebate equal to the amount authorised by this Schedule to
be charged by the company in respect of such service or services when the whole of such
service or services are performed by the trader, and a reasonable proportion of such amount
when such service or services are in part only performed by the trader.
“The company may make, and may from time to time revise, bye-laws regulating the
access to stations generally, and also (if they think fit) other bye-laws applicable to particular
stations, when such access is required by traders for any of the purposes aforesaid, but such
bye-laws shall not take effect until approved by the Board of Trade as reasonable and
necessary, having regard to the circumstances of each case; and subject to, or in the absence
of, such bye-laws the company shall afford to any trader or his agents every reasonable
convenience and facility in the premises; and shall not, in the amount of charge made or
rebate allowed, or in the time or manner of performing the services aforesaid, or any one
or more of them, give any undue preference, priority, or advantage to one trader over another,
whether such trader is acting for himself, or through his agents, or through the company.
“The Board of Trade shall, before sanctioning the said bye-laws originally, or upon any
subsequent revision thereof, as hereinbefore provided, hear any persons interested in respect
of the same, and shall also give notice to, and at its discretion hear, any of the authorities
mentioned in Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, who, in the judgment of
the Board, may be locally or otherwise interested in such bye-laws; and the Board may also,
before considering the same, in either case impose the condition as to security for costs
mentioned
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xvii
mentioned in Sub-section 2 of the said Section 7, and may charge the reasonable costs incurred
by the Board in this behalf, and order the same to be paid by either party or by both parties
in such manner and in such proportions as to the Board may seem fit.
“Any difference arising under the same bye-laws, or otherwise in relation thereto, shall
be decided by the Board of Trade, with the like power concerning costs as is lastly herein
provided.” •.
Mr. Cowatemay Boyle was heard.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Friday, 17th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. Mr. Wodehouse.
Lord Houghton.
Section 4 further considered.
Mr. Balfow, Browne, in support of the Amendment proposed on the previous day, called
Mr. Walten. Wheeley Berry, and Mr. William Edward Wilsom, who were sworn, and examined.
Lord Balfown of Burleigh was heard.
Mr. Pope was heard on behalf of the Railway Companies against the proposed Amend-
ment.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee would not insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the Marquess of Bute, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —In page 3, line 34, after the words “stores and sheets,” to insert the words,
“provided that the actual sum chargeable in respect of each of such services shall be such reason-
able sum within the maximum as shall, in case of dispute, be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Balfow, Browne, for Messrs. J. & J. Colman, and Mr. Ram, on behalf of the Coalowners
of South Wales and Monmouthshire, were heard in support of the proposed Amendment.
Sir Alfred Hickmam, on behalf of the Corporation of Wolverhampton, Associations of
Traders and Freighters, and Traders representing the South Staffordshire District, was heard
against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Pope, for the Railway Companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Ram, and Mr. Woodfall, were heard in reply.
The Committee decided not to insert the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, by Lord Howghtom, in page 3, lime 35, to leave out the words “in a
separate truck.”—Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Section,
—put, and agreed to. -
Amendment proposed, by Mr. Lush Wilsom, in page 3, line 30, after the word “merchandise ’’
to insert the words “other than animals.”—Question, That those words be there inserted,—put,
and meſſatived.
Mr. Ram was heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 3, at the end of
Section 4, to insert the words “Provided that the company may not charge for the performance
of duties incidental to conveyance, and provided that the company may not charge a service
terminal at the end of a railway, where such railway, or any part thereof, joins a dock line,
and the company's dock and shipping changes are applicable, or at any point on the company’s
railway, where such railway, or any part thereof, joins a siding not belonging to the company.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Section 4, further postponed. -
Section 2 further postponed until after the consideration of Section 6.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)(, e C
xviii PROCEEIDINGS OF THE JOINT (OMMITTEE
Tuesday, 21st April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. i Mr. Hambury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Wodehouse.
Lord Belper. - Mr. Dickson.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 5 considered.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the Railway Companies, was heard in support of the following:
Amendment —In page 3, line 44, after the words, “for the,” to insert the words “accommodation
and ’’; and called Mr. Johm. Noble, Mr. Alfred Barmes (a Member of the House of Commons),
Mr. James Samwel Beale, Mr. Hemºry Lambent, and Mr. Hema'y Oakley, who were severally
SWOrn, and examined. -
Lord Balfown of Bwaleigh was heard.
Mr. Ram was heard on behalf of the traders of South Wales and Monmouthshire coal-
owners against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Pember was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee have decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
That they were of opinion that Section 19 should be retrospective, and that in it there should
be a reference to arbitration where the charges or payments could not be fixed by agreement.
Mr. Ram, on behalf of traders of South Wales and the Monmouthshire coalowners was
heard to propose an Amendment in page 3, line 45, to leave out the words “ or for his con-
venience.”
Mr. Cowa'temay Boyle was heard.
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Ram, on behalf of the same Petitioners, was heard in support of the insertion of the
words “at the instance of either party.”
Almendment inserted.
On behalf of the West Yorkshire Coal Owners’ Association, the following Amendment was
proposed by Mr. Rhodes:—In page 4, line 6, after the word “convenience,” to add the words
“Provided further that the company shall not be entitled to make any charge on coal, cannel,
culm, coke or cinders, in respect of the services and matters mentioned in Sub-sections (I.),
(II.), (III.) or (V.) of this section. Nor shall the company in respect of such articles be
entitled to make any charge for the detention of trucks or the use or occupation of any
accommodation under Sub-section (IV.) of this section except in respect of any period beyond
four working days after written notice from the company of the arrival of such articles at
the place to which they are consigned, for which such trucks may be detained or accommoda–
tion used or occupied.”
Mr. Freden'ick Paºke" Rhodes, sworm, and examined.
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Ram was heard for the landowners, traders, &c. of South Wales and Monmouthshire,
and for the Marquess of Bute in support of the following Amendment –In page 4, line 7, to
omit Sub-section (1), and to insert instead : “(1) The following services rendered by a company
at or in connection with sidings not belonging to the company ; that is to say, loading and
unloading, covering and uncovering merchandise, which charges shall, in respect of each service,
be deemed to include all charges for the provision by the company of labour, machinery,
plant, stores, and sheets.”
The Committee determined not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Poyser, on behalf of the Chemical Manure Manufactures’ Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment –Im Page 4, line 7, for Sub-section (1), to substitute
“(i.) Services rendered by the company at sidings not belonging to the company : Provided
that such charges may not be in excess of or in addition to the respective terminals applicable
to
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xix.
to the several services as hereinbefore provided : Provided also that nothing herein contained
shall be taken to cancel, modify, or affect any agreement existing at the present time between
any trader and the company in respect of such services.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday, 22nd April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 5 further considered.
Mr. Balfown Browme, on behalf of Messrs. J. and J. Colman, was heard in support of
the following Amendment –In page 4, lines 8 and 9, to leave out the words “and services in
respect of the delivery and reception of merchandise to and from such sidings.”
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the Railway Companies, was heard against the proposed
Amendment.
The Committee deliberated.—Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand
part of the section.—The Committee divided : -
Contents, 4. Not Contents, 6.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Earl of Camperdown.
Earl of Belmore. Lord Belper.
Sir Joseph Bailey. Lord Houghton.
Mr. Wodehouse. Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Dickson.
Parties informed thereof.
Mr. Balfow, Browne was heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 4, line 9,
after Sub-section 7, to insert the words “ Provided that the hauling of loaded trucks out of a
siding not belonging to the company on to the main line with which such siding is connected,
and the return of empty trucks into and upon such siding, and the delivery of loaded trucks
into a yard or siding not belonging to the company to which they are consigned, and the
hauling out therefrom on to the main line of empty trucks shall not be services in respect of
which the company shall be entitled to make any special charge.”—After discussion, the
Amendment was withdrawn as being special to the London and North Western Railway
Company.
The Chain'mam stated that though the Committee was going through the London and
North Western Railway Provisional Order, they would only deal now with the Amendments
relating to general principles, or would return later to any Amendments relating to that
Company alone. -
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the Marquess of Bute, was heard in support of the following
Amendment :–In Page 4, line 11, after the words “weighing merchandise” to insert “where
not weighed by the consignor or consignee.”
The Committee declined to insert the proposed Amendment.
Sir Alfred Hickmam, on behalf of the South Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwick-
shire corporate bodies, was heard in support of an Amendment in page 4, line 12, after the
words “detention of trucks” to insert the words “beyond forty-eight hours.”
Mr. Clifford and Mr. Woodfall were heard in support of the proposed Amendment, and
called Mr. Framik Impey, who was sworn, and examined.
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the Railway Companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment :—In page 4, line 18, after the words “delivered at ” to insert the words “ or
posted to.” -
(81.)a - G 2 Mr.
XX PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Cow,'temay Boyle was heard.
The Committee declined to insert the proposed Amendment.
Sir Alfréd Hickmam was heard in support of the following Amendment:—In page 4,
line 20, after the word “occupation * to insert the words “Provided that when a trader
provides trucks he shall be entitled to deduct from the amount chargeable by the railway
Company for carriage a reasonable sum for the detention by the railway company of his trucks
beyond such period as is reasonably necessary for conveyance; such sum, in case of difference,
to be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Pember was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Countenay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Proposed Amendment amended.
Parties informed that the Committee would insert the following words: “Provided that
when a trader provides trucks he shall be entitled to a reasonable sum for the detention by the
railway company of his trucks beyond a reasonable period.” -
Further consideration of the Amendment postponed.
Mr. Waghoºn, for the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, was heard in support of the
following Amendment :—
In page 3, line 5, to leave out Section 5, and insert in lieu thereof:—
“5. The company may set out in the station rate-book, and subject to their being
so set out and to the services being rendered may charge such reasonable amounts as in
case of difference shall be determined by the Railway Commissioners in respect of the
following matters:— .
“(a.) Accommodation provided by the company for merchandise remaining on the
company’s premises or in the company's trucks after hours' due notice
has been given to the consignee of the arrival of the merchandise at his destination.
“ (b.) The collection or delivery of the merchandise at the request of the trader.
“(c.) Warehousing, coal-tipping, weighing, and any service incidental to the
transport of merchandise before or after conveyance when performed at the request
of the trader and not otherwise herein provided for.” -
Lord Balfown' of Bwrleigh was heard against the Amendment.
Mr. Pember was heard against the Amendment.
The Committee decided not to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Bishop, for the Glamorgan County Council, and Mr. Woodfall, for the Swansea and
District Freighters' Association, proposed the following Amendment –In page 4, line 20, after
“occupation ” to insert the words “But the charge for the detention of trucks shall not exceed
one penny a ton of the registered carrying capacity of the said trucks a day, and such
charge shall only be made after the expiration of twenty-four hours' notice given in writing,
which notice shall not expire until such truck has been delivered to the consignee at least
two-and-a-half days.” *
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Pembe”, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment :-After Sub-section (vi.), to insert the following sub-section : “(vii.) Charges in
respect of waterside wharf accommodation provided by the company and special services
rendered thereat by the company in respect of loading or unloading into or out of vessels or
barges where no special charge is prescribed by any Act of Parliament,” and called Mr. George
William Staim forth and Mr. Charles John Owen, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browave and Mr. Ram were heard against the proposed Amendment.
Further consideration of the Amendment adjourned.
Mr. Poysey was heard in support of the following Amendment:—“Provided that the charges
for such accommodation and services should be set out in the rate books of the company.”
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxi
Thursday, 23rd April 1891.
- PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. - - Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Birley. |
g- The Committee decided to consider any new section relating to the part of the Bill,
including Sections 1–6, and relating to Part I., at the end of the consideration of those sections.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the railways, withdrew his proposed Amendment with respect to
amplifying the services at or in connection with sidings. -
Amendment proposed to be inserted after Sub-section (vi.) further considered.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee would insert the proposed Amendment, with Amend-
ment as follows:—“ (vii.) The provision by the company of accommodation at a waterside
wharf, and special services rendered thereat by the company in respect of loading or unloading
merchandise into or out of vessels or barges, where no special charge is prescribed by any
Act of Parliament. Provided that charges under this sub-section shall for the purposes of
Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, be deemed to be dock
re 5 5
charges. -
Further consideration of Section 5, postponed.
Section 6.—Mr. Sowtter, on behalf of the Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire
Colliery Owners' Association, was heard in support of the following Amendment : In page 4,
to leave out line 29.
Mr. Balfow, Browme, on behalf of the Railway Carriage and Waggon Builders’ Association,
was heard in support of the Amendment.
Mr. Shaw, on behalf of the South Wales Coal Owners' Association, and Mr. Woodfall, for
the Swansea and District Freighters' Association, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Bidden', on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in favour of the Amendment.
Mr. Sowtten called Mr. Alfred Barmes (a Member of the House of Commons), who was
Sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browme called Mr. William Frederick Bwtle", who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Bidden", for the Midland Railway Company, called Mr. Johaw Noble, who was sworn, and
examined, and Mr. George Fim dlay who was re-called, and further examined.
Sir Alfred Hickman was heard against the Amendment.
Lord Balfown of Bwrleigh was heard against the alteration.
The Committee deliberated.
Further consideration postponed until To-morrow.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Friday, 24th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. - Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. t Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey. i
Section 6, further considered.
Lord Balfow" of Burleigh and Mr. Cowptemay Boyle, on behalf of the Board of Trade,
were heard on the Amendment proposed on behalf of the Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and
Leicestershire Colliery Owners' Association, in lines 29 and 30.
Mr. Bidder was heard on behalf of the Midland Railway Company.
(81.)a -- - c 3 Mr.
xxii PROC EED INGS () F THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Pember was heard on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company.
Mr. Freemvam was heard on behalf of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway
Company.
Mr. Boyle was heard on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee considered that as the circumstances of each railway
seemed to be so different, that they were of opinion that the charges for the use of trucks should
be omitted from the general provisions, and should be dealt with under the maximum rates
and charges of each separate Bill. Section 6 was therefore further postpomed.
Mr. Can've" was heard in support of the following new Section 4A, proposed by the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board and Sarah Tomlinson:—
“Where merchandise is received or delivered by the company at the junction of the
railway with a siding or branch railway not belonging to the company, the amount
charged to the trader by the company shall not exceed the rate charged by the company
in respect of similar traffic when received or delivered at their station nearest to the
junction (with a just allowance for any difference in mileage) after deducting therefrom
the maximum charge authorised by this Schedule for the accommodation at that station,
or a just portion of that maximum charge, to be determined in case of dispute by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
“And when the rate at which any merchandise is carried would cover any service
for which the company may charge any service terminals or may make any special
charges, and any of those services have not been performed by the company in connec-
tion with that merchandise, the company shall allow to the trader a just rebate in
respect of the services not performed, to be determined in case of dispute by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.” t
Mr. Balfow, Browme, for Messrs. J. and J. Colman and Mrs. Tomlinson, was heard in
support of the new Section.
Mr. Carvey called Mr. Amda'600 Collims Twckey Squarey and Mr. Hemºry Coke, who were
sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browave, on behalf of Messrs. J. and J. Colman, proposed the following new
Sections:—
“(7.) The company shall enter in their book of rates and distances, kept at each of
their stations, every rate for the time being charged for the carriage of traffic, other
than passengers and their luggage, from that station and from any neighbouring siding
or other place to any place to which they book, including any rates charged under any
special contract, in such a manner as to show separately how much of each rate is
for (1) conveyance, (2) use of trucks, (3) station terminals, (4) service terminals, and
(5) other expenses, if any, specifying the nature and detail of such expenses.
“(8.) The Railway Commissioners may, from time to time, on the application of
any person interested, make orders with respect to any particular description of traffic,
requiring the company to distinguish in their book of rates and distances kept at each
of their stations, how much of each rate (whether such rate be over or under or equal
to the maximum rate for conveyance) is for (I) conveyance, (2) the use of trucks,
(3) station terminals, (4) service terminals, and (5) other expenses, if any, specifying
the nature and detail of such expenses.”
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee would not add the new Sections (7) and (8) proposed
on behalf of Messrs. Colman.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, applied that the further consideration of
the new Sections proposed on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and Mrs.
Tomlinson, should be postponed until Tuesday.
Section 7, agreed to.
Section 8, considered.
Mr. Poyser, on behalf of the Chemical Manure Manufacturers' Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment –In page 4, line 43, after “which " to insert the words
“either a siding charge Or.”
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Shaw was heard in support of the following Amendment, on behalf of the South Wales
and Monmouthshire Colliery Owners and of the Marquess of Bute –In page 4, line 43, to omit
the words “in the case of merchandise in respect of which a station terminal is chargeable at each
end of the transit ; ”
In page 4, line 44, to leave out the words “ or in the case of merchandise not so chargeable
e tº $2, S->
six miles ;
In
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxiii
In page 5, line 2, to omit the words “ or six miles, respectively,” and called Mr. James
Weeks Szlumper, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browme, for the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters' Association, and
the Glamorgan County Council, was heard in support of the following Amendments –In page
4, line 45, to leave out “six” and insert “four ; ” in page 5, line 2, to leave out “six” and insert
“four,” and after “respectively ” to insert : “Provided that where merchandise is received from
or delivered to another railway company at a junction between the two companies, the distances
of two and three miles, respectively, shall be taken for the purposes of this Clause instead of
...three and four miles,” and called Mr. Frederic Sillery Bishop, who was sworn, and examined.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 28th April 1891.
PRESENT : i
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. - Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson.
Section 8, further considered.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the Amendment, relating
to the short distance clause.
Mr. Shaw was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee were in favour of a graded short distance clause.
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the Marquess of Bute, was heard in support of the following
Amendment :-In page 4, line 44, to omit “three * in order to insert “four.”
Sir Alfred Hickmam was heard in support of the three miles short distance, from siding
to station, or from station to siding.
Mr. Cowa'temay Boyle was heard on the question of short distance clauses.
Mr. Bidder, for the railway companies, against the Amendment, re-called Mr. George
Findlay, Mr. Hemºry Lambert, Mr. Henry Oakley, Mr. Johm Noble, and Mr. George William
Staim forth, who were further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee had decided not to strike out “three miles and six
miles '' for the purpose of inserting “four miles.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Pembroke Stephems was heard in support of the following Amendments, proposed by
the West Cumberland Ironmasters' Association, and the Cumberland Coal Association :-In
page 4, line 44, to leave out “each end,” and insert “both ends”; in page 4, line 44, after the word
“merchandise,” to insert “in respect of which a station terminal is chargeable at one end of
the transit four-and-a-half miles, or in the case of merchandise in respect of which no station
terminal is "; in page 4, line 45, to leave out “not so"; in page 4, line 45, to leave out “except
as hereinafter specially ”; in page 5, line 1, to leave out “provided ‘’; in page 5, line 2, after the
words “three miles,” to insert the words “four-and-a-half miles.”
The Committee agreed to insert the proposed Amendments.
Mr. Pembroke Stephems, on behalf of the West Cumberland Ironmasters' Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 5, line 2, after “respectively,” to
insert “where under the provisions of this Act merchandise is conveyed partly on the railway
and partly on the railway of any other company, the railway and the railway of such other
. shall, for the purpose of reckoning such short distance, be considered as one
railway.”
Mr. Woodfall, for the Marquess of Bute, Mr. Shaw, for the Glamorgan County Council,
and Mr. Carver, for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, were heard in support of the above
Amendment.
(81.)a. - c 4 Mr.
xxiv. PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, re-called Mr. . George Findlay and Mr.
Henry Lambert, who were further examined. -
Proposed Amendment amended as follows:—“Provided that, where merchandise is
conveyed by the company, partly on its railway, and partly on the railway of any other
company, the railway and the railway of such other company shall, for the purpose of
reckoning such short distance, be considered as one railway.” -
The Committee determined to insert the Amendment as amended.
Section 9, postponed.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday, 29th April 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. - Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Castle, on behalf of Messrs. Cross, Tetley & Co., petitioners on matters arising since
the commencement of the consideration of the Bill, applied to be allowed to bring up
Amendments when the schedule of the London and North Western Railway Company
Provisional Order Bill should be considered. +.
The Committee granted the application.
Mr. J. Wremeh Towse asked that the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association should
be permitted to enter an appearance on their petition against the London and North Western
Railway Company Provisional Order Bill.
The Committee granted the application.
National Sea Fisheries Protection Association.
Counsel —
Agents : —Messrs. Shenºwood.
Section 5, further considered, and amended, as follows: “(5.) The company may charge for the
services hereunder mentioned or any of them when rendered to a trader at his request or for
his convenience a reasonable sum by way of addition to the tonnage rate. Any difference arising
under this section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade
at the instance of either party.”
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following Amend-
ment, to add at the end of Sub-section (IV.) the words : “Where merchandise is conveyed in
trucks not belonging to the company, the trader shall be entitled to recover from the company a
reasonable sum by way of demurrage for any detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable
period by, or by default of, the company or any other company over whose railway the trucks
have been conveyed under a through rate or contract. Any difference arising under this
section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade at the
instance of either party.”
The Committee deliberated.
An Amendment proposed, in line 4, to leave out “by, or by default of, the company.”—
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Section.—The
Committee divided :
Contents, 2. Not Contents, 6.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Earl of Camperdown.
Earl of Belmore.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Amendment,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. XXV
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Parties informed thereof.
New Section, proposed by Mr. Balfowl' Browne, for Messrs. J. and J. Colman, further
considered :— - - .
“Where merchandise is received or delivered by the Company at the junction
of the railway with a siding or branch railway not belonging to the Company, the
amount charged to the trader by the Company shall not exceed the rate charged by the
Company in respect of similar traffic when received or delivered at their station nearest
to the junction (with a just allowance for any difference in mileage) after deducting
therefrom the maximum charge authorised by this Schedule for the accommodation at
that station, or a just portion of that maximum charge, to be determined in case of
dispute by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
“And when the rate at which any merchandise is carried would cover any services
for which the Company may charge any service terminals, or may make any special
charges, and any of those services have not been performed by the Company in
connection with that merchandise, the Company shall allow to the trader a just rebate
in respect of the services not performed, to be determined in case of dispute by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Balfow, Browme withdrew the above new Section in favour of the following new
Section, as proposed, in substitution for Draft Section A, proposed on behalf of the Railway
Company, by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and Sarah Tomlinson —
“Where merchandise is received or forwarded at or from a siding or branch railway
not belonging to the Company the amount charged by the Company to or from such
siding or branch railway shall not exceed an amount which is fair, as compared with the
rate charged by the Company, for traffic of the same class received at or forwarded from
their nearest station at which such traffic is received or forwarded, after making
adequate deductions therefrom in respect of the station accommodation, and any
services included in that rate which are not used by the trader or performed by the
Company for him.
“Any trader receiving or forwarding merchandise at or from a siding or branch
railway may apply to the Railway Commissioners to hear and determine the question
whether the rate charged by the Company is fair, and the Commissioners may on such
an application disallow any part of the rate charged.”
Mr. Pope was heard in support of the following new Section, in substitution of the one
proposed on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and Sarah Tomlinson —“Any
trader receiving or forwarding merchandise at or from a siding connected with the Company's
railway may apply to the Railway Commissioners under Section 27 of the Railway and Canal
Traffic Act, 1888, to hear and determine the question whether any rate charged by the Company
to or from such siding is fair as compared with the rate charged by the Company for similar
merchandise received at or forwarded to their nearest station from or to the same place of
origin or destination, notwithstanding that such rates or either of them may not exceed the
authorised maximum rate for conveyance.” -
Mr. Balfown Browme, Mr. Caº've', and Mr. Woodfall were heard against the new Section
proposed by Mr. Pope.
The Committee deliberated.
Question, That the new Section proposed on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board be read a second time, put, and megatived.
Question, That the new Section proposed by Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies,
be read a second time, put, and megatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That it is expedient to insert provisions in the Bill
to remedy the complaint attempted to be dealt with by the Section proposed by Mr. Balfour
Browne (Mr. Humter).-Question put.—The Committee divided :
Contents, 4. } Not Contents, 4.
Earl of Camperdown. Duke of Richmond and Gordon
Mr. Hanbury. . Earl of Belmore.
Mr. Dickson. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hunter. Mr. Wodehouse.
Whereupon the numbers being equal, it was resolved in the negative.
Parties informed thereof.
Section 10 : —Mr. Poysey was heard in support of the following Amendment, proposed by
the Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Association :-In page 5, line 18, to leave out from
“Company” to the end of the Section, in order to insert the words “when such merchandise
is specified in Class A. of this Act, or when it is by law or by any regulation of the Board of
Trade required to be carried in one truck, the Company may charge as for a reasonable
(81.)a e s d - minimum
xxvi PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
minimum load, having regard to the nature and classification of the merchandise,” and called
Mr. Chan-les Thomas Macadam, who was sworn, and examined. &
The Committee deliberated.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Section,-put, and
agreed to. - ... "
Parties informed thereof.
[Adj ourned till Monday, IIth May, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Monday, 11th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. w Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. * Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 10, amended, and consideration thereof further adjourned.
Section ll. -
Sir Alfred Hickmam, on behalf of the South Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and War-
wickshire Corporate Bodies Associations of Traders, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —In page 5, line 24, after the word “hundredweight,” to insert the words “if
exceeding fourteen pounds.” -
Mr. Pember was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Sir Alfred Hickmam was heard in reply. -
The Committee refused to insert the Amendment,
Sections 11–15, considered and postpomed.
Section 16.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment:—In page 5, line 40, after the word “greenheart,” to insert the words “ash,
elm, birch"; and called Mr. Jabez Light, who was sworn, and examined ; and Mr. George
W. Staim foºth, Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, Mr. William V. K. Stemming, and Mr. Harold Owen,
who were re-called, and further examined.
Question, That the word “ash ’ be there inserted,—put, and agreed to.
Question put, That the word “elm ’’ be there inserted.—The Committee divided :
Contents, 5. Not Contents, 3.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown. Lord Belper.
Sir Joseph Bailey. Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Hambury.
Mr. Wodehouse:
Question put, That the word “birch" be there inserted.—The Committee divided :
Content, 1. Not Contents, 7.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Earl of Camperdown.
Earl of Belmore.
Lord Belper.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed thereof.
Mr. Balfow, Browave, on behalf of the Mansion House United Association on Railway
Rates, was heard in support of the following Amendment ;-In page 5, line 39, to leave out the
word “when,” and to leave out “is,” and to insert “shall be,” and called Mr. William Adams,
Mr. William B. Panta'idge, and Mr. James Hanºisom, who were sworn, and examined ; and Mr.
William V. K. Stemming and Mr. William Adams, who were further examined,
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxvii
The Committee refused to make the proposed Amendment.
Amendments made. -
Mr. Balfowr Browne, on behalf of the Mansion House United Association on Railway
Rates, was heard in support of the following Amendment:–In page 6, line 2, at the end of the
Section to add the words “Deals, battens, and boards shall be charged at two and a-half tons to
the St. Petersburg standard of 165 cubic feet, except Pensacola or pitch pine deals, which shall
|be charged at three tons to the same standard.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Section 16, further postponed.
Sections 17, 18, 19, considered, and postpomed.
Section 20, considered. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephems was heard in support of the following Amendment, proposed
by the West Cumberland Ironmasters' Association and the Cumberland Coal Association :-
In page 6, line 23, to add, at end of clause, the words “But where such charges are not
specifically fixed, they shall be such reasonable sums as shall, in case of difference between
the company and the person liable to pay the charge, be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade.” - º,
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed
Amendment. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens was heard in reply.
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Section 20, further postponed.
Section 21, considered.
Mr. Balfown Browne was heard in support of the following Amendments, proposed by the
Mansion House United Association on Railway Rates:–In page 6, line 21, to leave out “the ”;
in page 6, line 27, to leave out “ same " : in page 6, line 27, after “class" to insert “C.” ;
in page 6, line 27, after “ classification " to insert “hereinafter contained in respect of
traffic conveyed for any distance not exceeding 150 miles, and Class I. for traffic conveyed for
any longer distance, exempted nevertheless from the operation of the two-tom minimum
consignment provided by the classification in respect of Class C., and also from the provisions
contained in Part VI. of this Schedule in respect of the carriage of small parcels by merchandise
train, the minimum weight to be a half-hundredweight, with a minimum charge of 4 d. for any
distance up to 100 miles and 6d. above 100 miles”; in page 6, line 27, to leave out from “as” to
the end of the section ; and re-called Mr. Frank. Impey, who was further examined, and Mr.
Johm. Immes Rogers, who was sworn, and examined. -
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Tuesday, 12th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hambury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Section 21.
Amendments proposed on behalf of the Mansion House United Association on Railway
Rates, further considered. w
Mr. Balfow, Browme called Mr. Jacob Emersom, who was sworn, and examined.
Lord Balfowl of Bwleigh was heard in support of the section.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment,
and re-called Mr. Hemºry Oakley, who was further examined.
The Chairmam having asked the witness whether the railway companies would be likely to
agree to the rates fixed in the Clearing House scale, with a fair margin added to constitute a
maximum, the further consideration of the Amendment was postponed in order that the parties
might have the opportunity of considering the suggestion.
*
(81.)a Cl 2 Section
xxviii PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Section 21, further postponed.
Section 22–Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the
following Amendment:—In page 6, line 31, after the word “merchandise” to insert the words
“the maximum rate for the conveyance of which does not include the provision of trucks,” and
re-called Mr. Hema'y Lambert, who was further examined. - * -
Further consideration of Section 22 postponed until after the consideration of Sub-section
(b) of Section 2.
Section 23–Mr. Cappen", on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters'
Association, was heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 6, line 36, to leave
out Section 23, in order to substitute the following words: “The maximum charge for conveyance
of merchandise traffic over the lines of the company and one or more other railway company or
companies, or over two or more lines of the company, shall be calculated at the rate which,
according to the scale of the contracting company or line, would be chargeable for the total
length of the transit.” -
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed
Amendment. -
The Committee decided not to insert the Amendment.
Section 24, considered, and postponed.
Section 25, considered.
Mr. Cliffon'd was heard, on behalf of the Mansion House United Association on Railway
Rates, in support of the following Amendment :—In page 7, line 9, after “person '' to insert
“or the agent or servant of any person.”
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Balfow, Browne, on behalf of Sarah Tomlinson, proposed the following Amendment:—
In page 7, line 10, after “merchandise” to insert “ or any person entrusted as agent with the
e. -- ~ : tº º e y I sº
duty of sending or receiving merchandise.”
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment –In page 7, line 16, to leave out the word “Company,” in order to insert instead
the Words “without break of gauge,” and called Mr. Frederick Hanºisom.
Mr. Balfowl' Browave and Mr. Poysey were heard against the proposed Amendment.
Lord Balfowl' of Bw, leigh was heard against the Amendment.
The Committee decided not to alter the definition of a terminal station, as given in the
Provisional Order, but stated that they were prepared to listen to any proposal which might
be made on the part of the railway companies with respect to a special section dealing with
transhipment.
Mr. Balfowl' Browave, on behalf of Sarah Tomlinson, and the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, was heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 7, line 16, after the second
“a " to insert the words “branch railway or.”
The Committee inserted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Balfowl' Broºm6 was heard in support of the following Amendment, proposed by
the South Yorkshire Coalowners' Assurance Society —In page 7, line 17, after the word
“Company ” to insert the words “ or any yard or siding owned or rented by the consignor or
consignee of merchandise, or towards the cost of constructing or maintaining which the
consignor or consignee has contributed or contributes.”
Mr. Chipps, for the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee decided not to insert the Amendment.
Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 16, after the word “siding ” to insert the words “let
by or.”—Words inserted.
Sections 25, 26, 27, further considered, and postponed ; and the Committee decided to
2 -: , * - * }
proceed with the classification first and the rates afterwards.
[Adjourned till Thursday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxix
Thursday, 14th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. | Mr. Wodehouse.
Section 25, further considered.
Resolved, That a definition of the word “siding ” be inserted.
Further consideration of the section postponed.
Section 19 further considered. º
Resolved, That the section be transposed so as to follow Section 5.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment to Section 19 —In page 6, line 15, to leave out the word “providing,” in order to
insert in line 16, after the word “accommodation,” the words “provided, or to be provided,”
instead thereof; and to insert at the end of the section the words: “ or determined in case of
difference by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Balfowº Browme was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee decided to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Poyser, for the Chemical Manure Manufacturers' Association, was heard in support of
the following Amendment —“Provided also that nothing herein contained shall be taken to
& . tº tº S
cancel or modify any agreement at present existing between any trader and the company, for
the provision of such accommodation.”
The Committee declined to insert the proposed Amendment.
Section 19, further postpomed.
Section 21, further considered.
Mr. Chipps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
amended section —“In respect of returned empties, if from the same station and consignee
to which and to whom they were carried full to the same station and consignor from
which and from whom they were carried full, the company may charge the following rates,
inclusive of station and service terminals: for any distance not exceeding 25 miles, 4 d.
per cwt. ; for any distance exceeding 25 miles, and not exceeding 50 miles, 6 d. per cwt. ; for
any distance exceeding 50 miles, but not exceeding 100 miles, 9 d. per cwt. ; for each additional
50 miles or part of 50 miles, 3 d. per cwt. The minimum weight to be 56 lbs., with a minimum
charge of 4 d. Provided that in respect of returned empty crates or carboys, the company
may charge double the above rates,” and re-called Mr. Joseph Loftws Wilkinsom, Mr. Chanºles
John Owens, and Mr. Hemºry Oakley, who were further examined.
Mr. Balfown Browme was heard against the proposed Amendment, and called Mr. Colbatch
Clank and Mr. Man'shall Stevems, who were sworn, and examined,
Mr. Pember was heard in reply.
Mr. Cow,'temay Boyle was heard on the proposed Amendments.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to accept the first part of the Section proposed by the railway
company, that “In respect of returned empties, if from the same station and consignee to
which and to whom they were carried full to the same station and consignor from which and
from whom they were carried full, the company may charge the following rates, inclusive of
station and service terminals.” They made a reduction in those charges to the following
extent : for any distance not exceeding 25 miles, 3 d. per cwt. ; for any distance exceeding 25
miles, and not exceeding 50 miles, 4 d. per cwt. ; for any distance exceeding 50 miles, but not
exceeding 100 miles, 8 d. per cwt. ; for each additional 50 miles, or part of 50 miles, 3d, per
cwt. The minimum weight to be 56 lbs., with a minimum charge of 3 d. They were not
prepared to accept the proviso as it stands; but in view of the new scale, they should like to
hear evidence from the railway companies and traders as to what articles should be treated
exceptionally in either the interest of the traders or of the railway companies.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)a. * d 3
XXX PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Friday, 15th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. - Mr. Wodehouse.
Section 21, further considered.
Mr. Bidder was heard in support of the following additional Amendments, which had been
agreed to by both sides:—“Provided that (1) returned empty sacks and bags shall not be
charged more than half the above rates, with a minimum rate of 4 d. ; (2) returned empty
carboys or crates (other than glass manufacturers' crates and crates taken to pieces and so
packed) may be charged double the above rates.” Q Q
The Committee accepted the Amendment.
Parties informed that the Committee desired that the counsel for the railway companies
should propose a sub-section dealing with fish empties which would put them in the same
position relatively to the Clearing House scale as they were now.
Mr. Bidder, in accordance with the decision of the Committee, brought up the following
sub-section —“Returned empty fish packages shall not be charged more than the following
scale : for distances not exceeding 50 miles, 4 d. per cwt. ; for distances over 50 miles, and not
exceeding 100 miles, 5 d. per cwt. ; for distances over 100 miles, and not exceeding 150 miles,
7 d. per cwt ; for distances over 150 miles, and not exceeding 200 miles, 8 d. per cwt. ; for
listances over 200 miles, and not exceeding 250 miles, 9 d. per cwt. ; for distances over 250
miles, and not exceeding 300 miles, 10 d. per cwt. ; for distances over 300 miles, 11 d. per cwt. ;
the minimum weight to be 56 lbs., with a minimum charge of 4 d.”
The Committee agreed to the above Amendments.
Section 21, further postpomed.
Section 25, further considered.
Another Amendment proposed in page 7, line 17, to insert the words —“In respect of
e e § g | e. 3. -
merchandise passing to or from such siding.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Bidden' was heard in support of the following new section —“5B. In respect of
merchandise received from or delivered to another railway company having a railway of a
different gauge, the company may make a reasonable charge for any service of transhipment
performed by them, the amount of such charge to be determined in case of difference by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Darlington and Mr. Balfown. Browme were also heard.
The Committee decided to insert the section.
Sir Alfred Hickmaº was heard in support of the following new section —“The Railway
and Canal Commission may from time to time, on the application of any person interested,
make orders with respect to traffic received or delivered at any place on any railway other
than a station, requiring the railway company to distinguish in the book or books kept at the
station nearest to such place, showing the rates charged for that traffic, how much of each rate,
whether a through-rate, or otherwise, is for the conveyance of the traffic on the railway or
railways respectively, and how much is for other expenses, specifying in detail the nature and
amount of such other expenses.”
Mr. Bidden was heard against the section.
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed new section.
Mr. Bidder proposed the following additional definition after the words “Act of Parlia-
ment,” in page 7, line 19 —“The term siding includes branch railways not belonging to a
railway company.”
The Committee inserted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Bellfow). Browne, on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, was heard in
support of the following mew section :-" Where the whole of the services covered by the
conveyance rate are not rendered by the company, the actual sum chargeable in respect of each
consignment shall be such reasonable sum within the maximum as shall, in case of dispute, be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
•:
Mr. Bidder was heard against the proposed new section. s
Mr. Balfowl' Browne was heard in reply, and quoted certain evidence given by Mr. Marshall
Stevens. *
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxxi
Mr. Bidden was heard to reply on the evidence.
Mr. Cowrtenay Boyle was heard on behalf of the Board of Trade.
The Committee deliberated. -
Parties informed that the Committee declined to insert the proposed new section.
Mr. Balfow, Browne, on behalf of the Mansion House United Association, was heard in
support of the following new section —“A trader shall be at liberty to consign his merchandise
at owner's risk rates, and in any such case the maximum rates and all other charges authorised
by this schedule shall be reduced by a sum equal to per cent,” and called Mr. Alfred H.
Lafone (a Member of the House of Commons), and Mr. Richard Pilkington, who were sworn,
and examined. -
The Committee deliberated.
Parties informed that the Committee would not insert the proposed new section.
[Adjourned till Tuesday the 26th, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 26th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hambury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
The Committee proceeded to consider the Classification of Merchandise Traffic.
The Committee decided to proceed first with the Amendments proposed by the railway
companies.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —In page 18, line 2, to leave out “two " in order to insert instead “four,” and
re-called Mr. George Findlay, Mr. Hema'y Lambert, Mr. Joseph Loftws Wilkinsom, and Mr. Hema'y
Oakley, who were further examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browme, on behalf of the traders, was heard against the proposed Amendment,
and called Mr. John Hemºry Lloyd, who affirmed, and was examined.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to strike out “two " in order to insert “four.”
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday, 27th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. | Mr. Wodehouse.
Classification of Merchandise Traffic, further considered.
On the application of Mr. Pope the Committee decided to postpone all questions relating
to the classification of iron until Friday.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment –In page 20, column 1, lines 28 and 29, to leave out the words “Litter (moss or
peat) hydraulic or steam press packed,” and called Mr. Frederick Hanºis0n, Mr. Joseph
Wickham, and Mr. Jabez Light, who were sworn, and examined, and re-called Mr. Frederick
Harrison, who was further examined.
The Committee declined to make the Amendment.
Mr. Poysey, on behalf of the Chemical Mamure Manufacturers, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, to insert in page 17, after line 35, the words, “Where merchandise speci.
fied in Class A. is consigned in quantities of less than four toms and not less than two tons, the
(81,)a d 4 company
xxxii PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT committee
company may charge for such consignmcnt the conveyance rate applicable to Class B., and if
less than two tons the conveyance rate applicable to Class C.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, re-called Mr. Henry Lambert and Mr.
Henry Oakley, who were further examined. /
The Committee deliberated.
Question put, “That those words be there inserted.”—The Committee divided :
Contents, 8. Not Content, 1.
Earl of Belmore. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed that the Committee had inserted the Amendment as applicable to Class
A., but that it was not to be considered as binding them with reference to the other classes.
Mr. Little, on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company, was heard in support of
the following Amendment :-In page 26, column 1, lines 32, 33, 34, and 35, to leave out “Fruit
minimum, 20 cwt. per wagon : apples, gooseberries, pears,” and re-called Mr. Jabez Light, who
was further examined.
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment as a general Amendment
for the whole of the Bills, but were prepared to consider the question when the South Eastern
Railway Bill was before them. -
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Thursday, 28th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. - | Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
The classification of merchandise traffic further considered.
Mr. Chipps, for the railway companies, was heard in support of the following Amend-
ment —In page 27, column 2, line 16, to leave out the words, “pigs, dead, for curing purposes,”
and re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, Mr. Richard H. Twelvetrees, and Mr. George Findlay,
who were further examined.
The Committee deliberated. -
The Committee decided to strike out the words “for curing purposes,” and to add the
words “in carcase, not packed or wrapped, carried in open wagons, at traders' risk.”
Parties informed thereof.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard iu support of the following
Amendment —In page 28, column 2, line 21, after “timber,” to insert “except round timber.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —In page 34, column 1, line 9, to leave out, “Hay, e.o.h.p., minimum load, 30 cwt.
per wagon,” and called Mr. William Birt, Mr. J. L. Wilkinsom, Mr. R. H. Twelvetrees, and
Mr. Hema'y Lambert, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browme, on behalf of the Traders, against the Amendment, called Mr. Hemºry
H. Gardmey, who was sworn, and examined; and Mr. Walter W. Berry, and Mr. J. L. Wil-
kiºsom, who were further examined.
Mr. Cripps was heard in reply.
Mr. Heavºy Oakley was re-called, and further examined.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAII, WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. - xxxiii
Friday, 29th May 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. - Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
*
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Proposed Amendment.—In page 34, column 1, line 9, to leave out “Hay, e.o.h.p., minimum
load, 30 cwt. per wagon,” further considered.
Mr. Henry Oakley and Mr. George W. Stañmforth were re-called, and further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill—The
*Committee divided :
Contents, 5. . Not Contents, 3.
Earl of Camperdown. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Lord Belper. : Earl of Belmore
Mr. Hambury. - Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson. . -
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment –In page 36, column 2, line 27, to leave out “Straw, e.o.h.p., minimum load,
20 cwt. per wagon,” and re-called Mr. William Birt, who was further examined.
The Committee agreed to transfer straw, together with Algerian fibre, China grass, Esparto
grass, Palmetto leaf, flax straw, Megass, and Mexican fibres, from Class II, into Class III.
The classification of iron was considered.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —In page 18, column 1, line 38, to leave out from “Iron and steel undamageable,
the following articles of iron and steel, if and when delivered by a trader to be undamageable,
anchors,” down to, and including, on page 20, column 1, line 22, “wire rope, old, cut in pieces,”
and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 2nd June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hanbury. .
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper. | Mr. Wodehouse.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Classification of iron, further considered.
Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies:—In page 18,
column 1, line 39, to leave out “Anchors,” &c., further considered.
Mr. George Findlay, Mr. Frederick Ha'rison, and Mr. Henry Lambert, were re-called,
and further examined.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)a e g (2
xxxiv PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 3rd June 1891.
PRESENT:
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. i Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. | Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. \
Classification of iron, further considered.
Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies:–In page 18,
column 1, line 39, to leave out “Anchors,” &c., further proceeded with.
Mr. Hemºry Jambert, was re-called, and further examined; and Mr. George Hemºry Twº"ner,
was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Bidden was heard to suggest, as a compromise, that the following articles should
remain in Class B., viz —Anvils exceeding 10 cwt. in weight each, bars for tin plate making,
buoy sinkers, cannon balls, and shot and shell not charged, clippings, shearings, and stampings
of sheet iron and tin plates, in compressed bundles, filings, ingot moulds, open sand plates
(cast), scrap heavy, minimum load four tons per truck, Swarf, wire rope, old, cut in pieces, and
that all other articles should be removed to Class C.
Sir Alfred Hickman, against the Amendment, called Mr. Benjamin Hinckley (a Member of
the House of Commons), who was sworn, and examined, and was heard to address the
Committee.
Mr. Bishop, on behalf of the Swansea and District Freighters' Association, stated that he
did not offer any opposition on the understanding that the railway companies would add to
the list iron and steel rails used for railway making.
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided that before they gave their decision upon the removal of the iron
articles in Class B. to Class C., they would hear the evidence and the case for the Amendment
proposed in page 22, column 2, line 5, to leave out from “Iron and steel damageable ; all
articles included in the undamageable iron or steel list, if not declared by a trader to be
undamageable, and the following articles: axle boxes,” down to, and including, in column 2,
line 40, “Traps, sink and stench.”
Mr. Pope, in support of the Amendment, re-called Mr. Frederick Harrison and Mr. Henry
Jambent, who were further examined.
Mr. Cow,'temay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to remove all the articles classed under “Iron and steel undamage-
able,” from Class B. to Class C., with the exception of the articles mentioned by Mr. Bidder,
without any restriction on the weight of anvils, but they reserved their decision on the question
of bar iron until they had heard further evidence.
Question put, That the articles classed under “Iron and steel damageable,” in page 22,
column 2, line 5, be removed to Class I.--The Committee divided :
Contents, 6. Not, Contents, 2.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Earl of Camperdown.
Earl of Belmore. . Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton.
Mr. Hanbury. |
Mr. Hunter.
Amendment proposed in page 20, line 9, column 2, to leave out, “Posts, iron or steel, for
wire fencing.”
Amendment agreed to.
Question, That the words “Posts, iron or steel, for wire fencing,” be inserted in Class C.,
put, and agreed to.
e [Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. XXXV
Thursday, 4th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. t Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. - Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton.
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Mr. Moom stated that the following arrangement as to bar iron had been agreed to between
the traders and the railway companies; that bar iron or steel exceeding one hundred-weight
per bar in open trucks, at the request of the trader, should be retained in Class B., and that the
lighter kinds should be placed in Class C.
Mr. Balfowr Browme stated that the following arrangement had been come to with
reference to hardware—“(1.) The following articles to be added to the hardware list : Bed-
steads, metallic, in strawed bundles; fenders, packed in crates, cases, or boxes; coal-scuttles,
metallic, packed in cases or boxes; ventilators, small, iron or brass, for buildings, packed;
tubes, brass or copper, except steam tubes, packed ; brass-work, spun or stamped, packed ; bit
burnishers, packed; coach fittings, metallic, packed; harness fittings, metallic, packed ; horse
clippers, packed in casks or cases; sweat scrapers, packed. (2.) The hardware list so amended
to be transferred from Class 2 to Class 3. (3.) Hollow-ware, as in Class 2 of the classification,
to be transferred to Class 3, with the addition e. o. h.p. (4.) The following entry to be made in
Class 2 under “hollow-ware,’ hollow-ware, cast-iron, nested and packed; ” and this is the
important matter, I think, so far as we are concerned. “(5.) The London and North Western
Railway Company to agree that for hardware and hollow-ware in Class 3, the maximum
conveyance rates applicable to the portion of the railway governed by the London and North
Western Act of 1846, including all routes from Birmingham and South Staffordshire to
Liverpool, shall not exceed the maximum rates authorised by that Act, Class 3 terminals, and
whatever limit, with respect to small parcels, is adopted in the Bill to apply.”
Further consideration postponed.
It was also agreed that scrap iron in four ton loads should go into Class B. Scrap iron in
three ton loads, into Class C., and scraps in loads under three tons into Class I.
Mr. Shaw, on behalf of the South Wales Colliery Owners, was heard in support of an
Amendment in page 17, line 16, before the words “Class A.” to insert the words “coal and coke
for shipment.”
The Committee refused to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Darlingtom, on behalf of Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and Lakin, was heard in support of
the following Amendment, in page 17, column 2, after line 20, to insert the words “Lias lime in
bulk, lime in bulk, lime (chalk), lias lime e. o. h.p., lime e. O. h.p.,” and called Mr. Edward Lyon
Lakim, and Mr. Hemºry Josiah Haº'climg, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Bidder, against the proposed Amendment, re-called Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinsom, and
Mr. Jabez Light, who were further examined.
Lord Balfowr of Bwyleigh was heard.
Mr. Wills was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to class “chalk lime ’’ and “lias lime ’’ together under the one head
“lime ’’; to retain “lime e. O. h. p.” in Class C., and “lime in bulk” in Class B., and when carried
in owners' waggons, the trader to be entitled to a reduction.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)a e 2
xxxvi PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Friday, 5th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hambury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. ! Mr. Wodehouse.
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Mr. Capper, on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire freighters, was heard in
support of the following Amendment, in page 17, column 2, after lime 25, to insert the words.
“Pitwood for mining purposes.”
The Committee decided not to insert the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment in page 17, column 2, after line 26, to insert “salt in bulk,” and called
Mr. Johm Major Ellis, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, against the proposed Amendment, re-called
Mr. Frédérick Ha'n'isom, who was further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided that as to salt in bulk when carried in owners' waggons, the traders
should be entitled to a reduction, but that “salt in bulk º' should remain in Class B.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railways, was heard in support of the following Amendment,
to insert in Class A. “creosote, coal tar, gas tar, and gas water or ammoniacal liquor in
owners’ table waggons,” to omit it in Class B., and to insert in Class C. “creosote, coal tar, gas
tar, gas water or ammoniacal liquor, e. O. h. p. ; e. O. h. p. referring to Class I. in owners’
waggons,” and re-called Mr. Frederick Ha','º' isom, who was further examined.
Mr. Whitehead, against the proposed Amendment, called Mr. James Mitchell Steele, who
was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Pope stated that it had been agreed that the words “china clay ” should be in Class B.,
and be omitted from Class C., without any words of modification.
In support of an Amendment in page 18, column 2, line 33, to insert the words “castings,
mill forge, and other rough and heavy unfinished castings, iron or steel,” Sir Alfred Hickmam,
was sworn, and examined. - es
Further consideration postponed until the Amendments in Class C. should be considered.
Mr. Poysen", on behalf of the Chemical Manure Manufacturers' Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment, in page 20, column, 2, line 1, after “manure,” to leave
out “other than street, stable and farmyard in bulk” and insert “e. o. h. p.,” and called Mr.
Hen’ma/mºn Voss and Mr. Edward Packard, junior, who were sworn, and examined. -
Mr. Poysey was heard to address the Committee.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead was heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 20, column 2,
after line 2, to insert the words “Marble in blocks, rough, for building purposes,” and called.
Mr. Sidmey Cripps, who was sworn, and examined.
Lord Balfown of Bwa'leigh was heard.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxxvii
Tuesday, 9th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore - Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. ; Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. ; Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Mr. Darlington, on behalf of the Traders and Slate Quarry Proprietors of North Wales, was
heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 20, column 2, line 17, after “slate
slabs,” to leave out the words “in the rough,” and re-called Mr. William Arthwr Darbishire, who
was further examined. .
Mr. Bidder, on behalf of the railway companies, re-called Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinsom,
who was further examined.
The Committee decided to leave the words “in the rough,” as printed, and to add the
words, “ or roughly squared or planed, not packed.”
It was also agreed that in Class I., page 28, column 2, line 30, the words “slate slabs, not
polished or enamelled, in cases,” shall be inserted hereafter, as well as “e.o.h.p.,” in Class III.,
page 42, column 2, line 35.
Mr. Whitehead for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment –In page 20, column 2, line 14, to leave out the words “in bulk,” in order to
insert the word “packed,” and re-called Mr. Johm Major Fells, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard to state that the Board of Trade would not object to salt
packed in five-ton loads, and in owners' wagons’ being added to Class B. g
Mr. Whitehead withdrew his Amendment in favour of the one suggested by the Board of
Trade.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment —“When merchandise specified in Class B. is consigned in quantities of less than
two tons, the company may charge for such consignment the conveyance rates applicable to
Class C.”
Mr. Bidden', against the Amendment, re-called Mr. Frederick Harrison and Mr. Hemºry
Lambert, who were further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to accept the Amendment, as follows:– “When merchandise
specified in Class B. is consigned in quantities of less than four tons, and not less than two
tons, the company may charge for such consignment the conveyance rates applicable to
Class C., and if in less than two tons, the conveyance rates applicable to Class 1.," and they
would make the same Amendment at the end of Class C.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, in support of the following
Amendment, in page 21, column 2, line 9, after “drain pipes glazed,” to leave out “e.o.h.p.,”
called Mr. Benjamin Scott Jones, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Cowrtenay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Benjamim Scott Jones and Mr. Joseph Loftws Wilkinsom were re-called, and further
examined.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the Amendment,
The Committee decided to omit the words “e. O. h. p.”
(81.)a. e 3 s •, Mr,
xxxviii t PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, in support of the following
Amendment, in page 24, column 1, line 13, after “Timber" to insert “measurement, weight, or,”
called Mr. James Harrisom, who was sworn, and examined, Mr. William Stemming, who was
re-called, and further examined, and Mr. Charles Hoptom, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, re-called Mr. Frederick Harrison, who
was further examined. -
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Wednesday, 10th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the Amend-
ment, in page 24, column 2, after line 15, to insert “Wooden boxes for packing tin plates,” and
called Mr. F. R. Lame, who was sworn, and examined. -
The Committee inserted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment, in page 25, column 1, line 42, to insert “Castings (iron or steel), light, in boxes,
crates, cases, casks, or hampers.”
The Committee inserted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment, in page 26, column 1, after line 35, to insert the words “Fruit pulp in casks,” and
re-called Mr. Walter W. Berry, who was further examined.
Mr. Boyle, for the South Eastern Railway Company, re-called Mr. Jabez Light, who was
further examined.
The Committee inserted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, to leave out in page 30, column 1, line 9, the words “iron or.”
The Committee decided, in page 30, column 1, line 9, to leave out the words “water, except
iron or earthenware,” and to insert “iron nested or packed.”
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 30, column 1, after line 20, to insert the words “Buckets and
pails, iron if nested or packed.”
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 30, column 2, after line 27, to insert the words “coal scuttles
common, iron, or galvanized, if nested or packed.”
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 34, column 1, after line 15, to insert the words “Hides, green or
market, in three-ton lots,” and re-called Mr. Alfred Lafone (a Member of the House of
Commons), who was further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 35, column 2, after line 13, to insert the words “Plated goods
appertaining to harness or saddlery,” and called Mr. Matthew Harvey, who was sworn and
examined.
. . The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
* = Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHAIRGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xxxix
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, in support of the following
Amendment, in page 36, column 2, after line 35, to insert the words “tanks, and cisterns, iron,
such as can be carried in an ordinary waggon,” called Mr. Edward Barton, who was sworn,
and examined. .
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Committee, was heard in support of the
following Amendment in page 40, column 2, line 45, to leave out the words “tin lined,” and
insert “waterproof,” and called Mr. John Leckie, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 42, column 1, after line 42, to insert the words “saddlers' iron-
mongery (e. o. h. p.). Packages (not being wholly hardware), containing any articles usually
sold by saddlers' ironmongers, set out in any class hereinbefore mentioned, or in this class, and
any of the following articles, viz.:-belts for men and horses, chain burnishers, cleaning
preparations for stable use, cocoa matting, corn measures, sieves, and servers, dung baskets,
embrocations for horses, halters, hemp and jute, nosebags, leather and matting, purses and
pocket-books, singeing lamps, sporting articles, such as shot flasks, game bags, dog starters and
gun cases, web, woollen, cotton or jute, whips, thongs, and lashes, whip sockets, wood clamps
for saddlers, braces for wearing apparel (not silk), brooms and brushes, footballs, harness,
horse clothing, leggings, saddlery, Sponges for horses (not exceeding 3 lbs. in any one consign-
ment),” and re-called Mr. John Leckie, who was further examined, and Mr. J. W. Chesterton,
who was sworn, and examined. -
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 42, column 2, after line 35, to insert “ small arm cartridges,
safety, i. e., cartridges not intended to be consumed in the chamber of the gun on firing, and
not containing their own means of ignition ; also cartridges not intended to be consumed in the
chamber of the gun on firing, but containing their own means of ignition. Packed in wooden
boxes, three-quarters of an inch in thickness throughout.”
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 45, column 1, line 15, to add to the words “glass in boxes or
cases, e. O. h. p.”
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, agreed to the proposed Amendment.
The Committee inserted the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 34, column 2, after line 26, to insert the words “Manganese,
bronze and brass castings and ingots,” and called Mr. Charles Parsoms, who was sworn, and
examined.
The Committee decided in page 30, column 1, line 19, after the word “ phosphor,” to insert
the words “ or Manganese.'
The Committee refused to insert “white bronze,” in Class II.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle stated that the following Amendments had been agreed to.
In page 26, line 18, after the words “flax in bales,” to leave out “hydraulic or steam
press packed,” and to insert “minimum, 60 cwt. per waggon.”
In page 28, lines 24 and 25, to leave out “hydraulic or steam pressed packed, e. o. h.p.,”
and to insert “minimum, 60 cwt. per waggon.” -
In page 34, column 2, line 16, to leave out “and grey linen steam or hydraulic.”
In page 36, column 2, after line 16, to insert “linens, grey, unbleached.”
In page 44, line 36, to insert the word “ bleached.”
The Committee accepted the Amendments.
Mr. Moon was heard, on behalf of the railway companies, to propose in page 46, column 2,
after line 4, to insert “straw, e.o.h.p.”
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)a - e 4
xl PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Thursday, 11th June 1891.
PIRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GOPDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Classification of merchandise traffic, further considered.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, in support of the proposed Amendment,
to insert “straw, e.o.h.p.” re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinson and Mr. Hemºry Humphrey Gar-
dime", who were further examined.
Further consideration of the Amendment postponed.
The Committee considered Part IV. of Maximum Rates and Charges.—Exceptional Class.
Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment, in page 14, paragraph 2, line 6, after the word “articles " to insert the words
“other than timber,” and called Mr. Chanºles Hoptom, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Moom, for the railway companies, re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, who was further
examined,
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
The Committee considered Part W. of Maximum Rates and Charges—“ Perishable Mer-
chandise by Passenger Trains.”
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 14, line 26, to leave out the word “similar,” and in order to
insert the words “equally efficient.”
Mr. Moon, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amend-
ment.
Lord Balfow, of Bwyleigh was heard.
The Committee decided not to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers’ Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 14, line 29, to leave out the words,
“ and shall not include any obligation to convey perishables by any particular train,”
and insert instead “perishable merchandise having to pass over more than one or more lines,
each company shall arrange to continue the transit at a minimum speed of 30 miles an hour
between starting point and destimation.”
Lord Balfowl of Bwleigh was heard.
The Committee decided mot to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 14, line 30, after the word “train,” to insert the words
“provided it has been exempted from such obligation by the Board of Trade,” and called Mr.
George Baºl.cºm, and Mr. Thomas Nºwttºll, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, who
was further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided, with regard to milk, that the minimum should be in gallons, and
that it should be 12 gallons.
Under the above decision of the Committee, Mr. Clifford proposed the following Section 4A,
“Where a consignment of milk is less than 12 imperial gallons, the company may charge as for
12 gallons,” which was agreed to.
Section 5, amended by inserting the words “other than milk,” after the words “where a
consignment.”
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers' Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 14, section 5, lines 35 and 36, to leave
out in each line the word “ two,” and in order to insert instead the word “one.”
Mr.
# * b
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xli.
\ a + --
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Richards, in support of the proposed Amendment, called Mr. Walter Waters, Mr.
Richard Langley, Mr. Charles H. Glassey, Mr. Joseph Barber, and Mr. W. J. Bonsor, who
were sworn, and examined.
*
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amend-
ment, and re-called Mr. Joseph Loftw8 |Wilkim80m, who was further examined.
The Committee directed that all Amendments relating to rates should be handed in not
Tater than Monday next. -
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
T
s
} - * * Friday, 12th June 1891.
**-
PRESENT:
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. : Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper, - Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. - i Mr. Wodehouse.
Part W., of Maximum Rates and Charges further considered.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, stated that a compromise had been come
to with the traders on the following basis: That as regards Divisions II. and III., they
conceded the one cwt. minimum, if, on the other hand, as regards Divisions II. and III., the
minimum payment to be received by the railway companies should be one shilling.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
Amendment, that the minimum of half a cwt. should be conceded with a minimum charge of .
minepence, and re-called Mr. Thomas Nwttall, who was further examined.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the proposed Amend-
ment. - •
The Committee decided to adhere to the limit of one cwt., and not to insert half cwt.
Mr. Cripps, in compliance with the decision of the Committee, brought up the following
mew section: “Where a consignment of perishable merchandise enumerated in Division I., is
less than 12 gallons, the company shall be entitled to charge, as for 12 gallons, and where a
consignment of perishable merchandise comprised in Divisions II. or III., is less than one cwt.,
the company shall be entitled to charge as for one cwt., with a minimum charge of one
shilling,” which was agreed to.
Ön the proposed Amendment, Division II., page 15, column 1, line 10, after “ mullett,” to
add the word “red.”
Mr. Cripps, for the railway companies, agreed to the insertion of the word “red.”
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers' Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 15, column 1, line 11, after “ oysters,”
to insert “native,” and called Mr. John Alfred Deator, who was sworm, and examined.
The Committee refused to make the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers' Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 15, column 2, lines 11 and 12, to leave
out “poultry (dead),” and “rabbits (dead),” and re-called Mr. Chanºles Henry Glassey, who was
further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendments.
The classification of straw and paper making materials was further considered.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment: “straw, e. o. h. p., in full truck loads or consignments of 20 cwt. to go into
Class 3, straw, e. O. h. p., into Class 4.”
* The Committee accepted the proposed Amendment, and included also Algerian and Mexican
fibre and esparto grass, and all paper making materials.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment, in page 15, to leave out from line 20, to the bottom of the page, and
(81.)a e f insert
xlii
PROCEEIDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*
•
insert instead, “Rate for conveyance including station and service terminals and including the
return of the empty can :

For any Distance not
exceeding 20 Miles.
Per Imperial Gallon.
For any Distance
exceeding 20, but not
exceeding 50 Miles.
For any Distance
exceeding 50, but not
exceeding 100 Miles.
For any Distance
exceeding 100 Miles.
Per Imperial Gallon.
d.
I ()0
Per Imperial Gallon.
Per Imperial Gallon,
i d.
| 1° 50
|
i
and re-called Mr. Thomas Nwttall and Mr. George Barham, who were further examined.
>
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the
following Amendment —To leave out line 30, in order to insert “‘40 d., 75 d., '90 d., 1-0 d.,
1.25 d. ; stational terminal at each end, 50 d. ; loading, 50 d. , unloading, 25 d.,” and to leave
out line 35, and to insert “50 d., 75 d., 1:00 d., 125 d., 1:50 d. ; loading, 25 d. ; unloading, 25 d.,”
and re-called Mr. George Barham, who was further examined; and M
r. George Gibboms, Mr.
Thomas Pickem, and Mr. Framcis Hoddimott, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf the railways, was heard in support of the following Amendment —
To leave out, in page 15, line 31, in order to insert,
DIVISION I.--—Maximum Rates and Charges.
12. London and North Rate for Conveyance. Stati Service Terminals.
Western Railway ion
Company. Not Exceeding|Exceeding|Exceeding E ding Terminal
Not. 20, not 50, not 75, not xceeding at . -n s
exceeding led led sedi 100 Loading. Unloading.
20 Miles exceeding |ºcººng |ºlºng | Miles each End.
50 Miles. 75 Miles. 100 Miles. *J &
Per gallon. Per gallon. Per gallon. Per gallon Per gallon. Per can. Per can. | Per can.
d. d. d. d. d d. d. d.
Page 15, line 31, omit - .75 -90 1.00 1:25 1.50 1-50 1.00 1.00
and insert instead - 1.00 1 25 1:50 1.75 2:00 1:50 2:00 2:00
EMFTY CANS.
Per cam. | Per cam. | Per can. Per cam. | Per can.
d. d. d. d. d. d. (/.
Page 15, line 35, omit I-50 2:00 2.25 || 2:50 3:00 ‘50 ‘50
and insert instead - 2:00 3:00 350 4:00 6:00 1:00 , || 1:00
|

and re-called Mr. J. L. Wilkinsom, who was further examined.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 16th June 1891.
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Belper.
Jord Houghton.
Sir Joesph Bailey.
PRESENT :
Mr. Hambury.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson.
Mr. Hunte
I’.
Part V. (Perishable Merchandise. by Passenger Trains.) Classification of Milk, further
considered.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. Xliii
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the railway companies, withdrew his Amendment, and was heard
against any alteration in the schedule, and called Mr. J. L. Wilkinsom, who was re-called, and
further examined. -
- Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of his Amendment,
and called Mr. W. Charles Yowmg, who was sworn, and examined. - .
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, called Mr. Richard H. Twelvetrees, who was
sworn, and examined, Mr. Frédérick Harman and Mr. Charles J. Owens, who were further
examined, and Mr. Ebenezer Miles, who was sworn, and examined, and was heard to address
the Committee. -
Mr. Clifford was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated. &.
The Committee decided to reduce the total charges, including terminals and empty can
charges as they stand in the Board of Trade schedule by 20 per cent. : the charges for terminals
and empty cans remaining as in the schedule, and the whole of the reduction falling on the
conveyance rate.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendment in Division I., page 15, line 3, before the words “empty cans" to insert
“returned.”
The Counmittee accepted the Amendment.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday, 17th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Part W., Perishable Merchandise by Passenger Trains, further considered.
Lord Balfowr of Bwrleigh was heard.
The Committee, in order to carry out their decision of yesterday with respect to the
carriage of milk, decided to leave out the first five columns of line 30, and to insert “‘50 d.,
60 d., 70 d., 90 d., 100 d.,” and after column 5, lines 21 to 35, to insert as a new column (For
any distance exceeding 150 miles I-20 d ; per can 3:00 d.). *
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment, in page 16, to leave out in the first five columns of
line 12 (.60 d., 55 d., 40 d., 25 d., 20 d.), and to insert instead “‘50 d., 45 cl., 35 cl., 20 d.,
15 d.,” and re-called Mr. W. J. Bomson and Mr. Richard Langley, who were further
examined.
Mr. Waghorm, on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, was heard in support
of the following Amendment, in page 16, lines 1 to 15, to leave out the table and insert the
following words, “ For the carriage of articles included in Divisions II, and III., the company
may charge an addition of per centum to the maximum rates for conveyance and the
maximum station and service terminals authorised in respect of the carriage of the said
articles by goods trains.”
The Committee refused to consider the Amendment as the figure of per-centage had been
left in blank.
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Association, was heard in
support of the following Amendment, in page 16, to leave out line 15, and to insert —
| t -
200. 17a. 12a | 10a of a '37 Gl. 25 cl. “25 cl.
and called Mr. John Last Sayer and Mr. Joseph H. Barben", who were sworn and examined,
and Mr. Richard Lamgley, who was re-called, and further examined. -
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment. *
(81.)a. f 2 Mr.
xliv PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Bidden', on behalf of the railway companies, was heard in support of the following
Amendments:—Part VI., Small parcels by merchandise trains, in page 16, line 16, after Part VI.,
to leave out the words “carriage of ; ” in page 16, line 17, after “For ’’ to leave out the words
“ the carriage of ; ” in page 16, line 19, to leave out the words “in respect of Classes 1 to 5 of
the classification,” in order to insert the words “by this schedule.”
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
*
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendments.
Mr. Balfowº Browne, on behalf of Messrs. J. and J. Colman and the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference, was heard in support of the following Amendments, in page 16, line 17, to leave
out the word “three,” in order to insert the word “two ; ” in line 22, to leave out the words
“ the following,” and to leave out the table in lines 23 to 38, and to insert instead the
words, “the sum of 6 d. in respect of each small parcel,” and called Mr. John Wiltom, who
was sworn, and examined. - -
Mr. Yates, for the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, in support of the Amendment,
re-called Mr. Maº'shall Stevems, who was further examined.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Thursday, 18th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. - Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. - Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Part VI., Small Parcels by Merchandise Trains.—Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 17,
further considered.
Mr. Ma'shall Stevems, was re-called, and further examined.
Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, called Mr. John J. Roger's and Mr.
Damiel Richard Hanºvest, who were sworn, and examined. -
Mr. Whitehead, for the Brighton Corporation, in support of the following Amendment,
in page 16, after Section I, and before line 39, to insert : “2. When a small parcel is conveyed
by the company, partly on the railway and partly on the railway of any other company,
only one addition should be made to the minimum tonnage charge,” called Mr. Colbatch Clark,
who was re-called, and further examined.
Mr. Bidder was heard against the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead withdrew the Amendment.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Brighton Corporation, in support of the following Amendment, in
page 16, after Section 1, before line 39, to insert : “Articles comprised in any one class of the
classification sent in aggregate quantities, although made up of separate parcels, shall not be
deemed to be separate parcels for the purpose of reckoning the amount authorised by Section I
of this part of this schedule to be added to the maximum tonnage charge,” called Mr. Colbatch
Clark and Mr. J. James Rogen's, who were re-called, and further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Bidden', for the railway companies, was heard in support of the following Amend-
ments –In line 39, to leave out the word “small,” and the words “and no more ” in page 16,
line 43, which were accepted by the Committee.
Another Amendment, in page 17, line 7, proposed by the Brighton Corporation, to
leave out the word “the ” in order to insert “such,” was agreed to.
Mr. Whitehead, for the Brighton Corporation, in support of the following Amendment,
in page 17, line 12, to insert the words: “Nothing in this part of this schedule shall apply to
returned empties or crates of straw,” called Mr. Colbatch Clark, who was re-called, and further
examined. -
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xlv.
The Committee accepted the Amendment with the omission of the words “ or crates of
straw.”
Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, in support of the following Amendment,
to add at the end of the previous Amendment, the words: “ or to tea collected in lots of over
two hundredweight from bonded warehouses in one town for one consignor to be sent to one
consignee, provided that the total consignment of tea exceed two hundredweight,” re-called
Mr. Johm J. Rogers, who was further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Part II., Animal Class, considered.
Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment : To strike out column 2, headed, “For any distance not exceeding 20 miles,” and
to amend the heading of column 3 by leaving out the words “exceeding 20, but,” and called
Mr. William Framleish, who was sworn, and examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, was heard in support of the following
Amendment, in page 12, to leave out “any consignment of not more than six oxen, cows, or
neat cattle, or than nine calves not exceeding 12 months old, or than 25 sheep, goats, or pigs,”
in order to insert the words “for any consignment each small truck of oxen, cows, or meat cattle
consigned by the same person, such truck containing an inside superficial area of not less than
99 square feet,” and called Mr. Richard William Holden, who was sworn, and examined,
and Mr. William Frankish, who was further examined.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Friday, 19th June 1891.
PERESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hºwmte", on behalf of the Committee, read a scale of maximum rates which he had
drawn up for the parties to consider.
Mr. Pope, for the railway companies, stated that a case, to be submitted to the law officers
of the Crown as to the effect of the Provisional Orders upon existing agreements, had been
drawn up by the counsel to the parties.
The Committee decided that it should be forwarded to the law officers by the Board of
Trade.
Part II., Maximum Rates and Charges (Animal Class) further considered.
Mr. Stephem. West was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Pembe", on behalf of the railway companies, was heard against the Amendment pro-
posed by Mr. Clifford, and re-called Mr. Hemºry Lambert, who was further examined.
The Committee deliberated.
Amendment proposed, in page 12, to leave out paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, in the first column,
in order to insert in the fifth paragraph, the words, “For each truck containing any consign-
ment by the same person of such number of oxen, cows, neat cattle, calves not exceeding 12
months old, sheep, goats, or pigs, as may reasonably be carried in a truck of 13 feet 6 inches in
length, inside measurement; ” “For each truck containing any consignment of the same person of
such number of oxen, cows, meat cattle, calves not exceeding 12 months old, sheep,goats, or
pigs, as may reasonably be carried in a truck of 15 feet 6 inches in length; ” “For each truck
containing any consignment of the same person of such number of oxen, cows, meat cattle,
calves not exceeding 12 months old, sheep, goats, or pigs, as may reasonably be carried in a
(81.)a f 3 - truck
xlvi PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
truck of 18 feet in length "-(Mr. Hunter)—Question put, That the words proposed to be left
out stand part of the Schedule.—The Committee divided : -
Not Contents, 6.
Earl Of Belmore. Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Sir Joseph Bailey. t Earl of Camperdown.
Mr. Wodehouse. Lord Belper.
i Lord Houghton.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Contents, 3.
|
|
|
|
Words inserted.
Parties informed thereof.
Mr. Clifford, in support of his Amendment to reduce the rate of service terminals, re-called
Mr. Richard W. Holden, who was further examined.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the Railway Companies, against the proposed Amendment,
re-called Mr. Frederick Harrison and Sir Henry Oakley, who were further examined.
Mr. Clifford was heard in reply.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Tuesday, 23rd June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earlgof Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. | Mr. Wodehouse.
Part VI. (Small Parcels by Merchandise Trains), further considered.
Mr. Moom, for the Railway Companies, on Mr. Humter's proposal, re-called Mr. C. J. Owens,
and Mr. R. H. Twelvetirees, who were further examined, and was heard to address the
Committee.
Mr. Clifford was heard on behalf of the Mansion House Association.
Mr. Lush Wilson was heard on behalf of the Brighton Corporation.
Mr. Richards was heard on behalf of the Birmingham Poultry Dealers' Association
Mr. Waghorm was heard on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference.
Mr. Murison was heard on behalf of Messrs. J. and J. Colman.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided, in page 16, to leave out lines 27 to 38 inclusive, in order to insert
“When the maximum tonnage charge does not exceed 20 S., 5 d. ; when the maximum tonnage
charge exceeds 20 S., but does not exceed 30 S., 6 d. ; when the maximum tonnage charge exceeds
30 S., but does not exceed 40 S., 7 d. ; when the maximum tonnage charge exceeds 40 S., but does
not exceed 50 S., 8 d. ; when it exceeds 50 S., but does not exceed 60s., 9 d. ; when it does exceed
60 S., but does not exceed 70s., 10 d. ; when it exceeds 70 s., but does not exceed 80s., 1 S. ;
when it exceeds 80s., but does. not exceed 90s, 1 S. 2 d. ; when it exceeds 90 s., but does not
exceed 100 s., 1s. 4 d, ; and when it is over 100 s., 1 s. 6 d.”
Scale 1, of Part I. of the Maximum Rates and Charges was considered.
Lord Balfown of Bwrleigh was heard.
Mr. Pope was heard in support of the following Amendment in the London and North
Western Railway Company Provisional Order Bill, to apply to that Order only, viz., in page 8, to
leave out Scale 1, in order to insert, in lieu thereof, the following Scale —
“Scale
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xlvii
“Scale I. Applicable to such portions of the Railway as are not hereinafter specially
mentioned.
|
Maximum
| Maximum Rates of Conveyance. Station Terminal
at each end.
*g
|
Per Tom per Mile.|Per Ton per Mile. Per Ton.
|
| e tº
For any distance|For any distance
not exceeding exceeding 50
50 miles. miles. (a)
In respect of all merchandise * mºm-º.
comprised in Class A. ;|
the Classification except 1 d. - # d. |
Slack * * - -
- # 3 d. This is proposed
i at 3 d. on the
. g { assumption that
In respect of Slack --- - # d. - # d. it is . liable
to be reduced
t by arbitration.
! ——------------, ----- -
“(a) Provided always that where any merchandise comprised in Class A. of the classi-
- fication shall be conveyed by the Company a distance exceeding 50 miles they
shall be entitled to charge as for 50 miles at the least.”
And also to insert in the Bill the agreement entered into between the traders at Garston and
the London and North Western Railway Company.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock,
Wednesday, 24th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. * Mr. Wodehouse.
Scale I, of Part I. of the Maximum Rates and Charges for the London and North Western
Railway Company, further considered. -
Amendment proposed to the Scales of Maximum Rates and Charges, further considered.
In support of his proposed Amendment, Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North
Western Railway Company, re-called Mr. George Findlay and Mr. Frederick Harrison, who
were further examined,
The Committee deliberated. The Committee refused to insert in the Bill the agreement
between the traders at Garston and the London and North Western Railway Company.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Thursday, 25th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GoRDON in the Chair.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Scale I. of Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges.
Part I. Goods and Minerals in respect of Merchandise comprised in Class A. In Support of
the Amendment, proposed by the London and North Western Railwa Company, Mr. Pope
(81.)a f 4 - re-called
xlviii PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined ; and Mr. Abraham Burroughs,
Mr. William Edward Johnsom (a Member of the House of Commons), Mr. Bemjamim Biram,
and Mr. George Robert Carter, who were sworn, and examined.
Mr. Balfour Browne, on behalf of the South Yorkshire Coal Owners Assurance Society,
the West Yorkshire Coal Owners Association, and the Glamorgan County Council, was heard
against the proposed Amendment by the London and North Western Railway Company, and in
favour of the Schedule in the Provisional Order, and re-called Mr. Fredevick Parker Rhodes,
who was further examined.
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald, on behalf of the Petition of R. T. Thompson, the Clifton Colliery
Company, and G. E. Checkland, was heard to propose, in page 8, Scale I., to leave out all
the words under the heading “Maximum Rates for Conveyance,” and to insert instead “ For
any consignment for any distance not exceeding 40 miles, '65 d. per ton per mile, and for
any distance exceeding 40 miles, '50 d. per ton per mile, and called Mr. George E. Checkland,
who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters, against the
Amendment proposed by the London and North Western Railway Company, called Mr. Edwim
Grove, who was sworn, and examined. *
Sir Alfred Hickmam was heard against the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Richards, on behalf of the Corporation of the City of London, was heard against the
proposed Amendment, and in favour of the Schedule of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided not to accept the Amendment as proposed by Mr. Pope on behalf
of the London and North Western Railway Company. -
| [Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Friday, 26th June 189]
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey | Mr. Wodehouse.
Scale I. of Part I., Maximum Rates and Charges (Goods and Minerals) further considered.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company, was heard to propose to
leave out the first ten columns of the Table, and re-called Mr. Henry Lambert and Sir Henry
Oakley, who were further examined.
Mr. A 6'100'th, for the Midland Railway Company, called Mr. Joseph Shaw, who was sworn,
and examined. -
Mr. Balfour Browne, was heard against the proposed Amendment, and re-called Mr. William
Douglas Phillips, Dr. David Basil Hewitt, Mr. Parker Rhodes, Mr. Arthwi, Marshall Chambers,
and Mr. Edwim Grove, who were further examined. -
Sir Alfred Hickman was heard to state that under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act,
1888, the Committee had power to alter the figures and details, but not the form.
Mr. Cowa'tem (ty Boyle was heard.
The Committee decided not to entertain the objection raised by Sir Alfred Hickman.
Sir Alfred Hickman was further heard.
Mr. Balfowº Bºoºme was heard against the Amendment, and to propose, in page 8, line 12,
to leave out “250,” and to insert “200”; and in page 8, lines 14 and 15, to leave out “to
one consignee.”
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Pembe", for the railway companies, was further heard.
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. xlix
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to strike out the top of the first paragraph, “For a consignment
of not less than 250 tons, tendered for delivery to the company, at one time for delivery at
one time and place to one consignee,” as well as the words at the top of the next paragraph,
“For a consignment less than 250 tons, but not less than 10 tons, tendered for delivery to the
company at one time, for delivery at one time and place to one consignee,” and the ten columns
under those headings. -
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Tuesday, 30th June 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. - Mr. Hanbury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. - ‘Mr. Wodehouse,
Mr. Dickson.
Scale I. of Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges (Goods and Minerals in respect of
Merchandise comprised in Class A.), further considered. *
Lines 1 to 8, inclusive, on page 8, postponed.
Mr. Cripps re-called Mr. Henry Lambert and Sir Henry Oakley, who were further
examined.
Mr. Bidder was heard, on behalf of the Midland Railway Company, to propose that the
rates should be on a cumulative instead of a graduated scale according to distance.
Mr. Clifford was heard against the Amendment.
Lord Balfow of Bwyleigh was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided that the principle which ought to be adopted should be
cumulative. - -
Section 9 of the Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges considered and struck out.
Mr. Balfour Browne, on behalf of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference was heard to
propose that the rates should be equal mileage rates and not on a cumulative scale; and
re-called Mr. Marshall Stevens, who was further examined.
Mr. Bidden re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
Mr. Pembe, re-called Mr. Frederick Han'1' isom, who was further examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browne was heard in reply.
Mr. Cow"temay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated. -
The Committee decided to adhere to the cumulative principle and not to accept the
Amendment which had been put in by the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Wednesday, 1st July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hambury.
Earl of Camperdown. | - Mr. Hunter.
Lord Belper. : Mr. Wodehouse.
Lord Houghton.
Scale I. of Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges (Goods and Minerals in respect of
Merchandise comprised in Class A.), further considered.
(81.)a e g Mr.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard in
support of the following Amendment in lieu of the rates in the Provisional Order (Scale 1) in
order to carry out the decision of the Committee, that rates should be cumulative
graduated, viz —
and not
“Scale 1.—Applicable to such portions of the Railway as are not hereinafter specially
mentioned. -
For the first For the next For the next For th St. t
20 Miles 30 Miles 50 Miles rººm * 8, ULOIOl
or any part or any part or any part e ~~~~ *
of such Distance. of such Distance. of such Distance. of the Distance. Terminal.
d. d. d. d. d.
I '9() 50 '40 3 * *
* This is proposed at 3 d. on the assumption that it is not liable to be reduced by arbitration ; if subject to arbi
tration the sum of 6 d. should be substituted as the proposed maximum station terminal.
and re-called Mr. George Fim dlay, who was further examined.
Mr. Pember was heard on behalf of the Gr
Hemºry Lambert.
eat Western Railway Company, and called Mr.
The Chain''mam stated that the Committee would deal with each case upon its own merits.
Mr. Pope, for the London and North Western Railway C
Findlay, who was further examined.
Sir Alfred Hickmvam was heard against the Amendment.
ompany, re-called Mr. George
Mr. Frederick Parke, Rhodes, on behalf of the Yorkshire Coalowners, was heard against
the proposal, and was examined.
Mr. Pope was heard to address the Committee.
Mr. Cow-temay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the scale proposed by Mr. Pope, on behalf of
the London and North Western Railway Company, be agreed to—(The Duke of Richmond
amd God'dom).-Question put.—The Committee divided :
Not Contents, 5.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Contents, 3.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Earl of Belmore.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the following Scale be agreed to :—
For the first
20 Miles
or any part
For the next
30 Miles
or any part
For the next
50 Miles
or any part
For the
remainder
Station Terminal
at each end
not subject to
of such Distance. of such Distance. of such Distance. of the Distance. Arbitration.
cl. d. i d. d.
'95 '85 50 '40 3
Question put, and agreed to.
Parties informed that the Committee had decided to accept the four distances proposed on
behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, with the following alteration as
to rates, viz.: For the first 20 miles, or any part of such distance, 95 d. ; for the next 30 miles,
Ol'
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. li
or any part of such distance, 85 d. ; for the next 50 miles, or any part of such distance, 50 d. ;
for the remainder of the distance 40 d., and a station terminal at each end of 3 d., and not
subject to arbitration. - *
Scale 2 of Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges, considered.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard in
support of the following Amendment: In page 9, between lines 20 and 21, to insert, the words,
“Swansea Lines (Pontardulais to Swansea and branches, including Penclawdd Extension),”
and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
Mr. Shaw, against the proposed Amendment, called Colonel John Roper Wright, who
was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the Amendment, re-called Mr. Henry Lambert, who was further
examined. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle was heard.
The Committee refused to insert the “Swansea Lines.”
- Mr. Pope was heard in support of the following Amendment, in page 9, after line 28, to
insert the words, “Ashbourne and Buxton Railway; ” and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was
further examined. -
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald, for the Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire Colliery
Owners' Association, was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee decided to insert the Ashbourne and Buxton Railway between lines
28 and 29.
The Committee decided to leave out lines 35 to 37 inclusive, in page 9.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle, on behalf of the Board of Trade, handed in the opinion of the Law
Officers of the Crown with respect to the effect of the proposed legislation upon agreements
entered into by the company with traders upon their railway.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Thursday, 2nd July 1891.
º
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hambury.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Scale 2 of Part I., Maximum Rates and Charges, further considered.
Mr. Woodfall, for the Marquis of Bute and the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters'
Association, was heard in support of the following Amendment : In page 9, to leave out lines
13, 14, 15, 17, and 18, and called Mr. William George Dowden and Mr. George Parry, who
were sworn, and examined. -
Mr. Moom, for the London and North Western Railway Company, against the said
Amendment, re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
The Committee decided not to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. J. D., FitzGerald, was heard in support of the following Amendment proposed on
behalf of R. T. Thompson, the Clifton Colliery Company, and G. E. Checkland, in page 9,
lines 24 and 25, to leave out the words “South Leicestershire, Nuneaton to Wigston,” and
re-called Mr. George Edward Checklamd, who was further examined.
Mr. Moon, for the London and North Western Railway Company, against the proposed
Amendment, re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald was heard in reply.
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
(81.)a - g 2 Mr.
lii PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Pembroke Stephems, on behalf of the West Cumberland Ironmasters’ Association, was
heard in support of the following Amendment, to leave out in page 9, lines 21, 22, and 23,
the words “Whitehaven Junction, Whitehaven to Maryport, Cockermouth, and Worthington,”
and called Mr. Johm. Crºwm, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Moom, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, against the
proposed Amendment, re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Darlington, on behalf of the traders and Slate Quarry Proprietors and lessees and
traders of North Wales, was heard in support of the following Amendment –In page 9, to
leave out lines 20, 29, 30, and 33, viz., the words “Carnarvon to Llanberis, Carnarvon
Junction to Afonwen Junction Railway, Nantlle Branch Railway, and Chester and Holyhead”;
and re-called Mr. William A^'thwr Darbishire, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
The Committee inserted the Sirhowy Railway in Scale 2.
Mr. Bem Day for the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association and South Yorkshire Coal-
owners' Assurance Society, was heard in support of the following Amendment —In page 8,
line 4, after the word “mile” to insert the words “and where merchandise is conveyed partly
on the railway and partly on the railway of any other railway company, the railway and the
railway of such other company shall be considered as one railway.”
Further consideration adjourned.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Friday, 3rd July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. - Mr. Wodehouse.
The Amendment proposed by Mr. Bem Day further considered.
Lord Balfown of Bwleigh was heard.
Mr. Balfowº Browave was heard in support thereof.
Mr. Pope was heard against the Amendment.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
The Committee stated the terms in which they propose to carry out their decision as to
Section 2, viz., in Sub-section (a) to leave out “lime, lias lime in bulk, or salt in bulk,” and
after Sub-section (a) to insert a new Sub-section, viz.: “The company shall not be under any
obligation to provide trucks for merchandise specified in Sub-section (a) of this section, or for
lime in bulk, or salt in bulk.”
Further consideration adjourned.
Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges in respect of Class B. considered.
Page 10 considered, and ordered to be struck out.
Lord Balfow of Bwleigh was heard to state that the figures in page 11, applicable to
Class B., altered so as to be on the cumulative scale, will be : 1:25 d., 1-0 d., 0.80 d., 0:50 d.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard in
support of his Amendment in Scale B., to substitute for the first 23 miles the initial figure
1:50 d., 1-0 d., 50 d., station terminal at each end 9 d., instead of the initial figure of 1:25 d.
prepared by the Board of Trade; and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further
examined.
- Mr. Balfown Browme was heard against the proposed Amendment, and re-called Mr.
Marshall Stevems, Mr. Walten. Wheeley Benºy, and Mr. Framk Impey, who were further
examined,
- Sir
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. liii
\
Sir Alfred Hickman was heard against the Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope.
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
The Committee deliberated.
[Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
Tuesday, 7th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Maximum Rates and Charges, Part I. (Rates and Terminals in respect of Merchandise
comprised in Classes B, C, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), for the London and North Western Railway
Company, further considered.
Further consideration of rates for Class B, postpomed.
The question of station terminals was considered.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard to
propose that terminals should be a fixed sum and not subject to arbitration; and re-called
Mr. Henry Lambert and Sir Hemºry Oakley, who were further examined.
Mr. Sawmders, for the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, called
Mr. George William Stañmforth, who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Littler, for the South Eastern Railway Company, re-called Mr. Jabez Light, who was
further examined.
Mr. Pember, for the London and South Western Railway Company, called Mr. Charles
John Owens, who was sworn, and examined. -
Mr. Balfowº Browave, for the Corporation of Brighton, upon Classes 1–5, against the
Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope, re-called Mr. Colbach Clan'ke, who was further examined.
Further consideration adjourned.
Mr. Balfowº Browme handed in Section 2, as amended, and aga'eed to between the parties
and the Board of Trade, as follows:–
“Suggested Amendment of Section 2 of Provisional Order (Rates and Charges).
“2. The maximum rate for conveyance is the maximum rate which the Company
may charge for the conveyance of merchandise by merchandise train, and subject to
the exceptions and provisions specified in this schedule, includes the provision of
locomotive power and trucks by the company, and every other expense incidental to
such conveyance not otherwise herein provided for. Provided that—
“(a.) The provision of trucks is not included in the maximum rates applicable
to merchandise specified in Class A, of the Classification, and the company shall not
be required to provide trucks for the conveyance of such merchandise, or for the
conveyance of lime in bulk or salt in bulk, or of the following articles when carried
in such a manner as to injure the trucks of the company; that is to Say, ammoniacal
liquor, creosote, coal tar, gas tar, gas water, or gravel tarred for paving.
“(b.) Where for the conveyance of merchandise, other than merchandise
specified in Class A, of the Classification, the company do not provide trucks, the
rate authorised for conveyance shall be reduced by a sum which for distances not
exceeding 50 miles, shall in case of difference between the company and the person
liable to pay the charge, be determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade, and for distances exceeding 50 miles, shall be the charge authorised
to be made by the company for the provision of trucks when not included in the
maximum rate for conveyance.”
Further consideration adjourned.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)a g 3
liv PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Wednesday, 8th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hambuly.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Section 2, as amended, further considered, and inserted in the Bill.
Part I., Maximum Rates and Charges (b.), Rates and Terminals in respect of Merchandise,
comprised in Classes B, C, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, further considered.
Amendment proposed by Mr. Pope, that terminals should be a fixed sum, and not subject
to arbitration, further considered.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard against the
Amendment; and re-called Mr. William Edward Willson and Mr. Walter. Wheeler Berry, who
were further examined; and Mr. W. J. Clark, who was sworn, and examined. - .
Mr. Balfow, Browme, on behalf of the Corporation of Brighton, was heard to address the
Committee in favour of terminals being subject to arbitration. -
Mr. Richards was heard on behalf of the Corporation of London.
Mr. Darlington, on behalf of the Traders and Slate Quarry Proprietors and Lessees and
Traders of North Wales, was heard with regard to Class B., against the Amendment of the
London and North Western Railway Company, and re-called Mr. William Arthwr Darbishire,
who was further examined.
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
Mr. Pember was heard on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company and of the
London and South Western Railway Company.
Mr. Sawmden's was heard on behalf of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway
Company.
Mr. Boyle was heard on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company.
Mr. Lawsh Wilson was heard on behalf of the Corporation of Brighton.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to adhere to the Board of Trade figures in the conveyance rate,
and to refuse those proposed by the London and North Western Railway Company in Class B,
That the station terminals should remain a fixed charge as in the Provisional Order, for all
classes and in the case of all companies. They struck out the addition provisionally made
to Section 3, and the words, “not subject to arbitration,” in the heading in the scale of the
London and North Western Railway Company.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle handed in the Board of Trade interpretation of the Great Western
scale made for Class B.
Great Western. B. Scale 2.—Rate per Tom per Mile.
First, 20. Next 30. Next 50. Remainder.
d. cl. cl. - d.
I 60 1:20 t 0.80 0.50
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. ly
Thursday, 9th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. : Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. ; Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the railway companies, was heard to state that the companies
withdrew their opposition to the service terminals in the Provisional Orders.
Sir Alfred Hickmam, for the traders and freighters in Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and
Warwickshire, Mr. Clifford, for the Mansion House Association, and Mr. Lush Wilsom, for the
Corporation of Brighton, withdrew their Amendments. -
The Committee decided to adhere to the service terminals in all Classes in all the
Provisional Orders. - .
Mr. Pope was also heard to state that the Northern Railway Companies withdrew any
objections to the conveyance rates for Classes C., 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, provided that the cumulative
rates decided on by the Committee are the fair equivalent of those in the Normanton Scale.
The following Table was put in for the Board of Trade as being an equivalent in cumulative
form of the graduated conveyance rates in the London and North Western Railway Provisional
Order, viz. – -
BOARD OF TRADE CUMULATIVE SCALE.
- &
Clas For first 20 The next 30 The next 50 Remºde Clas
8,SS. | Miles. Miles. Miles. g a SS,
- Distance.
cl. d d. cl.
C. : - - I '80 - I'50 | 20 O'70 C.
1 - - 220 1.85 1-40 O'90 I
2 *-, -º 2.65 2:30 I-70 1:35 2
3 * - 3-I () 2.65 1.75 1.65 3
4. * 3:60 3' 15 2:20 I '80 4.
5 &º dºs 4:30 3-70 3.25 2:30 5.
The following Table was put in by the Railway Companies as being the equivalent of the
Normanton Scale, viz. – -
: & For
For the For the For the the remainder
of the Class.
First 20 Miles. next 30 Miles. next 50 Miles. | Distance beyond
100 Miles.
Class.
Per Tom per Mile.|Per Tom per Mile. | Per Ton per Mile. | Per Ton per Mile.
d. d. d. d.
C. * - 2:40 1:30 I ‘IO ‘90 C.
1 - - 2.80 I-70 1:60 1:20 I
2 * *=º 3:00 2-50 1-80 I-70 2
3 * * 3:30 2.80 2'40 2:20 3
4. *-* tº- 3.90 3:40 3:00 2.60 4.
5 sº gº 4' 50 4:00 3:30 2.75 5
lvi
PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Cripps, in support of the above Table, re-called Mr. Henry Lambert, Sir Henry Oakley,
and Mr. George Findlay, who were further examined.
Mr. Balfowl' Browne, on behalf of the traders, was heard to propose the following scale,
in opposition to those proposed on
behalf of the Board of Trade and of the railway com-
panies:—
MAXIMUM RATES FOR CONVEYANCE.
For the first For the next For the next the *
Class 20 Miles, 30 Miles, 50 Miles, of the Class
yº Jº e or any part or any part or any Part | Distan ce bevond SS,
of such Distance. of such Distance. of such Distance. k 100 M.
d. d. d d.
C. * sº 1% 1} I # C.
1 - - 1# 1% 1} I l
2 * - 2 1; 1% 1} 2
3 «- 2} 2 1# 13 3
4. gº e- 3 2% 2} 2 4.
5 * sº 3% 3 2} 2} 5

and re-called Mr. William Edward Willson, who was further examined.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Friday, 10th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Belper.
Lord Houghton.
The Maximum Rates for Conveyance for Classes C., 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, further considered.
Mr. Clifford, in support of the Amendment proposed by Mr. Balfow, Browne, on behalf of
the Traders, re-called Mr. Framk Impey, who was further examined.
Mr. Pope was heard on behalf of the Railway Companies against the Amendment, and in
support of the scale proposed by them.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Conveyance Rates for Class C, fixed in the
Provisional Order (as amended to be cumulative, instead of graduated) be adhered to by the
Committee—(Mr. Hºwmtea').-Question put.—The Committee divided :
Not Contents, 3.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon
Lord Belper,
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Contents, 5.
Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Houghton.
Mr. Hambury.
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed thereof.
The consideration of the Conveyance Rates for Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was postponed.
Sir Alfred Hickmam was heard in support of the following Amendment —To add at the
end of the Table on pages 10 and 11 of the London and North Western Railway Provisional
Order, the following words —“Provided that the Rates and Charges to be made on the parts of
the railway governed by the London and North Western Railway Amalgamation Act, 1846
(9 & 10 Vict. c. cciv.), and the Stour Valley Railway Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict, c. cccxxviii.), shall
not exceed the Rates and Charges authorised by those Acts respectively.”
Sir
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. lvii
Sir Alfred Hickman, having finished his speech, was cross-examined by Mr. Moom, on
behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company. -
Sir Alfred Hickman was re-called, and further examined
Mr. Clifford was heard to propose, at the end of the Table, on pages 10 and 11, to insert,
“Provided, that the Maximum Rates for conveyance for iron and steel articles in Classes B.
and C. of the Classification shall not exceed, upon that portion of the Company's Railway
governed by the London and North Western Act of 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 204), including all
routes from Birmingham and South Staffordshire to Liverpool, the Rates by the said Act
provided for undamageable iron, viz.:-For distances under 50 miles, 1} d. per ton per mile,
and for distances exceeding 50 miles, 1 d. per ton per mile.”
After discussion, an agreement was arrived at which was accepted by the Committee, viz.:
“Provided, that the Maximum Rates for conveyance for iron and steel articles in Classes B.
and C. of the Classification shall not exceed, upon the portions of the railway respectively
governed by the London and North Western Railway Amalgamation Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict.
c. 204), and the Stour Valley Railway Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 328), the Rates by those Acts
respectively authorised.” -
Mr. Woodfall was heard to propose that the concession made to the South Staffordshire
Traders should apply to the South Wales Railway.
No notice of this Amendment having been given, the Committee refused to extend the
proviso. -
On Class B., Scale 2, Mr. Moom, was heard on behalf of the London and North Western
Railway Company, in support of the following Amendment, to add on pages 10 and 11:—
“Applicable to the Railways herein specially mentioned.
Maximum Rate | Station Terminal
Per Tom Per Mile. at each End.
Chester and Holyhead
Bangor and Bethesda
Bettws and Festiniog - ** wº- sº sº- * mºs
Bettws Extension - *Eº sº- e- * sº- sº “Eº
Dyffws Junction - * s * - -p Eº * * 2 d. 6 d.
Bangor and Carnarvon - º sº sº - * &=
Carnarvonshire * *Eº sº tºº $º - sº -
Carnarvon and Llanberis gºs - , - *E- tº- &= -
Nantlle Branch *º 4-> * =g &=º º “Eº tº- *º->
Whitehaven Junction - sº s wº 4- * º l
Whitehaven to Maryport e-º: * -º —. Eº
Cockermouth and Workington * sº tº- tº -
-- |
1; d. 6 d.
Provided always, that with regard to Merchandise in Class B, conveyed upon the Whitehaven
Junction or Cockermouth and Workington Railways, or any portion thereof for which the
company do not provide waggons, the maximum rate for conveyance before mentioned shall be
reduced by the sum of 3 d. per ton per mile”; and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was
further examined.
Mr. Darlington, on behalf of the Traders and Slate Quarry Proprietors and Lessees and
Traders of North Wales, against the proposed Amendment, re-called Mr. William Arthwº
Darbishire, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
[Adjourned till Monday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Monday, 13th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Dickson.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
The Amendment proposed on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company,
in Class B., Scale 2, was further considered. .
(81.)a e * h Mr.
lviii PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
The Committee accepted the Amendment, with Amendments, as followeth :
CLASS B., SCALE 2.-Applicable to the Railways herein specially mentioned.
Maximum Rate per Station
Tom per Mile. Terminal.
Chester and Holyhead - - - - - - 1.75 cl. for first 20
miles, and 1:25 d.
for the remainder
of the distance - 6 d.
Bangor and Bethesda, - g- * - ** -
Bettws and Festiniog - - - - * -
Bettws Extension - - cº- - - * -
Dyffws Junction - - ** - - - - . H. : ,
Bangor and Carnarvon - sº- - t- - - I 75 cl. 6 d.
Carnarvonshire * - e- * - tº- -
Carnarvon and Llanberis - - - *. -
Nantlle Branch --> •- - - - -* -
Whitehaven Junction - - - *- * - l
Whitehaven to Maryport - - - - - 1:50 d. 6 d.
Cockermouth and Workington - - º- - ſ
|
Provided always, that with regard to merchandise in Class B, conveyed upon the White-
haven Junction or Cockermouth and Workington Railways, or any portion thereof for which
the Company do not provide waggons, the maximum rate for conveyance before mentioned
shall be reduced by the sum of 3 d. per ton per mile.
The following Amendment with respect to merchandise, comprised in Classes A. and B. on
the Whitehaven Junction Railway, &c., agreed to by the parties, was accepted by the Com-
mittee, viz.:-
“ Notwithstanding anything in this Order the following provisions with respect to
the traffic specified in Classes A. and B. passing over the Whitehaven Junction (White-
haven to Maryport) and Cockermouth and Workington Railways, or any portion of such
Railways, shall apply and have effect.
(A.) In respect of waggons provided by the Company for the conveyance of
traffic specified in Class A., the Company shall be entitled to demand and receive a
charge of one farthing per ton per mile. -
(B.) In respect of the traffic specified in Classes A. and B., and of waggoms
provided by the Company for the carriage thereof, which shall be conveyed for a
less distance than four miles, the Company may demand and receive rates and
charges as for four miles at the least, irrespective of the place of origin or destimation
of such traffic.
(c.) No charge shall be made by the Company for the mere delivery of trucks
into and upon a siding not belonging to the Company over the junction between the
railway and such siding, or for the haulage of trucks from and off such a siding
over the junction on to the railway of the Company.”
Mr. Pembroke Stephems, on behalf of the Garston Dock Traffic Association and other
Freighters, and the Corporation of St. Helens, proposed an Amendment for their protection.
Mr. Pope, on behalf of the London and North Western Railway Company, agreed to the
provisions proposed, with Amendment, as follows:–
In page 8, line 8, after “ distance,” insert, “but nothing in this Order shall affect the tolls,
rates, dues, and charges prescribed by the St. Helen's Canal and Railway Transfer Act, 1864,
Sections 12, 13, and 14 ; the London and North Western Railway (Additional Powers, England)
Act, 1865, Section 72 ; and the London and North Western Railway (New Works and Additional
Powers) Act, 1867, Section 48; but the Company may, in respect of the traffic there referred
to, demand or take the tolls, rates, dues, or charges prescribed by those enactments, and shall
not demand or take any tolls, rates, dues, or charges in excess thereof. Provided further, that
nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any maximum rates or charges in respect of
any new dock for the construction of which the Company may seek powers from Parliament.”
The Committee accepted the above Amendment.
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. lix
The Conveyance Rates in respect of Class I. were considered.
Mr. Pope, for the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard in support of
the following Amendment : “To leave out, in page 11, the rates applicable to Class I., in order
to insert 2:80 d., 185 d., 160 d., 1*10 d., and re-called Mr. R. T. H. Twelvetrees, who was further
examined.
Mr. Clifford was heard against the proposed Amendment, and re-called Mr. Frank Impey,
who was further examined.
Mr. Pope was heard in reply.
Lord Balfown of Burleigh was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made and Question proposed, That the figures in the Provisional Order, as
amended, by substituting 1:00 d. for 90 d. in the last column, be struck out.—Question put,
“That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.”—The Committee divided :
Contents, 5. †Not Contents, 3.
Earl of Belmore. Duke of Richmond.
Earl of Camperdown. Sir Joseph Bailey.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Dickson.
, Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed that the Committee had decided to take the Board of Trade Scale, with
this exception, that the last division, the remainder of the distance, shall be, instead of a 0-90 d.,
1:00 d. ; that is to say, 1 d. The scale being 220 d., 185 d., 1:40 d., and them 1:00 d.
Mr. Pope was heard to propose certain modifications in the conveyance rates for Classes 2,
3, 4, and 5. -
Mr. Shaw was heard against the proposed Amendment, and re-called Mr. Frederick Tillery
Bishop, who was further examined.
The Committee decided to retain the figures as in the Provisional Order, with certain
alterations. In the rates for the first 20 miles, no alterations; for the next 30 miles in Class 3,
2-65 d. in place of 2.60 d. ; for the next 50 miles, in Class 2, 180 d. ; in Class 2, for the
remainder of the distance, 1:50 d. ; in Class 3, for the next 50 miles, 2:00 d. ; for the remainder
of the distance, 1:80 d. ; in Class 4, for the next 50 miles, 2-50 d., and for the remainder of the
distance, 220 d. ; for Class 5, for the next 50 miles, 3:25 d., and for the remainder of the
distance, 2-50 d.
Mr. Pope submitted the following agreed provisions with respect to Small Parcels and
Hardware :-
“PART VI. —SMALL PARCELS BY MERCHANDISE TRAIN.
“After paragraph 2, insert. 20. A small parcel under this part of the schedule may consist
of one consignment of two or more packages of merchandise comprised in the same class of the
classification of not less than 14 pounds each in weight.
“Any package weighing less than 14 pounds shall be deemed to be a small parcel, and the
company may charge for any such parcel as if it were 28 pounds in weight.”
“HARDWARE.
“With respect to the articles and things set forth under the headings Hardware and Hollow-
ware in Class 3 of the classification, the maximum rates for conveyance over the railways
governed by the London and North Western Railway Amalgamation Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict.
c. 204), and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Stour Valley Railway Act, 1846 (9 & 10 Vict.
c. 328), shall be 25, d. per ton per mile if conveyed for any less distance than 50 miles, 2 d. pel:
ton per mile if conveyed for a distance of 50 miles, or upwards, provided always that where
Such articles and things are conveyed for any distance not exceeding 49 miles the company
may charge as for 49 miles at least.”
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)a, h
2
lx PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 14th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper. Mr. Hunter.
Lord Houghton. Mr. Wodehouse.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
The agreed provisions with respect to small parcels and hardware were accepted by the
Committee and inserted in the Bill.
The Appendix was considered.
Mr. Moom, for the London and North Western Railway Company, was heard in support of
an Amendment, in page 7, to leave out lines 33 and 34, viz.: “The Midland Railway Company
- in respect of the Ashby and Nuneaton Joint Railways.”
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald, in support of the Petition of R. D. Thomson, the Clifton Colliery
Company, and G. E. Checkland, was heard against the Amendment, and re-called Mr. George
Edward Checklamd, who was further examined.
Mr. Moom was heard in reply.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle was heard.
The Committee decided to leave out, in page 7, lines 33 and 34.
Scale 2, in page 9, was further considered.
The Committee inserted in Scale 2, page 9, the following Amendment :—
“The Dowlais and Merthyr Railway, jointly owned by the Company and the
Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Junction Railway Company - º * * |
“The Nantybwch and Rhymney Railway, jointly owned by the Company
and the Rhymney Railway Company - {- gº º gº sms *
“The Charnwood Forest Railway, worked by the Company - &= tº
“The Mold and Denbigh Junction Railway, worked by the Company - - .
The position of the Sirhowy Railway was considered.
Mr. Capper, on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighter's Association,
was heard on the question of passing the rates of the Sirhowy Railway.
Mr. Cown'tenay Boyle was heard.
The Committee decided to fix the short distances at four miles for the Sirhowy Railway.
Section 6, considered as applicable only to the London and North Western Railway
Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill.
Mr. Moom was heard in support of an Amendment, to leave out the words “For distances
not exceeding 25 miles, 3 d. per ton ’’ and “exceeding 25 miles, but.”
Mr. Shaw was heard against the proposed Amendment.
The Committee deliberated.
The Committee decided to leave out “For distances not exceeding 25 miles, 3 d. per tom,”
in order to insert the words “For distances not exceeding 20 miles, 4; d. ; for distances
exceeding 20 miles, but not exceeding 50 miles, 6 d.
This decision only to apply to the London and North Western Railway Company's
Schedule.
Mr. Littlem was heard to propose that the Provisional Order should come into operation on
the 1st January 1893, and re-called Mr. George Findlay, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowatemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee decided that the Provisional Order shall come into operation on 1st August
1892, or such further time as the Board of Trade shall by order appoint.
Section 22 further considered.
Mr. Pope was heard in support of the following Amendment, to add at the end of the
Section the words, “and where a trader forwards an empty truck to any station or siding for
the purpose of being loaded with merchandise, the company shall make no charge in respect of
the forwarding of such empty truck, provided that the truck is returned to them loaded for
conveyance
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. Ixi
conveyance direct to the consignor and station or siding from whom and whence it was so
forwarded.” g
Sir Alfred Hickman accepted the Amendment in lieu of the one which he proposed.
The Committee accepted the Amendment.
Mr. Pope submitted the following proviso to Scale 2, Class A., which had been agreed to :
“Provided that with regard to the Sirhowy Railway, the company shall, with respect to
merchandise in Class A., conveyed for a less distance than four miles, have power to charge as
for four miles at the least, irrespective of the place of origin, or destination of the traffic.”
The Committee accepted the Amendment.
Sir Alfred Hickmam was heard in support of the following Amendment: To insert in
pages 10 and 11, after the table, the words, “Provided that on merchandise comprised in
Classes C., 1, 2, and 3, with, when tendered for delivery, a declaration of owner's risk
equivalent to a contract under Section 7 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, the
maximum charges authorised by this schedule shall be reduced 15 per centum.”
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
The opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to existing agreements was considered by
the Committee.
Postponed Clauses 1–2 of the Bill considered, and agreed to.
Sections 1–4 of the Provisional Order again considered, and agreed to, with an Amendment.
Schedule of Maximum Rates and Charges again considered, and aga'eed to, with Amend-
ments. -
Remainder of the Schedule again considered, and agreed to, with Amendments.
Preamble considered, amended, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.
Motion made, and Question, That Mr. Hanbury be instructed to make the said Report to
the House of Commons (The Duke of Richmond and Gordom), -put, and agreed to.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Resolved, That all Amendments made by the Committee in the London and North Western
Railway Provisional Order Bill, as far as concerns the Clauses of the Bill, the Schedule of
Maximum Rates and Charges, except Sections 6 and 27, Parts II., III., IV., V., and VI. of the
Table of Maximum Rates and Charges, and the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, be inserted
in the remaining Provisional Order Bills referred to the Committee.
Maximum Rates and Charges with respect to Class A. are considered.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company, was heard in support of the
following Amendment :—In page 8, line 5, after the words “entire distance,” to insert the
following words: “Provided that nothing contained in this Order shall alter, vary, or effect the
tolls, rates, or charges which the company are, at the commencement of this Order, authorised
to demand and take in respect of merchandise traffic on the Monmouthshire Railways of the
company amalgamated with the undertaking of the company by the Great Westerm and
Monmouthshire Railway Amalgamation Act, 1880, or in respect of merchandise traffic on any
line of railway on Lord Tredegar's Park Mile, in the occupation of the company.”
This Amendment having been agreed to, was accepted by the Committee.
Mr. Cripps was heard to propose the following Amendment, agreed upon for the protection
of traders represented by Sir Alfred Hickman : “Provided ” (whatever maximum rates may
be fixed) “that the maximum rates for conveyance for iron and steel articles in Classes B. and C.
of the Classification shall not exceed upon the portions of the railway, respectively, governed
by the Great Western Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. ccxxvi), and the Oxford, Worcester, and
Wolverhampton Railways Acts, 1845 (8 & 9 Vict. c. clxxxiv), and 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. cclxxviii),
the rates by those Acts, respectively, authorised.”
The Committee accepted the Amendment.
Mr. Cripps, for the Great Western Railway Company, was heard to propose to leave out
the rates applicable to Clauses A. and B., on pages 8, 9, and 10, and to insert instead thereof
the following:—
(81.)a. h 3 Proposed
lxii
PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Proposed Cumulative Scales for Classes A. and B.
SCALE I.
Class A. Class B.
Per Ton per Mile. Per Tonper Mile.
d. d.
For the first 20 miles - cº- tºº º º sº 1:20 1°45.
2 3 next 30 : 9 e- * - * tº- sº tº- ().90 120
} } 2 3 50 * } &- sº * º- * &=g .0'50 } 0:70
,, remainder of the distance - * *-* º 0.40 - 0:55
SCALE II.
Class A.
Per Tom per Mile.
For the first 20 miles º g- *
,, next 30 ,, e- --> *
9 J 2 3 50 j 3 * e- gº
,, remainder of the distance -
Class B.
Per Ton per Mile.
1.50
O'90
0-40
O'35
and re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, who was further examined.
d.
I-75
I-20
0-80
0.50
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Wednesday, 15th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore.
Earl of Camperdown.
Lord Houghton.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr. Hanbury.
Mr. Hunter.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the Great Western Railway Company, was heard in support of the
following Amendment :-
SCALE I.—Applicable to the following Portions of the Railway:-

Railways governed by the under-
mentioned Acts.
F or the
first
20 Miles.
For the For the For the
* * remainder
next next f th
30 Miles. 50 Miles. or the
Distance.
3.
. Great Western Act, 1847 * *
. Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolver-
hampton Acts, 1845 and 1846 -
Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford
Act, 1846 – * tº- *E* º
Ogmore Valley Act, 1863 * *
Cardiff and Ogmore Act, 1873 tº-
Per Tom per
Mile.
d.
Per Tom per
Mile. Mile.
d. d.
0.85 O'50
Per Ton per
Per Tom per
Mile.
d.
t
0.95
0-40
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
lxiii
SCALE II.-Applicable to the following portions of the Railway:-

- For the
Railways governed by the under- For the For the
mentioned Acts. first next next
- 20 Miles. 30 Miles. 50 Miles.
Per Ton per | Per Ton per | Per Ton per
Mile. Mile. Mile.
- d. d. d.
1. Shrewsbury and Birmingham Act,
1846 – - - - - -
2. Severn Valley Act, 1855 - -
3. Pontypool, Caerleon, and Newport
Act, 1865 - tº - * -
4. Vale of Neath Act, 1846 — —
5. Aberdare Valley Act, 1855 - -
6. Swansea and Neath Act, 1861 - I-20 0-90 0.50
7. Gloucester and Dean Forest Act, **. -
1846 – - smº -
8. Llynvi Valley Act, 1855 - -
9. Coleford Act, 1872 - - -
. Severn Tunnel Act, 1872. e- -
. Shrewsbury and Chester Act, 1846
. Worcester and Hereford Act, 1853
-> *
For the
remainder
of the
Distance.
Per Ton per
Mile.
d.
0.40
SCALE III.-Applicable to all other portions of the Railway except the Monmouthshire
Railways.
For the For the For the * For º º
first next next * €l
20 Miles. 30 Miles. 50 Miles. or the
Distance.

Per Tom per
Mile,
Per Ton per
Mile.
d.
0.90
and re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, who was further examined.
Mr. Shaw was heard on behalf of the following Amendment —
Per Ton per
Mile.
d.
0°40
Per Ton per
Mile.
d.
0.35.
MAXIMUM RATES proposed by the Landowners, Traders, and Colliery Proprietors and others
of South Wales and Monmouthshire for Class A., in lieu of those in the Provisional Order
(Scale 1.).
SCALE 1.-Applicable to such portions of the Railway as are mentioned in Scale 1.
**—
For the first 20 Miles, For the next 30 Miles, ^ ~ + K g - -
-1. – 4: - For the next 50 Miles, For the
or any part of such or any part of such * ‘t of such ‘emainder of
Distance, Distance, Ol º, . o Sll C.I) * er of the
Per Tom per Mile. Per Tom per Mile. IS 08,11C62. istance.
d. d. d. d.
O'S75 0.65 O'50 0.40
(81.)a.
and
h 4
lxiv. PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
and called Mr. Irthel Treharme Rees, who was sworn and examined, Mr. Frederick Tillery
Bishop, who was re-called, and further examined, Mr. William Howard Hºwmten", who was
sworn and examined, and Mr. Edwim Grove, who was re-called, and further examined. -
Mr. Moom re-called Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowptemay Boyle was heard.
Mr. Joseph L. Wilkinsom, was re-called, and further examined.
The Committee decided to take the Llanelly line out of Scale 1, and to put it into
Scale 2.
They decided to retain the figures in the Provisional Order altered to their cumulative
equivalent with the exception that 95 d. be substituted for 90 d. in the first column, and to
strike out Railways 16, 17, and 18 from Scale 1.
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of the Marquis of Bute and the Monmouthshire and South Wales
Freighters’ Association, was heard to propose to remove the South Wales Railway from Scale 2
to Scale I in respect of Class B., and called Mr. Edward Pritchard Martim, and Colonel
John Roper Wright, who were sworn, and examined.
Further consideration adjourned.
Mr. Cripps was heard to propose to insert the following provisions for the protection of
the Marquis of Bute : “Nothing contained in this Act shall repeal, affect or prejudice the
enactments contained in the provisoes to Section 22 of the Great Western Railway Act, 1867,
or the provisions with regard to tolls and charges contained in Section 30 of the Great
Western Railway Act, 1872, or Section 47 of the Great Western Railway Act, 1873.”
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Thursday, 16th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. Mr. Wodehouse.
Mr. Hanbury.
Scales I. and II. of Part I. of Maximum Rates and Charges of the Great Western Railway
Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill, further considered.
The Committee decided to make no change in the rates proposed by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Bidder was heard in support of the proposal to insert provisions for the protection of
the Marquis of Bute. -
Lord Balfowſ of Burleigh was heard.
The Committee decided to insert the said provisions.
Mr. Shºw was heard on behalf of the Landowners, Trustees, &c., of South Wales and
Monmouthshire, in support of the following Amendment, to insert in Scale III, the following
railways authorised by the following Acts –
The Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway Act of 1846.
Taff Vale Extensions of 1847 and 1853.
Railways included in the West Midland Railway Act of 1860.
South Wales Consolidation Act, with reference to that portion of the railway lying
between Newport, Monmouthshire, and Carmarthen.
Pontypool, Caerleon, and Newport Railway Act, 1865.
Vale of Neath Railway Act of 1846.
Aberdare Valley Railway Act of 1855.
Swansea and Neath Railway Act, 1861.
Ely and Clydach Railway Act, 1873.
Llynvi
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. lxv.
Llynvi Valley Railway Act, 1855.
Ogmore Valleys Railway Act, 1863.
Ely Valley Extension Railway made under Ogmore and Ely Railways Amalgamation
Act, 1865. -
Cardiff and Ogmore Railway Act, 1873.
Great Western and Rhymney Joint Railway, constructed under Acts of Rhymney
Railway Acts, 1857, 1864, and 1882.
Great Western and Taff Vale Joint Railway, constructed under Great Western
Railway Act, 1867. -
And re-called Mr. In thel Treharme Rees and Mr. Hemº'y L(\mbert, who were further
examined.
The Committee decided to insert in Scale III, those lines whose statutory maxim is 1 d. per
ton per mile, including trucks, and the Pontypool, Caerleon, and Newport Railway.
Further consideration adjourned.
Mr. Woodfall was heard in support of the insertion of provisions for the protection of the
Dowlais Iron Company.
Mr. Bidden submitted the following Section —Nothing contained in this Order shall repeal
the enactments contained in the provisoes to Section 22 of the Great Western Act of 1867, or
the provisions with regard to tolls and charges contained in Section 30 of the Great Western
Act of 1872, or Section 47 of the Great Western Act of 1873,” which was agreed to by the
Committee.
Mr. Shaw was heard in support of a four-mile clause to be applied to the Llynvi Valley
Railway.
Mr. Moom was heard against the Amendment.
Lord Balfown of Bwa'leigh was heard.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
On the question as to the date of the commencement of the Order, Mr. Moom re-called
Mr. Hema'y Lambert, who was further examined.
The Committee decided to fix the same time as in the case of the London and North
Western Railway Company Order, viz., 1st August 1892, unless the Board of Trade, by Order,
should alter the date to a later period. *
Further Amendments made.
Clauses, amended, and agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, tºgreed to.
Preamble considered, amended, and (lyreed to.
Ordered, That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House.
Motion made, and Question, That Mr. Hanbury be instructed to make the said Report to the
House of Commons—(The Duke of Richmond amºl Gordom), put, and agreed to.
Midland Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill considered. -
Mr. Balfow, Browne, on behalf of the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association and the
South Yorkshire Coalowners’ Assurance Society, was heard to propose in the Rates for Class A.,
to leave out 1:15 d. and 0.90 d. as the rates for the first 20 and the next 30 miles, and to insert
0.95 cl. and 0.85 cl.
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald, on behalf of the Corporation of Leicester, was heard to propose to
leave out all the conveyance rates proposed for Class A., and to insert “095 d., 0.85 d., 0:50 d.,
and 0.40 d.”
Mr. Bidder, on behalf of the Midland Railway Company, against the proposed Amendments,
re-called Mr. George Hemºry Twºmen', who was further examined.
The Committee refused to accept either Amendment.
Mr. Balfow, Browme was heard to propose to insert provisions confirming an agreement
between the Midland Railway Company and the Staveley Coal and Iron Company.
The Committee refused to insert the proposed provisions.
Mr. Bishop was heard to propose a short distance of three miles instead of six miles being
applicable to the Swansea Vale Railway, from Swansea to Brynammam.
(81.)a e l The
lxvi PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Bidder, on behalf of the Midland Railway Company, was heard to propose, in Section
6 of the Bill, to leave out the first two lines of the Scale, and to insert “for any distance under
50 miles, 6 d.” t * . . . . . . **
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendment.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and agreed to.
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill considered.
[Adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
Friday, 17th July 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON in the Chair.
Earl of Belmore. - | Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Camperdown. Mr. Hanbury.
Lord Belper, . Mr. Hunter.
Sir Joseph Bailey. Mr. Wodehouse.
}
Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill further
considered. . .
Mr. Cripps, on behalf of the Great Northern Railway Company, was heard in support of
an Amendment providing that for distances not exceeding 50 miles a waggon rate of 6 d. a ton
shall be allowed, striking out the initial distances, and the words “for distances exceeding 25
miles,” as was granted in the case of the Midland Railway Company on the previous day, and
called Mr. Hemºry Oakley, who was further examined.
Mr. Cowrtemay Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Amendment proposed.—In Section 6, to leave out the first two lines of the Scale in order
to insert “for any distance under 50 miles, 6 d.”
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.—The
Committee divided :
Contents, 4. Non-Contents, 3.
Sir Joseph Bailey, Duke of Richmond and Gordon.
Mr. Hambury, Earl of Belmore.
Mr. Wodehouse. * Lord Belper.
Mr. Hunter.
Parties informed that the Committee had decided not to insert 6 d., but the same figures
(4; d.) as in the Londom and North Western Railway Company Provisional Order Bill.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and agreed to.
Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill, considered.
Mr. Pembe", on behalf of the Great Eastern Railway Company, was heard to propose, in
Section 6, to leave out the first two lines of the scale, in order to insert “For any distance
under 50 miles, 6 d.”
The Committee refused to accept the proposed Amendment.
Mr. Poysey, on behalf of the Chemical Mamure Manufacturers Association, was heard in
support of an Amendment, to insert provisions confirming certain agreements between the
Great Eastern Railway Company and the above Petitioners.
The Committee refused to insert the proposed provisions.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and agº’eed to. /
London
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. lxvii
London and South Western Railway Compaay (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order
Bill, considered.
Mr. Pember, on behalf of the London and South Western Railway Company, was heard in
support of an Amendment to increase the Conveyance Rates for the longer distance in
Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, and called Mr. Charles Scotté", who was sworn, and examined.
Mr. Clifford, on behalf of the Mansion House Association, was heard against the
Amendment.
Mr. Cow, temwy Boyle was heard.
The Committee deliberated.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the rate for Class 5, for distances over 100
miles, be raised to 3 d.—Question put.—The Committee divided :
Contents, 7. - Not Contents, 2.
Duke of Richmond and Gordon. Mr. Dickson.
Earl of Belmore. Mr. Hunter.
Earl Camperdown. -
Lord Belper.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
Mr, Hanbury.
Mr. Wodehouse.
Parties informed that the Committee accepted the figures of the Board of Trade, with
the exception of the last figure in Class 5, which is raised from 290 d. to 3:00 d.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and (ºgreed to.
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
Order Bill, considered.
Mr. Sawmden's, on behalf of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company, was
heard to propose that the rating for waggon hire be the same as for the Northern Companies;
and re-called Mr. G. W. Staniforth, who was further examined.
Mr. Balfown Browme, on behalf of the Corporation of Brighton, was heard against the
Amendment. -
The Committee accepted the Amendment.
Mr. Balfow, Browme was heard to propose to leave out the conveyance rates applicabie to
all the classes, and to insert instead –
For the next | For the next For the next For th
Tºlo c. c. 20 Miles, *| 30 Miles, 50 Miles, or ºne.
Classes. ** * ‘e ** • tº - Remainder of the
or any part or any part or any part Distance
of such Distance. of such Distance. of such Distance. º -
(l. (l. (l. d.
A - - I'00 O'90 0-50 0.40
B * - I 25 1.00 | 0.80 (): 30
C - -e I '80 1 : 50 1:20 0-70
I * - 220 I '85 l'40 1:00
2 *- - 2.65 2:30 I '80 I 50
3 - - 3-I () 2.65 2:00 1-80
4 - - 3:60 3:15 2:50 2:20
5 - - 4:30 3-70 3.25 2:50
and re-called Mr. Colbatch Clark, who was further examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Lush, Wilson, for the Corporation of Brighton, was heard to propose, at the end of
page 9, to add the following provision, viz.: “Provided that this scale shall not apply to
(81.)a merghandise
lxviii PROCEEDINGS --RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
merchandise comprised in Classes A., B., or C. conveyed from or to London or from or to the
railway of any other company over the portions of the railway herein specially mentioned to
or from any station or place on the railway which is not situate upon any of the portions of
the railway herein specially mentioned, but Scale I. shall apply to such merchandise through-
out its entire transit on the railway ”; and re-called Mr. Colbatch Clark, who was further
examined.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and agreed to.
South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill considered.
Mr. Littler, on behalf of the South Eastern Railway Company, was heard in support of
an Amendment to allow in Class B, for the first 30 miles 1:10 d. instead of 1 d., and for the
waggon rate, 4; d.
The Committee accepted the proposed Amendments.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and aga'eed to.
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order
Bill considered. -
Mr. Lush Wilsom was heard to propose to insert the following provisions for the protection
of the Vestry of the Parish of Newington, viz.: “The Company shall not charge for the
conveyarrce of the road scrapings, house dust, or other town refuse (whether mixed with
manure or not) consigned by or on behalf of the Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, Surrey, or
for trucks, or for any services in connection with such conveyance, at any higher rate than
28. 1 d. per ton for any distance not exceeding 25 miles, and 1 d. per ton per mile for any
distance beyond such 25 miles, including all terminal charges, use of trucks, and all other
services whatsoever, less a rebate of 20 per cent., provided such consignments shall amount
to not less than 20,000 tons per annum,” and called Mr. L. J. Dºwnham, who was sworn, and
examined.
Mr. Balfow, Browme was heard in support thereof.
The Committee refused to accept the Amendment.
Clauses, Schedule, and Preamble considered, amended, and agreed to.
Ordered, That the following Provisional Order Bills, viz. –
The Great Northern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill;
The Great Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill;
Ord Tººndon and South Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
rCter DIII ;
The London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Provisional Order Bill; - -
The South Eastern Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional Order Bill ;
and
O The Hºndon Chatham, and Dover Railway Company (Rates and Charges) Provisional
rder Bill; -
as amended, be reported to the House.
Motion made, and Question, That Mr. Hanbury be instructed to report the said Bills to
the House of Commons—(Duke of Richmond and Gordom), put, and agreed to.
[ ] ]
M IN U T E S () F E W II) E N C E.
(81.) e . A
2
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr. Richard Harper Twelvetrees
Mr.
Mr.
Sir
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
L I S. T. O F W L T N E S S E S.
Die Martis, 14° Aprils, 1891.
Michael Henry Lakin -
Henry Lambert - -
George Findlay - -
Die Mercurii, 15° Aprilis, 1891.
William Arthur Darbishire
Arthur Marshall Chambers
Die Jovis, 16° Aprilis, 1891.
John Harwood tºss {-º
Marshall Stevens - -
Die Veneris, 17° Aprilis, 1891.
Walter Wheeler Berry -
William Edward Wilson
PAGE
42
44
45
48
67
89
1 15
1 16, 124
Die Martis, 21" Aprilis, 1891.
... John Noble - *-*. *
... Alfred Barnes, M.P. tºm
... James Samuel Beale *
... Henry Lambert - *
. Henry Oakley ** -
. Frederick Parker Rhodes
Die Mercurii, 22° Aprilis, 1891.
Frank Impey * -*
George William Staniforth
Charles John Owen gº
*
*
Die Jovis, 23° Aprilis, 1891.
Alfred Barnes, M.P. tº-º
William Frederick Butler
John Noble - * *
George Findlay - wº
Die Veneris, 24" Aprilis, 1891.
Andrew Collins Tucker Squarey
Henry Coke - sº *
James Weeks Szlumper –
Frederic Sillery Bishop -
Die Martis, 28° Aprilis, 1891.
297, 316
303, 320
308, 311
George Findlay -º-º: * tº
Henry Lambert * Eº
Henry Oakley - * --
John Noble - * -
George Stainforth - *s
sº
132
138
163
172
173
176
180
190
204
218
220
244.
247
250
255
276
278
284
286
310
31()
Mr.
Mr.
... Henry Oakley
Mr.
|Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Die Mercurii, 29° Aprilis, 1891.
Charles Thomas Macadam
tºº
Die Lunae, 11° Maii, 1891.
. Jabez Light -
... George William Staniforth
. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson
... William V. K. Stenning -
... Harold Owen -
... William Adams
. William Bernard Partrid
. James Harrison
r. Frank Impey -
... John Innes Rogers
363,
Die Martis, 12° Maii, 1891.
Jacob Emerson
Henry Lambert
Frederick Harrison
Die Jovis, 14° Maii, 1891.
Joseph Loftus Wilkinson
Charles John Owens
Henry Oakley
Colbatch Clark
Marshall Stevens
smsº
Die Veneris, 15° 41aii, 1891.
Henry Lafone, M.P.
Richard Pilkington
Die Martis, 26° Maii, 1891.
George Findlay
Henry Lambert
Joseph Loftus Wilkinson
Henry Oakley
John Henry Lloyd
Die Mercurii, 27° Mail, 1891.
... Frederick Harrison
Joseph Loftus Wilkinson
Jabez Light -
Henry Lambert
Henry Oakley
522,
- 526, 542,
tºº
PAGE
346
359
36]
362
379
367
38()
375
377
385
390
398
405
420
425
442
447
449
457
459
480
483
492
499
506
510
512
529
524
547
531
536
[ 1" |
Die Joºs, 28° Maii, 1891. Die Jovis, 1 1" Junii, 1891.
PAGE PAGE
Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson 552, 555, 572, 583 Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson, 845,859,868, 876
Mr. Richard Harper Twelvetrees - 558, 576 Mr. Henry Humphrey Gardiner - – 847
Mr. George Findlay - - - - 559 Mr. Charles Hopton - - - - 852
Mr. William Burt º - * - 569 Mr. George Barham - * - – 865
Mr. Henry Lambert &- - * - 57.7 Mr. Thomas Nuttall - g-> - - 868
Mr. Henry Humphrey Gardiner - – 579 || Mr. Walter Waters – º - – 871
Mr. Walter Wheeler Berry - - - 582 Mr. Richard Langley - sº- - – 871
Mr. Henry Oakley * - - – 587 Mr. Charles Henry Glassey - - – 873
Mr. º Barber - º º – 874
Die Veneris, 29° Maii, 1891. Mr. W. J. Bonser - - - - - 874
Mr. Henry Oakley tº- - sº- – 59 i e o o T. . . . .
Mr. George William Staniforth - – 596 Die Veneris, 12° Junii, 1891.
Mr. William Burt - - - - - 603 || Mr. Thomas Nuttall 882. 8
N ‘YN = tº Clºº - sºe - * 3 93
Mr. George Findlay - - - - 616 || Mr. John Alfred Dexter - - - 885
Mr. Charles Henry Glassey - - ... 886
Die Martis, 2° Junii, 1891. Mr. George Barham - - - 894, 895
- Mr. George Gibbons - --> - – 904
Mr. George Findlay - - *- – 621 Mr. Thomas Picken – * - – 905
Mr. Frederick Harrison - smºs - 643 Mr. Francis Hoddenot - - - – 907
Mr. Henry Lambert - - * - 648 || Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson - ... 909
Die Mercurii, 3° Junii, 1891. Die Martis, 16° Junii, 1891.
§: §.'ºrº - - 659, 683 Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson – – 920
. . .e. ry er - * – 663 Mr. William Charles Young - - - 926
Mr. Benjamin Hingley, M.P. - - – 67 | Mr. Richard Harper Twelvetrees - – 930
Mr. Frederick Harrison - - – 678 Mr. Frederick Harrison - º - – 936
e • & 4 Mr. Charles John Owens *-* * – 936
Die Jovis, 4° Junii, 1891. Mr. Ebenezer Miles - - - - 939
Mr. Edward Lyon Lakin - - ... 701
Mr. Michael Henry Lakin - *- - 706 Di a. * , , , a O * -
Mr. Henry Josiah Harding - - – 7 10 ie Mercurii, 17° Junii, 1891.
Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson * — 720 Mr. W. J. Bonser – - -> * – 949
Mr. Jabez Light - sms - - - 723 §: º º * - * 954, 964
r. John Last Sayer - º - – 957
Die Veneris, 5° Junii, 1891. §: º Bº . . ;
I’. WV ; liter WW at €1'S -- * - – 962
Mr. John Major Fells – - º - 73 l Mr. Marshall Stevens - - – 965, 979
Mr. Frederick Harrison - - 735, 739 Mr. John Wilton - - * º – 969
Mr. James Michael Steele – *- – 74()
Sir Alfred Hickman º - º - 744 "-" "A s - e
Mr. Hermann Voss cº- - * – 748 Die Jovis, 18° Junii, 1891.
* * Po al-o ºr e A-
M. gº d, Jun. . . : º Mr. Marshall Stevens - sº- - – 983
§: #. ſº .#. – 985, 998, 1000
º - - sº r. 1)aniel Eól CharCl Hal West – •ve – 992
Die Martis, 9° Junii, 1891. Nº. Włºś. } - – 996, 997, 1000
Mr. William Arthur Darbishire - - 765 º illiam Frankish - º- - 1006, 1018
Mr. Joseph Loftus Wilkinson - 771, 784 Mr. Richard William Holden – - - 1009
Mr. John Major Fells - - *- – 774
Mr. Frederick Harrison - - - 777, 797 e a c. 9. In , an in
Mr. Henry Lambert - - *- 779 Die Veneris, 19° Junii, 1891.
Mr. Benjamin Scott Jones - - 782, 783 Mr. Stephen West- - iº * - 103.1
Mr. James Harrison as ºn - * – 785 Mr. Henry Lambert - -- - 1043, 1044
Mr. William Stenning - - - - 788 Mr. Richard William Holden - - - 1047
Mr. Charles Hopton tº- - * — 790 Mr. Frederick Harrison º - - 1048
º Sir Henry Oakley - - * - - 105 l
Die Mercurii, 10° Junii, 1891.
Mr. $º Robins Lane - * – 8()4 Die Martis, 23" Junii, 1891.
Mr. Walter Wheeler Berry - - - A-p * **--
Mr. Jabez Light - *º-h y - * - º §: º John Owens - º - 1057
Mr. Henry Lafone, M.P. - - – S 15 r. Harper Twelvetrees -- - - 1067
Mr. Matthew Harvey - - sº- - 820
TMr. Edward Barton º- - - - 824 ***** * e & e
Mr. John Leckie - * - - – 826 Die Mercurii, 24" Junii, 1891.
M; J. W. Chesterton - - - - 833 Mr. George Findlay - - – – 1085
Mr. Charles Parsons - - - - 836 Mr. Frederick Harrison - - - 1117
(81.) e A +
Die Jovis, 25° Junii, 189 i.
Mr. George Findlay
Mr. Abraham Burrows
Mr. William Edward Murray To
M. P. - &=º
Mr. Benjamin Biram
Mr. George Robert Carter -
Mr. Frederick Parker Rhodes
Mr. George Edward Checkland
Mr. Edwin Grove
Die Veneris, 26° Junii,
Mr. Henry Lambert
Sir Henry Oakley
Mr. Joseph Shaw
Mr. Douglas Phillips
*
Dr. David Basil Hewitt
Mr. Parker Rhodes
Mr. Arthur Marshall Chambers
Mr. Edwin Grove
Die Martis, 30° Junii,
Mr. Henry Lambert
Sir Henry Oakley
Mr, Marshall Stevens
Mr. George Findlay
sº
Mr. Frederick Harrison
Die Mercurii,
Mr. George Findlay
Colonel John Roper Wright-
Mr. Henry Lambert
**
Die Jovis, 29 Julii, 1891.
Mr. William George Dowden
Mr. George Parry
Mr. George Findlay
Mr. John Crum -
Mr. William Arthur Darbishire
Die Veneris, 3° Julii,
Mr. George Findlay
Mr. Marshall Stevens
sº
Mr. Walter Wheeler Berry -
Mr. Frank Impey
189 l.
Die Martis, 7° Julii, 1891.
Mr. Henry Lambert
Sir Henry Oakley
Mr. George William Staniforth
Mr. Jabez Light -
Mr. Charles John Owens
Mr. Colbach Clark
mlinson,
I* Julii, 1891.
- 1250, 1258, 1265,
Mr. Frederick Parker Rhodes
- 1287, 1291,
Mr. George Edward Checkland
PAGE
1123
| 130
1132
1135
1138
1 143
1145
1153
II 63
ll 74
1179
1 183
1 184
| 186
l 188
1 190
120l.
1206
1221
1235
1241
| 275
1261
I 269
1273
1284
1286
1307
1289.
1298
1311
1323
1340
1345
1348
| 356
1373
1378
1383
1385
1387
Mr. William Edward Willson
Mr.
Die Mercurii, 8° Julii, 1891.
Walter Wheeler Berry - &ºe
Mr. W. J. Clark — gº gº *
Mr
Mr
Sir
Mr.
M1.
. William Arthur Darbyshire
Die Jovi's, 9° Julii, 1891.
. Henry Lambert - * E. :
Henry Oakley gº * gº
. George Findlay - - -
. William Edward Willson tº
Die l'eneris, 10° Julii, 1891.
Mr. Frank Impey tºº gº *
Sir Alfred Hickman - * ſº
Mr. George Findlay - - * -
Mr. William Arthur Darbishire -
Mr.
... Frank Impey gº º ë-
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Die Lunae, 13 Julii, 1891.
Richard Harper Twelvetrees -
Frederic Sillery Bishop - sºs
Die Martis, 14° Julii, 1891.
George Edward Checkland -
George Findlay - - *
Joseph Loftus Wilkinson -
JDie Mercurii, 15" Julii, 1891.
Joseph Loftus Wilkinson, 1577, 1599, 1602,
PAGE
1400
1405
1410
1416
1435
1450.
1455.
1465
1473
1493
1499.
1502
1519
1525
1534
1545
| 558
1566
1604, 1609
Mr. [thel Treherne Rees – & – 1587
Mr. Frederic Sillery Bushop - tº - 1593
Mr. William Howard Hunter dº - 1596
Mr. Edwin Grove tºg • * º – I 597
Mr. Edward Pritchard Martin - - 1607
Colonel John Roper Wright * – l 61 1,
Die Jovis, 16° Juliá, 1891.
Mr. Ithel Treharne Rees – º e - 1621
Mr. Henry Lambert - &=º - 1628, 1636
Mr. George Henry Turner - - – 1643
Die Veneris, 17° Julii, 1891.
Sir Henry Oakley gº gº- tºº. – 1651
Mr. Charles Scotter – * º - # 1661
Mr. George William Stainforth - - 1668
Mr. Colbatch Clark - * - 1669, 1679
Mr. Levi Joseph Dunham - dº - 1684
3
Die Jovi's, 9° 1priſis
1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPER DOWN.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
... HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie appears as Counsel,
representing the Board of Trade.
Messrs. Wyatt and Company appear
Agents.
{US
The following Petitions presented against
each Bill respectively are read:
AğAINST THE GREAT EASTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of Messrs. J. and J. Colman :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. A. F.
Murison appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs.
Agents.
Wyatt and Company appear as
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom,
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Great Eastern Railway
Company:
Mr. Pember, Q.C., Mr. Saunders, Q.C., and
Mr. Moon appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Mr. Edward Moore appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners Assurance Society :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear as
Agents. -
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards in
Lancashire and Cheshire:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
and Company appear as
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
AGAINST THE GREAT NORTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Great Northern Railway
Company :
Mr. Pope, Q.C., and Mr. Cripps, Q.C., appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
appears as Agent.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and
Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Neish and Howell appear as Agents in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers' Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal
Corporations, Chambers of Commerce and
Agriculture, and others:
Counsel reserved. -
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Clifton Colliery Company
(Limited) and the Mapperly Colliery Company
(Limited):
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Kingsford, Dorman, and Company
appear as Agents.
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
(0. 1.)
The
A 2
*d
4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire
owners’ Assurance Society:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition. * a
Coal-
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards in Lancashire and Cheshire.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents. * 13
The Petition of the Derbyshire, Nottingham-
shire, and Leicestershire Colliery Owners’ As-
Sociation : -
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Durnford and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
Bodies : *
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. Yates, appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs.
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers' Association :
Mr. H. C. Itichards appears as Counsel in Sup-
port of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
AGAINST THE GREAT WESTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and
Lakin :
Mr. JDarlington appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Mr. James W. Reid appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters' Association :
Mr. Shaw appears as Counsel in support of
this, Petition. -
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in Sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Freighters on the Mon-
mouthshire Railways:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Landowners, Traders, and
Colliery Owners, and Trading and Colliery Com-
Sharp and Company appear as
panies, and the Associated Coal Owners of South
Wales. º,
Mr. Ram and Mr. Shaw appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition. tº •
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bell appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Monmouthshire County
Council:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Dyson and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Counsel reserved. -
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
&
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Glamorgan County Council.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. J. Shaw
appear as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Marquess of Bute and
Earl of Dumfries : -
Mr. Bidder, Q.C., and Mr. Woodfall appear as
Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Grahames and Company appear as
Agents. *
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association :
Mr. Woodfall appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Great Western Railway
Company : *4
Mr. Pember, Q C., Mr. Cripps, Q.C., and Mr.
Moon appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Mr. R. R. Nelson appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Associations of Traders and Freighters,
and Traders representing the South Stafford-
shire District:
Cousel reserved.
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in Sup-
port of this Petition. ---
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards of
Lancashire and Cheshire : -
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Ebbw Vale Steel Iron
and Coal Company (Limited):
Counsel reserved. - g
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. ---
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers' Association:
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
& Against
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. & 5
* * * 9 April 1891.
AGAINST THE LONDON AND NoFTH
WESTERN RAILwAY (RATES AND CHARGES)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters’ Association :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of William Norwood and James
Cross (as Trustees under the Will of John
Hutchinson, deceased).
Mr. Stallard appears as Counsel in support of
this petition. -
Messrs. Lewin and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Mr. Poyser appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
.Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Garston Dock Traffic
Association, Freighters, Shippers, Traders, and
Manufacturers :
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Corporation of St. Helen's :
Mr. E. Forbes Lankester appears as Cotinsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent.--
The Petition of Landowners, Traders, and
Colliery Owners, and Trading and Colliery
Companies, and the Associated Coal Owners of
South Wales :
Mr. A. J. Ram and Mr. Joseph Shaw appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition. - *-
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bell appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others: &
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Whitehead appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent.
The Petition of the West Cumberland Iron-
masters’ Association:
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Hargreaves and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Cumberland Coal Asso-
ciation:
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Hargreaves and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of Robert Donald Thomson, the
Clifton Colliery Company (Limited), and George
Edward Checkland :
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Kingsford, Dortman, and Company
appear as Agents. - -
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Association: - #
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition. I
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board :
Mr. T. G. Carver appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association :
Counsel reserved. -
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the London
Western Railway Company:
Mr. Pope, Q.C., Mr. Littler, C.B., Q.C., and Mr. .
Moon, appear as Counsel in support of this Peti-
tion.
Mr. C. H. Mason appears as Agent.
t
North
and
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Associations of Traders and Freighters
g rt º
and Traders representing the South Stafford-
shire District:
Counsel reserved.
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of Traders and Slate Quarry
Proprietors and Lessees and Traders of North
Wales : * **
Counsel reserved.
Mr. J. H. Cobb appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal
Owners’ Assurance Society.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of Sarah Tomlinson :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. T. G.
Carver, appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations of Lanca–
shire and Cheshire :
Mr. /3alfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates, appear as Counsel in support
of the Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Saint Helen's and District
Coal Proprietors Association (against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Fowler and Company appear as Agents
in support of this Petition.
(0.1.)
A 3 The
6 MINUITES OF
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEE OR E
9 April 1891.
sms---
The Petition of the Railway Carriage and
Waggon Builders’ Association: -
Mſ. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Martin and Leslie appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Lancashire and
Cheshire Coal Association :
Mr. Balfour /3rowne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Freighters and Shippers
of Coal :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of Messrs Richard Evans and
Company (Limited):
Mr. Pembroke Stephens, Q.C.,
Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
Agents.
The Petition of the Garswood Hall Collieries
Company (Limited) and others :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
in support of this Petition.
appears as
appear as
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the National Sea Fisheries
Association :
Mr. Richards appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. J. W. Towse appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers' Association :
Mr. Richards appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. J. W. Bray Browne appears as Agent.
The Petition of Messrs. Cross, Tetley, and
Company :
Mr. Castle, Q.C., appears as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Wyatt and Company appear as Agents.
AGAINST THE LONDON AND SOUTH
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES AND
CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom,
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the London and South Western
Railway Company :
Mr. Pember, Q.C., Mr. Noble, and Mr. Acworth
appear as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Bircham and Company appear as
Agents.
-------- ---------------- -------- - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the North Cornwall Railway
Company.
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Burchell and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn,
and Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
and Company appear as
The Petition of the Plymouth, Devonport,
and South Western Junction Railway Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Burchell and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations, and other
bodies.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in sup-
port of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and
Agents.
Company appear as
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poulterers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
AGAINST THE LONDON, BRIGHT ON, AND
SouTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY (RATES
AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER 13 ILL.
The Petition of the Corporation of Brighton :
Mr Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. Lush
Wilson appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manus
facturers’ Association of the United Kingdom
and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the London, Brighton, and
South Coast Railway Company:
‘Mr. Saunders, Q.C., and Mr. Freeman appear
as Counsel in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Dyson and Company
Agents.
appear as
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORIDER BILLS. 7
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agri-
culture, and others : --
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards of
Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
and Company appear as
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
bodies:
Mr. Ralfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poulterers' Association :
Mr. f/. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
and Company appear as
AGAINST THE LON DON, CHATHAM, AND
Dov ER RAILWAY CoMPANY (RATES AND
CHARGES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturing Association of the United Kingdom and
others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations).
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others.
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Westry of St. Mary,
Newington.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., and Mr. J.M.sh
Wilson appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Jowlers and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council
and Municipal Corporations and Local Boards
of Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
and Company appear as
9 April 1891.
- - =sm-- - - -- a------------ *-------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Petition of the London, Chatham, and
Dover Railway Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Martin and Leslie appear as Agents in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations and other
Bodies:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company
appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Game,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association:
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. W. B. Browne appears as Agent.
AGAINST THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COM-
PANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PROVISIONAL
ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the County Council of the
County Palatine of Lancaster :
Counsel reserved.
Miessrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Swansea and District
Freighters' Association :
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Sherwood and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure Manu-
facturers' Association of the United Kingdom,
and others :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. 4. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of Messrs. Brunner, Monde and
Company:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Neisſ, and Howell appear as Agents in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Golduey appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of Landowners, Traders, and
Colliery. Owners, and Trading and Colliery
Companies and the Associated Coalowners of
South Wales :
Mr. Ram and Mr. Shaw appear as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. W. and W. M. Bell appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor.
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. 4; Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition. *
(0.1.)
A 4 The
8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
9 April 1891.
The Petition of Robert Donald Thomson, The
Clifton Colliery Company, Limited, George
Edward Checkland, and the Mapperley Colliery
Company, Limited : -
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Messrs. Kingsfor d,
appear as Agents.
The Petition of the West Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Rees and Frere appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association :
Mr. Woodfall appears as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Mr. Robert Capper appears as Agent.
The Petition of the Corporation of Wolver-
hampton, Association of Traders and Freighters
and Traders representing the South Stafford-
shire District :
Counsel reserved.
Sir Alfred Hickman appears as Agent in sup-
port of this Petition.
The Petition of the Midland Railway Com-
pany :
Mr. Bidder, Q.C., Mr. Saunders, Q.C., and Mr.
Acworth appear as Counsel in support of this
Petition.
Messrs. Beale and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the Furness Railway Com-
pany :
Counsel reserved.
Mr. John Charles Ball appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County
Council and Municipal Corporations and Local
Boards of Lancashire and Cheshire :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe
Agents.
The Petition of the Corporation of Leicester:
Mr. J. D. FitzGerald appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Dyson and Company appear as Agents.
The Petition of the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Assurance Society :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., appears as Counsel
in support of this Petition.
Messrs. Walter Webb and Company appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Derbyshire, Nottingham-
shire, and Leicestershire Colliery Owners' Asso-
ciation:
Counsel reserved.
Messrs. Durnford and Company appear as
Agents in support of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Lancashire and
Cheshire Coal Association :
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Clifford, and
Mr. Darlington appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
Dorman and Company
and Company appear as
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corportions, and other
Bodies:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as Agents.
AGAINST THE SOUTH EASTERN RAIL-
WAY COMPANY (RATES AND CHARGES) PRO-
VISIONAL ORDER BILL.
The Petition of the Chemical Manure
Manufacturers' Association of the United King-
dom, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Corporation of London
(against alterations):
Counsel reserved.
Mr. G. Prior Goldney appears as Agent in
support of this Petition.
The Petition of the South Eastern Railway
Company :
Mr. Littler, C.B., Q.C., Mr. Worsley Taylor,
Q.C., and Mr. Boyle appear as Counsel in support
of this Petition.
Messrs. R. W. Cooper and Sons appear as
Agents.
The Petition of the Mansion House United
Association on Railway Rates, Municipal Cor-
porations, Chambers of Commerce and Agricul-
ture, and others:
Counsel reserved.
Mr. A. Beveridge appears as Agent in support
of this Petition.
The Petition of the Lancashire County Council,
aud Municipal Corporations, and Local Boards
of Lancashire and Cheshire.
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn, and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition.
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear
Agents. -
The Petition of the Birmingham Fish, Gamé,
and Poultry Dealers’ Association :
Mr. H. C. Richards appears as Counsel in
support of this Petition.
Mr. J. B. B. Brown appears as Agent.
8,S
AGAINST, RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
The Petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference of Municipal Corporations, and other
bodies:
Mr. Balfour Browne, Q.C., Mr. Waghorn and
Mr. J. M. Yates appear as Counsel in support of
this Petition. -
Messrs. Sharpe and Company appear as
Agents.
Chairman.] Probably it will be convenient
for the parties to know that we propose to sit on
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays,
at half-past 11 o'clock.
The Board of Trade will open the case, ex-
plaining what they have done; but we do not
look upon them in the light of promoters in any
way. We consider that there really is practi-
cally no objection to the preambles of the Bills
as there is in the case of ordinary private Bills;
we shall therefore at once proceed to the con-
sideration of the Bills, taking the London and
North
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILí.S. - • 9
—r-
t
North Western Bill first. When we come to
the first clause we shall then ask what objection
there is to that clause, and shall hear the parties
who are objecting, and then hear the other side,
if they think that it ought to be retained. I do
not know whether I have made myself clear.
Mr. Pope.j Perfectly, your Grace. On the
part of the London and North Western Com-
pany, of course we shall be quite prepared to
take any position which the Committee may
choose to assign to us, and I need not say that
we shall do, and that all my friends will do, all
we can to assist the Committee in as rapidly as
possible coming to a conclusion. But perhaps
your Grace would just allow me to call your
attention to the form of the Orders, in order
that we may ascertain exactly how you propose
to proceed. *-
There are certain portions of each Bill which
are common to all. Now, if you will take, for
instance, the London and North Western Bill,
and refer to the first three parts of the Bill from
the 1st to the 26th paragraph you will see they
are common to all the Bills. I think they appear
in every Order ipsissimus verbis, and relate to
what, when we were in the Westminster Town
Hall, we were in the habit of calling the “con-
ditions.” They are intended, no doubt, to formu-
late a scheme which is to be applicable alike as
a sort of general Act to the case of all the rail-
ways. The 27th section of each Provisional
Order applies that particular part of the Bill to
the particular railway company in whose uame
the Order appears.
Now, of course, we shall have to deal first of
all with those conditions. As far as the railway
companies are concerned, the interest of each
railway company is identical, and it would, as it
seems to us, lead to very considerable inconve-
nience if, having decided the principle of those
Parts 1., II., and III. upon the first discussion,
you should be asked by each individual railway
company, as its Order comes up, to deal with
them afresh in its interest. It seems to us that
it would be desirable, if the Committee think it
right, to deal with the various Orders, so to
speak, in parts, to take the parts in which all
the companies are interested equally; that is to
say, the conditions, Parts I., II., and III., which
appear in the Provisional Order, and the classifi-
cation, to discuss those, hearing the opponents
and suggestions from either side as regards any
amendment on what the Board of Trade have
brought before the Committee.
mittee decide with reference to those two points
must materially affect the interest of each com.
pany when you come to discuss the question of
maximum rates, because, of course, the question
of maximum rates must depend upon or be
affected by the question of classification or the
conditions under which the traffic is to be
carried. ...”
What we, in consultation amongst ourselves,
have thought would facilitate the operations of
the Committee would be, not to take the dis-
cussion of maximum rates until it has been
decided what those general principles are which
will be applicable to all the railway com-
panies alike (which is the intention and scope of
the Order); that the Committee should proceed
to discuss those, and that then you should call
upon the railway companies and upon the traders
. . . 9 April 1891.
What the Com- .
*g
to formulate in a certain sense to let you know
what their objections are to any particular por-
tions of those parts of the Bill, just exactly in
the same way as if, instead of being before a
Committee of this character, it were before a .
Grand Committee. Then opponents would have
to give notice of their objection to any particular
clause, and the Committee would know exactly
what it has before it. But if it is left at large
that anybody in the multitude of petitioners and
opponents, and it might be even in the multitude
of railway companies; I say if it is left at large,
so that at the last moment anybody, without
having given notice, is to start up to make a
suggestion of an amendment, we may be landed
in a discussion of which one does not very well
see how - the termination is to be foreseen.
Therefore, what I would venture to suggest is
that the Committee should divide the discussion
into, first, matter common to all the companies,
that you should deal with that as a common
matter, that not the North Western alone should
be entitled. Of course, we shall take care that
there are no repetitions, that one or other of us
shall represent the general interests of the
railway companies before the Committee ; that
the railway companies shall deal with that as a
general matter. And further that any trader
who may not be a petitioner against, for instance,
the London and North Western Provisional
Order Bill, but who is interested in regard to
these common principles, should be allowed to
formulate any suggestion or objection he has to
make, and have it discussed once for all. I do
11ot know whether your Grace quite follows
IQ 9.
Chairman.] Certainly.
Mr. Pope.] For instance you may take the
southern companies. There are some petitioners
against the Provisional Orders relating to the
southern companies. There are also petitioners
against the Great Eastern, and there are others
against the Great Western. If you were to
take the North Western Provisional Order
alone, then in strictness we ought to confine the
discussion by the petitioners to their petitions
against that Order; but that would leave open,
on a matter which is common to all the com-
panies, the discussion hereafter of a petition
relating to the same matter upon some other
Provisional Order. Therefore, in order that the
whole thing may be discussed once for all, and
the scheme followed of discussing as far as
possible certain conditions which are to be
common to all the companies, it seems to us that
it would be desirable that that should be dealt
with as one matter, and that all parties, both
railway companies and traders, should be entitled
to submit, with adequate and proper notice to
the committee, any amendments that they might
have to suggest with regard to that.
The result would therefore be if the Com-
mittee think that would be the true view, that
you should proceed to discuss first of all Parts I.,
II., and IIſ. of the Provisional Orders, that
which is common to all the companies; call upon
the railway companies all of them, and each of
them, to say whether they propose any amend-
ment in any one of the 26 sections which are
covered by Parts I., II., and III. Let the traders
do the same. Then we shall know what we have
(0.1.) e -
to:
1ſ)
MINUTEs of EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
\
9 April 1891.
to discuss, and then the Committee will be able
to agree upon, say, a form of provisional order
which would be binding on all the companies
alike, having heard all the partles.
manner we can proceed to deal with the question
of classification.
Then when we come to the question of maxi-
mum rates, inasmuch as the circumstances of each
company would be differently affected, it might
be by these common conditions or by the common
classification, then each company must take care
of itself and each class of trader would take
care of itself so as to discuss the matter fully and
completely.
That has appeared to us, your Grace, after very
careful consideration, as the most likely way to
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion during the
limits of the present Session.
Chairman.] I think the Committee would
quite go with you upon the view which you have
now stateſ.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace
allow me to say a word on behalf of the traders?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am appearing for a
very large body of traders. What my learned
friend Mr. Pope has said of course he has said
on behalf of the railway companies. What my
learned friend has said as I understand the pro-
posal, is that, contrary to what your Grace has
suggested that one schedule should be taken, all
the schedules should be taken together. Now
that raises a difficulty. I understood Mr. Pope
to suggest that all the schedules should be taken
together.
Earl of Camperdown.] Only in so far as they
relate to the same or common interests.
Mr. Pope.] In so far as they are, in point of
fact, in the same words in every Provisional
Order.
Chairman.] In point of fact, Part I., and .
Part III. of the Orders apply to all the railway
companies alike.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so, your Grace.
Chairman.] But Part II. applies differently to
each. w-
Mr. Pope.] Yes, that is so,
Chairman.] Then the suggestion is that we
should take Part I. and Part III. together, and
discuss Part II. afterwards.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is a difficulty
about that, your Grace. If you take one sche-
dule as typical, and as being as my learned
ſriend says the same for all, then the traders
who are interested would only have to pay one
set of House fees; but if you take eight sche-
dules together the result will be that we shall
have to pay eight sets of House fees every day.
I do not say that those would be the only onerous
fees they would have to pay, but the Committee
will understand that there are also other matters
which would entail very heavy expenditure upon
the traders, w
I do not know whether your Grace would
follow the same course which was taken by the
---, - - -
Then in like
--- - --------- -- *
Board of Trade, which was this: they took as a
typical case, the case of the London and North
Western, and in so far as the schedule of the
London and North Western is concerned upon
Parts I., II., and III. as Mr. Pope says, it is
precisely the same as the schedule of the other
companies. So far as my clients are concerned,
I think, I can raise the whole of the questions
of principle upon the North Western schedule
just as well as upon any other. If your Grace
and the Committee decide against me, say upon
the question of terminals (I will not go into it
at greater length just now) upon the North
Western schedule, I shall not raise that point
upon the Chatham and Dover schedule, or upon
the South Eastern schedule; and if you decide
in my favour upon the North Western schedule,
then I think that any company, say, the Midland
or the South Eastern, would be foolish to raise
the same point upon their schedule. So that
you will effect exactly the same purpose at, I
...think, very much less expense of time; you will
keep the issue very much clearer by having one
company before you at a time, and the traders
who are affected by it ; and then you will be
able to decide the general principles upon that
one schedule instead of upon a variety.
With regard to what your Grace said as to
there being no preamble opposition, I am bound
to say that technically, of course, that is so.
There is no preamble, practically, to oppose.
But there are important matters of principle
upon which I, on behalf of the traders, and my
learned friends on behalf of the railway com-
panies, are diametrically opposed to each other.
I think your Grace will find that the traders are
far more in harmony with the Board of Trade
orders than the railway companies are. There-
fore it seems to me that the right course would
be that the railway companies should state their
case upon those general principles first, and let
us have a discussion and decision upon them.
Chairman.] That general
discussion is what
we wish to avoid. . -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you endeavour to
avoid it you will, I am afraid, involve yourselves
in even greater difficulty. What your Grace
suggested was to reduce it all to a matter of
clause, as I understood; to take Clause 1, say,
and see if there is any objection to that. *
Chairman.] Is there any one Bill which any
parties desire to see thrown out 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know. I say
distinctly, for the traders of this country, that
rather than see the modifications which the
railway companies propose, introduced, we would
prefer to see the Bill thrown out. If, on the
other hand, we had a choice of this Bill as pro-
moted by the Board of Trade, or no Bill, we
would say we prefer this Bill ; but at the same
time, my Lords, there are questions of principle
in this which are most important, and which
cannot be dismissed on clauses. And I venture
to think you would involve yourselves in a very
serious difficulty by going into them on clauses.
Might I give you an illustration ? The question
of maximum rates is the whole matter in this
question. The traders think that the rates
which have been allowed by the Board of Trade
are
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 11
9 April 1891.
are too high. You cannot decide, my Lords,
what are the proper maximum rates until you
have decided the general principle whether
terminals shall be allowed. -
Chairman.] I think the House of Lords has
done that already, has it not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not the House of
Lords, but the Court of Appeal has, in certain
cases, allowed them ; but that has been a very
limited allowance indeed, and you will find, I
think, that that will not relieve your Lordships
of the duty.
Chairman.] I think it does. However, we
have laid down for ourselves that the Board of
Trade shall open the case. We shall then at once
proceed with the Bills, and we believe that by that
means we shall come to a speedier termination
than if we followed the course which you are
suggesting.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, your Grace,
of course I am bound by your decision ; but I
am only suggesting that the shorter course pro-
bably would be to decide these questions of
principle first, otherwise you will have every
trader here upon almost every clause in each
Bill, and I am afraid that will, occupy an almost
interminable time.
Mr. Pope.] Might I venture to suggest to
your Grace that the defect in my learned
friend's submission to the Committee is that he
does not represent every opponent ; he only
represents some, no doubt, very important op-
ponents; and now, unless he is prepared to say
that those petitioners who desire to raise ques-
tions of condition or of classification, to use the
phraseology, in Parts I. and III., that is to say,
the parts which are common to all the Provi-
sional Orders, unless he can say that somebody
who is petitioning against say the Great Eastern
Provisional Order upon these two points is not
to be heard, and will not appear upon the Great
Eastern Order, because he has not petitioned
against the North Western, you must re-open
the question upon every Provisional Order.
It is manifest that it is impossible that you can
dispose, upon the London and North Western
Order only, of the interests of petitioners who
are not petitioners against it and cannot be
heard against it ; it is manifest that that cannot
be. Therefore the suggestion which I make of
dealing with the whole provisional orders by
taking what your Lordship roughly and cor-
rectly speaks of as Parts I. and III. the condi-
tions and classification, leaving Part II. which is
the maximum rates, to be discussed afterwards,
speaking of that as a general description of the
Bill it seems to me to be impossible that your
Lordships can once for all dispose of that matter
without admitting all petitioners whether against
any individual order or not. Therefore what
your Lordships can do to shorten the matter will
be this; not to deal with the matter as if we
were before an ordinary Private Bill Committee,
to take a clause, and allow everybody who has
petitioned to jump up and propose an amendment
which would be interminable; but if your
Lordships will call upon the opponents—and we
are all opponents—the railway companies and
the traders are each of them opponents to the
Provisional Orders as they stand ; to formulate
before your Lordships the amendments which
they propose, then you will know where you are
and what you are going to do. That is what we
would have to do if we were discussing it in
Grand Committee, and there can be no hardship
in doing that. Then if there is any petitioner
against the Great Eastern Order who does not
choose to formulate his proposed amendment on
the North Western Order you can refuse to hear
him when the Great Eastern Order comes up,
because he has had his chance and he has not
availed himself of it. But without that arrange-
ment practically I do not see how you are to
avoid interminable discussion upon every petition
against every Provisional Order.
Mr. Littler.] I should like to say one word
your Grace, for the South Eastern Company,
whom I represent. I am, with my learned friend
Mr. Pope, for the North Western. It is obvious
that all the companies can be heard against those
general conditions. When you come to the
South Eastern Order you can say, “We have
settled this on the North Western Order,” and
therefore I should be shut out from urging that
which I might reasonably urge. I might or I
might not on the North Western Order desire to
add something, and it may be that I may desire
to call my own general manager in support of
some particular proposition. Therefore it would
be absolutely impossible, I venture to submit, to
do other than let all the companies have a full
opportunity of being heard.
Mr. Bidder. May I be allowed simply to add
that all the railway companies share the views
which have been expressed by my learned friend
Mr. Pope 2 I appear for one of them, the Mid-
land. -
Mr. Saunders..] I appear for the London and
Brighton, and I may say that they feel the same.
Mr. Pope.] Would your Grace and the Com-
mittee assist us for a few moments so that we
may know exactly what we have to do. I
gather from what fell from your Grace that,
when once you are quite satisfied of the general
views which the department have entertained,
and have formulated in these Provisional Orders,
you will then adjourn until the day next week
upon which you have fixed to sit. I think my
learned friend, who represents the traders, and I
are agreed that it would facilitate matters if we
were to divide the discussion as I suggested.
The difficulty which he has suggested which is
one of expense, I think, is capable of adjustment
by arrangement, and does not now appear so
formidable as it did in the first instance. If your
Grace would kindly refer to a copy of the Pro-
visional Order I think you will see in one
moment what it was that I meant. According
to the frame of the Provisional Order, Parts I.,
II., and III. relate to one subject-matter. I
have no doubt the Committee have it in their
minds that there are three heads of inquiry:
conditions, classification, and maximum rates,
and that is a perfectly accurate view of the case ;
but when I spoke of Parts I., II., and III., 1
meant Parts I., II., and III. as drafted in the
Provisional Order, which had relation only to
(0.1.)
B 2 will
‘12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*
9 April 1891.
the first of those subject-matters of inquiry, the
conditions. Now I do not think it would be fair
either to my learned friend who represents the
traders, or even to the railway companies, to ask
them to formulate any amendments to maximum
rates until they know upon what conditions the
traffic is to be carried. Therefore it would, I
think, facilitate matters if we were to proceed
to the discussion of the Bill from Clause 1 to
Clause 26, which includes the whole of Parts I.,
II., and III., and which, in point of fact, is the
general enactment of the conditions applicable to
all the companies. Upon that I do not ask my
learned friend (I do not think it would be fair
to ask him until those questions are decided) to
formulate his objections either to maximum rates
or to classification; but what I will submit will
be this, that we should each of us be bound to
give notice to the Committee of the amendments
which each opponent suggests in that part of the
Bill, which is from Clause 1 to Clause 26,
Clause 27 being in the case of the one 1 have
in my hand. “This schedule shall apply to the
Midland”; Clause 27 of the North Western is,
“This schedule shall apply to the North Western,”
and so on. Now your Lordships see that unless
some such formulation is attempted, and I think
as regards my learned friend's clients, he can
see no difficulty in dealing with that part of the
Bill at a comparatively early date; unless that
is done your Lordships would have great diffi-
culty in knowing what the points for discussion
were. Everybody knows what his views are
about it, and if he would only in the most
informal way give notice what the points that he
proposes to raise may be, then we should know
what we have got to discuss and would direct
our evidence and our observations to those points,
and would leave untouched matters which are
either matters of agreement or matters upon
which we do not desire to raise any amend-
ment.
Let me just illustrate for one moment what I
mean. If your Lordships will turn to the Pro-
visional Order you will find that Section 3 of
Part I. provides: “The maximum station terminal
is the maximum charge,” and so on. That would
raise the general question of station terminals.
Now, my learned friend represents a number of
influential clients, who do not object to station
terminals theoretically, provided that due allow-
ance is made for them out of the maximum rates.
lm other words, they see that it is in their
interest that terminals should be distinguished
from the charge for conveyance. That is the
ordinary traders’ interest, no doubt; but there
are a number of petitioners who do not say
“There shall be a station terminal; all we want
is that it should be defined, and should not be
used in extension of the maximum rate ; ” but
who say, “There shall be no station terminal at
all.” What we want is that your Grace and the
Committee should have before you the proposi-
tion which we can discuss—is there to be a
station terminal 2
Chairman.] That, again, I think has been
decided, has it not ? *
Mr. Pope.] That would be unquestionably the
way in which I, on the part of the railway com-
panies, would submit it; but then the petitioners
will contend that that is not a decision binding
upon this Committee, or that it is not a decision
based upon reasonableness and justice; and I do
not know how we are to exclude them from say-
ing that if they think it worth while to say it,
I am referring to station terminals merely as an
illustration of the sort of difference that there
might be. &
Now, if after the adjournment we have before
us the amendments from Clause 7 to Clause 26,
which are suggested by any opponent, then as ,
we come to each clause these objections can be
considered, and others, which are made upon the
spur of the moment, must be excluded. In fact,
all parties would then know what they have got
to discuss, and to what they have to direct their
evidence. I do not know whether my learned
friends would think it reasonable that we should
each of us be bound to formulate our amend-
ments by Tuesday. We can do so, certainly,
for the railway companies, and I think my
learned friend for the traders can, because, of
course, they have all been considered and thought
out, and are as familiar to us as the frame of the
Bill itself. Therefore there will be no difficulty
for us in saying what amendments we suggest
should be made in the form of those clauses, and
I do not think there ought to be for them.
But then comes this question. I daresay the
traders know pretty well what the railway com-
panies desire; but of course we do not know
what the traders desire. Some of them desire
one thing, some another. Therefore I am afraid
that it might involve an application to the Com-
mittee to give either of us a little time to con-
sider what the effect of the proposed amendments
may be. Whether your Grace would adjourn
further than Tuesday, in order to shorten the
matter, I will not undertake to say; but, at all
events, there should be a date fixed within which
all the amendments proposed to that part of the
Bill ought to be formulated and stated to the
Committee.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace, I think the
proposal my learned friend makes is a reasonable
one, that by a certain day both the railway com-
panies and the traders should have, in writing,
something like what they propose, but I do not
think it would be reasonable that we should have
to put in the exact form of words, and be bound
for ever by that form of words. My learned
friend covered that by using the word “informal.”
But that we should clearly say to your Grace,
and to the other side what we desire to have done
in this schedule, and that that should be laid at a
later date in writing, before the Committee,
before you begin, I have not the least objection
to that. Indeed, your Lordships will find that
the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, which
is a conference composed of all the towns in
Lancashire and Cheshire, and a large number of
trading associations besides have in their petition
set out exactly what my learned friend desires,
they point out exactly what the schedule should
be in their view. Other traders, I think, could,
if you give them a reasonable time, do the same,
even if your Grace went on on Tuesday next to
hear the matter. Perhaps you might say that
the amendments to be suggested should be put in
before some other day, not Tuesday.
Mr. Pope.]
ON RAILwAY RATES AND CHAIRGES PROVISION AI, ORI) ER BILLS. | 3
9 April 1891.
Mr. Pope.] But how can we go on ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We might go on suf-
ficiently without every amendment being put in,
because if we suggested amendments up to a
certain point we could discuss them. Of course,
I am entirely in your Lordship's hands about
that. -
There is one other matter your Grace that I
should like to mention, and that is this. Our
main contention, of course, is, with reference to
rates. The Board of Trade have in the report
which was made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh
and Mr. Courtenay Boyle said that to some
extent the maximum rates should be founded
upon the actual rates. After that report was
made the traders approached the Board of Trade
to get their assistance and to ask the railway
companies to furnish details of what the actual
rates were. That was promised by the Board of
Trade ; the Board of Trade, of course, kept their
word, and the railway companies promised to
give us the returns. Those returns were
promised on the 7th of January, and we have
not got them yet. They were expected from
time to time. I do not say that there is any
blame to be thrown upon the railway companies;
but we have not got them. I believe my Lord
Balfour of Burleigh has got one to-day, but I
think that he is lucky; I have not yet seen them.
Of course, until we have had an opportunity of
looking at them, we are not in a position to
formulate any proposition as to rates, and there-
fore my learned friend very properly said that
his proposal only referred to the first part of the
Provisional Order, the schedule, and not to
maximum rates. I dare say, however, that the
railway companies will let us have copies of those
returns at once, so that we may look at them and
see how we stand.
Mr. Ram.] Will your Grace allow me to raise
one point shortly, which is rather a preliminary
point. It is with regard to some of the evidence
which will have to be brought before you here.
What 1 and some of my learned friends desire to
know is whether your Grace thinks that we
are to be at liberty to use to any extent the evi-
dence which was so largely elicited in the West-
minster Town Hall; or whether we must prove
orally here before this Committee any point that
we desire to prove 2 I should suppose that the
convenient couse (the shorter course) would be
that we should be allowed to utilise the evidence
which has been obtained to so very large an ex-
tent. and it would probably save time very much
indeed if your Grace thinks it open to the Uom-
mittee to receive that evidence.
Mr. Poyser.] Might I also ask your Grace
this: My learned friend Mr. Pope and the
learned counsel for the Mansion House Com-
mittee have expressed their views about the
giving in of objections or amendments to the
Bill: but acting for independent traders not be-
longing to the Mansion House Committee l
should like to ask your Grace whether we are
limited in our petitions to the particulars that we
put in, because we have set out in the petitions
our objections to the Bill. We do not wish to
make amendments ourselves; we want to deal
with the Bill as it stands. In the petitions we
say they are objectionable, and we want to point
out those objections. We have done that in our
petitions, and I do not know why we should have
put upon us the necessity of stating again the
particulars, seeing that we have already set them
out in our petition.
Chairman.] Surely you must state what you
have to say in support of your petition, or do you
mean that we ought to be satisfied with taking
your petition and reading it?
Mr. Poyser.] That you should take the petition,
my Lord, where the petition gives the details on
which we object to the proposals of the Bill. In
the petition which I represent here, we have set
out what our objections are to the Bill as it
stands, and we do not wish to propose to the Com-
mittee, and it is not our duty to suggest, amend-
ments to the Bill.
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend is simply
making general objections, and now when we
conſe to discuss how those objections are to be
carried out by amendments he declines to formu-
late his objections.
Mr. Poyser.] That is what I want to know,
whether we should not be allowed to show the
hardship of the rates which are already put in
form. It may be all very well for the Mansion
House Committee, it may be all very well for
one or two large bodies, to put extra documents.
before the Committee, but for individual traders
we think it a very great hardship that we are not
to be allowed to point out what our objections
are to the clauses as proposed either by one or
the other.
Chairman.] It appears to me that you wish to
state your objections and then leave the matter
altogether floating for us to deal with it.
Mr. Poyser.] There will probably be objec-
tions by the railway companies, objections by
the Mansion House Committee, and it may be,
objections by the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference. Then my Lord, what I say is that we
object to the Bill as it is, and that we ought to
be allowed to be heard, I submit, on the pro-
positions made before this Committee to say
whether we object to them and whether we find
that they are hurtful to the traders, or whether
we find that they are not hurtful to the traders.
We ought not to have our hands tied, with all
respect to your Grace, and to be told that
“Because you have not sent in particulars of
Some amendment you suggest therefore you are
not to be heard upon the objections that you
have raised in the petition which you have put
in.”
Mr. Bidder.] A gentleman who objects either
wishes the Bill to be altogether thrown out or
he wishes it to be altered. If he wishes it to be
altered he can surely say in what respect.
Chairman.] If you object to any particular
clause of the Bill it surely will be your duty to
show first of all how it injures you; and secondly,
how you propose that that injury should be
remedied.
Mr. Poyser.] That my Lord we propose to do
in the discussion which arises before the Com-
mittee.
(0.1.)
B 3 Chairman.]
l 4 MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
Chairman.] You can put in your objections.
Mr. Poyser.] Take the petition we have
already lodged. . -
Chairman.] You can put your objections be-
fore the Committee in the manner in which it
has been suggested by Mr. Pope and Mr. Balfour
Browne.
Mr. Hambury.] Do you object to putting in
those objections by a given time; is that the
drift of your objection ?
Mr. Poyser.] No, Sir ; what I object to is limit-
ing our right of objection by some particulars
which are to be given now, suggesting new
clauses instead of the actual élauses as they now
exist. Why should we be called upon to make
a new Bill P
Chairman.] But you are not called upon to
do so.
Earl Camperdown..] You will have the oppor-
tunity that everybody will have when any pro-
position is made of speaking about it.
Mr. Poyser.] About that proposition, that is
what I want to ascertain.
Earl Camperdown.] Yes,
Mr. Poyser.] If that is so, if it is distinctly
understood that although we do not put in any
competitive clauses we are to be heard upon
either the amended clauses of the railway com-
panies or the original clauses.
Chairman.] There is no competitive clause in
the case.
Mr. Poyser.] As I understood, the Committee
suggested the particulars that we are to give
are not particulars of objections but particulars
of new clauses.
Mr. Pope.] I am not in the least desirous to
shorten the inquiry in the interests of the rail.
way companies or of anybody else, but it will be
for the Committee to decide whether they will
have a number of free lances discoursing about
all over the the subject, or whether they will do
what every tribunal does, ask the disputant
parties to define what the dispute is about.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just say one
word. My learned friend’s metaphor about free
lances discoursing was rather mixed, but I pass
that by.
Mr. Pope.] Discoursing is a good English
word for a tournament.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend Mr.
Poyser is right, and Mr. Pope is wrong. Every
petitioner has a right before your Lordships’
House and the other House, to be heard on his
petition; and that is all that Mr. Poyser is
asking.
Mr. Pope..] Are you representing Mr. Poyser?
Mr. Baſfour Browne.] I beg your pardon, I
am not.
Mr. Pope.] Then I do not see how you
should come to support him.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All that he is asking
is to be heard on his petition. Your Lordships
will judge when he comes to read it to you,
whether it is specific enough to found the ques-
tion that he proposes to ask upon it, and if it is
not he will share the fate of all other petitioners,
and be told that it has not been raised in his
petition, and therefore he is shut out. But
what my learned friend Mr. Pope is trying to
do, and I think it is not quite fair, is to try, as
Mr. Poyser says, to cut down his petition by
making him put in another. . '
Chairman.] Surely what you agreed to upon
the part of the traders was that it would be con-
venient for everybody that the objections which
they had to clauses should be set out and laid
before us ; that is all we are asking from Mr.
Poyser. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think I can do that
for my side, and I think we c in assist you in so
doing, but other individuals and interests may
have the greatest difficulty in doing it. They
say we do not want to make a new Bill at all;
we object to this Bill.
Mr. Pope.] Do you represent other bodies 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Yes, I do. I have a
great number of other individual clients, besides
those I have named.
Mr. Poyser.) We have set out about fifty
objections definitely in our petition, and it seems
rather hard upon us that alternative or second
particulars are to be sent in, that we should
have to repeat our petition.
Mr. Pope.) You must repeat the petition,
that is all.
Chairman.] You can make another copy of
your petition.
Mr. Poyser.] If that will satisfy your Grace
we shall be content.
Chairman.] I do not think we can limit the
time for receiving these amendments to Tuesday :
we should like to have them in as early as
possible, but there are such a great number of
parties who are interested in this that we do
not want to cut out any one who has a right to
appear; at the same time we want to confine it
to as narrow limits as we can.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens. Perhaps your Grace
would allow me to mention one class of peti-
tions, which I do not think has found its way
into the discussion yet ; that is, the case raised
by petitioners against individual railway bills;
that is to say, by petitioners who are only inci-
dentally concerned.
Mr. Pope.] You were not in the room, but
we discussed that nearly an hour-and-a-half
back.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Forgive me; I have
been in the room nearly all the time listening to
my learned friends, and I have not said a word
yet; therefore I think I am entitled to speak
now. I do not propose to discuss my special
point in any way at this moment; all I am
anxious to bring before your Grace is this, that
that there are questions raised by individual
petitioners against the North Western Bill or
Provisional Order as a separate interest entirely
apart and distinct from the general question, al-
though the discussion of the general question
might incidentally affect them. For instance,
my case would be a case mainly of omission on
the part of the Bill, not so much that I am
quarrelling
ON RAILWAY RATES
ANTD CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. l Aſ
9 April 1891.
quarrelling with particular clauses, although I
must do that for the purpose of raising the case,
but from the fact that a point to which great
importance has been attached has been over-
looked. I think it right to mention that at this
point, for the purpose of showing that there are
other questions which will arise,
Mr. Pope.] You will have to give notice of
those particular points, and they will be discussed
as a matter of course along with the rest.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Why should I, with
great respect, give notice to discuss a point
which has been omitted from the Order?
Mr. Pope.] Then you propose to amend the
Order by proposing to include that,
Chairman.] I think we had better go on.
Mr. Ram.] May I ask your Grace for a
ruling as to the point which I raised with
respect to the evidence 2
Chairman.] Do you mean that we are to take
as read all the evidence that was given at the
Board of Trade Inquiry P
Mr. Ram.] No, your Grace, not that at all.
What I meant was this . Of course the whole
Provisional Order is based upon the evidence
which was submitted at great length before Lord
Balfour of Burieigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle.
The Board of Trade arrived at certain conclu-
sions on that evidence, and they propose certain
enactments on that evidence. Some of those
enactments are going to be impugned either by
the railway companies or by the traders; and
instead of having to call witnesses here to prove
over again different matters that have been
already proved, I only suggest that it should be
open to us, to all, and everybody, to advert to
such portions of the evidence they obtained as
may be necessary to prove that point.
Chairman.] May I ask whom you appear
for P
Mr.
Coal Owners in South Wales and Monmouth-
shire.
Chairman.] If it is a matter in dispute I
think you are bound to prove it before us ; we
cannot accept what has been proved before
Lord Burleigh as having been proved before us.
Mr. Ram.] Very well, my Lord.
Chairman.] You will have to prove all your
Cà.S.C.
Mr. Ram.] I was only suggesting that it
might be possible that a certain amount of the
evidence which was so taken, and very carefully
taken, might be read, not for the purpose of
proving what was there said, but for the purpose
of founding an argument.
Chairman.] I think we must take it that you
must prove your case.
Mr. Ram.] Very good, my Lord. I have
only raised the point so that we might know.
OPENING STATEMENT.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] I appear for the Board
of Trade, instructed by them to explain to the
Committee as shortly as I can consistently with
Ram.] I appear for the Association of
accuracy and clearness, the decisions at which
they have arrived upon the points which were in
effect, as I think I shall show, submitted to them
for decision by the legislature, and to explain the
provisions of the Provisional Orders to which the
Bills which have been referred to this Committee
propose to give effect The discussion which has
already taken place has cleared the ground of
one of the topics that I would have had other-
wise to have explained to the Committee, and
that was the attitude which the Board of Trade
adopt with reference to the proposals which are
contained in the Provisional Orders. As has
been intimated practically by your Grace, the
Board of Trade are not promoters of these Bills
in the ordinary sense of the word ; they have,
as I can show your Grace and the Committee,
had imposed upon them by Parliament a specific
duty in case of disagreement between the parties
who were interested in these questions, and upon
whom certain duties were imposed and to whom
certain privileges were given under the Act.
In the case of their disagreement the duty was
imposed upon the Board of Trade to decide and
to embody their decisions in a Provisional Order,
and to introduce the Provisional Order into the
Bills which are now before the Committee.
I do not think I can properly make the
principles which have guided the Board of
Trade in the framing of these Provisional
Orders quite clear without referring very shortly
to the provisions of the 24th section of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, which direct
what is to be done with the provisions which
have been observed and which to some extent do
lay down, but to a far greater extent do not lay
down, the specific principles which were to guide
the decision of the Board of Trade upon matters
of controversy. Now the Committee may recol-
lect that the 24th section of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act under which these Bills have
been introduced provided that each railway
company was within a definite time to submit a
revised classification of merchandise traffic with
a schedule of maximum rates and charges applic-
able thereto, and was to state fully in the
Schedules the nature and amounts of all the
terminal charges proposed to be authorised in
respect of each class of traffic and the circum-
stances under which the terminal charges were
proposed to be made. And then this principle
was laid down in the Act; that in the
determination of the terminal charges of any
railway company regard should be had only
to the expenditure reasonably necessary to
provide the accommodation in respect of
which such charges were made, irrespective
of the outlay which may have been actually
incurred by the railway company in pro-
viding that accommodation. Those were the
principles which the legislature laid down
with respect to the revised classification of
merchandise traffic and schedules of maximum
rates and charges which were to be deposited.
The next step was that the deposited classi-
fications and schedules were to be published,
and that objectors might lodge objections.
Then the next step that was prescribed was
that, if possible, an agreement was to be
come to between the Board of Trade and the
railway companies after consideration and hear-
(0.1.)
ing
B 4
16 MINUTES OF
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FOR E
- - - - - - - ---------------------- - - - ----- - - - - - - * *------
ing of objections, and the consideration of
all the matters which might be urged on
both sides. It is not necessary further to
say anything upon that, because in the
case of the nine Bills which are before
this Committee there was no agreement.
Then, in the case of disagreement the pro-
visions of the enactment were specific ; and the
matter is so important that I venture to call the
Committee’s special attention to the very words
of that part of the enactment which is material.
“If, after hearing all parties whom the Board of
Trade consider to be entitled to be heard before
them, the Board of Trade are unable to come
to an agreement with the railway company
as to the railway company’s classification and
schedule, the Board of Trade shall determine
the classification of traffic which, in the opinion
of the Board of Trade ought to be adopted by
the ailway company, and the schedule of
maximum rates and charges, including all ter-
minal charges proposed to be authorised appli-
cable to such classification, which would, in the
opinion of the 13oard of Trade, be just and
reasonable, and shall make a report, to be sub-
mitted to Parliament, containing such observa-
ticas as they may think fit in relation to the
said classification and schedule, and calling atten-
tion to the points therein on which differences
which have arisen have not been arranged.”
Then there was to be an interval after the report
to Parliament of a recess, and at the commence-
ment of the next Session the Board of Trade were
to “embody in a Provisional Order such classifi-
cation and schedule as in the opinion of the
Board of Trade ought to be adopted by the rail-
way company, and procure a Bill to be introduced
into either House of Parliament for an Act to
confirm the Provisional Order which shall be set
out at length in the schedule to the Bill.” The
Committee will see that what the legislature laid
down was that in case of disagreement the Board
of Trade were to determine, and that what they
were to determine was what they thought just
and reasonable, and that what they were to em-
body in the Provisional Order was the classifica-
tion and schedule that in the opinion of the Board
of Trade ought to be adopted by the railway
company.
Now I think that I may further briefly call
attention to what actually was done and the
principles upon which the Board of Trade have
acted, to point out that the duty which the
legislature imposed was practically three things,
first of all, the codification and the reduction
into order of the immense mass of scattered
provisions relating to the charging powers of the
companies ; secondly, the revision of the existing
maximum charges, and, thirdly, in respect to some
matters, particularly terminals, that charges which
hitherto have not been fixed or defined should
be for the future fixed and defined.
Now those being the principles laid down for
the guidance of the determining tribunal, which
is what the Board of Trade was in this matter,
I just wish to call the attention of the Committee
to the manner in which those principles have
been carried out. The schedules were deposited
in February 1889, and by the month of June all
the objections had been lodged. Now a large
9 April 1891.
number of objections were objections to classifica-
tion of traffic, and those were cleared out of the
way to a great extent by conferences and negotia-
tions, and, to summarise it in one word, by
agreement. As regards the schedule the Board
of Trade determined that the hearing of the
objections should be in public ; and there were
also points of difference of classification which
were reserved over for further hearing. Accord-
ingly an inquiry was opened in the Westminster
Town Hall, off which the Committee have already
incidentally heard in the preliminary discussion;
and I think one may say that this matter was
gone into as exhaustively as possible. In all
there were 85 sittings, 12 of which were on
classification ; and 211 witnesses were examined,
of whom 178 were traders. The inquiry having
terminated the Board of Trade proceeded to the
performance of what was the next duty, after
hearing all objectors, which was, to endeavour to
come to an agreement with the railway com-
panies; and for that purpose the Board of Trade
drew up a draft classification, and draft schedule,
and submitted it to the railway companies in
the early part of August of last year. I need
not refer the Committee to the cºrrespondence
and negotiations which took place between the
Board of Trade and the railway companies,
suffice it to say that as regards these nine com-
panies there was no agreement arrived at ; and
it became the duty of the Board of Trade then
to lay upon the table of the Houses of Parliament
a report, and with the report a classification of
merchandise traffic and schedule of maximum
rates and charges which they considered just and
reasonable. That was done upon the 15th of
August of last year. Perhaps I may just call
your attention, as it is very short, to what the
words of the report to Parliament were. The
Board of Trade state that “ having considered
the classification of merchandise traffic and the
schedule of maximum rates applicable thereto
submitted by the company,” that is by each com-
pany, “ and having also communicated with the
railway company and persons who lodged
objections thereto ; having heard all the parties
whom they considered entitled to be heard before
them respecting the classification, and schedule,”
they report as follows: “That they have been
unable to come to an agreement with the railway
company as to the railway companies’ classifica-
tion and schedule, and have consequently deter-
mined the classification of traffic which ought to
be adopted by the railway company, and the
schedule of maximum rates and charges, including
terminal charges, which as at present advised the
|Board of Trade think just and reasonable.” Then
they further state that “the Board of Trade will
employ the time available before the commence-
ment of the next Session of Parliament in con-
sidering any facts and figures which may be
laid before them, with a view of enabling the
Board of Trade to embody in a Provisional Order
the classification and schedule which, in the
opinion of the Board of Trade, ought to be adopted
by the railway company, and which may be
accepted by the railway company.”
I have already mentioned to the Committee
that under the provisions of the Act of Parlia-
ment there was a recess provided, obviously for
future negotiation. The interval which took
place
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 17
9 April 1891.
place between the close of last Session and the
commencement of the present Session was
utilised by the Board of Trade in further
negotiation, further discussion, and further con-
sideration of the question. The result has been
that there have been certain inodifications made
in the classification and schedule as submitted to
Parliament, some in furtherance of the views
thrust upon the Board of Trade by the railway
companies, some in furtherance of the views
thrust upon the Board of Trade by the traders.
But I think that I am not wrong in stating that
the general principles which are stated in the
report apply, generally speaking, to the classifica-
tion and schedule as ultimately determined upon
by the Board of Trade for submission to Parlia-
ment as well as to the classification and schedule
as annexed to the report.
That is how the matter comes before the Com-
mittee; and now I have only to proceed very
shortly to explain to the Committee what the
determinations of the Board of Trade have been
on these questions, and very shortly to call atten-
tion to the provisions of the classification and
schedule, using for that purpose the classification
and schedule of the London and North Western
Railway ; and also to explain while doing so, by
reference to the report, the principles which have
guided the Board of Trade in the decision at
which they have arrived.
As the Committee have already gathered,
from incidental remarks which have been made,
the classification and schedule which are embodied
in each Provisional Order consist of three divi-
sions. I use advisedly the word “divisions,”
because the divisions are, for the purpose of
logical arrangement, divided into parts. There
is, first of all, the division consisting of 27 general
conditions; really and truly, as far as practical
matters go, they are 24, because three of them
are merely formal. Then come the rate columns,
of which each division is peculiar to each railway
company. Then there is the classification, which
is again, like the conditions, general; and the
same for each company.
Dealing with the classification first, there is
one general remark to be made, and that is this :
that the classification follows very much in its
arrangement, and in the names that are given to
the classes, the classification of the Railway
Clearing House; and to that extent, as far as
regards its arrangements and form, the form of
classification submitted by the railway companies
has been adopted. I think I may say that the
change which is inaugurated, because, of course,
there is a change as regards the details of classi-
fication and the arrangement of the classes of
traffic, has been effected with as little disarrange-
ment of that which everybody who will have to
use it knows, as possible.
The general conditions (I am now speaking of
them quite generally) aim at this: the carrying
out of what I have already indicated was the
principle laid down by the legislature, namely,
the codification and reduction into order of the
charging powers which are now scattered in an
immense number of Acts of Parliament, the pre-
scribing of what the charges are to be, and the
making perfectly exhaustive the conditions as to
charging to which those who send merchandise
traffic for carriage are to be subject. That, I
apprehend, is not the least important part of the
provision which has been introduced into Parlia-
ment, namely, in the interests of traders, and I think
I may say, in the interests of every one, reducing
the conditions under which merchandise traffic
is to be carried into a short compass, defining
them and making them exhaustive.
The rate columns, which is the remaining divi-
sion, are divided into parts; and it will be found
that the first part contains maximum rates and
charges authorised in respect of the merchandise
comprised in the eight classes of classification ;
the second and third parts contain maximum
rates and charges authorised in respect of animals
and carriages; the fourth part contains excep-
tional charges; the fifth part (as to which I shall
have to say a word in detail presently) relates to
perishable articles to be conveyed by passenger
train ; and the sixth part relates to what are
generally called “ smalls,” that is, small parcels.
One other word before I leave the rate columns
generally, because I shall have to say a very
short word about them in detail; and that is this:
for purposes of convenience there have been
embodied in the rate columns any conditions
which apply to any one particular company.
I will give you an illustration from the London
and North Western schedule, in which it is pro-
vided that there are certain special rates for
Runcorn Bridge.
Chairman.] What is your page 2
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] Page 8, looking at it
sideways; it is provided that “the Runcorn
Bridge is to be calculated as nine miles, and the
Junction Railway, authorised by the Stockport,
Disley, and Whaley Bridge Railway Act, 1855,
is to be calculated as three-quarters of a mile.”
There is something of the same kind in the
Great Western schedule as regards the Severn
Tunnel. As a matter of convenience, any special
provisions of that kind have been put into the
rate columns; so that it is only in the rate
columns that provisions which apply to only one
railway company may be found; and therefore
the discussion upon conditions and the discussion
upon classification may be general.
Those are the few general remarks I have to
make with respect to the three divisions as a
whole. Now I just have to call attention to
them separately, and perhaps for convenience, as
being the shortest way to deal with them, I may
just approach the subject (although it occurs
last as a division) of classification, simply to
explain to the Committee what the views of the
Board of Trade are in reference to this subject.
For convenience I will quote a short passage,
which shows the views of the Board of Trade,
from the Report which the Board of Trade sub-
mitted to Parliament. It is on page 17 of the
Report. The passage is as follows: “As we
have stated above, a sufficient number of ob-
jections remained after the conferences between
the traders and the companies to make it our
duty to go carefully through the deposited
classifications article by article. We held 12
sittings for this purpose, and a large number of
traders attended, and much practical information
was given to us, which, we believe, has enabled
us to arrive at a reasonably fair classification.
We have not altered the division into eight
(0.1.) e
C classes,
18 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
classes, proposed by the railway companies,
Experience of a very large number of years
during which the Railway Clearing House
classification has been in force on the railways
north of the River Thames is a strong reason
for the maintenance of that number. € WGT6
not furnished with any circumstances of such
paramount importance as would justify a de-
parture from the results of practical experience.
We have also adopted the order and the names
of the classes, with a small difference, that that
which was known as Class S in the Railway
Clearing House classification will in the future.
be known as Class C. While there are no
strong reasons for leftering the first three classes,
and numbering the last five, which can be
logically maintained, having regard to the altera-
tions which we have made, we are of opinion
that the present names of the classes are so well.
understood by traders generally, that there is no
sufficient ground for altering them. In fixing
the position of articles in particular classes, we
have been mainly, but not wholly, guided by
the Railway Clearing House classification. We
have also had regard to the following important
principles: value (including damageability and
risk), weight in proportion to bulk, facility for
loading, mass of consignments, and necessity for
handling. It would not be possible to state with
any degree of accuracy the proportionate value
to be attached to each ; but a reference to our
proceedings will show that these great factors
were brought before us with various degrees of
persistence upon nearly all the principal articles
which formed the subject of our discussion.
While we have not been able to make the
minute sub-divisions, or to impose the detailed
regulations, which have been four:d necessary as
regards the Clearing House classification, we
have endeavoured, as far as possible, to make the
classification a working classification which will
stand practical test; we do not, however, con-
sider that there is anything in the Act of 1888,
or that there can be properly put in a Provisional
Order anything which will prevent the railway
companies from undertaking, subject, of course,
to the law of undue preference, to carry an
article which we have placed say in Clause 4 at
the rate and under the conditions applicable to
Class 3 or to Class 2. We have altered the
proposals of the railway companies in one not
unimportant respect. In the schedules as de-
posited it was proposed that all unenumerated
articles should be carried as if they were in
Class 5, until they were dealt with by the Board
of Trade in the manner provided by Sub-section
11 of Section 24.” Sub-section 11 refers to the
articles which have not been brought into the
classification—omitted articles. “We have pro-
posed that in respect of such articles the companies
should only have power to make the charges
authorised in Class 3. We believe this is a fair
compromise. If there is an article accidentally
omitted from the classification, or as yet unknown
to trade which should be in Class 5, the railway
companies will, in their own interests, apply to
have the articles classified under Sub-section 11.
If, on the other hand, the article is of inferior
importance, the trader ought not to pay at a
higher rate than that of Class 3, during the time
necessary for a decision under the sub-section
referred to. The preparation of the classification.
has involved a careful consideration of a mass of
details, with which we do not deem it expedient
to encumber this Report. We believe that, on
the whole, the description is just and reasonable,
and, like the rate columns, and the clauses and
conditions, is such as will protect the interests
both of the traders and the railway companies.”
Perhaps, before leaving that point, I may just
point out that at the foot of the end of the Report
will be found the provision of Sub-section ll of
Section 24, which provides the procedure by
which any classification and schedule may be
amended by putting in anything which ought to .
be put in which has not been put in before.
The last paragraph but one of the Report refers
to the provision which is to apply until that has
been done, namely, that an unenumerated article
of that kind is to be in Class W., not in Class III.
So much for the classification; that is all I shall
have to say with reference to classification ; I
shall not have to hark back upon it at all.
Now, I will proceed to say a few words before
the Committee with reference to what really
comes, in the arrangement of the divisions, next
after classification, the general conditions. . As I
have already said, they are intended to be
exhaustive, and I think it is necessary that I
should just call the Committee's attention to the
actual provisions themselves. It will be seen,
first, if the Committee will take the London and
North Western Bill, and refer to page 3, that
Clauses 2, 3, 4, and 5, practically exhaust the
general charging powers of the railway com-
panies; they divide the charges which may be
made, subject to some very special exceptions
which come later, into these four classes; first of
all, the maximum conveyance rate in Clause 2;
the maximum station terminal, that is Clause 3;
the maximum service terminals which are in
Clause 4, and the special charges which are
in Clause 5. The maximum conveyance rate,
the maximum station terminal, the maximum
service terminals, and the special charges ap-
plicable to the different classes of the classifica-
tion, really subject to certain exceptions, define
exhaustively what are the charging powers.
Now, I think I must read to the Committee,
I shall be really shortening matters, they are
short clauses, what those four clauses are. The
maximum rate for conveyance is defined as
“ the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise by
merchandise train; and, subject to the excep-
tions and provisions specified in this schedule,
includes the provision of trucks by the company.
Provided that (a) the provision of trucks is not
included in the maximum rates applicable to
merchandise included in Class A. of the classifica-
tion, or to lime, or has lime in bulk, or salt in
bulk. (b) Where for the conveyance of mer-
clandise other than merchandise included in
Class A. of this classification, or lime, or has
lime in bulk, or salt in bulk, the company do
not provide trucks, the charge authorised for
conveyance shall be reduced by a reasonable
sum, which shall, in case of difference between
the company and the person liable to pay the
charge, be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade.” That defines
what is to be the conveyance rate. The
maximum
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PBOVISIONAL OR DE I: BILLS. 19
*-
9 April 1891.
maximum station terminal, is “the maximum
charge which the company may make to a
trader for the use of the accommodation (ex-
clusive of coal drops) provided, and for the
duties undertaken, for which no other provi-
sion is made in this schednle by the Company
at the terminal station for or in dealing with
merchandise, as carriers thereof, before or after
conveyance.” The maximum service terminals
are “the maximum charges which the company
may make to a trader for the following services
when rendered to or for a trader, that is to say,
loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering
merchandise, which charges shall in respect of
each service be deemed to include all charges
for the provision by the company of labour, ma-
chinery, plant, stores, and sheets.” Then there
is this provision: “Where merchandise conveyed
in a separate truck is loaded or unloaded else-
where than in a shed or building of the company,
the company may not charge to a trader any
service terminal for the performance by the com-
pany of any of the said terminal services if the
trader has requested the company to allow him
to perform the service for himself, and the com-
pany have unreasonably refused to allow him to
do so. Any dispute between a trader and the
company in reference to any service terminal
charged to a trader who is not allowed by the
company to perform for himself the terminal
service shall be determined by the Board of
Trade.” Just to complete that definition of
terminal charges, I would refer the Committee
to page 7, where “terminal station ” is defined.
“The term ‘terminal station means a station or
place upon the railway at which a consignment
of merchandise is loaded or unloaded before or
after conveyance on the railway, but does not
include any station or junction at which the mer-
chandise in respect of which any terminal is
charged has been exchanged with, handed over
to, or received from any other railway company,
or a junction between the railway and a siding
not belonging to the company, or any station
with which such siding may be connected, or any
dock or shipping place the charges for the use
of which are regulated by Act of Parliament.”
Now, those three clauses that I have read raise
a question which is one of the principal questions
of principle which were submitted to the Board
of Trade for decision, and upon which they have
decided, and I shall ask the Committee to allow
me to explain in their words, not mine, the
grounds upon which they arrived at their de-
cision, namely, that the terminal charges were
to be separated from the conveyance rates, and
were to be fixed as they have been fixed in the
schedule. If I may call the attention of the
Committee to a short passage from the Report,
it will explain in fewer words than mine, and
with great clearness, the grounds upon which
terminals have been settled in the way they have
in these schedules. At, I think, page 10 of the
Board of Trade's Report will be found the
passage to which I am going to refer. The
Report commences as follows: “Briefly speaking,
station terminals may be said to be charges made
for the use of the accomodation at stations; and
duties undertaken thereat, before or after con-
veyance, and service terminals to be charges
made for actual services (other than haulage)
performed in connection with conveyance. The
policy of the Legislature in respect of the powers
hitherto granted to railway companies in the
matter of terminals is very difficult to ascertain;
the clauses vary greafly. Upon certain sections
in certain Acts judicial decisions have been given;
these judicial decisions cannot be taken as of
general application or governing more than the
particular issues dealt with. The railway com-
panies have always claimed the right to charge
terminals; they have asserted that right in prac-
tice, and have based it not only on the words of
particular sections of particular statutes, but upon
their general right to be paid for accommodation
which they provide and services which they
render. On behalf of the traders, it was urged
by one section that no changes should be
authorised for station terminals at all; and by,
practically, the whole body of traders, that if
charges were authorised by Parliament for
station terminals, the maximum conveyance rate
should be, pro tanto, reduced, inasmuch as the
old statutory maxima were fixed with a view that
all the accommodation provided by the railway
companies, except such services as loading,
unloading and sheeting, &c., coming under the
head of service terminals would be included
thereunder. We do not think it our duty, or
within our power, to examine the bearing and
effect of the several judicial decisions given in
respect of terminals. We believe it to be adopted
as the Policy of Parliament in the Act of 1888,
that, in fixing the statutory maxima, station ter-
minals should be distinguished from the convey-
ance rate. Had it been otherwise we do not
think that the Legislature would have laid down
the lines upon which terminals should be fixed,
which it does in the words “ (Then this is a
quotation from the Act), “In the determination
of the terminal charges of any railway company
regard shall be had only to the expenditure
reasonably necessary to provide the accommoda-
tion in respect of which such charges are made,
irrespective of the outlay which may have been
actually incurred by the railway company in
providing that accommodation. We further
believe that that policy is sound. If station
terminals were not distinguished from conveyance
rates, two inequitable results would follow. In
the first place, traders who provide their own
station or siding accommodation would be liable
to the same charge for conveyance of merchandise
as traders making full use of the companies
stations ; and, in the second place, long-distance
traffic would be liable to be charged for terminal
accommodation more than short distance traffic,
without having any additional advantage. Con-
sequently, we have rejected the arguments that
station terminals should not be distinguished from
conveyance rates. As regards service terminals,
we found no indisposition on the part of the
traders to pay a reasonable sum for services
actually rendered. In the schedules, however,
deposited by the railway companies, the clause
dealing with service terminals was so drafted as
to enable the companies to make a maximum
charge whether services were rendered or not;
and it was proved before us that, in respect of
many sorts of merchandise, the services are per-
formed in varying degrees of entirety by the
traders. We accept the view which was, indeed,
(0.1.)
C 2 adopted
20 MINUTES OF
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
adopted by some of the principal managers and
representatives of the railway companies, that the
railway company should only have power to
charge in respect of services actually rendered.
In attempting to lay down statutory provisions
under which effect shall be given to this view,
we were at once met by a serious difficulty.
The railway companies, although willing to allow,
at their discretion, traders to enter their statoin
and other premises to perform any or all of the
services in respect of which charges could be
made, declared that It would be impossible to
give an absolute right of entry without produc-
ing intolerable confusion in the administration
of the stations and premises. It was argued,
indeed, that it would be impossible to deal
with this difficulty by providing for an elab-
orate code of bye-laws; but it appears to
be clear that circumstances of stations vary
so greatly that they could only be dealt
with by a system of bye-laws, which would
certainly be very complex, and would take long
experience properly to frame. In dealing with
this difficulty we have had the valuable assist-
ance of eminent counsel, on both sides, and we
believe that the clause we have framed furnishes
a fair solution. We propose to provide that, as
regards certain classes of merchandise, no service
terminal shall be chargeable if the trader has
requested the company to allow him to perform
services for himself and the company have
unreasonably refused to do so, with an appeal, in
case of any dispute, to the Board of Trade ’’
(I have already read to the Committee the
proviso to Clause 4, which gives effect to that
determination). “We have not, however, been
able to extend this proviso to merchandise loaded
or unloaded in the sheds or buildings of the
company. If every trader were allowed access
on his own behalf, and were allowed of his own
free will to load or unload his own merchandise
in trucks containing other merchandise, it would
be impossible for the companies to take reason-
able precautions for either safety or the con-
venience of their customers. To take a simple
instance: such an arrangement would enable a
trader to put a consignment of (say) matches
next to, and without proper consideration for, a
consignment of inflammable or combustible mer-
chandise. The limitation we have adopted would
give a trader, within reason, the option of per-
forming his own terminal services, in regard not
only to the rougher class of merchandise, such
as minerals and the coarser manufactured arti-
cles, but also as regards cattle. As regards the
amount of station terminals we may say at Once
that we have not been able to suggest a logical
basis for fixing the power to charge. Even if
the cost of every one of the stations in the United
Kingdom (numbering as they do some thousands)
and of the accommodation provided thereat could
be accurately ascertained (and this would be a
gigantic if not an impossible task), such a basis
would not be obtained unless that cost could
be apportioned between the several classes of
merchandise in respect of which the charges
would be authorised. In other words it
would be impossible to say how much of
the expenditure of capital and of income
was due to mineral traffic, how much to
goods traffic, and how much to animal
traffic, with anything approaching accuracy.
Three courses appeared possible .--(1.) Not to
fix any amount, but to authorise the railway
companies to make charges which should be
reasonable, with an appeal; (2) to fix an indi-
vidual maximum for station terminals, and for
service terminals at every station in the United
Kingdom ; and (3.) to fix a uniform maximum
based on as fair an average as it is possible to attain.
The first we rejected, because of the uncertainty
and the litigation which it would entail. The
second we rejected, as involving an investigation
of a magnitude entirely disproportionate to the
value of any possible result. The third we have
adopted as being, on the whole, fair to both
parties, though admittedly open to the objection
that an average which is probably high in one
place may be low in another. During the
inquiry, the railway companies put in tables of
figures showing the cost of providing the accom-
modation, and of rendering services at certain
stations selected by themselves as fairly repre-
sentative of the whole. The accuracy of the
figures was at once challenged, and believing it
to be impossible without local examination to
ascertain, even approximately, how far, if at all,
such figures could be taken as a basis, the Board
of Trade appointed an expert to examine and
report thereon. After careful consideration of
the report of the gentleman selected, as well as
the evidence adduced at the inquiry, we are of
opinion that the figures which we have inserted
in the Schedule as the maximum charge for
station terminals are, on the whole, fair both to
the railway companies and the traders. In their
Schedules, as deposited, the railway companies
proposed to obtain power to make maximum
charges for labour of the servants of the com-
pany in loading and unloading, covering and
uncovering merchandise, the share of general
charges and office expenses, specially attribu-
table to the classes of merchandise in respect of
which a service terminal is authorised, and in
the provision of machinery, plant, stores, and
sheets used in the services referred to therein.
We propose to limit the charge to services for
loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering, and
we believe that the amounts which we have assigned
to each class for these respective services, to be
such as will afford reasonable remuneralion for
the work done. That explains the principles
upon which the Board of Trade arrived at the
terminal charges. The terminals themselves I
need not trouble the Committee with the details
of; they will be found, of course, in the rate
eolumns; but what is explained in the passage
of the Report, I have read is the principle upon
which they have been fixed.
Now the only other matter in connection with
this part of general charging, is the part entitled
special charges; they are very short, and by
reading them I think they will practically speak
for themselves; they show on their face the
principle upon which this part of the conditions
has been framed. “The company may charge ’’
(this is clause five on page three) “for the
services hereunder mentioned, when provided for
or rendered to a trader at his request or for his
convenience, such reasonable sums, by way of
addition to the tonnage rate, as shall, in case of
difference between the company and the person
liable to pay the charge, be determined by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.
Provided,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVIEIONAL ORIDER BILLS. 21
t 9 April 1891.
Provided, that where before any service is pro-
vided for or rendered to a trader, he has given
notice in writing to the company that he does
not require it, the service shall not be deemed to
have been provided or rendered at the trader's
request, or for his convenience.” The principle
is plain upon its face, that the services when
rendered, as a lawyer would say, at the express
or implied request of the trader of which he has
had the benefit, are to be paid for, but the trader
is not to have the services forced upon him, and
that the charge is to be reasonable, and that in
case of difference as to what is reasonable, there is
instead of the costly tribunal of an action this
summary determination by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade. Now, the
special services to which that clause refers are
six in number, and are shortly specified. “ (i.)
Services rendered by the company at or in con-
nection with sidings not belonging to the com-
pany, and services in respect of the delivery and
reception of merchandise to and from such
sidings.” That relates, as the Committee will
see, to sidings not helonging to the company,
and to services rendered at them. “ (ii.) The
collection or delivery of merchandise outside the
terminal station. (iii.) Weighing merchandise.
(iv.) The detention of truck” (that is demurrage),
“or the use or occupation of any accommodation
before or after conveyance beyond such period
as shall be reasonably necessary for enabling the
company to deal with the merchandise as carriers
thereof, or the consignor or consignee to give or
take delivery thereof, or in cases in which the
merchandise is consigned to an address other than
the terminal station beyond a reasonable period
from the time when notice has been delivered at
such address that the merchandise has arrived at
the terminal station for delivery. And services
rendered in connection with such use and occupa-
tion.” That is, in short words, reasonable demur-
rage. Then “(v.), Loading or unloading, covering
or uncovering merchandise comprised in Class A.
or Class B. of the classification ; ” that is the
heavy traffic ; and “ (vi.) For the use of coal
drops.” Then there is besides that a supplemental
provision in Clause 6 for the use of trucks when
the provision of trucks is not included in the
maximum rates for conveyance. It already
appears from Clause 2 that subject to certain
exceptions the provision of trucks is included.
This is to meet the case where the provision of
trucks is not included and provides a graduated
rate. That concludes Part I. of the conditions
dealing with the general charging powers, pre-
scribing general conditions as to charging, which
of course govern the rate columns.
Now comes Part II., which contains general
provisions as to how the rates and charges are to
be fixed. The first of those is in Clause 8 (I
pass over Clause 7), which is what is known as
the Short Distance Clause. It provides that :
“Where merchandise is conveyed for an entire
distance which does not exceed in the case of
merchandise in respect of which a station
terminal is chargeable at each end of the transit
three miles, or in the case of merchandise not so
chargeable six miles, the company may, except
as hereinafter specially provided, make the
charges for conveyance authorised by this
schedule as for three miles or six miles respec-
–º
tively.” That is what is known as the Short
Distance Clause, and provides that in these two
classes of cases the company may make a charge
of three miles or a charge of six miles when the
distance is less. There is a short passage
relating to that, showing how the Board of Trade
determined this point, because there was a
difference upon it, at page 12 of the Report.
“In their deposited schedules '' (it is headed
“Short Distance Clause ’’ at page 12), “The
companies propose that they might be authorised
to demand and receive for any distance not
exceeding six miles the rates for conveyance
authorised as for six miles. The justice of a
Short Distance Clause has hitherto been
recognised by Parliament ; it is obvious that it
is relatively more costly to steam up a locomo-
tive and prepare a train only to be used for the
conveyance of merchandise for a very short
distance, than to do the same for a long distance,
and the profit derivable from the conveyance of
short distance traffic is modified by the initial
cost. Consequently Parliament has usually
authorised, in recent Acts, a minimum of dis-
tance for charge.”
Chairman.] I do not think you need read all
that ; we have it before us.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] If your Grace pleases ;
it shows that the Board of Trade arrived at a
decision between the contending parties by
which they substituted in the case of traffic
going from station to station, three miles instead
of six ; now the next provision in the fixing of
charges is the provision against overlapping, and
I need not read it all because there is of neces-
sity a certain amount of repetition in it; it is
Clause 9: “Where the distance exceeds 20 miles
the company shall not be compelled to charge a
less sum than the maximum charge would have
been if the distance had been 20 miles; where
the distance exceeds 50 miles the company shall
not be compelled to charge a less sum than the
maximum charge would have been if the distance
had been 50 miles,” and so on with the larger
distances. That clause is necessary having
regard to the system upon which the rate
columns have been framed, namely, that the
charges go up, first, that there are breaks of
20 miles, then of 50 miles, then of 75 miles, and
then of 150 miles; and it is necessary having
regard to that system of charging to provide
against the system of overlapping, so that a
person sending traffic (say) 21 miles might not
be charged a less sum than he would have been
charged if he had sent it 20 miles. The next
clause, Clause 10, deals with a matter which I
do not think will be in controversy practically:
namely, for minimum truck loads. “For any
quantity of merchandise less than a truck load
which the company either receive or deliver in
one truck, on or at a siding not belonging to the
company, or which from the circumstances in
which the merchandise is tendered, or the nature.
of the merchandise, the company are required to
carry in one truck, the company may charge as
for a reasonable minimum load, having regard to
the nature of the merchandise; ” that is to say,
that they may charge a reasonable minimum
truck load when required to convey in one truck.
Next come three clauses which may be con-
0.1. -
(' 3 veniently
22 MINUTEs of Evrot.NCE TAKEN. BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
veniently dealt with together in a very few
words; they are a provision as to making frac-
tional charges. Practically, in these, I think
the Board of Trade have adopted, with very
little alteration, the figures that were submitted
by the railway companies. The first clause is
Clause 12. “ For a fraction of a mile the com-
pany may charge according to the number of
quarters of a mile in that fraction, and a fraction
of a quarter of a mile may be charged for as a
quarter of a mile.” Then Clause 13 is “for a
fraction of a penny in the gross amount of rates
and charges for any consignment for the entire
distance carried, the company may demand a
penny.” I left out one clause, Clause 11, which
is that “where a consignment by merchandise
train is over three hundredweight and under
five tons in weight, a fraction of a quarter of a
hundredweight may be charged for as a quarter
of a hundredweight; and where a consignment
by merchandise train is over five tons in weight
a fraction of a quarter of a ton may be charged
for as a quarter, of a ton.” The two nexf pro-
visions, 14 and 15, as to weight and calculation
of stone, I do not think I need trouble the
Committee with any comments upon ; but, as
regards Clause 16, that deals with a question as
to which there was a good deal of controversy,
namely, the way in which timber may be charged.
May I, without wearying the Committee, refer
them to a very short passage in the report as to
that, on page 16 P “The companies proposed
that timber should be always charged at actual
weight when such weight can be conveniently
ascertained, and that it was only in cases where
the actual weight could not be conveniently
ascertained that computed, or what is known as
measurement weight, would come into play. A
great deal of evidence was furnished during our
inquiry tending to show that such an arrange-
ment would materially alter the practice of the
trade. It was proved to us that timber is very
generally sold by measurement weight; and
although there are considerable advantages in
the greater accuracy which, in many circum- .
stances, can be attained by actual machine
weight, we do not think that these are
sufficient to compensate for a serious altera-
tion in the habits and practices of an im-
portant trade. We have, therefore, struck out
the condition that timber shall be charged at
actual weight when it can be conveniently
ascertained ; but we have placed machine weight
timber in a lower class than either square timber
by measurement weight, or round timber by
measurement weight. The trader, therefore,
will have certain advantages of charge open to
him if he chooses to consign by actual machine
weight; and, on the other hand, it will be open
to him to obtain, as at present, conveyance
within a reasonable maximum for consignments
by measurement weight.” The clause itself,
Clause 16, is: “When timber is charged by
measurement weight, 40 cubic feet of oak,
mahogany, teak, birch, greenheart, hickory, iron-
wood, bay wood, or other heavy timber, and 50
cubic feet of poplar, larch, fir, or other light
timber, may be charged for as one ton, and
smaller quantities may be charged for in the
like proportion. The cubic contents of timber
charged by measurement weight shall be ascer-
g
tained by the most accurate mode of measure-
ment in use for the time being.” Now I think
that Clause 17 really speaks for itself; it merely
provides that articles sent in large aggregate
quantities, although made up of separate parcels,
are not to be deemed to be small parcels, I
shall have one word to say about small parcels
in a moment. Lastly comes Part III., which is
Miscellaneous, and which contains some neces-
sary miscellaneous provisions. Clause 18 I need
not weary the Committee with again, I have
practically dealt with it; it provides that for any
article which is not specified, every unenumerated
article, the company may, until the article is
added to the classification, make the charges in
Class III. I am paraphrasing the clause. As
the Committee may remember from the passage
I quoted in the Report, the railway companies
thought they should be entitled to charge
according to Class W., and this is a modification
of that contention which the Board of Trade
have arrived at, that they should be charged in
Class III. Clause 19 is one, I venture to think,
of considerable importance; it is a saving clause
with respect to agreements. “Nothing herein
contained shall prevent the company from
making and receiving, in addition to the charges
specified in this schedule, charges and payments,
by way of rent or otherwise, for providing sidings
or other structural accommodation for the private
use of traders, and not required by the com-
pany for dealing with the traffic for the purposes
of carriage, provided that the amount of such
charges or payments is fixed by an agreement,
in writing, signed by the trader, or by some
person duly authorised on his behalf.” That is
a saving clause which the Board of Trade
thought necessary, in the interest of the railway
companies in case it should be found that the
operation of the charging conditions should
in any way interfere with agreements which
were really outside the proper scope of the
charging conditions, such as charges and pay-
ments by way of rent for providing sidings. I
need not trouble the Committee with Clause 20,
because it is also a saving clause. Clause 21,
“Returned empties,” is somewhat special.
“Returned empties, if fróm the same station
and consignee to which, and to whom, they were
carried full, to the same station and consignor
from which, and from whom, they were carried
full, shall be deemed to be included in the same
class of the classification as comprises the mer-
chandise which was carried in them when full,
but the maximum rates and charges in respect of
such returned empties shall not exceed 75 per
cent. of the maximum rates and charges for the
said class of merchandise.” The question of
returned empties was a very difficult one to deal
with, because in the abstract a returned empty
s an extremely difficult thing to define ; a
returned empty of what? And as the Committee
will see, I venture to think the only practical
solution of the question is, to treat the returned
empty by reference to the classification which
the empty contained when it was full; and that
is what has been done, allowing 75 per cent, as
the charge for the return journey. A similar
special matter is dealt with by Clause 22, namely,
the empty trucks; provided that they are
returned empty, precisely upon the same journey
8,S
on RAILwAY, RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 23
^.
*
as they were consigned full, no charge is to be
made for empty trucks. The last of these clauses
to which I shall have to refer is Clause 23, which
provides that the company which has running
powers over a railway is to be bound by the
rate columns, by the charges applicable to the
railway which owns the track; the running
company’s charges are to be those of the rail-
way company which, as I have said, owns the
track.
Now I have gone through the general condi-
tions, and I have very little to say, I am glad to
inform the Committee on the last matter that I
have to deal with, namely the rate columns, be-
cause I am not going to trouble the Committee
with any details; but if the Committee will look
at pages 8, 9, 10 and 11, of the London and North
Western Schedules, they will see the system on
which the rate columns have been made out.
First of all there are in the first table the maxi-
mum rates for conveyance ; and then at the
extreme right-hand side (I think it will be more
convenient to look upon them on pages 10, and
11) the maximum terminals. The maximum
rates for conveyance show by themselves the
rinciple upon which they have been framed.
}. of all they apply, going downwards perpen-
dicularly, all the eight classes of classification.
In the London and North Western Schedule,
Class A. is by itself on page 8; Classes B., C., 1,
2, 3, 4, and 5, are on pages 10 and l l ; and the
Committee will see “for a consignment of not
less than.” First of all, there are the graduated
(if I may use that phrase) consignments; there
are consignments of not less than 250 tons, con-
signments of less than 250 tons, but not less than
10 tons; and then for other consignments there
are separate columns of rates; and then those
columns are sub-divided into distance not ex-
ceeding 20 miles; exceeding 20 miles but not
exceeding 50 miles; exceeding 50 miles but not
exceeding 100 miles, and so on. Without fur-
ther troubling the Committee with the different
arguments as to which, perhaps, they may be
troubled again, which were placed before the
Board of Trade as to the way in which
the rate column should be framed, that
is the decision they have arrived at for
best carrying out what they think was the
right principle intended by Parliament, namely,
that there should be diminishing maximum rates
for increased distances, and for large consign-
ments lower rates than for small consignments.
That, I think, in a very few words is the principle
upon which those general rate columns are framed.
Parts II. and III. will be found on pages 12 and
13 of the Bill. Part II, relates to animals;
Part III. to carriages; and Part IV. to very
special matters which are not specially covered
by the general conditions or the rate column,
such as unusual articles, wild beasts, dangerous
goods, specie, bullion, or precious stones; and
then there is a general sweeping up of every-
thing in the last column, in small print : “For
any accommodation or services provided or ren-
dered by the company within the scope of their
undertaking by the desire of a trader, and in
respect of which no provisions are made by this
schedule.” That is again a general protective
clause to enable a company to make a reasonable
9 April 1891.
charge for such special accommodation or services.
So much for those Parts II., III., and IV.
Part W. deals with an altogether exceptional
and a new matter. Hitherto the rate columns
and conditions have been dealing entirely with
merchandise trains, goods trains. This deals
with passenger trains, and provides for the con-
ditions Tinder which the railway company are to
convey certain classes of perishable merchandise
by passenger trains; it provides that the com-
panies are to afford reasonable facilities for the
expeditious conveyance of the articles which are
called perishable either by passenger train or
other service, and the facilities are to be subject
to the reasonable regulations of the company for
the convenient and punctual working of their
passenger train service; then they are not to be
compellable to convey any merchandise other
than perishables; the question of facilities is to
be determined by the Board of Trade; and then
again there is a minimum charge, “where a con-
signment is less than two hundredweight the
company may charge as for two hundredweight.”
The perishables are placed in divisions. Milk is
the first division. Division II. is fish, certain
classes of game, hot-house fruit, butter, cheese,
cream, and eggs. Division III. is certain other
fish and fruit. Then there is a separate set of
rate columns which apply to the different
divisions. I will not at this stage of the day
refer to all the reasons which guided the Board
of Trade in settling the divisions ; they are fully
explained at pages 14 and 15 of the Report,
where there is a full explanation of the kind of
traffic, and of the reasons which induced the
Roard of Trade to deal with this matter in the
way in which it has been dealt with, I do not
think I need trouble the Committee by reading
that part of the Report.
Now the last part of the rate columns deals.
with another special matter, namely, the question
of small parcels. There again, that is fully
explained on pages 15 and 16 of the Report, to
which I would respectfully refer the Committee,
which explains all the different reasons why the
companies' special charges should be authorised
for the conveyance of small parcels. I will only
say one word in explanation of the principle upon
which these have been framed. It is that they
are confined to parcels under three hundred-
weight, and the principle is an addition to the
prescribed tounage rate, as prescribed by the
class rate and columns; and if the Committee
look at page 16 of the London and North Western
Provisional Order, they will see how the matter
is practically dealt with, that when the maximum
tonnage charge (taking one instance) does not
exceed ten iii. a ton there is to be an
authorised additional charge for a parcel, not
exceeding three hundredweights, of sixpence ;
when the maximum tonnage charge exceeds the
different figures given say 10 s. per ton, but does
not exceed 20s. per ton, there is to be an
additional charge to the tonnage rate of eight-
pence, and so on, in a progressive scale ; and
then there is again, for the protection of the
company, a minimum charge provision that :
“Where for a small parcel exceeding in weight
three hundredweight the maximum tonnage
charge comes to less than the company are
authorised according to the above table to
(0. 1.)
C 4 - charge
- 24 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
, 9 April 1891.
charge for a parcel of three hundredweight in
weight the company may charge for such
parcel if its weight was three hundredweight and
no more.” . .
Now 1 have gone through the whole of the
provision as shortly as I could of what is
practically each Provisional Order, the general
conditions in each Provisional Order which are
of general application; and practically I have
hardly anything to add. From the passages in
the Report which I have read, and also from the
provisions of the Bill itself, it will be seen that
the Board of Trade had before them, there being
no agreement, opposing contentions; they had
(the contentions of the traders on the one side, and
the contentions of the companies on the other
side ; and on these vitally important matters of
principle the Board of Trade had under the Act
of Parliament the duty to determine what they
thought just and reasonable. That duty they
have discharged by embodying in the Provisional
Order in these three divisions, the general con-
ditions exhaustive, so far as they have been able
to make them, of the the rate columns and the
classifications of traffic. That is the decision and
determination of what is practically the tribunal
to which Parliament said the differences between
the company and the traders should be referred ;
and that being so, the Board of Trade having
now submitted it to Parliament, I have only to
leave it to the Committee to deal with the objec-
tions which are raised by the different parties who
are interested.
Mr. Pope.] I have not the slightest word of
complaint to make your Grace against my learned
friend's explanation of the Provisional Order of
the London and North Western Railway Com-
pany, and of the Report; but those of us who
have been familiar with the matter for some time
before my learned friend made his statement
want to inquire whether the Board of Trade
propose to lay before this Committee the reasons
which have led them to the conclusions which
have been embodied in these Provisional Orders.
Let me call your Grace's attention to one state-
ment, which is now made by my learned friend
who represents the Board of Trade. The Report
was presented to Parliament, and we have care-
fully considered it. In some respects it gives
the reasons for the conclusions of that Report,
though not in detail, but simply on general
principles. But the Provisional Orders which
are before your Grace are not the Provisional
Orders recommended in that Report. As my
learned friend said, there have been modifications
since introduced, some in the interests of the
railway companies, and others in the interests of
the traders; some suggested by the railway
companies, refused, and others refused at the
instance of the traders. Why? Are we to be
informed ; is the Committee to be informed why
the Provisional Order has been varied in the
judgment of the Department, and what the
reasons, I will not say the evidence, but what
the reasons are, which in the judgment of the
tribunal have led them to vary the Report which
was originally presented ? If those reasons are
to be given I should submit that they must be
given publicly before all of us, so that we
may examine them ; because, although I agree
that, in the first instance, the Act of 1888 cast
upon the Board of Trade the duty of framing the
Provisional Orders, it carefully reserved the
rights of all the parties interested to discuss the
justice and fairness of the conclusions at which
the Board of Trade arrived; and how can, we
possibly discuss their fairness or justice, unless
we know what the reasons were which the Board
of Trade thought, and still think, justify them in
making these conclusions? I am far from saying
of course that if the Board of Trade choose to
put the matter before the Committee in that
form, and to simply place it before you with
words of explanation of the drafting, merely say:
ing what certain drafting of the Provisional
Order means, they can say, “That is the Provi-
sional Order, and there is our Report, and that is
the opening of the case.” But then there is this
fatal variance, that the Report which is the
opening of the case does not justify the whole of
the Provisional Order, there must be something
else. The Board of Trade have come in the
execution of their duty to a certain conclusion
What interests us is not so much now the con-
clusion, there it is before us, we may be con-
vinced by it for anything I know, but at all
events we want to know what the reasons were
which have justified the Board of Trade in pre-
senting the Provisional Order in the form in
which it is. Unless we know that, then we are
met by the claim which I am afraid my friend
almost put forth barely, that this is a Bill put
forward by a department upon which Parlia-
ment cast a certain duty, and therefore there is
no need to prove it at all. But that is not what
the Act of 1888 contemplated; it said that we
were to be admitted to discuss the matter exactly
as if it was a Private Bill. *
Chairman.] It does not go so far as that, does
it, P |
Mr. Pope..] Yes, your Grace. . The Act of
1888, I mean Section 24, Sub-section 8.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is Sub-section 7, I
think. -
Mr. Pope. Sub-sections 7 and 8. Sub-
section 7 provides that “After, the com-
mencement of the Session of Parliament, next
after that in which the said Report of the
Board of Trade has been submitted to Parlia-
ment, the railway company may apply to the
Board of Trade to submit to Parliament the
question.” *
Earl of Camperdown.] Did you so apply P
Mr. Pope.] No, we have not ; there has been
no such application; it comes under the second
provision. “ and the Board of Trade shall on such
application" (which has not happened). “ and in
any case may” (which is happening) “ embody
in a Provisional Order such classification and
schedule as in the opinion of the Board of Trade
ought to be adopted by the railway company, and
procure a Bill to be introduced,” and so, on.
Then Sub-section 8 is “If while any Bill to
confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board
of Trade under this section is pending in either
House of Parliament, a petition is presented
against the Bill or any classification and schedule
comprised therein, the Bill, so far as it relates to
the matter petitioned against, shall be referred to
a Select Committee, or if the two Houses of
Parliament think fit so to order, to a Joint Com-
mittee of such Houses” (which is now the º
(6
8, Il
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 25
9 April 1891.
“ and the petitioner shall be allowed to appear
and oppose as in the case of a Private Bill.”
Chairman.] And that is what you are doing?
Mr. Pope.] Yes; and I want to inquire
whether, the Provisional Order not being an
absolute conformity with the recommendation of
that Report, we are to have any information as
to the reasons and grounds which have actuated
the Board of Trade in arriving at the form in
which it is presented. There are abundant
things ; there are omissions of words and phrases
which appear in the Report. Take the word
“ accommodation” which would, for instance, be
held to apply to a possible charge to be made in
aid of colliery sidings by a company, the colliery
owner generally placing his traffic on his own
siding to be taken away by , trains, where the
railway company may provide accommodation
and additional sidings. Words were used before
the tribunal, and in the Report were used in the
first draft. Now they are omitted. Why? That
is just one of the questions. We want to know
why. Just let me point out exactly what I mean.
At page 22 of the Report, paragraph 5,
e & g Y
the suggested provision is: “ The company
may charge for the accommodation and
services hereunder mentioned when provided
for or rendered,” and so on, certain charges. In
the Provisional Order as presented the word
“accommodation” is carefully omitted. Why?
It is very well for me as representing railway
companies, when we come to that discussion, to
move the re-insertion of the word “accommoda-
tion ” as it appeared in the original Report; but
then who is to say what the reason was for strik-
ing it out? The Board of Trade are not here as
promoters; they are not here as witnesses. How
are we to know what the reason of the Board of
Trade was for omitting from the Provisional
Order that word which we consider essential,
and which they up to a certain point approved
of, because it was embodied in the Provisional
Order recommended upon the Report itself?
Earl of Belmore.] I do not quite follow that.
The Report is a Report not of the Board of Trade
but to the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so.
Earl of Belmore.] Then you said something
that I did not quite follow.
Mr. Pope.] I said that in the Report
Earl of Belmore.] Will you give me the page?
Mr. Pope.] Page 22. I use this merely as an
illustration of what occurs more than once in the
Provisional Order. On page 22 the Report
suggests that in the provisions of the Provisional
Order “The company may charge for the accom-
modation and services hereunder mentioned when
provided for or rendered,” and so on, a certain
scale. When I turn to the Provisional Order
and find Clause 5, which my learned friend has
alluded to, then it is “ The company may charge
for the services hereunder mentioned,” carefully
omitting the word “accommodation.” It may
be a very proper omission; I am not now arguing
the question on the merits; but I do think we
are entitled to know what the reasons are which
justified the Department in striking out that
word which was reported upon favourably by the
tribunal appointed by the Board of Trade in
reporting to the Board of Trade.
Earl of Belmore.] You say “approved of,” but
it is suggested to and apparently not approved of
by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] Suggested to.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask this ques-
tion, Mr. Pope P Supposing you make a motion
to insert the word “accommodation,” or whatever
the word is, will not that give you exactly what
you want 2 -
Mr. Pope.] It would give me that, but it
would not enable the Committee, I will be very
frank with your Lordship, I am afraid, lest the
Board of Trade may give their reasons to your
Lordships’ Committee without communicating
them to us; in other words, not in public.
Chairman.] No ; I think I may say this,
without any of my colleagues differing from me,
that any communications made to us by the
Board of Trade in the manner now suggested
would be made in open court.
Mr. Pope.] That quite satisfies me.
º What I mean is this: that, sup-
posing that this point is raised by you, that the
word “accommodation” is left out, you would
speak to it, and say that you think it ought to be
kept in ; we might then ask those here repre-
senting the Board of Trade if they would give
us their reasons, and that should be done in open
COurt.
Mr. Pope.] I am perfectly satisfied with that.
Chairman. j. Then there will not be cross-
examination upon that ; we shall get the infor-
mation.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so ; and if the Board of
Trade instruct my learned friend to advocate the
view they have taken, I cannot object to that.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie..] I may say at once that
I am not instructed to advocate any view.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I ask your Grace
to ask Counsel for the Board of Trade to lay
before your Lordships the information the Board
of Trade acted upon, and which is pointed out
in the paragraph he read to your Lordships.
This is from the Report under the head of “Ter-
minals,” and nearly at the end of that section :
“During the inquiry the railway companies put
in tables of figures showing the cost of providing
the accommodation, and of rendering services at
certain stations selected by themselves as fairly
representative of the whole. The accuracy of
the figures was at once challenged, and believing
it to be impossible without local examination to
ascertain, even approximately, how far, if at all,
such figures could be taken as a basis, the J3oard
of Trade appointed an expert to examine and
report thereon. After careful consideration of
the report of the gentleman selected, as well as
the evidence adduced at the inquiry, we are of
opinion,” I would ask your Grace to ask Counsel
for the Board of Trade whether they will lay
before your Grace the report of that gentleman.
It evidently was taken into consideration by my
Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, in
recommending a certain amount of terminal. 1
think at the hearing it was rather understood,
(0. 1.) e
D and
26 MIN UTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
and I am not making any complaint of it, that
the report should be seen by us, and that we
should have an opportunity of cross-examining
that expert. I am not complaining, but we have
not seen that report, and we have not had an
opportunity of cross-examining that expert, who
was Sir Douglas Gaston. The inquiry took
place behind our back; we were not represented
at it; and I ask your Grace to say that we should
have that report. There is one other matter
which is cognate, and what my learned friend
Mr. Pope referred to. My learned friend Mr.
Muir Mackenzie did not read to you that portion
of the report which has to do with the revision
of rates; but there is one paragraph in it which
shows the principle upon which the Board of
Trade went, and that we regard as most impor-
tant. I would ask your Grace just to follow
that with me, and then ask the Board of Trade
if they will give you any further information
upon it.
Earl of Belmore.] On what page is it?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will give your Lord-
ship the page in a moment. It is under the head
of “Revision of Rates,” on page 6. Your Lord-
ship will see almost the last paragraph of that
section begins with the words, “Under those
circumstances we think that the Legislature
contemplated a decided departure from the exist-
ing maxima (that is, the existing maxima under
various Acts of the railway companies), and the
fixing of a schedule of rates having an undoubt-
edly closer relation to the rates which the com-
panies actually charge than those which they are
authorised by their statutes to demand.” In
due time I shall ask your Grace to ask either
Lord Balfour or Mr. Courtenay Boyle how they
made, that approximation; because, although the
inquiry lasted 108 days, with the exception of
one return, which had reference to cotton, there
was no information given to the traders which
enabled them to make an approximation, with
the exception to the rate charged for cotton.
The rates we had asked for from the Board
of Trade, and which I have referred to before,
and which the railway companies have not given
to the traders yet, although they have given them
to Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle ——
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is merely for
want of time; you shall have them, of course.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Thanks to their courtesy,
I was going to say, I have them in my hands.
Those were promised by the railway companies
on the 30th jº, last, and I have them ; but
they do not now give the information that en-
abled them to approximate them to the actual
rates. The railway companies, I say it advisedly,
withheld the information which enabled approxi-
mation to be made, and they are now attempting
to withhold it from this Committee in the same
way. Here is one of the things we asked for
from the Board of Trade, and which were pro-
mised by the railway companies; I have it in my
hand; and the last note is, “A note attached to
each return must set out the companies' estimate
of the value of each of the services of collection,
delivery, warehousing, and any other services,
such as provision of sacks, dock dues, allowance
of steamship owners, &c., which are covered by
the rate charge.” That was promised. The
Board of Trade very kindly asked the railway
companies to give it ; it was promised by the
railway companies, and I have the schedule
handed in to-day and that is not given; and I
say that, unless we get that information, the
approximation which the Board of Trade say
ought to be made between the actual rates
charged at the present time and the maximum
to be charged in future, cannot be made by the
Board of Trade and cannot be made by Parlia-
ment, .
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Is Mr. Balfour
Browne complaining of the omission of the esti-
mate for collection and delivery 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In those tables, if you
look at page 3 of the blue, you will find that
there they put down conditions of carriage; No. 3
in the last column of 1, Manchester to Aberdeen
C. and D., and next, “S. to S., W., in Man-
chester”; that is warehouse; but no amount.
They promised to give us the amount of that
warehousing, and unless we get the amount we
cannot separate and get the actual rate charged
for conveyance. Therefore I say that this
Return, although it purposed to be in answer to
their own promise to the Board of Trade, does
not give the information which will enable your
Lordships to see whether there is any approxi-
mation between the rates authorised by this
Schedule and the rates actually charged by the
railway companies; and unless your Lordships,
I say with great respect, have some such infor-
mation you cannot form a fair estimate as to
whether the rates proposed to be authorised
are reasonable and just or not.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] As regards the matter
referred to by my learned friend, Mr. Pope, I
think he has omitted to notice what the exact
provisions of the Statute are.
Mr. Pope.] No, I have not.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] The Statute provides
that in the event of failure between the Board
of Trade and the companies to come to an agree-
ment, the Board of Trade are to determine the
classifications, and so forth, which ought to be
adopted, and the schedules they think just and
reasonable, and to make a report to be submitted
to Parliament, containing such observations as
they think fit, calling attention to points of dif-
ference not arranged. Then there is to be an
interval before the next Session of Parliament,
and then the Board of Trade are to submit to
Parliament the kind of classification and schedule
that ought to be adopted by the railway com-
panies, and then they are to embody in a Pro-
visional Order the classifications and schedules
which, in the opinion of the Board of Trade,
ought to be adopted by the railway company;
and it is provided in Sub-section 9 of Section 24,
“In preparing, revising, and settling the classi-
fication and schedules of rates and charges, the
Board of Trade may consult and employ such
skilled persons as they may deem necessary or
desirable.” There is no doubt that the Legisla.
ture contemplated that during that recess there
should be consideration before all the schedules
in their final shape were submitted to Parlia-
ment; but it is impossible to submit in a formal
shape
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
2
7
9 April 1891.
shape the reasons which have determined the
Board of Trade to introduce any variation
between the schedules as deposited in Parliament
now, and those which were annexed to the Re-
port of Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle.
Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle will, of
course, be here to answer any questions which
the Committee may think desirable to put to
them on that subject ; but I have no further
answer to give than that.
As regards the question put by my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne, and the Report which
he asks for, it is practically impossible to produce
it, because it is extremely voluminous and has
a great many appendices. If the Committee, in
thc course of the inquiry, wish to see it, it will,
like all other materials that are in the possession
of the Board of Trade, be at their service, just
as all the information in the possession of Lord
Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle and the
Board of Trade generally will be at the service
of the Committec ; but in the way in which my
learned friend asks for it I have only to say that
until the Committee see some reason for asking
for it to be produced for their benefit, in which
case it would have to be put in and printed, the
Board of Trade do not think it necessary to do
so at the present moment, any more than they
think it necessary to put in any other matters of
consultation with persons whom they were
authorized to consult, and empowered to consult
in the preparation of the classifications and
schedules.
Mr. Bidder.] I should like your Grace to point
out and to correct one small error with reference
to what my learned friend Mr. Pope drew your
Lordship's attention to in regard to the Report
that he referred to. That Report is not merely a
Report of Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle, but it appears from a letter of Sir Henry
Calcraft of the 15th of August 1890, that it is
adopted as a Report, which the Board of Trade,
as at present advised, think just and reasonable ;
so thmt it does not stand merely as having been
the proposal of the noble Lord and Mr.
Courtenay Boyle; but it was, as my learned
friend correctly stated, ultimately the Report
adopted in a form which the Board of Trade
thought just and reasonable.
Chairman.] And it is embodied in the
|Provisional Order.
Mr. Bidder.] No, your Grace. On the 15th
of August 1890, a letter was written by Sir
Henry Calcraft (I have in my hand the one to
the Midland Railway Company) in which he
says the Board of Trade have considered the
classification of merchandize traffic and schedule
of maximum rates, and have communicated with
the railway companies, and having heard all
the parties whom they considered entitled to be
heard respecting the classifications and schedules,
report that they have been unable to come to an
agreement with the railway companies classifica-
tions and schedules. They have consequently
determined the classification of traffic which
ought to be adopted by the railway companies
and a schedule of maximum rates and charges,
including terminal charges which, as at present
advised, they think just and reasonable.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But after that the rail-
way companies went before the Board of Trade,
and so did the traders, and they have modified
their views. - -
Mr. Bidder.] I do not wish to add anything to
what my learned friend Mr. Pope has said, but
only to point out that he was quite accurate :
that although on the face of it, it appeared to be
only a report of Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle, it was really a report adopted by the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] My learned friend has
scarcely noticed that the Board of Trade intimate
in their report that they will employ the time
available before the commencement of the next
Session in considering any facts and figures which
may be laid before them, with a view of enabling
the Board of Trade, in accordance with the
section, to embody in the Provisional Order a
classification and schedule, which the Board
think just and reasonable.
Chairman.] It results in this, does it not, that
the Board of Trade hoped and wished that the
proposals by the railway companies might be
agreed to, but finding that the proposals of the
railway companies did not meet their views, they
undertook to set up a scale for themselves, which
is embodied in the Provisional Orders, and which
Provisional Orders we have now before us?
Mr. Muir Mackenzie.] Just so.
Mr. Pope.] Oh, yes, your Grace, but this
discussion is needless, because your Grace has
already intimated that which satisfied me in
regard to the objection which I have already
raised. Nobody said that the Board of Trade
had done wrong, but what we said was that if
the reasons for their doing what they have done
become important, we ought to know what those
reasons were ; and then you said that if it be-
comes necessary they shall be made public. That
entirely satisfies me.
Chairman.] I think we may perhaps clear up
the misunderstanding, or the views which have
been put forward. We intend all information
which we get from the Board of Trade to be
given to the public, in open court. It may be
that in the discussion of a particular clause we
may want to know ourselves why it is that they
have put in either an excess or reduction which
is different from what they originally suggested;
and we may ask them whether they can give us
the reason for that. But we do not think we
can ask them to put in the reports which have
been given them by gentlemen whom they have con-
sulted. We shall, for our own information, and so
as to best arrive at a just conclusion, ask them to
clear up for our view any difficulty that may
occur to us. Now I suppose we had better
adjourn.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether your Grace
could make any more definite order as to time
about the objections. You might limit the area
of them to the first eight sections, and that will
give us quite enough to deal with for three or
four days after Tuesday. The whole question
of terminals is involved in the first five para-
graphs of the Provisional Order; and if your
Lordships, taking Part I., would say that objec-
tions or amendments to any of the sections of .
(0.1.)
D 2 Part I.
28 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 April 1891.
Part I. of the Provisional Order shall be before
the Committee when we resume sitting on Tues-
day, that, I think, would probably facilitate
matters, and that would limit the necessity for
objections to so narrow a compass that nobody
could, I think, have any difficulty in formulating
them before that time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I thought that your
Grace had already said that you would not make
so hard-and-fast a rule as that before Tuesday.
We will do our best to let the Committee have
our objections by Tuesday,
Chairman.] I conclude that all these are objec-
tions which you have had formulated for the last
six months. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And, to a large extent,
your Grace will find them formulated in the
petitions when you have them before you.
Earl of Camperdown.] If they were put in the
form of amendments, it would, no doubt, help
the discussion. -
Mr. Pope.] It would help us in the discussion,
no doubt, and it would help the Committee in
their decision, no doubt.
Mr. Colborne.] May I respectfully suggest to
your Grace that there are petitions solely against
the Great Western Railway Bill ; one is a peti-
tion recommended by the Board of Trade itself,
and another is for the watching and preservation
of agreements, in which I do not think there will
be any difference between the Great Western
Company and myself; and the other is a petition
of the Monmouthshire freighters, which only
applies to the Monmouthshire section of the
Great Western Railway. Therefore, we are ex-
tremely anxious that we should not be here
while the London and North Western, or the
South Eastern, or the South Western cases are
on, because our case will not be a case of general
principle, but against special provisions.
Chairman.] Why should you not be here to
discuss these matters that ar eonmon to all the
nine Bills 2
Mr. Colborne.] Simply because the expense
would be intolerable to a small section.
Chairman.] What do you mean by the expense
being intolerable 2 Do you mean that you would
have to pay fees for eight appearances 3
Mr. Colborne.] The time occupied in the
general discussion before Lord Balfour and Mr.
Courtenay Boyle rather alarmed the freighters,
who are solely petitioning against this single
portion of one of the systems.
Chairman.] But your objections apply, as I
understand you, to the parts of the Bill which
are common to all the nine.
Mr. Colborne.] No, your Grace, they would
only apply to the Monmouthshire section of the
Great Western Bill by reason of special pro-
visions in Acts of Parliament relating to the
Monmouthshire section, which have nothing to
do with other sections of the Great Western
Railway, and which have nothing to do with the
North Eastern or the South Eastern, or any
other railway. For that purpose I have addressed
a letter to the Committee Clerk, if he would
kindly lay it before your Grace and the other
members of the Committee; because I, fancy
there are other petitioners in the same position,
namely, either watching for separate portions of
a separate system
Chairman.] Let us deal with what you do
yourself, not with what you believe other people
are doing, I understand you to say that part of
the Bill does not apply to the other Bills at all;
it is not common.
Mr. Colborne.] Quite so.
Mr. Pember.] I appear, your Grace, for the
Great Western Company, and what I recommend
this gentleman to do is to go away until the
maximum charges of the Great Western Com-
pany come on for discussion, and that part of the
Great Western Provisional Order is discussed
that has reference to the special matters which
he wishes to discuss ; and I undertake on the
part of the Great Western Company that due
notice shall be given to him when the discussion
will come on, so that he can go away to Wales,
and rest in peace till that time comes.
Mr. Colborne.] Your Grace will remember
that Mr. Pope raised the question that if those
who are petitioning against the Great Western
Railway Bill did not bring up their grievances
when the London and North Western Schedule
was under discussion, they were to be for ever
hereafter precluded.
Chairman.] But then, as we have heard from
Mr. Pember, he says that you will have every
opportunity of bringing your case before us.
Mr. Pope.] This is a remarkable illustration,
your Grace, of the necessity for formulating
something; otherwise we shall have this sort of
application repeated time after time, as we had in
the Westminster Town Hall.
Mr. Pember.j I think my Lord Balfour will
bear me out that that was what was done at the
Westminister Town Hall : namely, that when
gentlemen had special points they were allowed
to go away until a certain time had arrived when
those points were discussed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Colborne never
went away.
Mr. Pember.] I only said that they were
recommended to go away ; I did not say they
did go.
Mr. Colborne.] May I also mention that there
is one other petition against the Great Western
Railway Bill, which is with their own sanction,
namely, for the watching of agreements.
Mr. Pember.] That is merely a matter of
rates.
Chairman.] We must take the exceptions to
particular portions of the Bill at the end of the
enquiry, after we have dealt with others.
Mr. Pember.] Quite so.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether your Grace
feels disposed to fix Tuesday for the delivery of
any objections within a limited area. If we do
not have something before us on Tuesday morn-
lng
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 29
9 April 1891.
ing we shall spend half the day in a discussion of
little points of this kind.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you think we shall
get through Part I. on Tuesday?
Mr. Pope.] No, I do not.
Mr. Pember.] Not next week.
Mr. Pope.] Part I. includes terminals, which
involves a very serious discussion on principles
and details.
Chairman.] Then, is your application that we
shall have objections to Part I. before we meet
on Tuesday ? -
Mr. Pope.] Yes, your Grace, against what is
called in the Provisional Order, Part I.
Chairman.] There may be a special case before
us, which we shall deal with ; but the objections
will be the objections to the clauses which are
before us in the Provisional Order. But what
do the petitions against the Bill set out? I
suppose the amendments will be amendments
arising out of the prayer of the petitions 2
Mr. Pope.] I cannot tell, your Grace. The
petitions are so numerous; and they took so long
to enter upon the record of appearances, that I
really do not know what petitioners appear. There
could be no difficulty, of course, in a petitioner
who has specified in his petition the amendments
that he would suggest, simply placing in tabular
form before your Lordships, without any of the
verbiage of a petition, what the amendments are
that he desires; and to make it as easy as possible,
I would suggest that your Grace should say that
all objections and all amendments proposed up to
Clause 6 inclusive, in Part [.. of the Conditions,
should be delivered by Tuesday ; then if there
are any petitioners who want to formulate their
objections to subsequent parts of the Bill, they
may have longer to do it : but I am quite satisfied
that unless we have something of the kind before
us on Tuesday, we shall waste a great deal of
time without knowing what it is we are going to
discuss.
Chairman.] What I mean is that the objec-
tions that will be raised before us on Tuesday
will be those set out in the petitions, and that
they must not now go all over the country.
Mr. Pope..] Oh, no, they cannot go outside
the petitions; but anything that is covered by
the petition of any petitioner may be lodged as
an amendment upon this particular part of the
Bill, which is suggested for the discussion of the
Committee.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you propose to
hand those in to the Committee Clerk to be
printed in time to be before us on Tuesday ?
Mr. Pope.] That would be the most con-
venient course.
Mr. Pember.] They ought to be distributed
with the Votes on Tuesday morning.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would shorten
the time very much ; they would need to be in
on Saturday night.
Mr. Bidder.] No, on Monday afternoon.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But many of these
people are in the country, and they would have
to be sent in by Saturday night. We will give
all we can on Tuesday morning, and any excep-
tional cases must be dealt with.
Chairman.] Then the Committee Clerk will
take the further appearances. -
Mr. Pember.] Is it settled, your Grace, that
that is to be done 2
Chairman.] Yes; objections to the clauses
up to Clause 6 inclusive, in Part I., are to be
before us on Tuesday; and we meet at half-
past 11 o'clock.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday next, Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(0.1.)
D 3
( 30 )
Die Martis, 14" Apriſis 1891.
PRESENT :
The Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir Jos EPH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman. (To Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)]
The Committee are anxious to get a point
cleared up which was not quite clear to the
Committee on Thursday last, with regard to the
Report. On the first page of the Report, signed
by Sir Henry Calcraft, it says, “The Board of
Trade will employ the time available before the
commencement of the next Session of Parlia-
ment in considering any facts and figures which
may be laid before them, with a view of enabling
the Board of Trade, in accordance with the pro-
visions of Sub-section 7 of the above mentioned
Section, to embody in a Provisional Order the
classification and schedule which, in the opinion
of the Board of Trade, ought to be adopted by
the railway company, and which may be accepted
by the railway company, as well as by other
persons interested in the question.” Then as we
we understand it, the Board of Trade have made
some modifications, and those were laid before
the parties interested ; and I believe from what
we gathered they were not altogether satisfactory.
Then comes the schedule and the alterations
which the Board of Trade made ; and we wish
to know whether the alterations made were made
after the disagreement of the parties, or whether
they are the same as what were put before the
parties ; in point of fact, has the Board of Trade
in any way modified their views in consequence
of the disagreement to the suggestions of the
Board of Trade.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] The disagreement
took place before the end of the last Session of
Parliament, in the month of August; the paper
of tolls and charges which are suggested in that
paragraph were not put before the Board of
Trade until the months of October, November,
and December, and even on to quite the end of
January; the schedules, conditions, classifications,
and rates, as published in the Provisional Order
Bill, were not settled until after the considera-
tion of the figures had been put before the Board
of Trade ; in fact, consideration was give and
modifications were made up to within a few days
of the Provisional Order being introduced.
Earl of Camperdown.] How far do the Bills
before the Committee modify the conclusions in
your original report?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Do you mean as
regards the conditions or classifications 2
Earl of Camperdown.] Both.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] There were altera-
tions made in all three parts, some in the condi-
tions, some in the rate columns, and some in the
classification.
Chairman T (To Counsel): Have you any
suggestion to make as to how we are to proceed
now P
Mr. Pope..] I do not quite know what course
the Committee want to take. I understood on
Thursday that your Grace thought the most con-
venient course would be to take the Bill clause
by clause, and listen to any amendments that
might be suggested upon each clause, and ulti-
mately to decide and say what the clause should
be. There is only just this difficulty with regard
to that ; of course some of the proposed amend-
ments, those I think which have just been handed
to the Committee, we have not seen. Three of
the opponents have undoubtedly furnished us
with their suggested amendments, the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference, the Mansion House
Committee, and some petitions from Leicester.
Mr. Saunders. The Corporation of Leicester.
Mr. Pope.] What we have been in the habit
of calling the Leicester petition, those three have
been furnished us; but the difficulty I feel is in
dealing, for instance, with the petition of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference. You will
see what I mean ; practically the amendments
that are suggested by the Lancashire and Che-
shire Conference would be formulated in this
way, to strike out from the first word of Section 1
to the end of the part we are dealing with, and
to substitute a new schedule, not to amend that
which is before you, but to substitute an
entirely new one. Therefore, I cannot help
thinking that, before we can discuss the
snggested schedule of the Lancashire and
Cheshire conference, it would be necessary
that the Committee should decide whether they
would proceed by way of amendment upon that
schedule presented by the Board of Trade, or
whether they would acquiesce in the suggestion
presented by the Lancashire and Chesire Con-
0.84.
D 4 ference,
32 - MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
ference, which I do not think I incorrectly re-
present as being to strike out the whole of the
schedule in the Bill and to substitute a newly-
drafted schedule altogether.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I understand the matter
to be this : that so far as Clauses 1 to 6 were
concerned, we, the opponents of the Order on
behalf of the traders, should suggest to you what
modifications we proposed, and not only to sug-
gest them as modifications, but to put them as
far as possible in the form of amendments. We
have not only done that for the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference, but we have put in a
schedule of suggested amendments and altera-
tions all through. My learned friend is not
wrong in describing it as a sort of alternative
schedule ; it raises a great number of important
principles; but you have not only that sugges-
tion before you, but some dozens of suggestions.
I have had before me, twelve different sets of
suggestions; there is the Coal Owners of Mon-
mouthshire, that is one. I have for the Mansion
House Association prepared a number of modi-
fications of all these schedules. How your Grace
and the Committee are ever to deal with those
schedules I really do not know. I do not think you
can draft the Bill ; and that is what really this
amounts to. Now I would venture to suggest
that the way to deal with the matter, if you will
allow me to say so, is this ; our case is very shortly
this: that the Board of Trade have gone upon the
right principles, but have not gone far enough.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, speaking upon this
matter in the House of Commons, when the
matter was raised and when the question of
terminals was there discussed, said : “I have
been charged with confiscation by those who
have not thought fit”; that is, by the railway
companies, to see that by allowing station ter-
minals. I give them something in return. I
maintain that it is to the interest of traders to
have station terminals separated from the con-
veyance rates. Very well, then, what is the
right way to deal with this matter If I have
not gone far enough in lowering the conveyance
rates in exchange for the concession of station
terminals, let the Committee go further.” That,
my Lords, is not only the view held by the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, but by
the Mansion House Association, and by the coal
owners, and by a dozen other petitioners. That
is what we say, that they have not gone far
enough in lowering the conveyance rates. All
these questions of words in this matter are quite
subsidiary to the main question of what rates
you are going to fix, or rather upon what
principle you are going to fix the rates,
if you are going to determine upon what
principle you shall fix the rates, then I
think that all these annendments could very
properly be left to the very able draughtsman
who drafted the Bill for the Board of Trade,
namely, Mr. Muir Mackenzie ; he could bring
up a lxill to you embodying the principles you have
laid down, and then the Bill could be discussed
at very short length indeed ; but to discuss
this matter upon clauses, as you propose would
be, I assure you, absolutely impossible for a
large Committee like this. Drafting is always a
difficult matter ; and it is impossible in this case,
as far as I can see, for the Committee to re-dra
the Bill.
Chairman.] We must endeavour to do so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have ventured to
suggest my view, and could not of course carry
the matter any further. -
Mr. Ram.] My learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, has referred to the way in which, on
behalf of the coalowners of Monmouthshire,
I have ventured to produce the amendments I
suggested on Thursday last. I differ from him
in this, that although it may take time, I do not
think it will be impossible at all to deal with the
Bill on behalf of these traders as I have dealt
with it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend
mistakes me.
Chairman.] No, no; we shall be all day dis-
cussing it unless we proceed in order.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I only wish to say that
I have 50 others of the same sort.
Chairman.] We had better adhere to the
resolution we came to on Thursday last, and
discuss these matters one by one.
Mr. Pope.] As the clauses come up.
Chairman.] Then if at the end of it all there
is a motion to strike out the whole of that which
has been amended, it will be for us to consider
whether we prefer the amended clause or the
one which may be brought up by Mr. Balfour
Browne. The question is that it is expedicnt
that this Bill do proceed. (The same is agreed to.)
Sir Alfred Hickman. Will you allow me to
say that it is impossible for persons representing
the traders to appear before you in the crowded
state of this room. Counsel are divided from
each other, juniors are separated from their
seniors, and we cannot get space in which to
appear before you.
Mr. Pope.] I am afraid that is lamentably
true. Just before Sir Alfred Hickman spoke I
was communicated with, after great difficulty,
by the solicitor to the London and North
Western Railway Company, who wanted to hand
me some papers which he desired me to peruse;
and I must say I really do not see how we are
to dispose of these matters unless the House
gives us some more room ; the Grand Committee
Room is occupied by the Committee on Trade.
I remember that in the second year's inquiry on
the Manchester Ship Canal we had almost,
though not quite, so large a crowd.
Earl of Camperdown.] The room was full of
Counsel then. - -
Chairman.] I have a very agreeable recollec-
tion of having sat 42 days on that occasion.
After a short discussion between the
Committee as to the place of sitting.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think there can be any
doubt about the matter; but, in order to avoid
any doubt upon it, I am asked to put this ques-
tion to your Lordships and the Committee. I
understand the first four sections of the Bill are
postponed ; they involve questions of when the
the schedules are to come into force ; and I
think they probably may differ in the different Bills.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 33
14 April 1891.
Chairman.] We take the first.
Mr. Bidder.] Do the Committee now proceed
to take the first six articles of the general
conditions of the schedule 2
Chairman.] We shall begin at the top of
page 2, and then put each of the clauses seriatim,
and ask if there are any objections to each clause,
just as if they were the clauses of a Bill. In the
meantime, we have sent to see whether we can
get possession of Committee Room No. 15 in the
House of Commons.
Mr. Bidder.] The North - Western Order,
page 2, contains those clauses which I refer to.
Would it not be the bottom of page 2, sub-section
No. 1 P
Chairman.] But we should begin with : “This
Order may be cited as the London and North-
Western Railway Company (Rates and Charges)
Order, 1891.”
Mr. Bidder.] I would suggest that those should
be postponed until afterwards, and that you should
begin with Part I. : “Maximum Rates and
Charges,” the first of which is introductory.
Chairman.] It does not matter, of course.
What is your objection to taking these four
sections 7
Mr. Bidder.] They come under this heading,
that they probably may differ in the cases of the
different railway companies.
Mr. Pope.] No, they cannot. The only point
is that Section 2 fixes the date when the Act
receives the Royal Assent; and some of the
railway companies may desire to take your
Grace’s and the Committee’s opinion whether a
later date than that might not reasonably be fixed
for the commencement of the Act.
Chairman.] That could be done at any time.
Mr. Pope.] The other three are only for the
purpose of fixing the London and North-Western
Railway Company, or whatever company it may
be, with the liability to the schedule at the end.
Mr. Bidder.] Then, your Grace, proceeding
to the general conditions, I think everybody
will agree that No. 1 is purely formal and intro-
ductory, and therefore the first.
Mr. Pope.] I know nothing about that.
Mr. Bidder.] Probably, if anybody is of a
contrary opinion, it would be well that they
should indicate what amendment they want
in it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j It has been indicated
already.
Chairman.]. Then we will begin. , No. 1,
“Maximum Rates and Charges'; is there any
amendment to that ?
Mr. Pope.] I have nothing but a verbal
amendment.
Mr. Ram.] I think my learned friend, Mr.
Pope, has a verbal objection to No. 1. If not,
I propose to raise one; it is on line 4, page 3.
You see the words “perishable merchan-
dise by passenger train”; three lines lower
down the phrase is used “small parcels by mer-
chandise train.” Now, to avoid any ambiguity,
I would suggest that the words “passenger
train * be struck out, and that the words substi-
tuted be, “any train other than a merchandise
train.”
Mr. Bidder.] That will not do. May I point
out that a mineral train is other than a merchan-
dise train.
Mr. Ram.] Does my learned friend suggest
that anyone would dream of sending perishable
goods by a mineral train 2 Unless some such
amendment is made, as I suggest, it would be
open to the railway companies by putting on
one or two passenger carriages to a merchandise
train, to say: “This is a passenger train, and
therefore you must pay more; ” we are anxious
to avoid that.
Mr. Bidder (to Mr. Ram).] What do you
propose 2
Mr. Ram.] That instead of the words “by
passenger train,” there should be inserted the
words, “other than a merchandise train.”
Mr. Bidder.] I think, with great respect to
my learned friend, it is right as it stands. The
intention of Part 5 is to provide exceptionally
high rates for perishable merchandise which is
carried in passenger trains; the words “pas-
senger train '' express that: “other than a
merchandise train * might mean trains which
were not passenger trains. The intention is to
refer to merchandise when it is carried in a pas-
senger train, and probably it is better to say what
the Order does say.
The
gether.
Chairman.] We think the words had better
stand as they are, “by passenger train.” Now
is there any other amendment 2
Committee having consulted to-
Mr. Pope.] Are you dealing with para
graph 2 °
Chairman.] “Maximum Conveyance Rates.”
Mr. Pope.] I would suggest that the more
convenient course would be to take the amend-
ments in the order in which the amendments will
appear in the section ; for instance, with regard
to the first four lines, speaking for the railway
companies, I have no amendment to suggest.
There are, however, amendments suggested in
those first four lines; for instance, the substitu-
tion of the word “carriage " for the word “con-
veyance,” which would involve a very consider-
able matter of principle. What I would submit
is this. That would come in, as your Grace sees,
here: “The maximum rate for conveyance
is the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise
by merchandise train”; that is the clause as it
runs which satisfies me. Some of the opponents
say it ought to run that the maximum rate for
the conveyance is the maximum rate which the
Company may charge for the “carriage,” not
“conveyance.” The amendment first is the
substitution of carriage for conveyance; that
would be the most convenient way of dealing
with it, because in that way we should get in
order to the end of the sentence.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am one of the per-
sons who suggested that “carriage * should be
substituted for “conveyance.” I do not know
whether your decision was that the alternative
(81.)
schedule
34 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFoRE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
schedule of the Iancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference was to be taken together with this.
Chairman.] No ; we had better amend this
one and then we will see whether the Lanca–
shire and Cheshire schedule should be substituted
for the amendad clause. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In that case I will
deal simply with this amendment. Now, my
Lords, upon this matter there has a great diffi-
culty arisen in the courts of law with reference
to the meaning of the word “conveyance,” and
in order to make it perfectly clear that the “con-
veyance” there meant is the carriage of merchan-
dise, not something apart from it, we want to
sugstitute for the second word “conveyance,” as
used in the Board of Trade schedule, the word
carriage of merchendise, and the reason of that
is this: In the famous case of Hall v. The
London, Brighton and South Coast Railway
Company, the learned judge who decided the case
said he drew a distinction between the words
“conveyance ’’ and “carriage,” that carriage
upon a railway was something different from
conveyance ; that carriage might be done by a
carrier, not the railway company ; and that the
railway company might “ convey’’ only that
same merchandise. Now the intention of this
Order is to make it perfectly clear what we are
paying for ; that is the object of the Board of
Trade and the object of the railway companies.
I am quite content either to use the word
“ conveyance ’ defined to mean “ carriage,” or as
I have suggested here, by putting the word
“carriage * in the second line where the word
“ conveyance ’’ is now in the Board of Trade
Order; that would have the same effect, although
it is not perhaps quite such good drafting as to
define “conveyance ’’ to mean “carriage.”
Just one word upon that. The whole object, or
one of the main objects of the Board of Trade
in introducing this schedule was to make it clear
to the traders what they were being charged, and
what for. There are three things a railway
company do ; they first provide a railway, and
carry, say, from point A. to point B. upon the
railway; that I say is carriage. The Order
goes on to allow them something for providing a
station at either end ; that I say can be covered
by the station terminal; the charge, namely, for
providing the station accommodation which is
used at either end.
way company do something; namely, they load
and unload merchandise; they cover it in the
trucks; they handle it at the end of the journey;
and that is in the nature of a service terminal
which is dealt with in the fourth paragraph
of the Board of Trade Order. But here we are
dealing simply with carriage from point A. to
point B. upon the railway ; and I want to make
it perfectly clear that when you allow a certain
rate for conveyance you cover the whole service
for carriage from point A. to point B. on the
railway. Unless you make that clear by defining
“conveyance” it will be open to be said in the
future that you have passed the word “convey-
ance,” knowing the meaning that was attached
to it, and that it had a technical meaning, not
meaning the carriage, but merely the hauling of
carriers’ trucks along the railway, and that there-
fore the charge does not include the carriage,
which we say it ought to do. -
But beyoud that the rail-
Mr. Hanbury.] Was this point put before the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think it was; but of
course the points put before the Board of Trade
in their long inquiry were very numerous ; and
the Board of Trade dealt with this matter, not
so much as a question of drafting as upon general
principles. We have never had an opportunity
of suggesting this to the Board of Trade as a
matter of clause. I do not think that there can
be any doubt that everybody intends “convey-
ance” to mean “carriage.”
Mr. Pope..] If you were once to listen to this
amendment you would in point of fact be decid-
ing, upon a word of definition, the importan-
Question of terminals which is to come before
you subsequently as a substantive question for
decision. The reason why the word “ convey-
ance ’’ is used as a word of art to describe what
it professes to describe is this, that by law the
duty of the carrier includes more than mere
conveyance, it includes the provision of a station;
it includes the services at the station. These are
going to be separated according to the Order of
the Board of Trade, conveyance, terminal accom-
modation, terminal service, all included within
the common meaning of the word “carriage,”
and all forming part of the duties of the carrier,
although to be separated as a matter of charge.
Therefore the Board of Trade rightly use the
technical word which perscribes the particular
part of the duty of the carrier which the maxi-
mum rate is supposed to cover. My learned
friend’s amendment is incorrect. You would
limit, so to speak, by the use of the word
“carriage,” the duty of the carrier and the
services for which he is entitled to be paid in
one form or another to the carriage, which
would to a certain extent at all events prejudge
the question of what he should be allowed for
the other part of his duty. “Conveyance * is
the true technical word, and the Board of Trade
are perfectly right in using it.
Mr. Ram.] I have an amendment which is also
before your Grace.
Chairman.] But we must deal with one amend-
ment at a time. We are now dealing with Mr.
Balfour Browne.
Mr. Ram.] I am upon the same point. I
would suggest that the word “conveyance ’’ is
wrong. Then I would suggest not that “car-
riage * should be inserted for “conveyance,”
but that, in addition to “ conveyance,” you should
say “carriage and conveyance.” There is a
difference, and that will meet the objection which
my learned friend Mr. Pope has put before you.
May I submit on behalf of the traders that what
we want is that the traders should know pre-
cisely what it is they are going to be charged for
carriage from point to point, and in addition to
that the powers of the Bill will give the railway
companies compensation for that which they do
other than mere carriage, whether “carriage *
means carriage in the technical sense or convey-
ance. Therefore I submit that if it were to run
“may charge for the carriage or conveyance,”
then the difficulty which my learned friend Mr.
Pope has put before you will be met, and also
that which my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne
\ ON BAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER. BILLS. 35
14 April 1891.
JBrowne has desired to safeguard will be safe-
guarded.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think my learned friend
Mr. Ram has noticed this ; the word “carriage,”
as he says truly, includes all services. But the
scope of this Order is that portions of the duty
of the carrier should be dealt with in subsequent
sections, Section 3, which deals with the station
terminal, and Section 4, which deals with service
terminals. That is the frame of the Order at
present, whether it meets with your Lordships'
approval or not ; and it would be quite out of
ploce, I submit, to put the word “carriage,”
which embraces all three sections, into a section
where it is designedly intended to apply to only
one part of the duty of carriers.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend Mr.
Pope quite misinterpreted my object. I am
quite aware that Sections 3 and 4 deal with what
may be roughly called the duties of carriers;
there is no doubt they do; but here all I want
to get at is to have it made quite clear that con-
veyance means transport.
Earl of Camperdown. It is stated so in the
clause. The maximum rate is the maximum
rate which the companies may charge for the
conveyance of merchandise, inclusive of the pro-
vision of trucks. That settles it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There, unfortunately,
my Lord, I quite agree. I think conveyance
does mean carriage, and nothing else but carriage.
I have always thought so. The Railways Clauses
Act uses the very words my learned friend Mr.
Ram has suggested, “carry and convey ; ” but,
unfortunately, the Court of Queen’s Bench has
faken a different view, and said that conveyance
does not mean carriage ; and it is to get over
that difficulty, as the railway companies know
perfectly well, that they are here using “ con-
veyance ’’ in the technical sense.
Mr. Pope.] It is not the railway companies, it
is the Board of Trade.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you will use the
words suggested by my learned friend Mr. Ram,
I should be perfectly satisfied. I believe your
real intention is that for the carriage along a
railway there shall only be paid a certain
amount, but not that they shall afterwards go
and make a further demand, saying, “ This is
only for conveying. We can charge the trader
something else for carriage.”
Chairman.] I think the opinion of the Com-
mittee is that the word “conveyance ’’ shall
remain part of the clause.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether anybody
has any amendment to suggest until we come to
the proviso.
Chairman.] Is there any amendment to the
first paragraph of Clause 2, which ends, “trucks
by the company.”
Mr. Balfour Browne | Yes. I do not know
whether your Lordship has our suggestions
before you. I am taking first of all the Mansion
House United Association's suggestions, and
them we have conveniently printed.
Earl of Belmore.] If they are printed we have
not got them.
*-
Mr. Balfour Browne.]. They are upon your
Lordships’ table, and I have no doubt will be
handed to you ; we have printed the amendments
We propose ; we have underlined the words we
propose to put in.
Earl of Belmore.] What association
refer to ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Mansion House
United Association. I propose to modify the
first clause in this way, “subject to the excep-
tions and provisions specified in this schedule
includes,” (that is the rate), “the provision of
locomotive power,” it is quite clear the intention
was that they should haul the trucks along the
railway, and therefore that the maximum rate
which is to be allowed was to include the hauling,
the horsing of the train. I do not know whether
my learned friend has any objection to that.
do you
Mr. Pope.] You propose to insert after the
word of “locomotive power and * *
* ze 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, besides “trucks.’
Mr. Pope.] I do not see any objection to that ;
I am not instructed to make any objection to
that.
Mr. Bidder.] I am of the same opinion, ac-
cording to my instructions.
Mr. Pope.] “Includes the provision of loco-
mo tivepower and trucks by the company.” I
do not assent to the other words proposed, but I
do not see any objection to that ; the provision
of locomotive power, of course, includes the con-
veyance ; it is a necessary part of it.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] What
are the Words you propose to insert after “in-
cludes the provision”?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] “The provision of
locomotive power.” Then I pass from that, the
railway companies having no objection to those
words.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
The Committee would be glad to hear whether
you have anything to say to the alteration ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No method of
conveyance, except by locomotive power has
occurred to us; we see no objection to it.
Chairman.] Then what is the next 2
Mr. Balfour Browne..] I would propose, after
the word “company,” “and every other expense
incidental to such conveyance or carriage.”
Mr. Pope.] The words “ or carriage” must be
struck out, of course.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I still think that the
word “carriage ’’ should be in.
Chairman.j You cannot have the word “car-
riage” in, after having inserted it before.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will agree to that,
because I think it can be cured hereafter by
another clause, but I propose that “every other
expense incidental to such conveyance” should
be included in the maximum rate; we do not
want, if we have paid for conveyance, to have
any other expense which is purely incidental to
it put upon us; for instance, there must be the
working of signals, which is clearly incidental
to conveyance. I only give that as an illustra-
(81.)
E 2 tion :
36 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
tion; there must be pointsmen and things of that
sort; all those things which are necessary to the
running of the railway ought clearly to be
included in the rate that we pay. Let me say
that in every Act of Parliament when a railway
company are allowed their rates they always put
in that the maximum rate should cover every
item of conveyance, therefore I have the prece-
dent of a number of Acts of Parliament that
those words should stand part of the clause.
Chairman.] Is not your proposal really to
include terminals in the maximum mileage rate P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, certainly not, your
Grace; that has nothing to do with terminals
at all.
Earl of Camperdown.] How do you make out
when you use the words “every other expense
incidental to conveyance” that does not include
terminals.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has been held dis-
tinctly that although those words are in it does
not include the providing of the terminal station
or the services, and you will see also that there
are other clauses providing for things beyond
mere conveyance.
Chairman.] When you say it has been decided,
do you mean decided in the courts 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, in the courts.
Mr. Ram.] I have a precisely similar sugges-
tion to offer. I think the words which are put
in will save this point. I propose to insert the
words “except as hereafter provided, all charges”;
if those words are inserted, it is plain that the
terminals are saved.
Chairman.] Whom do you appear for P
Mr. Ram.] For the coalowners of South
Wales and Monmouthshire.
Chairman.] We had better deal with Mr.
Balfour Browne’s amendment first.
Mr. Ram.] I have nothing to say except that
so far as they go they are upon the same lines.
Chairman.] But they are not the same words;
we will hear you afterwards.
Mr. Pope.] If you read the section as proposed
to be altered, I think you will see that these
words, if they do not mean something more than
my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne says, are
utterly unnecessary, in fact rather weaken the
sentence: “The maximum rate for conveyance
is the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance.” Then my learned
friend says, provided that it is to include all
charges for conveyance. What sense is there in
having such words? Of course the scope of the
sentence is that it is to be the maximum rate
payable for the conveyance, which is the service
to be rendered. Unless my learned friend means
by those words to do that which we desire should
not be done, that is to say, to prejudice the mean-
ing of the word conveyance by adding some
words which may cause some further argumen
upon it, I do not see what use there can be in
the words at all. What my learned friend sug-
gests is that “the maximum rate for conveyance
is the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise by
merchandise trains; and, subject to the excep-
tions and provisions specified in this schedule,
includes, the provision of locomotive power and
trucks by the company.” Then he goes on
“ and every other expense incidental to each
conveyance,” having previously declared that
the rate charged should be the maximum rate
which is to be charged for conveyance ; it is
merely repeating over again in other words what
are the enacting words of the section itself. It
may be (I am not at the moment disposed to
argue the question) that in previous decisions
the word conveyance has been held to cover
something beyond carriage; I am not disposed
to deal with that ; so far as terminals are con-
cerned, they are to be separated by the scope of
the Order. My learned friend, Mr. Ram, has
just suggested, that “except as hereinafter ex-
cepted,” it is to include everything. There are
certain of the terminal services, for instance,
which might be held to be incidental to con-
veyance, as, for instance, covering with tar-
paulins, which are going to be the subject of
discussion; with respect to service terminals by-
and-bye, are you-going to say that that is to be
included in “everything incidental to con-
veyance.” -
Mr. Cripps.] May I say a word on this point
son behalf of the Great Western Railway Com-
pany. If you look at page 14 of the Report by
Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle, you will see what is really involved in
this amendment proposed by my learned friend,
Mr, Balfour Browne. It is under the head of
terminals: “Briefly speaking, station terminals
may be said to be charges made for the use of
the accommodation at stations, and duties under-
taken thereat, before or after conveyance, and
service terminals to be charges made for actual
services (other than haulage) performed in con-
nection with conveyance.” So your Grace and
the Committee will see that the addition of
those words would, as my learned friend, Mr.
Pope, has already argued, encroach upon this
very question of terminals which has been kept
distinct, and carefully distinct, in every report
made by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend quite
misunderstands the position we take up with
regard to terminals; it is perfectly certain the
clause does not do anything that they suspect.
If you look at the Order you will see “subject
to the exceptions and provisions specified in this
schedule.” When you go on to provide spe-
cially for terminals, it is not necessary to men-
tion them specifically ; but if you have the least
suspicion that it is our intention by these words
to cover any portion of the terminal services.
I will ask you to postpone that until you have
heard us upon the question of terminals. Take
the question of signals. That is not conveyance,
but it is incidental to conveyance. You cannot
work the line without working the points and
signals, but it is incidental to the conveyance,
and the company ought not to be allowed to
charge anything for that.
Earl of Belmore.] Do they ever charge any-
thing for that? *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know, I sus-
pect
\ ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs FROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
37
*
14 April 1891.
pect they will charge everything they are al-
lowed by Parliament to charge.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do the railway companies ad-
mit that the payment for conveyance includes
everything except terminals 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They do ; we are at
one upon that as regards conveyance, that it
should cover everything, except terminals; we
only want to make it clear in words that it does.
I am leaving the terminals on one side alto-
gether.
Chairman.] What do the companies admit (if
they will admit anything) is included in the
word “conveyance " ?
Mr. Pope.] Everything necessary to convey
traffic.
Mr. Bidder.] As I understand, “conveyance”
is used as meaning transport, and involving
everything necessary to transport the goods from
point A. to point B.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is the legal mean-
Ing. -
Mr. Bidder.] That is as we understand it.
May I point out that the signalling, like the
locomotive power, is not incidental to the con-
veyance: it is necessary to the conveyance.
My learned friend might as well have suggested
that the rails were not necessary.
Mr. Hanbury.] Let me put it in another
way ; what does “ conveyance ’’ not include 2
Mr. Bidder.] It includes nothing in respect
of terminal accommodation, and nothing in re-
spect of services in connection with either
terminus, nothing in connection with tarpaulins,
or special coverings for the goods, or any special
handling of the goods.
Mr. Hunter.j Does it include the examining of
wheels, and the greasing of wheels?
Mr. Bidder.] Clearly that is necessary to the
conveyance.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is this interpretation
your interpretation of what it includes, or is it
the legal meaning 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is no legal
definition at all.
Mr. Bidder.] I believe the only legal defini-
tion of “conveyance ’’ so far is in Hall’s case,
where it is distinguished from carriage in the
way my learned friend Mr. Pope referred to.
Earl of Camperdown.] If that be so, is it not
an argument in favour of their contention that
you must define “conveyance ’’ in this Provi-
sional Order ? If there is no such thing at the
present time as a legal definition of “convey-
ance,” is not that an argument for defining it in
this Provisional Order; or at all events, if you
define it partially, as you are proposing to do by
putting in words such as we have put in, namely,
“ locomotive power and trucks,” is it not de-
sirable that the definition of “conveyance ’’
should be an exhaustive definition ?
Mr. Bidder.] So far as I possibly can, I would
answer that question by saying that if the Com-
mittee think there is any ambiguity or danger of
ambiguity about the word “conveyance,” by all
means make the definition complete, but at the
same time take care that you do not introduce
any words which may import into “ conveyance”
what you do not mean to import into it.
Earl of Camperdown.] But Mr. Pope said that
those words were included ; then if they are in-
cluded, is there any great objection to expressing
them? -
Mr. Bidder.] With great respect to my
learned friend, Mr. Pope, I venture to say that
the words proposed by my learned friend, Mr.
Balfour Browne, would include more than is
intended to be included by the Board of Trade
or by your Lordships in the word conveyance.
Distinctly it would raise to my mind the ques-
tion whether it would not include the provision
of tarpaulins, which are incidental to the con-
veyance of goods which might be injured by
wet weather.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is provided for
further on.
Mr. Hanbury.] Therefore you ought to show
us something that would be beyond ordinary
conveyance and not included in ordinary con-
veyance. .
Mr. Woodfall.] Will you allow me to say a
word upon this point; I appear for the Marquis
of Bute.
Mr. Pope.] Have you furnished anybody with
the amendments for the Marquis of Bute which
bear upon this point P
Mr. Woodfall | I cannot say ; I cannot see
my clients.
Chairman.] We cannot hear you if you have
not given in amendments.
Mr. Woodfall.] I am not able to say whether
they have been given in or not.
Mr. Cripps.] Might I say a word 2
Chairman.] Whom do you appear for 2
Mr. Cripps.] I appear for the Great Western
Railway Company.
Chairman.] We will hear you after we have
heard Mr. Bidder.
Mr. Bidder.] I was just answering an honour-
able member, having consulted my clients, and
I fancy that the other railway companies will be
at once with me ; I hope so. My answer is this,
that I follow what is in your mind, and it
seems to me reasonable, namely, that under
one or two of the heads in the schedule every-
thing should be distinctly provided for ; and,
inasmuch as we are separately providing in the
subsequent portion of the schedule for terminal
charges and terminal services, and certain other
matters, I do not see the unreasonableness of
providing that this clause shall cover, every-
thing which is not otherwise provided for.
Therefore it seems to me that if the words were
limited more nearly in the direction of those
suggested by my learned friend, Mr. Ram, it
should include all expenses incidental to the
conveyance, not otherwise hereinafter provided
for. That would meet the reasonableness of the
case, and be free from serious objection.
Earl of Camperdown.] The only question is
whether that is not done twice over. This is a
(81.)
E 3 question
38 MINUTEs of EvidENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint committ yº
EE
14 April 1891,
*==
question which any of you on that side of the
table understand better than we can. “Subject
to the exceptions and provisions specified in
the schedule”; is not that a saving clause in
itself? - - - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think it is, myself.
Mr. Pope.] I think it does operate in that
way. - -
Earl of Camperdown.] Might it not be more
clear to take the words proposed by Mr. Ram,
and to drop out the words proposed by Mr.
Bidder ? r
Mr. Bidder.] I think your Lordship is right;
but I made the suggestion in order to make it
clear that the whole ground was covered ea.
majori cautelá. s
Mr. Pope.] We will discuss my learned friend
Mr. Ram's amendment when it comes up, that
would be the shortest way. I do not know at the
moment what my learned friend Mr. Ram's
amendment is, because I was not present; but
so far as regards my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne's amendment, it would read thus : “The
maximum rate for conveyance is the maximum
rate which the company may charge for the
conveyance of merchandise by merchandise train;
and, subject to the exceptions and provisions
specified in this schedule, includes the provision
of locomotive power and every other expense
incidental to such conveyance by the company ”
“along the railway ” would satisfy me, because
that would render it impossible to say that some
of the services which may be rendered indepen-
dently of the conveyance from point to point are
not included in “conveyance.” In using those
words I use the exact words of the section upon
which the decision in Hall's case was based,
which my learned friend says defined the nature
of “conveyance.” Then I find that the words
of that section were “the maximum rates or
charges to be made by the company for the con-
veyance thereof along the railway.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that my
learned friend is now making an amendment
upon an amendment. - *
Mr. Pope.] I am not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is entirely a new
departure. Our whole object was to have every-
thing.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope).] Might
I put it to you in this way: the word “con-
veyance ’’ in the first line governs the whole
section ?
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] What you are now
proposing to do is this, and I speak subject to
your legal, knowledge, that in the section you
give a definition to the word “conveyance"
which is a narrower definition than that given to
the word “conveyance ’’ in the first line of the
of the section; is not that so P
Mr. Pope.] I think it is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is not that a very
erious objection ?
Mr. Pope.] It is. I think the better way to
deal with it will be to define the word “convey-
ance " by a separate definition. •
Mr. Balfour-Browne.] Our whole object was
and is to have the word “conveyance" exhaust-
iyely explained ; my learned friends “along
the railway” would limit it very much. -
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope).] Do you
withdraw that ?
Mr. Pope.] I do. - - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I will not say
any more about that. Then, with regard to Mr.
Ram's clause, we have, as far as we could, followed
the Board of Trade Order. The Board of Trade
Order had it, “subject to the exceptions and pro-
visions specified in the schedule.” We have left
that: 1 think it better, as far as we can, to hug
the shore of this Order. º -
Chairman.] Now we will hear Mr. Ram.
Mr. Ram | The suggestion I would make
would run thus : subject to the exceptions and
provisions specified in this schedule, includes the
provision of locomotive power and trucks by the
company, and includes, except as otherwise here-
inafter provided for all rates and charges incidental
to the conveyance of merchandise. The reason
I insert those words is with the object of saving
º rates and charges subsequently provided
O]".
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the reason you
make your exception twice over ? First, it occurs
in the clause, and then you make it again.
Mr. Ram.] It occurred to me that it might be
argued that the proviso in print, “subject to the
exceptions,” might relate only to the provision of
locomotives; therefore it occurred to me that I
ought to make an exception to the second in-
clusion; but if your Lordships think that the
exception to the first inclusion is sufficient I am
content with that.
Chairman.] It seems to me that the words,
subject to the exceptions and provisions,” speci-
fied in this schedule, cover everything.
Mr. Ram.] If your Grace thinks so, I am
satisfied; I only put in ea abundanti cautelá.
Chairman.] What is now Mr. Balfour Browne's
proposal P -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I propose the clause
should read in this way; it will be clearer to
read it all : “The maximum rate for conveyance
is the maximum rate which the company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise by
merchandise train ; and, subject to the exceptions
and provisions specified in this schedule, includes
the provision of locomotive power and trucks by
the company, and every other expense incidental
to such conveyance,” and I stop there.
Mr. Bidder.]. With great respect to my learned
friend, that will not do at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There must be some
finality in the matter; my learned friend has
already argued it.
Chairman.] So have you.
Mr. Pope.] I have counted my learned friend's
speeches, and my learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, is two ahead yet.
Mr
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PIROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 39
14 April 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] I think it should be qualified by
the words I have indicated, because it is open to
argument that the words, “ subject to the ex-
ceptions,” relates to the provision of trucks.
There are cases in which trucks are not to be
provided by the company, and then, if that con-
struction were held, it would make the charge for
conveyance include everything incidental to the
conveyance excepting this ; and might, as I
said, be held to include tarpaulins, canvases,
ticketing, and things of that kind; you ought to
have words to the effect “not otherwise herein-
after provided for.”
Earl of Camperdown..] Your point is that, “sub-
ject to exceptions et cetera " is not so good as
“save as hereinafter provided " at the end of the
clause. *
Mr. Bidder.] Not for this purpose.
Chairman.] You might have both.
Mr. Bidder.] I see no objection to having them
both, but I certainly think the second words
ought to be there, “not otherwise hereinafter
provided.” - -
Chairman.] Then do I understand you do not
object to the words “Every other expense inci-
dental to such conveyance not otherwise herein-
after provided for.”
Mr. Bidder.] That we would be satisfied with.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That seems to my mind
to clear the matter up a bit, therefore I will not
say anything more.
Chairman.] Does that suit you, Mr. Pope, for
the London and North-Western Company?
Mr. Pope.] I cannot say that I like it as a
matter of drafting, but, subject to that, I see no
objection to it.
Chairman.] Then there is nothing more to be
said upon that first paragraph. Then we go to
Paragraph A. : “The provision of trucks is not
included in the maximum rates applicable to mer-
chandise included in Class A. of the classification,
or to lime or lias lime in bulk, or to salt in bulk.”
Mr. Pope.] There is something to be said
about this, your Grace, and a good deal. The
scope of the original section, as the Com-
mittee will see, is to say that the maximum
rate is the maximum rate for the conveyance,
including the provision of trucks, excepting
that the company are not to be bound
to provide trucks for the maximum rate within a
certain class ; that is to say, the provision of trucks
is not included in the maximum rates applicable
to merchandise, whether “specified ” or “in-
cluded " (I do not care which, is the word), in
Class A. of the classification, and then follows
the list of articles. I propose to extend those
articles, and I propose to put into the box the
manager, who will explain why the provision of
trucks should not be rendered compulsory in
respect of those other articles, in other words,
what I propose to do, if you will kindly follow
me with the original section, is to make it run in
this way: “The provision of trucks is not in-
cluded in the maximum rates applicable to mer-
chandise included in Class A. of the classification,
or to lime or lias lime in bulk, or salt in bulk.” I
propose to add the words there “ammoniacal
(81.)
liquor, creosote, coal tar, gas tar, gas water, or
gravel tarred for paving.” Of course the ques-
tion of whether those are articles of a character
for which trucks ought not to be provided within
the maximum rate is a question upon which I shall
ask your Lordship to hear evidence ; “But the
Company may, by agreement with any trader,
provide trucks for such merchandise upon the
terms hereinafter prescribed.” There is a subse-
quent section which provides for the provision of
trucks in cases where they are not included in
the maximum rates; that, I think, is Clause 6,
which will come on presently. We shall have a
word or two to say about the rate which shall
be charged for such provision. What we propose
is that the words “ salt in bulk, lias lime,” and
so on, should be extended by the words “ammon-
iacal liquor, creosote, coal far, gas tar, gas water,
or gravel tarred for paving,” and so on.
Earl of Camperdown. Have you made that
proposal to the Board of Trade 2
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether we made it
definitely in this shape, but I have no doubt the
question of their exclusion certainly did form
part of the discussion. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I point out
Mr. Wills.] I ought, perhaps, to have taken
the objection before, but may I interpose a word
now P
Chairwan.] Whom do you appear for ?
Mr. Wills.] For a petitioner against the Great
Western Railway Bill. We object to the words
in that Sub-clause “to lime or lias lime in bulk.”
I should have proposed this amendment before
my learned friend, Mr. Pope; rose to speak, but
I was not aware of the amendment he was going
to propose to the Committee. You will see the
sub-section says, “ The provision of trucks is
not included in the maximum rates applicable to
merchandise in Class A. of this classification, or
to lime or lias lime in bulk, or salt in bulk.”
Chairman.] What particular parties do you
appear for 2
Mr. Wills." I appear for the firm of Messrs.
Greaves, Bull, and Lakin, who are lime-burners
upon the Oxford and Birmingham section. It
is simply as to the omission of these words. The
position of my clients is this : I may tell you at
once that the main objection they are going to
make in this inquiry is against having been placed,
in regard to lias lime, in Classification B. instead
of Classification A. That of course will not come
before you to-day at this period, and supposing
that they should succeed in being removed from
Class B., which is the higher class of charges,
into Class A., it will no longer be necessary for the
words here “lime or lias lime in bulk ’’ to appear,
because trucks are not included in the rates in
regard to Class A. So that if we came into class
A., a formal amendment will be necessary upon
this sub-section for the omission of the words
“ lime or lias lime in bulk.” I do not mean to
say that it would be hurtful to my clients, but it
would be found necessary to omit those words.
Chairman.] I think it would be better to
discuss your amendment upon the classification
part of the Bill; if your class be raised we could
take it then. We will hear you upon the classi-
D 4 fication
40 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FOIRE THE JOINT UOMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
fication, and if you succeed in your contention
then this clause will have to be altered.
Mr. Wills.] There is one other point I wish to
mention, and that is this : I do not deny that
supposing we should fail in getting the classifica-
tion altered, we should still desire to have these
words omitted, and I will explain upon what
ground. We desire to explain that to be placed
in Classification B. would be practically prohibi-
tive of our trade, but it may be that it would be
worth while, supposing the alteration we ask is
not made, still to ask to have this clause amended,
by the omission of these words, in order that our
rate in Class B. may include the trucks as it does
in regard to others. I think it will be convenient,
speaking on behalf of my clients, if I may be
allowed to come back to this clause upon that
point too ; but my real grievance is with regard
to the size of the rate. It is impossible for me to
show you the real bearing of our desire to have
these words out without going into the question
of the amendment of the clause, and therefore if
if I may be allowed to keep the clause open for
both purposes hereafter, I think it would be con-
venient for the Committee.
Chairman.] Then we will take your case
afterwards.
Mr. Cripps.] Might I say a word for the
Great Western Company, as this affects them.
Chairman.] But I have not dealt with the
gentleman behind you.
Mr. Cripps.] My learned friend behind me
was asking that this matter should be postponed
to a subsequent stage, and I was going to point
out that upon this sub-section A. the only ques-
tion raised is as regards the provision of trucks,
which can surely be dealt with now indepen-
dently of the question of classification.
Earl of Camperdown.] They are independent
points, but if the larger part of that gentleman's
case is to come hereafter, is it worth while arguing
it twice over ?
Mr. Cripps.] But if we limit the argument
now to that matter of the provision of trucks, it
would be better surely to complete that now.
If we are to raise the larger point, namely, the
question of classification, of course the matter
must stand over, but the only point raised upon
this sub-section A. is whether trucks are to be
included in certain maximum rates or not.
Chairman.] What we want is to avoid hearing
you gentlemen twice over.
Mr. Cripps.] Quite so ; but if we keep to
that point before the Committee, namely, the
provision of trucks, your Grace will be, I think,
saved trouble, whereas if we leave it open and
come back upon what is a question of classifica-
tion, you will be hearing us twice over.
Earl of Camperdown.] But surely the Com-
mittee will be compelled to hear the case here-
after upon the big point of classification, and,
hearing that gentleman now will not stop him
hereafter, but hearing him hereafter may get
rid of him altogether then.
Mr. Cripps." Could not the point of the pro-
vision of the trucks be decided quite irrespec-
tively of the classification, which is another
-s
matter. If we keep closer to the matter it is a
question of the provision of trucks.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I appear for the parish of
Stoke Newington, and I should agree in urging
my learned friend Mr. Wills' suggestion, that
this matter should be dealt with afterwards; that
would save our being heard twice. Our point is
that town refuse should be carried at special
rates and under special conditions. If the Com-
mittee are against me upon that point, and are
of opinion that it ought to be carried as mer-
chandise proper under the provisions of this Sub-
section A., when it would be subject to the
charge for trucks, when trucks are not provided
by the parish, then I should contend that there
ought to be an exception made in Class A., ex-
cluding town refuse from the operation of this
sub-section, so that in that case the trucks should
be included in the conveyance charges. There-
fore I join with my learned friend in his applica-
tion that this should be dealt with afterwards as
a matter of Saving time.
Mr. Pope..] My learned friends forget that we
are discussing now the provisions which are to
be applicable to all railways. Their case de-
pends upon the rates which are to be fixed by
the Great Western Company, for instance. Why
postpone the discussion of a general condition
applicable to all until you discuss the question
relating to special rates ? In truth, my friends
will see that their argument, that they should not
be in Class B., but in Class A., will be strength-
ened if you exclude the provision of trucks with
regard to them, because if they are classified in
Class A, then there is no liability in any case
upon the company to provide trucks; but my
learned fiend's argument, that he should not be
in Class B., but should be in Class A., will be
strengthened if your Lordships decide that goods
of this class should be subject to one of the in-
cidents of Class A, to wit, the non-provision of
trucks. He will tell you by-and-bye he ought to
be in Class A., and not in Class B., because you
have decided that the carrier is to be subject to
the provision of trucks, and not the Company;
that, therefore, he ought to go into Class A. ;
that is the argument I should have employed if
I had not been on the other side; but, in the
meantime, I would ask, is it not desirable that
your Lordships should decide that certain articles
are not articles for which the company ought to
be bound to provide trucks 2 that is the whole
matter. -
Mr. Wills.] I think I can show you that the
course I propose would really be for your con-
venience.
Chairman.] We must take your answer upon
this point.
Mr. Wills...] I would just put my answer to
my learned friends, Mr. Cripps and Mr. Pope,
upon this point. I am not going to argue here:
after that Class A. should be exempted from
paying for its trucks. If I should be removed
from Class B. to Class A., whatever I may think
of the charge for the trucks, I am quite willing
to accept it ; but if I should fail in that, th:
only ground upon which I should contend here-
after that those words should be eliminated, so
far
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI,
ORDER BILLS. 41
14 April 1891.
far as I am concerned would be that the impost
upon me would be raised to more than it has
been in the past, therefore I should be raising
the question of amount, and not of principle, in
regard to these conditions. With regard to
what my learned friend, Mr. Pope, has said,
the railway company will, of course, be repre-
sented when the question of classification comes
up, and they will be here to deal with this ques-
tion, and it would be simply repeating over again
what I must, in any case, say then, so that I
think I should be simply taking up the time of
the Committee upon precisely the same point if
I were to go into my question now.
Chairman.] No, I think we must hear you
now upon this clause if you have anything to say
upon it. What we want to do is to deal first
with every question which is common to all the
railway companies.
Mr. Wills.] Your Lordships, I understand, are
with me upon this question, that it will be neces-
sary upon this section that I should come back to
this question hereafter, supposing I should suc-
ceed upon the classification.
Chairman.] We are now dealing with all
matters which are common to all the railway
companies ; the classification will come under
another head.
Mr. Wills.] I am in this position, that I am
not prepared at this moment to go into all my
evidence with regard to the way in which the
classification affects me.
Chairman.] We are not dealing with the clas-
sification. *
Mr. Wills.] No ; but the only way in which
this clause affects me is that it puts something
upon me which I am hoping to get rid of, and
the reason I ask that is that the rates in classi-
fication B., in which I stand at present, are so
high.
Chairman.] Do not go into the classification
In OW.
Mr. Hunter.j Does not the learned counsel
desire to strike out some of the words in this
clause?
Mr. Wills.] Yes, I do.
Mr. Hunter.] Then why not do it now 2
Mr. Pope.] Why not say that lime and lias
Jime in bulk should not be carried in this way if
they are fit things for the company to provide
trucks for 2
Mr. Wills...] As a matter of fact my clients do
find trucks for the carriage of their lime, and I
find that the Board of Trade hold upon the
evidence submitted to them that that is the
general practice upon the part of lime burners,
and inasmuch as I do not propose to suggest by
myself and by witnesses that Class A. should be
disturbed in that respect, or as to any other
article which is in the habit of being carried in
the owners' trucks, I do not object upon principle
to the condition laid down in their Report by the
JBoard of Trade.
Chairman.] Do you object to anything in
Sub-Section A. P
Mr. Wills.] Yes; I ask for the removal of
these words upon the ground that the rates would
—º
be too high for me, and upon that point I must
call evidence. *
Mr. Pope.] I propose to call. Mr. Findlay for
the London and North Western Railway Com-
pany, to say why we think that this category of
articles for which the company should not be
bound to provide trucks should be extended by
the insertion of the words we propose.
Earl of Camperdown.] But this amendment is
in front of you ; it is to leave out lime and lias
lime ; just let Mr. Wills finish his argument.
Mr. Pope.] What I underatand him to say is
this: I understand him to say “I ask that these
words should be struck out,” but also to say
“I cannot give any reason for that; on the con-
trary, I have been in the habit of finding my
own trucks.”
Chairman (to Mr.
Wills).] Now what is
your amendment 2 --
Mr. Wills.] My amendment is the omission of
the words “ or to lime or lias lime in bulk;” and
in arguing the point, I am bound to tell you that
my only reason for doing that is, not that we do
not carry in our own trucks, we do ; nor that
things of this class are not carried in owners'
trucks; I believe they are, but the point is that
by the Report of the Board of Trade, standing as
we do in Classification B., the rates are made so
high upon me that they are made prohibitive.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you have to
prove it.
Mr. Wills.] Upon that I propose to call a
witness.
Mr. Pember.] After my learned friend calls
evidence upon that point, I shall mot be pre-
cluded, I hope, from making a verbal amendment
in the sub-section, to insert the word “specified”
instead of the word “included.”
Chairman.] We should take that first in order.
52
Mr. Pember.] The word “specified ” seems
the proper word to use and not the word “in-
cluded.” It may seem somewhat hypercritical
to say so, but I think you will see the reason for it
in a moment. There are certain articles speci-
fied in Class A. of the classification, why should
articles be in Class A. so long as they are carried
in four-ton lots? Whereas if they are carried in
less than four-ton lots they go into a higher class,
say Class B. So long as the word was “included,”
it might be that the suggestion would arise that
in the event of their going into another class
they would not be included ia Class A., but would
go into Class B. because they were in two-ton lots;
and being no longer included in Class A., we
might be called upon to supply waggons for them.
Now we hold that it is improper that we should
be called upon to supply waggons for carrying in
two-ton lots goods for which we should not be
called upon to supply waggons when carried in
four-ton lots, but if you alter the word to
“specified ” that question cannot arise, though
they are carried in Class B. they will still have
been once for all articles which are specified in
Class A. That is more than a mere verbal
criticism it points to an uncertainty which I think
should be got rid of. I do not suppose that
you will think it necessary that I should call any
evidence upon that point.
(81.)
F Chairman
42 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
Have you anything to say upon this point?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I have followed
the argument, and I think the alteration is a good
one, and that the alteration should be made.
Chairman.] Now we will hear Mr. Wills;
#. propose to strike out the words “ lime or
ias lime in bulk.”
Mr. Wills.] I have only one word more to
add as to that ; that that lime, lias lime in bulk,
and the word which follows next in the section,
salt in bulk, are the only articles in Classification
B. which are to pay for their trucks.
Chairman.] Where is lime in the Bill ?
Mr. Wills.] In the Great Western Bill which
I have before me; it is page 21.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Lime your Grace
will find in Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Salt and lime are in Class B. ; if
they had been in Class A. there would have
been no need to specify them, because they
would have come under the general denomina-
tion ; but because they are in Class B., and the
Board of Trade think they ought to be excepted,
they are excepted nominatim, and I shall ask you
presently to include other articles nominatim.
Earl of Belmore.] Why is lias lime in two
classes, B. and C. 7
Chairman.] Because it is in two-ton and four-
ton lots.
Mr. Pope.] It must be because it is in two-ton
and four-ton lots, I should think.
Earl of Belmore.] No, they are both in two-
ton fots.
Chairman.] We will ask Lord Balfour that
question.
Earl of Belmore.] Why is lias lime in Class
B. and Class C. in both cases in two-ton lots.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think that is not
so, lime in bulk is in one class and lime when
packed in bags, that is to say, except when here-
after otherwise provided, is in another class.
The Committee will see that E.O.H.P. is a con-
venient form for expressing “except when
otherwise hereinafter provided.” The practice is
to specify a particular way of packing, and then
to express by these words any other way of
carrying them, so that you may be quite sure
that the classification is entirely exhaustive.
MR. MICHAEL HENRY L.AKIN, is called in; and having been sworn, is Examined.
Mr. Wills.
1. YOU are a member of the firm of Messrs.
Greaves, Bull, and Lakin, and you are the senior
partner?—I am.
2. And you carry on the business of lime
burners at Hartrey, which is on the Oxford and
Birmingham branch of the Great Western Rail-
way ?–We do. -
3. Your works were established in 1855?—
They were.
4. When the Great Western Railway Act of
1847 was in force?—It was.
5. By Section 49 of that Act it was provided
that the maximum rates and charges for the
conveyance of goods should include the tolls for
the use of the railways and waggons and trucks?
--It was.
6. You have, as a matter of fact, I think, pro-
vided your own trucks 7–Principally.
7. If lime and lias lime, which you manufac-
ture, stand in Class B., as is the case at present,
you desire to have the rates in Class B. to in-
clude the provision of trucks by the company ?—
We desire to have an allowance made for the
provision of trucks, so as to make them equal
with other articles.
8. Is that what you have always had from the
railway companies ever since the establishment
of your works?—We have.
9. Have you considered what the effect would
be of having to pay for the trucks extra to what
you would have to pay under Class B. 2–We
think that lias lime is one of the articles of the
lowest value in the whole of Class B., and there-
fore we think that if we are to be penalised by
an extra payment for trucks we should be placed
in an unfair position with regard to other traders.
10. In class B. you include chalk lime, and
that, like the rest of the articles in the schedule,
Mr. Wills—continued.
has the trucks included in the conveyance charge;
do you oonsider that there is any material differ-
ence between that and your own lias lime for
these purposes 2—There is a considerable differ-
ence between lias lime and chalk lime in reference
to their effect upon the trucks. Chalk lime is
carried in the company’s trucks, whereas it is a
very much more corrosive article than lias lime.
Lias lime contains a very large percentage of
silica alumina, and other articles which are not
injurious in any way, and but a small proportion
of carbonate of lime, whereas chalk lime is
nearly pure carbonate of lime, and more corrosive
and injurious to the trucks.
11. In the Act of 1847 of the Great Western
Railway, lime was placed along with limestone P
—lt was placed in the lowest class; that was the
cheapest rate.
12. What do you consider will be the effect
upon your trade if this sub-section stands as it
does at present 2–The effect upon our trade
will be disastrous.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
13. At present, as you have already told us,
you do find your own trucks 7–Yes, we do.
14. As I understand it, you complain of lime
being put in class B., not in class A. 2–I am not
complaining of that now; I am now complaining of
being charged a higher rate than any other article
in class B.
15. Now let us see whether you should or
should not be, as a lime burner, upon the same
footing, as regards trucks, as any other trader in
class B. Take hoop iron, that is in class B.; which
does the most damage to the trucks, burnt lime
Or
ON RAILWAY
PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS. 43
RATES ANJO CEIARGES
14 April 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Mr. Wills—continued.
or hoop iron 2–I cannot say; I have never had
to carry hoop iron.
16. Seriously, which is the most corrosive 2–
Lime is the most corrosive, but lime does not
seriously injure the trucks.
17. But do not the railway companies find you
any trucks now 2–They do for a small portion of
our traffic.
18. They charge you for them 7 — Yes, they
charge us for them.
19. And if they have to find the trucks under
Class B. they will not be able to charge for them,
will they ; is not that the effect of it?—Yes.
20. Then what you propose to do is to alter
your classification; at all events, at present you
propose to strike yourself out of the exception so
as to compel the railway companies, if they carry
you under Class B., to find the trucks?—We
wish to be placed, as regards rates, upon the same
scale as other articles in Class B.
21. Do not you see that what I have said to
the Committee is the truth, and that you can use
it as an argument for being put in Class A.; but if
you are left in Class B. you will have to pay for
your trucks 7–We object to be put in Class B.
and charged a higher rate than any other article.
Chairman. That is classification.
Witness. I am objecting to the charge for
the truck in addition to the rate charged for
other articles.
Mr. Pope.
22. If you are left in Class B., without
the exception in this sub-section, then the railway
company would be bound to provide trucks at the
maximum rate of that class 2–Yes.
23. At the present time they do not ; you
find your own trucks 2–But the rates are very
different.
24. In fact, it is a question of rate.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
25. Do I rightly understand your objection
—that the rate in Class B. includes truck hire;
but that in your particular class it would not
include truck hire?—That is so ; we say that
our article is one of the lowest in value, and it is
charged a higher rare than any other article in the
same class.
Mr. Pember.
26. At present you are in Class B., are you
not 2–No, we are not.
27. In the Clearing House Classification ?—
That has nothing to do with traders; we know
nothing about the Clearing House Classifica-
tion.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the reason
that lime or lias lime in bulk are specially in-
serted in this exception ; is it because they
destroy the trucks very much, or what is the
reason 2
Mr. Pope.] That is one of the reasons, but that
had better be answered by the manager.
Earl of Camperdown.] Who is the proposer of
this sub-section ; he is the person who ought
really to be able to answer that question.
Mr. Pope.] The reason for the framing of this
Mr. Pember—continued.
section is shown upon page 18, according to my
edition of the Board of Trade Report, “ Provision
for truck hire in England ” (this is the language
of the report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and
Mr. Courtenay Boyle), “as a rule the companies
do not find waggons for articles in Class A. or
for lime or salt, and the conveyance rate appli-
cable to that class does not cover the cost of
conveyance, consequently the companies ought
in fairness to be authorised to charge in cases
where they do provide trucks. In this case
we have fixed a maximum, but in the alternative
where the owners provide their own trucks for
merchandise in the other classes *——
Earl of Camperdown.] That is a different
thing.
Mr. Pope.] That has reference to another mat-
ter altogether; that is the reason given by the
Board of Trade for including them; there are
traffic reasons for including them and for includ-
ing other articles which I shall mention presently,
and which I will call our manager to prove; but
in the frame of the Bill it stands as specified
by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle. -
Earl of Camperdown.] I will ask Lord Balfour.
Of the report, I apprehend the Board of Trade
are in favour of these articles appearing as they
do appear in the Provisional Order.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.j We thought the
clause fair as it stood; we adhere to those reasons
which the learned Counsel has given.
Mr. Pember.] This gentleman trades upon the
Great Western Railway. Mr. Lambert will tell
you in a few minutes the reason for the thing
being as it is. There are two rates quoted; one
for lime in owners' waggons, and another for
lime in company’s waggons.
Re-examined by Mr. Wills.
28. Do I understand you to say that lias lime
and lime in bulk are amongst the cheapest articles
of those in class B. 2–They are.
29. What do you say in regard to their de-
structiveness, or their power of injuring the
trucks, as compared with other articles in that
class 7–I say that there are many other articles;
chalk lime, for instance, which would certainly
be far more destructive than lias lime.
Mr. Bidder.] I should like to point out that
chalk lime is put in exactly the same category ;
lime means chalk lime.
Mr. Hanbury." As regards the custom of pro-
vision or non-provision of trucks, this only re-
cognises the existence of the custom.
Mr. Pember.] Universally throughout the
kingdom.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, as the Board of Trade say,
universally through the kingdom it is not the
custom to provide trucks for this article.
Witness.] The Great Western Company gave
evidence before Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in
which they said they had provided trucks for all
(81.)
F 2 the
44 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.]
Mr. Wills—continued.
the lime burners upon their system except one,
that was myself. -
Earl of Camperdown.
30. Do they give you a lower rate in conse-
quence 2–Yes, a lower rate, which they do not
propose to do now.
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT is called in
Mr. Pember.
33. YoU are the General Manager of the Great
Western Railway ?—Yes.
34. First of all, so far as your company is con-
cerned, it is your general practice not to provide
waggons for lime, either lias or chalk in bulk 2
—That is our general practice; there are excep-
tions by agreement. -
35. When by agreement you supply the
waggons, you of course charge a higher rate 2–
Yes.
36. Which class in the Clearing House Classifi-
cation is lime in bulk in now 2–I think it is
Mineral B.
37. Would you say why you desire on the
art of the railway company to have lime in
bulk, whether it is chalk or bias lime, within
exception as to the provision of waggons —We
find by experience that lime injures the trucks,
and also exposes us to risk from fire. I have
here a list of instances where lime, or trucks
carrying lime, have ignited and damage has been
done to a greater or less extent to the trucks;
in fact, in July last, we had a fire at Penzance
which might have destroyed the station, fortu-
mately it was discovered in time and stopped, but
the risk of fire and the corrosion of the iron-work,
and therefore the damage to the trucks, are the
two principal reasons that we have for asking
that, so far as lime is concerned, we should not
be compelled to find trucks.
38. Is there another reason, namely, that the
trucks which have been used for lime are not so
usable for other commodities afterwards?—
When a truck has been used for lime, it being of
a very fine powdery character, gets into the
trucks, and we are not able to put general mer-
chandise into a truck which has been so used.
39. You can speak, I believe, as to the general
practice of the other railway companies through-
out the Kingdom ?–I believe our practice is
fairly uniform in principle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wills.
40. Are you aware that the rates in Class B.
include waggons in regard to all except one or
two of the articles there included ?–Yes, that
is so. -
41. Therefore the rates applicable to Class B.
contain the payment for the waggons in every
other case ?—Yes, they do. -
42. Whereas in regard to lias lime and lime
in bulk, an amount equivalent to the price they
charge for waggons over again is chargeable *-
It might be chargeable, undoubtedly, if the
article were retained in Class B., and we were
not under obligation to provide waggons. If we
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Chairman.
31 It really is a qustion of rate, is it not ?—
No, we do not want to be penalised by this
special clause, which obliges us to pay an extra
sum for the use of the trucks.
32. Is not that a question of rate 2—It is a
question of payment.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
; and having been sworn, is Examined.
Mr. Wills—continued.
found the waggons we should have to make the
necessary charge; but I should say that, so far
as your clients are concerned, we always make
rates in consideration of their finding the
waggons, and we have developed a very large
trade with them for years past.
43. You have made a rebate practically on
account of their supplying their own waggons?
—We have taken into account the fact of their
supplying their own waggons.
44. Which you will not do in the future,
supposing this class stands as it is under Classi-
fication B. 2–I apprehend that we shall, in the
future, have to recognise the fact that they find
their own waggons.
45. Do you mean in the rates that you will
charge them 2–Yes, in the rates that we shall
charge them.
46. Upon what ground do you justify the
exception with regard to lime and lias lime 2–
I have specified some of the principal grounds,
that lime is more destructive; then it exposes us
to the risk of fire, and that trucks when used for
it are not so usable for general merchandise
afterwards. ->
47. I put it to you that is a ground for the
classification, and not a ground for bringing
them within the exception in Sub-section A. P-
We thought the proper way to provide for it
was to bring them into class B., and within those
exceptions.
48. Do not you understand the difference of
classification depends upon many elements, one
of which is the injury to the travelling stock 2–
The difference in classification depends upon a
good many considerations. -
49. Is not that one of them 2–We have asked
that we may be released from the obligation to
provide waggons in consequence of the circum-
stances I have already referred to.
50. You do not put it upon the ground that
this is a class of trade which the owners should
carry in their own waggons, you put it upon
other grounds 2—We put it upon that ground
also. -
51. In what particular respect do you say
that lias lime is more injurious to the trucks
than chalk lime 2—I am not prepared to go into
a fine distinction of that kind, we regard lime
generally as lime. -
52. Take tarred gravel for paving,
regard that as injurious to trucks?
Chairman.] What are you dealing with now,
because we are dealing with the question
whether lime and lias lime shall stand part of
that sub-section?
do you
Mr.
os RAILway RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 45
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
14 April 1891.],
Mr. Wills, I am only comparing them with
other articles in Class B. which are exempted
from that classification.
Chairman.] That is classification ; what we
are now hearing the railway company upon is
that those words shall stand part of the clause.
Mr. Wills.] Upon the ground, among others,
that lime is not more injurious than plenty of
other things which do not come within it; grayel
tar for paving, for instance, is in Class B. (To
the Witness.) What do you say to that'
Witness.] Gravel for tar paving we are asking
may be excluded also.
Mr. Humter.
53. Was it by accident or design that chalk
lime was omitted from the exceptions 2–We
considered that the term lime included or
covered chalk lime.
54. But in Class B. you have chalk lime as a
distinct thing from lime in bulk —I understand
clearly that the term lime covers chalk lime in
Class B.
55. Then why do you mention lias lime se
parately 2—That is also mentioned to indicate
the large trade that we carry on; either chalk
lime ought to be included, or lias lime ought to
be excluded, one or the other.
Chairman.] We will ask Lord Balfour as to
that. -
Mr. Pember.] I think I have arrived at what
the meaning of that is, lime is lime which
has been burnt; chalk lime is practically the
chalk before it has been burnt; it is the natural
rock, and that of course does not do any harm to
the waggons.
Witness.] It is limestone.
Mr. Pember.] And it does not do any harm to
the waggons until it has been burnt; when it
has been burnt, then it becomes lime proper.
MR. GEORGE FINDLAY, is called
Mr. Moon.
56: YOU are the general manager of the London
and North Western Railway 2—I am.
57. You are proposing, are you not, to add to
the articles which we have just been discussing
lime and lias lime, other articlés which you are
asking the Committee to enact that you shall
not be bound to provide trucks for ?–Yes.
58. The articles are ammoniacal liquor and
similar products?—Every kind of gas-tar and
liquid, which is generally taken in tanks provided
by the owners, they are never carried in com-
pany’s waggons.
59. Those you say are never carried in com-
pany’s waggons 2–-No.
60. Creosote, we know, coal-tar, gas-tar, gas-
water, or gravel tarred for paving. Will you tell
the Committee upon what ground you ask to
have an exception made in the case of those
articles from the obligatinn upon the companies
Lord Belper.] But why is lias lime lime which
has beed burnt, and chalk lime not ; lias lime is
a particular geological formation; it does not
necessarily imply that it has been burnt.
Mr. Pember.] I suppose it may be that the
word chalk lime ought to be extended to mean
chalk, or any other lime; stone unburnt, I think,
that is quite probable.
Lord Belper.] “Lias” is not a definition of
burnt lime.
Mr. Pember.] Lias and burnt lime are both
intended to mean lime when burnt.
Mr. Wills.] May I point out that Class A.
contains limestone in bulk, and also chalk in the
rough for agricultural purposes, so that that dis-
tinction is a true one. -
Witness.] They are both undamageable articles
which do not affect the trucks at all; it is the
bnrnt and the lias lime which affect the trucks.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
The Committee having consulted together.
Chairman.] The Committee are of opinion
that the words lime or lias lime in bulk should
stand part of the clause. (To Mr. Pope.) Now I
want to know why you want to put in your
words.
Mr. Pope.] I will ask Mr. Findlay to come in
the Box and say why we want to increase these
exceptions by the instances I have put before
you.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I have another proposal
something similar to the last proposed amend-
ment upon Sub-section A., excepting from the
merchandise referred to in Sub-section A., certain
parish refuse : that is to say as regards parish
refuse, I am asking your Grace and the Com-
mittee to ammend sub-section A., by excluding
from its operation parish refuse when carried
directly for the parish authorities.
Chairman.] We will deal first with the amend-
ment proposed by Mr. Pope and then hear what
you have to say.
in, and having been sworn ; is Examined:
Mr. Moon—continued.
to provide trucks 2—The course of trade under
which those articles are carried is invariably that
the waggons are provided by the owners. In
the case of coal-tar, gas-far, gas-water, ammo-
niacal liquor and creosote, they build special tanks
for them, and we convey them; it would be
impossible for them to be conveyed in the rail-
way oompany’s ordinary waggons.
Mr. Dickson.
61. You mean tank waggons?—l mean tank
Waggons built of iron and their frames screwed
down so, as to preserve the liquid from running
out of them.
Mr. Pope.] If you look at Class A. you will
See “creosote, coal-tar, gas-tar, gas-water, in
owners' tank waggons” are included in the list
for which trucks are not required, and then in
Class B, those things have the letters “E.O.H.P.”
(81.)
If 3. - that
46 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 'TAKEN.
BEFORE THE JOINT CO WIMITTEE
14 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Dickson—continued.
that is to say, where it is sent otherwise than in
owners waggons, that we are not to be bound
to send them in our trucks.
Mr. Moon. -
62. (To the Witness.) As my learned friend
Mr. Pope has pointed out, these articles when
carried in tanks are in Class A. P-Yes.
63. If carried in bulk they are in Class B. 2–
If carried under any other conditions; but what
I say is that they never are or very rarely are
carried under any other conditions.
64. If you did not make the exception, in that
case you might be called upon by any trader
to carry in your trucks ammoniacal liquor in
bulk 2–Yes,
65. Loose in the truck 2–In tanks or barrels;
if so there is no doubt that the carriage of this
liquor and creosote in the company’s waggons
would entirely destroy them for the purpose of
the company’s business.
66. You would not be able to use those wag-
gons for other purposes?–No.
67. Then you had better explain to the Com-
mittee about tarred gravel for paving ; is that
at present carried in the trader's waggons or in
yours?—There is a very small trade indeed in
tarred gravel, but whenever that is carried it is
carried in owner’s waggons, not in the company's
Waggons.
68. That also I assume would so spoil your
trucks that you could not use them for general
purposes?—Yes.
69. And is it so specified in the Board of
Trade Report (page 18 in my copy), that it is
the universal practice of railway companies not
to find waggons for articles of that class 7—It is.
Mr. Dickson.
70. You are speaking now of England alone 2
—I am speaking for the London and North-
Western Railway Company, and to the best of
my knowledge, so far for the other companies
who are concerned in this traffic. I think I
know Ireland pretty well, and the same condition
of things prevails in Ireland certainly with regard
to these articles.
7 l. Are you aware that in Ireland tar and
ammoniacal liquors are carried in casks by the
railway companies and not in tanks at all ; can
you name any railway in Ireland where am-
moniacal liquor is carried in tanks?—I have seen
it carried in tanks, but I cannot say that I have
seen it carried in Ireland.
72. Are you aware that all the small gas
works in Ireland which cannot turn their am-
moniacal liquor into nitrate have to send their
ammoniacal liquor and gas-tar to the principal
towns in casks, and not in tanks at all 2–I am
not aware of that.
73. And that the railway companies in Ireland
do not provide tanks, but take it in barrels or in
casks 2—Nor in England do railway companies
provide tanks; the owners provide tanks them-
selves.
74. Are you oware that it is the custom of
the railway companies in Ireland to take ammo-
niacal liquor and tar in the gas companies' casks?
—I am not aware of that,
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
75. As I understand, all these articles you
have made an exception of differ in the con-
ditions of carriage very much from those in
Class A. 2–The same articles are enumerated in
Class A.
76, Class B. I mean?—They occur in both
classes.
77. They are well distinguished from the other
articles in the class by reason of the damage they
do to the trucks?—Yes.
78. Why should you not have a separate class
for those articles 2–If you go on making sepa-
rate classes for specific articles you would have
an innumerable number of classes, and it is a
good deal better to make exceptions where neces-
sary than to have an innumerable number of
classes.
79. Are not the exceptions in this particular
case more numerous than the Class A. P-No,
certainly not.
80. It is the whole of Class A. and some of
Class B. that is not to be carried in trucks, for
which the trucks are not to be included; is not
that so 2–The whole of Class A. and the
excepted articles in Class, B.
81. Therefore it must be larger thsn Class A.
Why should you not have these very matters
dealt with in a separate class altogether?—I do
not follow that it is so, that the excepted articles
are not more numerous than the Class A. t
82. They include all Class A. and some of
Class B. P.-Quite true.
83. Why should not these matters be dealt
with in a separate class. Would not that be
much clearer than dealing with them in a sepa-
rate section. Supposing you got the same rate
it would not matter to you ?—I grant that if
we got the same rate it would not matter, qua
rate; but I think it would matter a great deal
in the principle of classification. -
84. Is there anything very sacred in having
eight classes 2—No ; but if you once depart
from what the custom of certainly 45 years has
shown to be necessary, and which the Board of
Trade have adopted in the scheme of rates, the
classification, it appears to me that you may
have 50 classes, and argue upon the same prin-
ciple that it would be better to have 30 sets of
rates applicable. You must draw the line some-
where.
85. I know you must draw the line some-
where ; but it does not follow that the eight
classes, although they have been adopted by the
railway companies, is a sufficient number -
That would be entirely in the discretion of the
Committee. Speaking as a railway man, I
think that eight classes is quite sufficient, the
eight sets of rates. Of course the Committee
may deal with it in any way you suggest they
should do.
86. If it conduces to clearness, the trader,
knowing what he is charged, and you get the
same rates, it does not matter to you whether
there are eight, nine, or ten classes ;-I should
agree to that general proposition as to the effect
of it, but I do not agree as to the principle of it.
87. Lord Belper.] Did I rightly understand that
you include tarred gravel in the same category as
those
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORTER 181LLS.
47
14 April 1891.] .
Mr. FINDLAY.
-----msº
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
those other articles, creosote, coal tar, gas-tar, and
ammoniacal liquor 2–Yes, as to damage to wagº
gons and our not finding waggons for that class of
traffic,
88. You think the damage would be as great
from tarred gravel?—Yes, I think so.
89. It is a much drier article, is it not ?—Some-
times.
90. And it is not included in Class A. P-I do
not think it is an important traffic under any state
of things so far as we are concerned.
Lord Belper.] It is not included in Class A., I
think?
Mr. Pope.] I cannot find it anywhere.
Mr. Pember.] It is in Class B., my Lord.
91. Lord Houghton.] Do you apply to have it
transferred to another class 2–No; that we
should not be bound to find waggons for it.
92. Lord Belper.] But you think that it would
damage the waggons equally with the other
articles in the class 2—Most certainly.
93. Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to ask
you why did you pick out these special articles,
creosote, and all the rest ; was your reason for
picking them out that they do special damage?—
Yes.
94. Did you propose to the Board of Trade,
when you were before them, to insert these
special articles in this manner 2–I am unable to
answer that question without reference at the
moment. I was not examined on the question of
classification ; unfortunately I was ill at the
time.
95. It is not a question of classification at all.
You are now proposing to insert into the sub-
section of the section certain articles; and what
I want to know is, whether, when you were
before the Board of Trade, and had an oppor-
tunity of agreeing or disagreeing with them, you
proposed to insert these same articles 2–I can-
not give a direct answer to that, I think some
other witness would be better able to speak to
that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I believe you did,
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I am in a position
to give Lord Camperdown the information that
he desires. The London and North Western
Company in their deposited schedule proposed
that provision for trucks should not be made by
the Company for clay in bulk, gas-tar, lime, lime
in bulk, light soil, salt in bulk, sand in bulk,
those articles being then in Class B., and the
following articles, creosote, coal tar, and gas-
Water.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then what they pro-
posed at that time was to deal with those articles
by classification, and not by inserting them spe-
cially in a sub-section.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. No ; I am read-
ing from the sub-section ; and we altered the
sub-section, rightly or wrongly, by striking out
most of the articles which the railway Companies
are now proposing to re-insert.
Earl of Camperdown.] On what ground, do
you mind telling us, did you strike them out 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] The principle we
proceeded upon was to divide them according to
the method of packing; that is to say, when they
were carried in owners’ tank waggons they
would be in Class A. ; when they were carried
in any other way, either in companies waggons,
or, which is very commonly the case with
ammoniacal liquor, or gas water, in casks or
iron drums, then they go into a higher class.
Earl of Camperdown.]. In other words you
thought it better to deal with those things by
exception rather than by classification.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] We dealt with
them on the same lines by exception. We did
deal by classification ; besides, in some cases,
we dealt with them by classification, and in dif-
ferent cases by way of exception.
Earl of Camperdown.] When you made differ-
ences by way of exception where do those
exceptions appear 2
Lord Balfour of Bueleigh..] There is only one
in the sub-clause you are dealing with.
Mr. Pope.] The words of the clause proposed
by the Board of Trade were, “lime, lias lime,
lime in bulk, and salt in bulk.”
Earl of Comperdown.] And now certain other
additional articles are proposed to be inserted.
Mr. Pope.] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then the Board of
Trade, apparently, as Lord Balfour says, thought
that those articles ought to be dealt with as
exceptional, and provided those exceptions for
them, I say where do those exceptions appear 2
Apparently not in the sub-section, but it would
seem by means of classification.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] By classification.
Mr. Pope.] It is only right, I think, that I
should explain what Lord Balfour says. He
says that we did not think it was necessary to
except the articles now proposed to be excepted.
We thought if we put them in class B, which
was, as we say, a higher class than they would
otherwise be in if they were carried in owners’
trucks, we did practically all that was necessary
with regard to those articles; that is what I under-
stand my Lord Balfour to say.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You will find it here
in the classification.
Chairman.] We should like to hear what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has to say upon this point.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We were asked in the
schedule deposited by the London and North
Western Railway Company to say that the maxi-
mum rate included the provision of trucks, except
for certain specified articles, those specifiéd
articles including inter alia, creosote, coal tar,
gas tar, and gas water. After hearing the
whole of the evidence, including the evidence
given in Ireland, we came to the conclusion
not to make those exceptions, but only to
make exceptions as regards lias lime in bulk or
salt in bulk ; one of the principal reasons
being, as Lord Balfour has explained to your
(81.)
F 4 Grace,
48 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN IBEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.]
Grace, that the conveyance of gas tar and gas
water is very often in iron casks or iron drums,
and that it was reasonable that the railway com-
pany should be called upon to provide waggons
for that class of traffic.
Lord Belper.] I understand that tarred gravel
has never been included in the proposed excep-
tions before the Board of Trade 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Never.
Lord Belper.] Therefore no proposal of that
kind ever came before the Board of Trade at
all.
Mr. Pope.] That appears to be so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] What
I gather from your statement is that these articles
are generally carried in barrels or drums; but,
supposing that they are not so carried, then what
is to happen?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] They are carried in
two ways, in owners’ tank-waggons, and in casks
and drums; those are the principal ways of
carrying the articles. If they are carried in
owners’ tank-waggons they are in Class A. of the
classification, as proposed by the Provisional
Orders as deposited before your Grace, conse-
quently the owners, not the companies, would
have to provide waggons for creosote carried in
owners' tank-waggons. But, as it is proposed, the
companies would have to provide waggons for
creosote, if it was not carried in owners' waggons,
but carried in iron casks or drums.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At some time, when
your Grace comes to the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conferences Schedule, you will find
that they have all along proposed to treat all the
exceptions, every one of them, in classification,
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
and to make a separate class for that purpose.
That would be much clearer.
Mr. Pope..] “Sufficient unto the day is the
evil thereof.” •
Mr. Pember.] The Great Western Railway
Company tell me that they would be quite con-
tent to give up the exception with regard to iron
casks or drums, but it is when they are carried
in wooden casks and crack that they want th
exception. $
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is classification
again.
Chairman.] Why do they want the exception
then P
Mr. Pember.] Because of the damage. We
were going to call a goods manager, if your
Grace will allow us, who will tell us how it is.
Mr. Twelvetrees, of the Great Northern Railway,
knows all about the subject, and in a few minutes
will tell us how it stands.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all classifica-
tion. º
Mr. Pember.] With regard to tarred gravel,
I do not mean to say that it is never used, but
that that is a new article; it did not appear in
any of the classifications, either our own, or the
classification appended to the Report of the
Board of Trade ; therefore it comes up, so to
speak, for the first time. Mr. Twelvetrees will
tell you all about it.
Chairman.] The object is to allow the com.
panies to deal with coal-tar, &c., in the same way
as lias and lime in bulk, because they may spoil
their waggons.
Mr. Pember.] Quite so.
Chairman.] Then you will show us that these
things will damage the waggons 2
MR. RICHARD HOOPER TWELVETREES, is called in ; and, having been
sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
96. You are the goods manager of the Great
Northern Railway Company ?—Yes.
97. Will you just explain with regard to the
schedule which the companies have deposited (I
say the companies, because they are all alike in
such a matter as this) what classes the articles
now referred to were placed in. Take creosote
and coal-tar?—Creosote, coal-tar, gas-tar, and
gas-water were deposited in Class C.
98. Was any form of packing mentioned in
that classification as deposited 2–Not at all.
99. They were in Class C. —Yes.
100. Was there any allusion to tarred gravel
at all ?—Not at all.
101. In what class was ammoniacal liquor ; I
think in Class C., but you had better make sure ?
—It was not in at all ; it is really the same
thing as gas-water, it is another name for it.
102. And tarred gravel I think did not appear
in any classification ?–It did not.
Chairman.] But what I think is the point we
wish to have before us just now is, whether this
Mr. Pember—continued.
gentleman will tell us that these articles which
are enumerated do cause injury to the companies’
trucks.
103. Mr. Pember.] Just to make the whole
thing clear, your Grace, I was going to ask one
question more. It is just this (to the Witness).
In your classification and schedule as deposited,
you had, under Head 2, a provision to this effect:
“The provision of trucks is not included in the
maximum rates applicable to other matters,” and
then follow the words, “the following merchan .
dise comprised in class C., creosote, coal-tar, gas-
tar, gas-water"?—That is so. tº
104. Now to answer his Grace's suggested
question, what was your reason for excepting
the provision of waggons with regard to those
items ?—Where creosote, or gas-water, or gas-tar,
or gas-tarred gravel is loaded in companies’
Waggons it fouls the waggons to that extent that
they cannot use them for ordinary traffic after-
wards. For instance, we have had numerous
complaints in the case of tea or flour, or traffic of
that
O N RAILWAY RATES
PROVISIONAL ORDER IBILLS. 49
AN ID C H A R G ES
14 April 1891.] .
Mr. Pember—continued.
that description, which will absorb smell; we
have paid a very large number of claims for them.
You never know ; it takes a long time to get the
smell out of them.
105. Will that apply to a case where some of
these are carried either in iron drums or in iron
casks?—I do not suppose it would matter so
muchiniron drums; but it certainly would in casks.
106. In iron casks ; there are no iron casks ;
when they talked of iron casks they meant
drums ?—Yes.
107. But even there, if in filling the drums
any is spilt over ?—It would contaminate the
truck, no doubt.
108. But in wooden casks I suppose it leaks?
—They always leak ; you cannot avoid it.
Mr. Pember.] I have already stated, I think,
to your Grace, that with regard to iron drums,
although there is the question of careless filling
and smell in consequence, the railway company
would be content to withdraw those from the
proposed exception, but not the casks.
Cross-examimed by Mr. Balfour Browne.
109. You have told us distinctly that gravel
tar was omitted altogether?---Yes.
110. That was an oversight; it did not occur
to you when the schedule was prepared 2–It
was not included. The first time it appeared in
classification was in the Provisional Order.
111. That is not so, I understand?—I thoughtso.
112. However, other articles may from time
to time become known to commerce that would
injure a truck by being carried in it 2–I’robably,
113. Will you tell me this, if you put those
articles in a class, that new article could be added
to it, could it not ?—I suppose so.
114. If you treat it as an exception, nothing
more can ever be put into the exception ?--I
think so.
115. How 2–By the Board of Trade.
116. Except by Act of Parliament 2–By the
Board of Trade.
117. With great respect, the Board of Trade
has only power to alter classes; it has no power
to alter an exception once Parliament passes it.
Is not that good reason for having it in a class
instead of an exception ?–It may be.
118. Because articles continually arise that
might injure trucks in which they are carried?—
I do not know of any.
119. But the tarred gravel is an instance of
one that you did not know of before. It would
not matter to a railway company a bit if all those
articles were put in a separate class, and dealt
with in a class instead of by exception ?—So
long as we got paid for them.
Mr. Dickson.
120. In what respect does the carriage of am-
moniacal liquor differ from petroleum in barrels.
You carry petroleum in barrels, do you not ?—
Yes.
121. Is not petroleum liable to leakage as well
as ammoniacal liquor P-I have not known it to
injure the trucks to that extent ; we have not
come across any case where it has done so.
122. Have you had no complaints of leakage
in connection with the carrying of petroleum 2–
Mr. TWELVETREES.
ſ Continued.
Mr. Dickson—continued.
I should
No ; it evaporates very much sooner.
imagine that will be the reason of it.
123. Would not petroleum leave exactly the
same effects behind it in a waggon as ammo-
niacal liquor 2—I think the effects would go off
very much sooner. I have not known of any
damages caused to goods from petroleum where
petroleum leaked. -
124. Do you consider the carrying of ammo-
niacal liquor in bulk more dangerous than the
carrying of copperas in bulk 2–I have had no
experience of copperas.
[25. You are aware that you carry pitch
without any specification as to that? -- Dry pitch;
I do not think that injures the trucks,
126. How do you carry tar for manufacturing
purposes, for sailcloths and ropes, Archangel tar;
is not that carried in barrels?—Yes.
127. Is that injurious to the waggons —That
is in a semi-liquid state. I do not know that
there is any leakage of that.
128. Have you ever heard of Archangel tar
being carried in iron drums or barrels 2–I have
In Ot.
Mr. Hanbury.] How far does this carry us.
I suppose by this sub-clause the company can-
not be calied upon to provide waggons. All that
this clause says is, that iſ the company do provide
waggons they shall charge for them.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] Then, again, you see the words
are “the provision of trucks is not included in
the maximum rates.”
Earl of Camperdown.] They must provide
waggons, but they may charge extra ; they may
charge specially.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know about “must.” I
do not think it is right to say to the Committee
that there is an obligation upon the company to
provide trucks.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is only by agreement,
if you look at the clause. -
Earl of Camperdown.] It is only by agree-
ment that trucks are provided at the present
time?
Mr. Pope.] For these articles.
Mr. Hambury.] The clause only says that the
provision of trucks is not included in the maxi-
mum rates.
Earl of Camperdown.] I could not understand
that very thing.
Mr. Pope.] If you go on it is by agreement,
you will see, but the company may provide trucks
at an agreed price.
ICarl of Camperdown.] If you take the section
as a whole it says that the maximum rate is so-
and-so, but there is a proviso that trucks are not
included in the maximum rates; but there is
nothing in that section which says that the com-
pany shall not be obliged to provide trucks; it
says that the company may charge for them, but
it does not say that they are not obliged to pro-
vide them. *
Mr. Pope.] There is nothing in that section :
but there is an obligation upon the company to
(81.)
G provide
50
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMIMITTEE
14 April 1891.]
Mr. Twelve TREES.
[Continued.
provide trucks for the conveyance of all that are
not excepted articles. The intention of the
cxception is to remove from the company the
obligation of finding trucks except by agreement
in the case of these excepted articles.
Earl of Camperdown.] Where is that to be
found P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not in the Order
at all.
Mr. Pope.] I quite agree. I only say that
that is the intention of the clause as drawn.
Earl of Camperdown.] I tried to read the
clause and I could not make it out.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say one word
upon this matter ?
Earl of Camperdown.] It is not a question of
argument, Mr. Browne. I merely asked Mr.
Pope a question which he has answered me.
I said, can you point out to me where in
that clause the company are freed from the
obligation of finding trucks, and he says, No
I cannot.
Mr. Pope.] So far as this section is concerned,
there is no variance of the obligation. The in-
tention of the section was to make the provision
of trucks in these excepted articles not obligatory,
but subject to agreement. But with the clause
as drawn I agree with your Lordship's construc-
tion, that the liability to find trucks as part of
conveyance, would inure, notwithstanding that
the construction of the section as drawn was not
intended to be so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I point out that
every one of these articles is at the present time
in the classification by which the company is
bound to provide trucks; and by putting them in
here they are getting a reduction of rate. That
is their object.
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course I know it is
a question of rate; but this is a different point
altogether.
Chairman.] Could the company under this
section decline altogether to carry these ar-
ticles?
Mr. Pope..] I think that the obligation of the
company to provide trucks depends upon the
articles being in a class for which trucks are obli-
gatory; and if they were excepted from that
class, then the intention was to except them from
the obligation. But I agree with Lord Camper-
down, that the clause as drawn does not exempt
them from the obligation, it simply empowers
them to agree.
Mr. 11ambury.] Even with your amendment.
Mr. Pope.] Even with my amendment.
Ilord Belper.] May I ask whether Lord Bal-
four interprets the clause as Mr. Pope does.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It is not our in-
tention to exempt the railway companies from
the obligation of providing trucks; but if they
do provide them they are to have this payment
for them. We distinctly do not want to exempt
the company from provision of trucks.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens...] Might I say for the
West Cumberland Iron Association that we are
largely interested in this question. At the pre-
sent moment our position is this, that if we pay
the maximum rate that maximum rate includes
trucks which they are bound to afford.
Mr. Pope.] Has my learned friend deposited
any amendment?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes, I have.
Mr. Pope..] It should have been sent to us.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] It has been sent to
you. -
Chairman.] But you are dealing with iron.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Chairman.] Then it is not within this excep-
tion -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] It is not in the excep-
tion I agree, but it is within the clause; the affect
of the amendment is to put iron ore which
previously was free in the maximum rate. -
Earl of Camperdown.] That is not before us
I] O.W. -
Chairman.] We will deal with your iron at the
proper time.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] As your Lordship
pleases. All I am concerned to bring before
your Grace's mind at this moment, is that I
represent on this point the largest interest
in the West of Cumberland in this particular
trade.
Chairman.] That is iron.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Chairman.] But you are not gas.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes, section A. affects
us. The effect of the alteration of this provision,
by exempting Schedule A., is that it exempts the
railway company from the liability to find trucks
for us, therefore we are affected.
Mr. Pope.] That is, my learned friend is in
Clause A. and wants to be put out of Class A.;
that is classification. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then Mr. Pope, to
make things perfectly clear, I understand that
you object to this clause as it is at present
drawn. -
Mr. Pope.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] Because you said to me
just now that although there were certain things
which were the intention, yet, as the clause was
drawn, the clause does not carry out the effect
which you wish.
Mr. Pope.] I am content to accept the re-
sponsibility of the drafting whatever its conse-
quences may be ; I do not propose to amend
anything I have put before your Lordships, and
although, as a matter of construction I could have
drafted it better to carry out the intention, I
waived the intention and put the clause before
you as it is drawn.
Earl of Camperdown.] Who drew it?
Mr. Pope.] The Board of Trade.
Mr. Hambury.] However, Mr. Pope's inten-
tion is to exempt the railway companies from
responsibility
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 51
14 April 1891.]
responsibility to provide waggons for those par-
ticular articles.
Mr. Pope.] That is so.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is not the intention of
the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] That is so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And to which the
traders object.
Mr. Bidder.] That is not quite matter of fact.
This clause is to exempt the provision of wag-
gons from the charge for conveyance for those
particular articles, but it does not follow that a
company is exempted from the obligation to pro-
vide waggons, because a trader may go to the
railway company for facilities, and may order
the provision of waggons as a reasonable facility
if they think it so. That is where the obligation
coines in. But then that would of course be
subject to a separate charge, in case of difference
to be settled by the Railway Commissioners.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not assent to that
view, I think that there ought to be something
obligatory upon railway companies to provide
waggons if they are paid for them.
Mr. Bidder.] Whether reasonable or not.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I should certainly
support that application, your Grace, because we
have got the waggons now.
Chairman.] Do I rightly understand Lord
Balfour to say that the view which the Board of
Trade take upon this is that subject, to agree-
ment upon fair terms, the companies ought to be
bound to find waggons for these articles?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] If, as we under-
stand, they are bound to provide waggons at the
present time, the obligation will remain, and in
a subsequent clause, which your Grace will come
to, the terms on which they are to provide
waggons are laid down.
Chai, man.] How does that obligation arise 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I would rather
not attempt to re-state it; but as we followed
Mr. Bidder's statement just now, we adhere to
the interpretation that he gave of the existing
state of matters.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know whether,
upon that point, you will hear me for a minute.
Although, of course, the intention of the Board
of Trade is clear, from what Lord Balfour says,
I do not think that this amendment carries it
out, and I would venture to point out that after
it is declared that the maximum rate shall include
the provision of trucks, it says, “Provided that ”
(here is an exception brought in) “the provision
of trucks is not included in the maximum rates
applicable to ” these things, and then goes on to
say, “But the company may, by agreement with
any trader, provide trucks for such merchandise
upon the terms hereinafter prescribed.” That
surely shows (that is the London and North
Western Company’s proposal) that they are not
bound to provide the trucks, otherwise it would
not be necessary to put in the agreement. That
is what I contend.
Mr. Bidder.] May I suggest to my learned
-**
friend that he cannot argue what the present
law is upon that amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am only arguing
upon your suggestion.
Chairman.] What I want to get at is, what is
the law at the present moment?
Mr. Pope.] The law at the present moment is,
that for certain articles, unless excepted, the
Companies are bound to provide trucks for all
articles which are not excepted. That is the
present law.
Mr. Hunter.] Do you mean under
Act 2
Mr. Pope.] No, I mean partly as one of
the conveniences which the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act would impose upon the
companies, and partly by reason of these
particular sections. I should not like the
Committee to proceed to decide upon this
upon any misunderstanding. Our intention was
to exempt the companies from the liability to
provide free trucks. I do not think this clause
would do that clearly, and if we desire to do
that it should be done by a substantive enact-
ment which we will propose afterwards. Then
it can be discussed as a simple question whethor
or not there should be any liability to provide
trucks for these excepted articles. But what
seems to me to be the true construction of the
section as drawn is this, that it provides that
the maximum rate shall not include trucks in
any of these excepted articles, but (except for
imy learned friend’s contention in regard to the
last few words about which I will saw a word in
a moment), it seems to me that it would leave
the obligation exactly where it is at present; it
says nothing about the obligation; it would
leave it where it is, but it would simply provide
that the maximum rate, which is the conveyance
rate, is not in the case of the excepted articles
to include trucks. If there be, therefore, an
obligation to provide trucks, they would not be
included in the maximum rate, they would have
to be paid for otherwise. Then the next part of
the section is that the company may by agree-
ment; that would simply empower them to agree
with the traders to provide trucks. I have no
doubt that those words were inserted (as my
Jearned friends suggests) with a view to show
that it was only by agreement that such an
obligation would be taken by the companies.
But if you struck those words out that would
leave the section just exactly where it is. I
do not know that the Companies would require
any power to agree to provide trucks in the
event of there being no obligation to provide
fhem ctherwise.
a special
Earl of Camperdown.] Is ammoniacal liquor
an excepted article now
Mr. Balfour 13rowne.] No, my Lord.
Earl of
Pope.
Mr. Pope.] How an excepted article?
Camperilown.] I am asking Mr.
Earl of Camperdown.] You say that, except
in the case of certain excepted articles, the com-
(81.)
G 2 panies
52 - MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1890.]
panies are bound to provide trucks at the present
time ; and the question I ask is whether
ammoniacal liquor is one of those excepted
articles at the present time.
Mr. Pope.] It is not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I was going to say on
that—
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not know why
you should make a speech on my asking Mr.
Pope a question.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] His Grace asked what
was the law at the present time, and my
learned friend, Mr. Pope, has been heard upon
that ; and I think I am entitled to say what my
view is. I agree with my learned friend that at
the present time a railway company is bound to
find trucks for everything except for excepted
articles, and the only excepted articles are
explosives; and they are excepted under a
special Act of Parliament.
Mr. Pope.] But my learned friend has for-
gotten (and it is necessary that I should put your
Lordship in possession of the exact facts) that
these articles, which we now seek to exempt,
were originally, before these schedules were
before your Lordships, not excepted articles, but
were articles included in a higher class; there-
fore the rate was larger. In these very cases
they are reduced from class C. to class B. ; and it is
because, if they were in class C. we should be able
to charge such a rate as would cover the provision
of trucks, but being reduced to class B., if they
are in class B. we ought not in addition to that
to have the obligation of providing trucks put
upon us ; they were in class C, and are now
reduced to class B.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Would it not be better to
put it as a question of classification ? \
Mr. Pope.] No ; I do not see how we could
Clearing House Classification I do not think we
do that.
Earl of Camperdown.] If they had been
left in your own classification would you have
been asking for this 2
Mr, Pope. If they had been left as in the
should have asked for the exception.
Mr. Pember.] But there is another thing to be
taken into consideration there, which is a very
serious one ; that is, that there is no hard and
fast rule now existing at law by which our
maximum rates include the furnishing of waggons.
The rule as it stands, at least as I understand it,
is that it may be a reasonable thing that we
should find waggons, or it may be an unreason-
able thing. But if we were to decline to furnish
waggons now, the question whether our refusal
was reasonable or unreasonable would come
before the Railway Commissioners, and the
Railway Commissioners would simply determine
whether it was a reasonable thing. Inside, then,
our maximum rates we could charge for the
articles in question a certain rate which would
include the waggon rate.
Mr. Hunter.] Under the existing Act, are not
waggons included in the maximum rates?
Mr. Pope.] The state of the law really is, that
the companies are not compellable to provide
Waggons for carrying coal, cannell, slack, culm,
coke or cinders. Those are the excepted articles
in the 1846 Act of the London and North-
Western Railway Company. I do not press
those words “may by agreement” if your Grace
thinks they are liable to misconstruction.
Mr. Pember.] I think we may surrender the
words “may by agreement.” \
Mr. Pope.] I think we are all agreed upon
that. -
\{r. Balfour Browne.] I am still of opinion
that this should be dealt with by classification
and not by exception.
Mr. Pember.] May I ask whether your Grace
heard that we propose to surrender those
words: “But the company may by agreement
with any trader provide trucks for such merchan-
dise upon the terms hereinafter prescribed ”?
Chairman.] Yes.
The Committee retire for consideration ;
after some time the Committee resume,
Chairman.] The Committee have decided to
insert the words “ Ammoniacal liquor, creosote,
coal-tar, gas-tar, gas-water, or gravelled tar for
paving, carried in such a manner as would injure
the waggons of the railway company.” We
strike out from after “paving ” to the end of the
clause ; we strike out “But the company may by
agreement with any trader provide trucks for
such merchandise upon the terms hereinafter
prescribed.”
Mr. Pope.] Making the sub-clause end with
the words—
Chairman.] “Carried in such a manner as
would injure the waggons of the railway com-
pany.”
Now then we have to hear the amendments to
the whole clause.
Mr. Pember.] I think as a technical matter the
word should be “trucks " not “waggons.”
“Trucks” is the word used in the beginning of
the clause.
Chairman.] Well, “trucks.”
Earl of Belmore.] I thought a waggon included
a truck.
Mr. Pember.] I do not think it does.
Chairman.] Is there any amendment to the
whole sub-clause !
Mr. Pope.] I think that closes the amendments
in sub-section A,
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I have that proposed
amendment to Sub-section A. that I referred to,
the amendments that I proposed on behalf of
the parish of St. Mary, Newington, St. Mary's
vestry; that sub-section A. should be amended
by excepting town or parish refuse, including
manure, from the merchandise therein referred
to, and from the sub-section, and that Class A.
should also be amended.
Chairman.] We cannot take class A.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Then I will drop that.
The circumstances under which I venture to
propose this amendment are, as the petition of
the parish shows, that for something like 30 years
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
53
14 April 1891.
the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Com-
pany have been carrying the town refuse of this
parish to sidings purchased by and belonging to
the parish in Kent, and the refuse has been
partially converted into manure, and the whole
of the refuse, partly as manure and partly as
refuse proper, has been carried by the Chatham
and Dover Company to the sidings of the parish.
I have asked in my petition that a special class
should be inserted providing for this town and
parish refuse as distinct from merchandise, and for
that purpose I have asked, at a later stage, that the
Committee would amend the definition of the
word “merchandise” by excluding town and
parish refuse from it, and treating it in a special
manner. But I have also asked in my petition
that, in the event of the Committee not com-
plying with that prayer in the petition, they
should amend this Sub-section A. by granting an
exception upon the subject-matter of Sub-sec-
tion A., excluding this town or parish refuse; so
that in this case the town and parish refuse
would fall, I take it, within Class A., but would
not be liable to the charge for trucks which the
exception in Sub-section A. would make it liable
for. May I just add this, if your Grace pleases,
that when this matter was before the Royal
Commissioners in Westminster Town Hall this
subject was pointed out to the Commissioners,
and Lord Balfour of Burleigh stated that as no
question of principle was involved at the stage
when the matter was pointed out to the Com-
missioners, the matter had better be brought on
when the classes were being considered. Owing
to the very short time at the disposal of the
Commissioners for considering the classes, the
parish had no opportunity of bringing this matter
before the Commissioners at all, and therefore
they never considered this question at all. The
result is this, that Class A includes manure, but
does not include town refuse. The manure
referred to in Class A. is of a far more valuable
kind and nature than the manure sent down by
the parish to their own sidings, and the result is
that if this class and provision stand the great
bulk of the town refuse sent by the parish of
Newington by the Chatham and Dover Railway,
will have to pay a very high rate in respect
to so much of it as was manure referred to in
Class A., and also the rate for trucks; therefore,
I would repeat my application that I made to
your Grace before, that, inasmuch as this is a
special matter, my application as regards the
possible amendment of this sub-section, it inay
be postponed until a later stage of the inquiry,
when I shall ask the Committee, instead of alter-
ing this sub-section, to amend the definition of
merchandise in the later section, and so to do
what I want by putting in a special class. If
the Committee will do that they will be saved the
necessity of considering whether this sub-sec-
tion A. should be amended at all. I cannot see
how any difficulty can be suggested by the rail-
way companies.
Chairman. How are you brought into this sub-
section ?
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I am brought in in this
way; that sub-section A. imposes upon traders
sending merchandise in that class the duty of
paying for trucks.
Mr. Pope.] No, it does not.
Mr. Lush ſºilson.] Providing trucks, or if they
do not provide trucks, paying the railway com-
pany a special charge for trucks.
Mr. Pope.] Town manure is not one of the ex-
cepted articles.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Allow me for a moment, I
am asking the Committee. Included in class A.
as manure, the larger bulk of the town refuse is
sent as manure ; the efore, the Parish of St. Mary,
Newington, is affected by this sub-section A.
What I am asking is this; that if, contrary to
what I contend later, the town refuse is not
treated as a special class, and therefore, as re-
gards so much of it as is manure, is taken out of
class A. and treated specially, then I ask that
sub-section A. should be amended as regards
manure, which is parish manure, by excluding the
liability on the part of the parish to provide
trucks, or, in the event of not providing trucks, to
pay for them. .
Chairman.] You mean that the railway com-
pany shall be compelled to carry manure without
making any additional charge.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] As regards parish manure,
parish refuse, including manure. May I state,
your Grace, that the Scotch companies before
Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle expressly
promised to preserve the old rates which they
charged under their special agreements with the
parishes direct, in these schedules as regards
town refuse. -
Chairman.] But you see the point is this ; that
if you are in class A. you will be included in sub-
section A.; if you are not in class A. you will
Lot be.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I say that I am.
Chairman. But we do not want to argue that
now ; we can argue on that when we come to
classification. -
Mr. Lush Wilson.] The difficulty which strikes
me is this—
Earl of Camperdown.] What amendment have
you proposed; what is your amendment.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I will read it to your
Lordship: that Sub-section 2 of Sub-section A.,
at the end of it, should be amended by excepting
such town or parish refuse, including manure.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is not adding
words, that is not an amendment. I can draw
the amendment for you to this extent, that if you
want to insert certain articles, you must mention
the articles by name. That is the way to put it
in ; we want to known what is your definite
amendment.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I will only remind your
Lordship that we were told expressly on the last
occasion that we need not put the amendment
into words.
Earl of Camperdown.] We have nothing to do
with the last occasion, it is this occasion.
(81.)
G 3 Mr.
54 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891,
Mr. Lush Wilson.] A formal amendment was
the only thing we were usked to prepare, and I
have to prepare it.
Chairman.] How do you propose to deal
with it? .
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I submit that Sub-sec-
tion A. should be amended as follows:– “That
provision of trucks is not included in the maxi-
mum rates applicable to merchandise included in
Class A., other than town refuse, including
manure carried on behalf of the parish au-
thority.”
Mr. Wodehouse..] In what line do you propose
to insert your words 2
Mr. Lush PWilson." In line 2 of Sub-section A.
Mr. Wodehouse.] We have gone long past all
that.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] If you will forgive me,
sir, I preserved my right by getting up at an
earlier stage this morning.
Mr. Pember.] Had not my friend better do it
by a proviso at the end ?
Earl of Camperdown.] It is manifestly impos-
sible to do it in that way, because the words are
“merchandise specified in Class A.” Now you
propose in this sub-section, which has nothing to
with Class A., to make a specification of what is
included in Class A,
Mr. Pope.] Or what shall be removed out of
Class A.
Earl of Camperdown.] Wherever else it may
come, it cannot come in this case in which
Class A. is only incidentally alluded to.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I am perfectly agreeable
to have it in any form.
Chairman.] We had better consider your
amendment, I think, when we come to classifica-
tion. If you are included in Class A. we shall
hear you when we come to Class A.
Mr. J.ush Wilson.] That is all I want, I
wanted to preserve my right by not having it
said that because I passed over this section I was
too late, that is all. I should ask your Grace,
then, to treat me as a special class or else to
amend this section.
Do
Chairman.] May I ask for information.
you represent one particular parish 2
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Yes, I represent the parish
of St. Mary, Newington.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I may say that raises a
large question, and that there are similar ob-
jections; although that is only an objection
against the London, Chatham, and Dover Sche-
dule, there are others raised by the Lancashire
and Cheshire conference against the schedules of
the North Western and other railway companies,
but I am not going to say that the right way to
treat it is not the way suggested.
Mr. Pope.] What my learned friend wants is
to be put in a lower class than Class A.
Chairman.] We have not yet, I am afraid,
arrived at that stage.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He wants to preserve
the existing rates.
Chairman.] Then we will proceed with Sub-
section B.
Mr. Pope.] Then, your Grace, with regard to
Sub-section B., in principle, there is no objection
to that so far as the railway companies are con-
cerned. It provides that where the railway
companies do not provide trucks in cases where
provision is made, that they shall provide trucks,
or where it is left that they shall provide trucks
in the previous section, then, if the trader pro-
vides trucks, there should be guch a rebate as
shall be settled as reasonable by the tribunal in
fhe clause. The amendment suggested on the
paper I have, is purely a verbal one. The
Board of Trade clause reads, “where for the
conveyance of merchandise other than merchan-
dise included in Class A. of this classification, or
lime or lias lime in bulk, or salt in bulk, the
company do not provide trucks,” and so on ,
then we have sought to introduce words (I am
not sure that of necessity they are the best)
which will be in substitution of those words
“ included in Class A. of this classification, or
lime or lias lime in bulk, or salt in bulk, the
company do not provide trucks,” because there
are other words added besides lias lime in bulk
or salt in bulk. Therefore, as a consequential
amendment, as it seems to me, I have these
words: “the maximum rate for the conveyance
of which includes the provision of trucks by the
company.” I am not sure that that is the best
form of amendment, I think it might be better,
such as “other than merchandise included in
Class A. of this classification,” or “the articles
enumerated in Sub-section A., the company do
not provide trucks, then a rebate shall be made.
I do not know whether you have before you the
amendment that I have in my hand ; I do not
know whether those words appear to you to con-
vey that.
Mr. Cripps.] “Other than merchandise included
in sub-section A,” would not that be better?
' ope.] Yes. I think the shortest way
will be “where for the conveyance of mer-
chandise, other than merchandise included in
Sub-section A. of this section (which includes
Class A.), “the company do not provide trucks,
the charge authorised for conveyance,” &c., and
SO OI).
Lord Belper.] Ought not the word “inclu-
ded” there to be altered to “specified,” you
altered it in the other sub-section.
Mr. Pope.] I think so.
Mr. J3idder.] There was a reason for propos-
ing the amendment in the form in which it is
put before the Committee, which my learned
friend does not seem to have been aware of. If
your Lordship will look further on to the 6th
clause, where you come to the rates for the pro-
vision of trucks, you will see that it is provided
that “the company may charge for the use of
the trucks provided by them for the conveyance
of merchandise,” and then the phrase is used
“ when the provision of trucks is not included in
the maximmm rates for conveyance ’’; and it
appeared to those who drafted this amendment
more ship shape, and more in harmony with that
Clause 6, that the same words should be used
here
ON RAILWAY RATIES
PROVISION AI., () RIDER BILLS. 55
ANI) CHARGES
14 April 1891.
here in Sub-section B., that is the reason why
the amendmer,t has been proposed in the form in
which yonr Grace sees it in print; and I am in-
clined to think as a matter of elegant drafting
there is something in it, that it is more consistent
with the words in Clause 6. There is not more
to be said for it than that ; the words that my
learned friend indicates are equally effective ;
the words “by the company ” are not in Clause
6, and should be left out. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Mr. Pope, why did you
propose your amendment in a different form
from that in which it is printed on paper ?
Mr. Pope.] Because I think that as it is
printed on paper it is not grammatical, and does
not read well.
Chairman.] But you think it reads better
than the clause 2
Mr. Pope. Yes. In fact the clause must be
amended because you have now included articles
which are not specified in the clause.
Chairman.] What are your words 2
Mr. Pope.] “Where, for the conveyance of
merchandise other than that specified in sub-
section A. of this clause, the company do not
provide trucks”; that is to say the merchandise
specified in sub-section A. as class A., plus all the
enumerated articles. But, however, I am not
wedded to the particular words.
Mr. Bidder.] No doubt my learned friend's
words are better grammar, in point of fact I
originally suggested them myself, but it is true
that these words, although a little more awkward
in the printed amendment, are more in accord, as
I said, with Article 6. For that reason I am
inclined, notwithstanding, to think that they are
better.
Chairman.] Will you give me the exact
words. Have you got them written out?
Mr. Pope.] The words that appear to me to be
the best are, “Where, for the conveyance of
merchandise other than merchandise specified in
sub-section A. of this section, the company do
not provide trucks"; that includes class A. and
the enumerated articles.
Chairman.] What are the objection to that ?
Mr. Yates.] I object to that on behalf of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, your
Grace. We say that the clause ought not to
read “shall be reduced by a reasonable sum.”
Mr. Clifford..] I am before my learned friend
with that.
Mr. Pope.] That is further on in the clause.
Chairman.] What is the first objection to Sub-
section B., as it has been amended, or proposed
to be amended, rather ?
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there is any ob.
jection to that amendment.
Mr. Clifford.] I appear, your Grace, with my
learned friend, Mr. Balfour Browne, on behalf
of the Mansion House United Association. We
do not object to the amendment proposed, but
we have an amendment to propose later on in
the sub-section ; not touching that question.
Chairman.] Yes. Has no one an amend-
ment? It does not appear so.
Mr. Pope.] That would settle the sub-section
down as far as the words, “the company do not
provide trucks.” Then the question of allowance
or rebate to be settled is a question of difference
that my learned friends have something to say
upon.
Chairman.] Now, who objects to that?
Mr. Pope.] Does the Committee accept the
amendment as I propose it, up to the words “do
not provide trucks "? There is no opposition to
1t. - º
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Clifford).] Have
you abandoned your amendment as printed:
“The traffic as conveyed in owners’ trucks”?
Mr. Clifford..] Yes, my Lord. I think that is
only a verbal amendment.
Mr. Pope.] Then the clause would go on, as I
am satisfied, in the words of the Board of Trade:
“The charge authorised for conveyanc shall be
reduced by a reasonable sum which shall, in case
of difference between the company and the
person liable to pay the charge, be determined
by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.” That satisfies the railway companies.
Now my learned friend has got to object.
Mr. Clifford. What the Mansion House
Association submit is that the charge should be,
so far as possible, fixed, and should not be left
uncertain, as it is proposed by the clause. The
clause proposes a reasonable rébate, that is, a
rebate of a reasonable sum to be fixed by arbi-
tration. What we submit is, that that will give
rise to uncertainty, trouble, disputes, and litiga-
tion, and that it would be better, so far as possible,
to make it a fixed charge, which should work
automatically. That can be done by the words
we propose, substituting, for words in the Pro-
visional Order, these words, “the charge autho-
rised for conveyance shall be reduced by a sum
equal to the sum authorised by this schedule for
the provision of trucks by the company.”
Earl of Camperdowſ...] By Section 6, of this
schedule. -
Mr. Clifford.] That section fixes a certain
scale for the use of trucks, and we desire that
the rebate shall be exactly in conformity with
that scale, so that there shall be no doubt what-
ever as to the amount of rebate that a trade; may
ask for. I may mention that in Scotland this
clause in the form I am now submitting it, was
proposed by the colliery owners; but it appears
to have been rejected by the Board of Trade for
the reason which is given by them at page 18 of
their report. They say towards the bottom of
the page, under the heading of “Provision for
truck hire,” on page 18, “In this case we have
fixed a maximum ” (that is to say a maximum in
cases for which the companies find waggons),
“ but in the alternative, where the owners pro-
vide their own trucks for inerchandise in the
other classes, we think it better to provide no
maximum, especially as the cost to the small
trader may be in excess of that which we have
fixed as a maximum for the companies. Conse-
(81.)
G 4
56 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
COMMITTEE
TAKEN BFFORE THE JOINT
14 April 1891.
quently we have provided for a rebate in such
cases, the reasonableness of which rebate is to be
determined in event of dispute by an arbitrator
appointed by the Board of Trade.”. We respect-
fully submit that that arrangement is an uneertain
arrangement which will give rise to great difficulty
and expense in determining the amount of rebate
to which the trader is entitled, and that it would
be far better to have a fixed charge settled by
the amount to which the companies are entitled
if they provide waggons in these cases.
Mr. Yates.] On behalf of the Lancashire and
Cheshire Traders Conference, I beg to support
the view of the Mansion House Committee.
We think it is only right, if the company make
a charged for truck hire, if they do not provide
a truck, that some charge should be rebated to
the person who sends goods by their line of some
exact sum, and that it should be the sum that is
contained in the sixth clause of this Order of
the Board of Trade. There will be no necessity
then for an arbitration, which means simply an
expensive tribunal to decide a question of matter
that I do not know one ought to object to
personally, but a matter that the traders object
to strongly; they like to know, when they send
goods in their own trucks, what amount will
be the amount they shall have to pay for them.
Their contention is that conveyance rate is
made up of three things, tolls, haulage rates,
and trucks, and that if those three things
were divided, so much for tolls, so much for
haulage rates, and so much for trucks, there
would be no difficulty then in arriving at this
sum that ought to be rebated, and there would
be no necessity for litigation in the matter at all.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think my learned friends
have given due consideration to the reasons that
the Board of Trade assign why a fixed maxi-
mum might work injustice to the traders. If
you will allow me to read again the paragraph
which my learned friend Mr. Clifford read to
your Grace, it is very clearly put: “Conse-
quently the companies ought in fairness to be
authorised to charge in cases where they do pro-
vide trucks. In this case,” that is where the
company provide the trucks) “we have fixed a
maximum, but in the alternative, where the
owners provide their own trucks for merchandise
in the other classes, we think it better to provide
no maximum, especially as the cost to the small
trader may be in excess of that which we have
fixed as a maximum for the companies’’; in
other words, the Board of Trade have had in
view the interests of a trader who, being refused
trucks, has to provide trucks at a greater cost
to himself than the rebate which the maximum
would provide; and therefore, in order that there
may be a fair adjustment of the rebate to such
a trader, instead of fixing a maximum rebate,
they leave it open to be fixed at a reasonable
amount by a tribunal that would take into ac-
count the cost for the small trader. Then the
report says: “Consequently we have provided
for a rebate in such cases, the reasonableness of
which rebate is to be determined in event of
dispute by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade.”
Earl of Belmore.] Do I follow you there, that
where the railway company do not provide
trucks, the Board of Trade have left it open for
an arbitrator to lower the maximum rate accord-
ingly P
Mr. Pope.] To allow a rebate off the maximnm
rate of what he thinks reasonable, not to be con-
fined to the maximum charge for the trucks.
Mr. Yates.] My learned friend is not quite
accurate ; it may be either an increase or a
decrease of the maximum rate.
Mr. Pope.] No ; it is to be a rebate from the
maximum rate charged.
Mr. Yates.] It does not say so.
Mr. Pope.] There can be no doubt what the
Board of Trade intended and what they have
done. Supposing that there is a charge made
for traffic conveyed in trucks, and the railway
company, being otherwise obliged to find trucks,
do not find them, but the owner finds his own,
then the Board of Trade have provided that from
the truck rate, so to speak, shall be made such a
rebate.
Mr. Yates.] From the conveyance rate.
Mr. Pope.] That is the same thing; from the
rate which would otherwise include trucks, but
which has not included trucks, shall be made such
a rebate as the Board of Trade Arbitrator shall
find to be a reasonable rebate from that.
Earl of Belmore.] That is to say, such as shall
equalise the value of the truck 2
Mr. Popſ...] Certainly ; that is the intention.
My learned friend says now, I agree that there
shall be a rebate, but itshould be a statutory maxi-
mum of rebate. That is against the trader rather
than in his interest. But I do not care whose
interest it is in, that is the fair thing. And after
what your Lordships have done in the last sub-
section, I do not see how you can possibly avoid
this question of arbitration, because you have
said in that case that there is not to be an obliga-
tion to provide trucks for certain articles when
conveyed in such a manner as to damage the
truck of the company.
Lord Belper.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, we have left the
law as it is ; and those words of yours that con-
tained agreement, if you had not given them up,
would have been struck out equally.
Mr. Pope.] I have no doubt your Lordships
would have dealt very wisely with the sub-
section, and, if I may venture to say so, you
have done so.
Mr. Saunders.] But the law is left as it is.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so. . I am not saying it is
not. This does not provide for the law where it
is left as it is, it provides for the non-provision
of trucks where the law provides for trucks.
This sub-section provides for a rebate to be
settled in amount by arbitration where trucks
ought to be provided and are not, ought to be
provided by reason of their being included in the
rate ; then there is to be a rebate upon that rate
fixed by the Board of Trade. Then I say that
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER. BILLs. - 57
14 April 1891.
the Board of Trade have rather enlarged that
rebate because they have made it possible for
the arbitrator to give more than the statutory
rate for which the companies would have to
provide the trucks, in the interest of the small
traders. ſº
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The traders, your Grace,
are practically unanimous in desiring to have
rather something fixed, even though it may be
less, than that they should have to go to arbitra-
tion for every special occasion. An arbitration
in one case will not settle any case beside that
perticular one ; therefore the traders would be
exposed to a very much larger expense probably
than the question at issue, and therefore they
would very much rather have it fixed, even
though, as Mr. Pope put it, the amount they
received would be less.
Chairman.] We should like to hear the Board
of Trade upon this point.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Grace will allow me,
before Lord Balfour of Burleigh rises, I should
wish to point out that there is another absolutely
conclusive reason why this amendment is un-
reasonable and cannot be accepted. In the first
place it proposes a fixed sum for the reduction of
rate which is equal to the sum authorised by this
schedule for the provision of trucks by this
company. Now the sum authorised by the
schedule for the provision of trucks by the com-
pany relates to an entirely different kind of
traffic ; it relates to traffic which is excepted
under the sub-section. If your Lordship looks
at Clause 6, “The company may charge for the
use of the trucks provided by them for the con-
veyance of merchandise, when the provision of
trucks is not included in the maximum rates,”
that is for coal, minerals, and things of that kind.
In the first place, therefore, it is an absolutely
inapplicable scale. But there is a much graver
reason why the principle of the amendment is
inapplicable. It assumes that the companies are
always charging their full maximum rates. Now
as your Lordships know probably, and as is the
fact, in respect of a very considerable proportion
of their traffic, the rates are frequently, and to a
great extent, far below the maximum. For
example, I mean te say, assuming that the rate
inclusive for pig-iron, or iron of any class, were
20 shillings from A. to B., very likely you
might find the company charging only ten
shillings; and yet this amendment would pro-
pose that in the event of the owner finding the
truck they should deduct from that what is
assumed to be the full and maximum charge for a
truck, although it had never been included in the
rate. Clearly, therefore, it is, essentially a
question that in the event of difference must be
settled by arbitration, because the question is, if
so much was the proper rate to charge for finding
the waggons, and so much was the rate actually
charged, how much of that fairly represented
the waggon, and how much should be taken off
in respect of the waggon; and unless you are to
proceed upon the assumption that the companies
are always charging the maximum, it is clear
that you could not in justice to the companies fix
a fixed price, but that which is to be taken off
must be that which has been included, and that
is a matter to be determined in the particular
Ca,SC. - -
| Sir Alfred Hickman.] It is easy to show, the
fallacy of Mr. Bidder's argument. The allow-
ance for trucks is not to be deducted from the
maximum rate.
Mr. Bidder.] I am told that Sir Alfred Hick-
man does not raise this question in his petition.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman.) Who are
you appearing for ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I represent certain
associated bodies of traders of Staffordshire,
Shropshire, and Worcester.
Chairman.] What do you want to tell us?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I wish to point out the
fallacy of Mr. Bidder's argument in saying it
would be unfair to deduct the maximum rate
for the truck from the actual rate. The maxi-
mum rate will be deducted from the maximum
rate for conveyance.
Mr. Bidder.] That is not what the amend-
ment says at all.
Mr. Pope.] Sir Alfred Hickman has been good
enough to give me his objections, and I do not
find this question raised among them.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] That is so.
Chairman.] Then we cannot hear you. We
will hear you upon any point upon which you
have raised objections.
Mr. Clifford.] Then, your Grace, in reply,
what the traders whom I represent strongly
object to is the great uncertainty which will
prevail as to the charge they will really be
subject to, and what they ask is, that even if
they should be charged a little more, they should
know exactly what that charge would be. My
learned friend says that Clause 6 refers to traffic
of a different description ; but it is carried all
the same in trucks, and the use of a truck for
one purpose is substantially what regulates the
charge for the use of a truck for another pur-
pose. The Board of Trade say, and propose
that this varying amount should be settled by
arbitration in the interests of small traders. I
believe that small traders very rarely indeed
make use of trucks for the purposes of traffic,
and they are just the very class of traders who
can least afford to go into litigation to raise such
questions as will be raised under this clause if it
passes as settled. Therefore, on those grounds,
I submit to your Grace that we should have a
fixed instead of a varying amount.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
We should like you to tell us something about
this.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] With regard to
some points ſ should be glad to answer, but on
this particular point I should be glad if you will
allow Mr. Courtenay Boyle to answer instead
of me.
Chairman.] Very good.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] On the first con-
sideration of this question, your Grace, we
were entirely of the opinion explessed by Mr.
Clifford, that it would be fair that the maximum
(81.)
H charge
58 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 April 1891.
charge to be made by the railway companies for
trucks should be the same thing exactly as the
maximum rebate to be taken off from the trader's
maximum charge when he himself provided
trucks, but on subsequent investigation of the
question we believed that it would not be fair
to certain classes of the traders. The Com-
mittee must remember that the merchandise
affected is the merchandise in Classes B. and C.,
and to some extent in Class I. of the classifica-
tion, that is to say, rather the higher classes of
goods than coal, and so on. The trucks to be
provided are provided by the small traders who
have not many trucks, who are not in the habit
of providing trucks, who have not got, as the
railway companies have, an enormous mass of
trucks at their disposition ; and it was pointed
out to us that it would be certainly reasonable
that in certain cases the rebate to be allowed
should be larger than the maximum charge
which the companies might make per truck.
Our conviction was that, in putting in this pro-
vision as a matter of arbitration, we were really
acting in the interests of the smaller traders ;
and we believe it now. But if the Committee
are convinced, from the representations that are
made to them, that the interests of the smaller
traders are better protected by having the
maximum fixed than by having reference to
arbitration, I do not think we should offer any
objection to that point of view. But the only
thing is to be convinced that the Smaller traders
are really represented before you, and that their
views are thoroughly made known to your
Grace.
Earl of Camperdown.] But did the traders
make that representation to you which they have
made here to-day, that they would prefer to get
a little less if it was fixed than to go to the ex-
pense of arbitration ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, that view was not
urged before us, except by some representatives
of a very large and important section of the
trade, -
Mr. Pope. The gentlemen who have ap-
peared here represent very large trades.
Mr. Wodehouse.] I would ask Mr. Courtenay
Boyle whether the small traders were repre-
sented before the inquiry conducted by Lord
Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle.
Mr. Courtaney Boyle.] There were many small
traders before us, some of them represented in-
dividually, and in negotiations subsequent to the
investigation we had the views of small traders
as well as large.
Mr. Wodehouse..] And the general drift of
their opinion was in conformity with the recom-
mendation of the Report.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The recommendation
of the Report has been quoted already.
Mr. Wodehouse..] As resting upon the evi-
dence you received.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] As resting upon the
evidence we received.
Chairman.] And which has been quoted.
Mr. Yates.] If your Lordships look at the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference you will
see the very extensive interests that they repre-
Sent. g
Mr. Pope.] Very extensive interests, but they
do not represent small traders.
Mr. Yates.] Oh, yes, they do.
Mr. Wodehouse , (to Mr. Courtenay Boy/e).]
When you were considering this question, did
you have it present to your mind that this possi-
bility of reference to arbitration instead of a
hard-and-fast rule, might involve considerable
litigation to the smaller traders ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We thought that refer-
ence to an arbitrator appointed by the Board of
Trade would not involve very extensive litigation.
If the question was a very small one, the Board
of Trade would probably endeavour to appoint
an arbitrator who would hear the thing in a
simple way, and decide it in a simple form. If
it was a very big question, the Board of Trade
would, under the Board of Trade Arbitration
Act, have power to appoint the Railway Commis-
sioners as arbitrators. Therefore, in every im-
portant matter it might involve the expenditure
of a certain sum of money, but in small matters
we thought it would not.
Mr. Wodehouse.] Then, as a matter of fact,
would it be the case that this right of arbitration
would impose upon small traders any large ex-
penditure of money?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We think not.
Mr. Hambury.] Was it your idea that this
would lay down any general principle, or only
apply to particular cases 2
Mr. Countenay Boyle.] It would only apply to
particular cases, like any other arbitration.
Lord Houghton.] Would the Railway Com-
missioners, acting as arbitrators, act only for the
single case, or would their decision establish a
principle 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] They would only act
for the single case, and that would be the case
even with any court in the kingdom.
The Committee retire to consult.
Some time the Committee resume.
Chairman.] The Committee prefer the prin-
ciple of a fixed sum if a clause can be brought
up to satisfy them upon that point.
Mr. Pope.] Perhaps your Grace will allow
me now to make an application. The Order of
the Committee was that objections and amend-
ments should be prepared and handed in for the
use of the Committee by this morning. There
have been a considerable number handed in,
and, I believe, they are in the hands of the Clerk
of the Committee ; they have not reached us;
and it is extremely inconvenient, of course, for
those who are interested in this matter not to be
able to instruct Counsel upon those particular
suggestions and amendments. Now I have con-
sulted with my clients and the other railway
companies, and I am authorised to say that if
your Grace and the Committee will authorise
the Committee Clerk to hand over the objections
which have been lodged with him, we, the rail-
way companies will undertake the expense and
trouble of printing them for the use of the Com-
mittee,
After
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BT.I.L.S. 59
14 April 1891.
-*-*m-sº
mittee, and of collating, and it may be affording
an index, so that in the hands of each member
of the Committee there may be a handy little
bundle of papers which will contain the whole
of the objections which are lodged by all the
opponents and by the railway companies.
And the second application that I would make
is, that your Grace and the Committee should
fix some date within which the objections to the
other parts of this Bill should be in the hands of
the Committee, and we will do for those ob-
jections as we do for these, print them and col-
late them ; I think, perhaps, it would be a little
hard upon individual traders or for bodies of
traders to put them to the expense of printing
their objections for each member of the Com-
mittee and the railway companies and others
round the table ; and we will undertake the
expense because we think it will facilitate
business.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We have already col-
lated all the Bills in one schedule, and will put
it before you to-morrow.
Mr. Pope.] Bills?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, the Bills in the
Provisional Order; you are going to collate the
amendments.
Mr. Pope.] Very well.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might I suggest to
yonr Grace, that I think it would very much
facilitate your further progress if you would call
for the index, which has been published by the
Board of Trade, to the proceedings that took
place before them. It is a very valuable docu-
ment, and by reference to it, you would find a
very great deal of information; it brings down
the effect of the inquiry in a very small compass,
very well indeed. It is a Blue Book that has
just been issued.
Chairman.] I think Mr. Pope's proposal is a
very good One. -
|Mr. Pope.] If you please. Of course the
Committee Clerk would not part with the docu-
ments handed to him without the authority of the
Committee; if that can be done we will gladly
print them and each member shall have a copy.
Now, then, as to whether your Grace can now
name a day before which further objections to the
next part of the Bill should be in the hands of
the Committee.
Earl of Camperdown.] When do you think it
likely that we shall get done with this part.
Mr. Pope.] I think, judging by the progress
made to-day, that two or three days will finish
this part. I mean now from Clause 6 to Clause
26, we have only had the objections up to
Clause 6.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think your Lord-
ships will find that the next two sections
will take even longer than those which you have
dealt with to-day.
Earl of Belmore.] You refer to the terminals
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Chairman (to Mr.
mean, do you mean the other parts of the Bill P
Mr. Pope.] The objections, your Grace, in the
hands of the Committee Clerk are directed to
Pope.] What do you
Clauses 1 to 6. Then we come to Part II. ; we
should have these objections in our hands at an
early date, and really with a view of looking at
them and seeing what they are, before we have
to discuss them before the Committee, if possible.
I think if your Grace said before Tuesday next.
Chairman.] We think the objections to the
other parts of the Bill must be put in by Friday.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases, I am told,
your Grace, that the Grand Committee Room is
only occupied by the Grand Committee of the
House of Commons on Thursday; that on Tues-
days, Wednesdays, and Fridays, at all events,
we could be emancipated somewhat from the
pressure which we have been suffering from
here.
Chairman.] Which Grand Committee room are
you referring to ? -
Mr. Pope.] No. 11.
Chairman.] Is that used by the Grand Com-
mittee on Law or Trade 2
Mr. Pope.] It is the Grand Committee on
Trade that is occupying No. 11.
Chairman.] Then if we can get that room for
Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays we should
have three days out of the four at all events.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, I think that would be a very
great convenience, and I think you would find
that the arrangements of the room would facili-
tate the business very much. There are two
sides, and altogether the whole business will go
more smoothly.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Your Grace, among
the notices of amendments which have been
handed into paragraph 2, is one from the Garston
Dock Association, which does not arise upon the
wording of the clause as it stands, and therefore
cannot be moved properly and introduced as an
amendment to anything in the clause; it is dis-
tinctly in the nature of an exception to the clause,
and arises as a separate matter, which the Com-
mittee will find has been several times before
Parliament, and raises a very important question.
I merely mentioned it at this stage for the purpose
of knowing at what stage and at what time it
would be most convenient that it should be intro-
duced, because it is a question that must involve
Some discussion and probably evidence.
Chairman.] But is it an exception to Section 2
that we are on now 7
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes, your Grace, the
notice has been handed in, and it is in the form of
a rider to Section 2.
Chairman.] Then when we finish Section 2 in
the form in which we propose to carry it on, then
will be the time to add any words in the form of
a rider.
Mr. Pope.] Do you say it has been handed in 2
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Certainly.
Mr. Pope..] We have not seen it. The Garston
traders might have let us see it.
Mr. Woodfall.] On behalf of the Marquess of
Bute, may I make another application before you
separate. With regard to amendments that we
did not put in before Tuesday, we did not know
that that ruling would apply to points that
(81.)
H 2 might
60 - MINUTEs of EvidENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMWITTEE
14 April 1891.
might be raised to-day, as have been raised as
to what “conveying ” meant; for instance,
we took it to be what the courts of law meant.
When Counsel for the railway companies gave
it another meaning to day we were apprehensive
how it would affect us and interposed. If your
Grace will allow us to put in amendments to
Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6 by to-morrow morning, we
will have them ready and give them to Mr. Pope
for the railway companies for copies. Otherwise,
we appearing here as very large traders, cannot
be heard against these important clauses from
what merely was an oversight on our part. The
railway companies will not be in anywise in-
jured if your Grace gives that permission to
allow us to put in our amendments by to-morrow
morning for the remaining clauses.
Mr. Pope.] Who are you representing 2
Mr. Woodfall.] The Marquess of Bute.
Mr. Pope.] How is he a trader P
Mr. Woodfall.] I am addressing the Com-
mittee.
Chairman.] Who do you appear for?
1Mr. Woodfall.] The trustees for the Marquess
of Bute and the Marquess of Bute.
Earl of Camperdown.] For his Bute Docks 2
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, it would include the
trading at the Bute docks.
Earl of Camperdown.] Who do you represent?
Mr. I loodfall.] The actual petitioner is the
Marquess of Bute who, as your Lordship knows,
has very large trading interests in South Wales.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know about large trade in
interests in South Wales.
Chairman.] What is the reason why your
amendments were not put in P
Mr. Woodfall.] I have given your Grace one :
that owing to the instance we heard to-day,
“ conveying ” being given a meaning by the
railway council, which I, appearing here did not
concur in, and on which I was prepared to show
your Grace not merely one case as they cited,
but two or three in which the meaning of “con-
veying ” had been decided.
Chairman.] That is in fact raising a fresh
argument upon what has taken place here
to-day. -
Mir. Woodfall.] There is a concrete reason. I
have given your Grace two reasons why we have
not put in amendments on that clause. We did
not know that that meaning would be attached
to “conveying.”
Mr. Pope.] I may shorten this, if my learned
friend will let the railway companies have the
amendments that he suggests now upon Clauses
3, 4, 5 and 6, we will consider them, so that we
may look upon them, and we will not object to his
going into them when those clauses come on ; in
other words we will waive any objection that they
have not been deposited in point of time.
Mr. Woodfall. That is all I want,
may send them by to-morrow morning.
Mr. Pope.] No, to-night.
print them with the others.
Then we
Surely we must
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, Half-past Eleven o'clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 61
Die Mercurii, 150 Apriſis 1891.
IPRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMoRE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODE HOUSE.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, R.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Bidder.] I BELIEVE a copy has been
handed to your Grace of the amendments which
we undertook to have printed yesterday after-
noon; copies have been, I believe, handed to the
traders interested, and if anybody is in the room
who has not received a copy, if they will apply
for it they shall have it at once. I may say,
that, to the best of our ability, we have included
and classified, in the order in which they would
naturally come, all the amendments that we
have collated from the statements handed to the
Clerk to the Committee by the different traders;
I am not aware that any amendment has been
omitted ; if it has, it has been per incuriam.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will you allow me to
say this: No doubt that statement is accurate, as
far as it goes ; but you will remember the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Conference have put in
what we have called an alternative schedule. I
wish your Grace would just look at it for a
minute ; it is in that brown wrapper. The Bills
are collated in the first part of it, and the peti-
tion in the second. Our difficulty is this, that
before there was any suggestion that we should
formulate our amendments, we had made a
different scheme from that which the railway
companies had originally adopted, and that which
the Board of Trade have now modified. That
scheme, if you look at it, you cannot treat as an
amendment upon the proposal of the Board of
Trade ; you will see that it differs in a great
number of particulars; so much so, that the
railway company in collating those objections
have not been able to refer to one of our sug-
gestions for the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference. It is entirely a different scheme, a
schedule. The difficulty I am in is this: That
schedule is formulated by the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference, which includes 32 Muni-
cipal Corporations, eight Local Boards, seven
Chambers of Commerce, 26 Trade Associations,
and 39 other representatives. Now at some
time, of course, these bodies must be heard. In
the meantime, I cannot bring up this schedule,
because it does not form a amendment upon the
schedule you are dealing with ; and your Grace
said on page 42:
“Then, if at the end of all there is a motion to
strike out the whole of that which has been
amended, it will be for us to consider whether we
prefer the amended clause or the one which may
be brought up by Mr. Balfour Browne. The
question is that it is expedient that this Bill do
proceed.” Your Grace may see that that would
be abschutely impossible. You may spend
possibly, in amending this schedule, a fortnight
or three weeks, and I would not have the face to
bring up another schedule at the end of that
time and say, “You must reject that schedule.”
It would be absolutely impossible; but if I am
to lie by now, those people that I represent in
the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference will
never have a chance of being heard at all. That
is my difficulty ; I am entirely in the hands of
the Committee.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask one ques-
tion: Supposing the Committee amends the
classifications, and so on, which are before them
in the Bill ; very well ; then they will have
brought that Bill to as perfect a point as they
will think the Bill can be brought to. Then, if
you have got an alternative which you think very
much better, you will be able to bring forward
your alternative, and that would be the time for
you to argue it; it is no good when we are in a
state of imperfection to argue it.
Chairman.] What strikes me is this : Are you
now speaking of Clause 2 °
Mr. Balfour Browne.] On page 4 of the
Petition you will find that we have set out the
schedule, an entirely new scheme.
Chairman.] But we are now upon Clause 2 of
the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne. I have not proposed
any amendment upon Clause 2, because the
amendments on Clause 2 would become absolutely
useless if you adopted our schedule.
Chairman.] It seems to me that the course
which ought to be adopted is this : We are going
through Clause 2, and are going to put Clause 2
into the shape in which we think it should stand
supposing it remains in the Bill. It will be
(81.)
H 3 perfectly
62 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TARE'S. B. EFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
perfectly competent for us to withhold our
opinion as to the passing of this until we hear
what you have to say upon the other side. If
you can bring us a scheme which commends itself
to us more than the clause in the Bill, we can
strike out the one in the Bill and insert yours.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, your Grace ; but
suppose I do, suppose I am able to convince you
at the end of the proceedings that my scheme is
better than that which you have arrived at, you
would have been throwing away three weeks of
your time.
Chairman.] We are here to do our duty ; it is
not merely a question of time ; but when you say
“at the end of the proceedings,” what do you
mean P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I mean that if you
amend the scheme and make it as perfect as you
can, you will be doing that upon only the rail-
way companies’ oppositions, and not upon the
opposition of the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference at all.
Chairman.] When you talk of the “schedule,”
what do you refer to ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The schedule submitted
to you by the Board of Trade. Supposing you
modify the whole of the first part, the twenty-
seven sections which we are upon just now, and
then I bring up at the end of that an entirely
new scheme, 1 do not think you would listen to
me then. -
Mr. Hanbury.] But that is a very usual thing
to do in Committee of the House ; is it not
the usual practice P
Chairman.] What I understand is the view of
Committee, and they will correct me if I do not
correctly express their views, is that we should
amend this Bill in the form in which it would
satisfy us; and if it does not satisfy you, you can
put before us a scheme which would satisfy you,
and then we can say which is the better of the
tW O.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I only wanted to pro-
tect myself from its being said afterwards that I
had let the proper time slip by. If you think
that the best course, I have not the least objec-
tion to bring this up afterwards.
Chairman.] You must first of all amend one
part of the Bill before you can substitute any-
thing for it.
Mr Balfour Browne.] Very well, your Grace.
May I just say that under these circumstances
the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference will try
to amend this as far as they can ; and if it does
not suit them at the end they may endeavour to
insert the schedule in the petition which I
tender you in its place, if that suits your view.
Chairman.] That is quite understood.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I hope I have not
seemed to waste time. I thought it most impor-
tant that we should understand our position, that
is all.
Chairman.] Quite so. Then you were, I think,
to bring up a clause this morning.
Mr. Pember.] That was the Wigan Clause:
If your Grace does not mind, I think that had
better stand over for a time. I heard your
Grace's decision last evening. It was to the
effect that you would like a clause containing a
fixed charge, and one containing an equitable
charge to satisfy you will be immediately drawn,
at least we will do our best in that direction.
Chairman.] It is for the other side, is it not, to
bring it up ; the traders objected 2 -
Mr. Pember.] Yes; I ought to say it will be
for the traders to bring up a clause and then
submit it to us.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I would appeal to your
Grace; if you will allow it to stand over we
will bring it up in good time.
Chairman.] What do you call good time 2
Mr. Balfour Browne..] It is a very puzzling
question. As you see we have a good deal to
think of just now, but we will set about it at
once. What my learned friend, Mr. Clifford,
proposes, and I think it seems reasonable, is that
when you come to the end of No. 6 you would
like possibly to clear off the whole of that section,
and we will bring it up then.
Mr. Pember.] There would be something
better than that. A noble earl suggests that
you should give it to us in time to enable us to
discuss it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly; we will
settle it at the earliest opportunity we have.
Chairman.] Then on Clause 2, is there any
further amendment ;
Mr. Balfour Browne. Upon that clause I
propose, with your Lordships' permission, to add
another Sub-section C. This is for the Brighton
Corporation. -
Mr. Bidder." Is that one of the amendments
before the Committee ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is ; but unfor-
tunately it is omitted from the collated copy.
Your amendments only relate to Clause 3 ; but
you will find that we have given you notice of
this one in the Brighton Corporation list of
amendments. What we propose to add to the
end of that clause I think the Committee have
before them. You will find it on page 2 of the
Brighton Corporation's objections. The 5th
paragraph is what we propose to add there. I
will read that amendment: “The rates and
charges of the company for goods and animals
where legally conveyed by the company at
owners’ risk shall, in case of difference between
the company and the traders on whose behalf the
same are conveyed, be determined by an arbi-
trator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
You will see there that we have followed the
phrase that was in the earlier sub-section, “an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade ’’; and I will tell you exactly the difficulty
this clause is sought to meet. If you fix the
whole of the rates in this schedule, they are
maximum rates for the carriage of articles at the
risk of the company. The traders, however,
desire, and as a fact are allowed in a great
number of cases, to carry at their own risk, that
is to say, to become their own insurers and to
relieve the company of the insurance. Under
these circumstances, of course, there ought
to be a reduction in the charge, that is to say,
that
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
63
15 April 1891.
that if I, a trader, am willing to carry my own
goods at my own risk, and relieve the company
of the duty of insurers, I ought to pay less than
a person who leaves the duty of insuring upon
them. But there is no provision in this schedule
at all for the purpose. It might be met by put-
ting in the schedule at the end first companies’
risk rates, and then owners’ risk rates; and,
speaking for myself, I should prefer that way of
doing it very much ; and I will tell you why,
because then it would have definiteness, and a
trader would know exactly what he had to pay.
But I think there would be great difficulty in
their fixing the rafes, because in some cases, as
your Lordships can understand, the risk is prac-
tically nil. I should say the risk upon coal, for
instance, was practically mil., and, therefore,
there would in that case be no difference between
the companies’ risk-rate and the owners' risk-rate.
Put take fifth class articles, like silk, or like
pottery, which is in a lower class, the risk in those
cases is very considerable ; the railway companies
have to pay compensation for the damage to those
goods in large amounts every year; and it seemed
to me possible that the arbitrator appointed by
the Board of Trade could ascertain what the
companies had paid by way of compensation in
two or three years previously, and could say
what was the fair amount to come off the
maximum rate allowed by Parliament if the
goods were carried at the traders' own risk. If
the Committee are agreed to put in a schedule of
owners’ risk-rates, I am perfectly content; I
do think it is fair that we should have
something to guard us. Upon the Brightou
Railway alone, I am informed, speaking subject
to correction, that about one-third of the whole
of the goods are carried at the risk of the owners;
and if you do not have something in this schedule
to limit them they could charge practically up to
the maximum, although we were ourselves taking
the risk. Suppose the rate between London
and Brighton were 10 s., they might say, We will
charge 9 s. 11; d. if you will take the risk. But
that would not be a fair allowance for the insur-
2LT1C62. - -
Chairman.] What do you mean by the phrase
“ where legally conveyed 2*
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Under the Railways
and Canal Traffic Act, Section 7, it is not legal
for a company to enforce the same rate upon the
owners at the same time they afford them no
opportunity of sending the goods, at the risk of
the company. It has been decided under that
section that they cannot do it, and for this reason,
that the railway company are common carriers, and
thereforeinsurers at common law. Therefore, under
that they might make it a condition that every-
body should carry at their own risk; but that has
been held not to be a reasonable condition unless
the trader is at the same time offered the oppor-
tunity of sending his goods at the risk of the
company. Therefore I have put in there “where
legally conveyed by the company at owners'
risk.”
Chairman.] There is a difficulty there. You
are now asking us to do what you asked us yes-
terday not to do, that is to say, to submit to
arbitration.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, I admit that is true.
I submit the best plan would be to put it in a
schedule; and I will further say that if you think
that is possible, I will withdraw my proposed
amendment and bring up a schedule ; but I think
you would find that very difficult.
Chairman.] But upon the first part of the
clause you have been arguing against an arbi-
trator, and upon the last part of the clause you
have been arguing in favour of an arbitrator.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I quite admit that. I
think it will be best all round to have everything
in the schedule so far as they can be. I think,
when you come to Clause 5, you will find that
both the traders and the companies are agreed
that certain things should be left to the Railway
Commissioners to determine hereafter, because
the circumstances differ so much in every parti-
cular case. Still, my opinion is that it is de-
sirable that as little as possible should be left
undefined and not determined. Therefore, if
the opinion of the Committee is that it is better
that it should be put in the schedule, I will bring
up schedules to make a distinction between
owners’ risk-rates and companies’ risk-rates. -
Mr. Pember.] I shall resist it on behalf of the
companies, if my learned friend brings it up.
Mr. Poyser.] With reference to the question
of owners' risk, those whom I represent feel the
matter very strongly indeed ; but we consider
the best way to deal with this subject will be in
a schedule fixing the rates thus dealt with by the
Committee; and therefore we propose no amend-
ment to this particular clause. But we do intend
trying to raise this question of owners’ risk when
we come to the table of rates charged for the
different classes of merchandise. Therefore I
would ask you, if you will agree to the proposal
of my learned friend
Chairman.] But I understand you to say that
you reserve your opposition until you come to
the question of the rates; so I take it you do
not appear now.
Mr. Poyser.] We appear to this extent, that
we do petition upon the matter of owners’
risk.
Chairman.] But you have not put in any
amendment to this.
Mr. Poyser.] If the classification schedule is
reserved, that will do for us.
Mr. Pember.] The question, I take it, your
Grace, is whether you will go into this matter
now as another sub-section to Clause 2, or
whether you will leave it until you come to the
schedule of rates and then initiate another
schedule of rates at owners’ risk. I should op.
pose such a schedule, if brought up now, and I
shall oppose any such schedule if brought up
then. I would like to know what my learned
friend is going to do, because he seems to be in
doubt whether he will bring up his sub-section
now or wait till we reach the schedule of rates.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have proposed this
amendment, but I should be perfectly content
if the Committee thought that the better way of
dealing with the matter was that which has been
suggested by my learned friend behind me, and
I would, therefore, postpone it now and bring
up the schedule at the right time.
(81.)
H 4 Mr.
64 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
|Mr. Poyser.] I might point out that we have
no opportunity whatever of moving amendments
to a new proposition which is put into the
schedule for the first time.
Mr. Pember.] Yo mean your petitioners can-
not bring forward objections to it.
Mr. Poyser.] We cannot deal with that,
because Your Grace's ruling is that we must
send in our amendments to each particular
clause. There was no suggestion of an owners’
risk schedule until then.
Chairman.] We should hear you upon that if
it were gone into.
Mr. Poyser.] We have petitioned against the
schedule upon the ground that it omits any charge
at owners’ risk; the reason why we did not send
in an amendment here was because we con-
sidered that the time to deal with that would be
upon the schedule and not upon this clause.
Chairman.] Very good ; then that will be
your time; you will not be injured by that.
Mr. Poyser.] If it is to be discussed and de-
cided, we should like to be heard upon the dis-
cussion and decision now, because if you had
arrived at a conclusion upon the owners’ risk-
rate it would require very great eloquence and
ability upon the part of any advocate to induce
your Grace and the Committee to reopen the
matter and vary any decision which you might
have arrived at.
Chairman.] It seems to arise more conve-
niently when we are discussing the schedule :
do not you think so P
Mr. Pember.] I should say yes, if you ask
I]] 0. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so, too, but
you will find a difficulty about it; still, I am
perfectly willing to put it aside until we arrive at
the schedule and then Mr. Poyser and myself
will be in line.
Mr. Moom.] Last night at the end of the pro-
ceedings my learned friend Mr. Pembroke
Stephens gave notice that he wished at the end
of Clause 2 to bring forward a rider, but that
rider has reference only to the London and
North Western Railway Company. It is an
objection that is domestic to the London and
North Western Railway Company. I have had
some conversation with my learned friend
and we have come to the conclusion that it would
be inconvenient to undertake the discussion of a
matter which was special to the London and
North Western Company upon a schedule
which was intended to be applicable to all the
other railway companies. My learned friend, I
understand, assents to the postponement of any
discussion of the matter until a more convenient
opportunity arises.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Under the require-
ments of my learned friend Mr. Pope we have to
deliver notice of our amendment; of course, that
amendment should be pointed to some substan-
tive provision of the Bill, and it was accordingly
pointed to paragraph 1. It has been represented
to me (my learned friend, Mr. Moon, is quite
right in that) that our objection is an objection
for the London and North Western Company as
such, and that it would inconvenience a large
number of others who are here in attendance for
the purpose of discussing matters upon the eight
Bills if we were to enter into a discussion of this
matter, which is an important one, and must
occupy time. Therefore, yielding to those
representations, I will, with your Grace's per-
mission, not insist upon that course ; but still, it
is an important consideration, and I would ask
that your Lordships should put us in the position
of coming first whenever the special case of the
London and North Western, as distinguished
from the general case of the eight railway com-
panies, is reached.
Chairman.] Very good.
Mr. Bidder.] I thought it was understood that
the amendments which were particular to any
one railway company were all to be postponed
until that, which was common to all, had been
disposed of.
Chairman.] Is there any further amendment
to Clause 2 P Then we will postpone the further
consideration of the clause. Now we will take
Clause 3.
ON CLAUSE 3.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace, I think it was
understood that amendments which went to the
Omission of clauses entirely should take preced-
ence; and therefore the first amendment is the
amendment proposed by the Corporation of
Leicester to omit the clause altogether.
Chairman.] What amendment is it on paper?
Mr. Bidder.] The very first at the head of the
paper. It is a proposal by the Corporation of
Leicester to omit the clause. Of course that
raises the question whether terminals are a
separate charge or not, which lies at the roof of
the whole clause. I do not know who appears
for the Corporation of Leicester, but I see the
Town Clerk of Leicester in the room.
Chairman.j Is the question of terminal charges
to be disputed ?
Mr. Bidder.] That is the only amendment
that disputes the principle.
Chairman.] What I want to know is, is it
admitted on both sides that terminal charges
must exist? *
Mr. Bidder.] With one exception, with the
exception of that proposal everybody recognises
the principle of terminal charges being separate
charges.
Mr. Darlington.] I also object to the charge
in respect of station terminals, on principle.
Mr. Bidder.] For whom do you appear 2
Mr. Darlington.] I appear for the
quarries in North Wales.
Mr. Bidder.] I beg my learned friend’s pardon,
I was not accurate ; I did not notice that there
was a second petitioner who made the same
proposals; and I am told by the Town Clerk of
Leicester that he has instructed counsel to appear
for him, who is unfortunately not in the room
this moment, but as my learned friend Mr. Dar-
lington is here of course he can bring it up.
slate
Earl of Belmore.] For whom do you appear,
Mr. Bidder 2
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 65
15 April 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] I appear for the Midland Rail-
way Company, my Lord; but practically, to some
extent, I am appearing for all the railway com-
panies at this moment.
Chairman.] Then we must discuss first of all
the question whether there are to be terminal
charges.
Mr. Bidder.] I think, your Grace, that is the
most convenient way; because it is no use our
discussing details till the principle has been
settled, whether terminal charges are to be a
separate charge, or whether the charge for
mileage conveyance is to cover everything.
That is the fundamental question. -
Earl of Camperdown.] And not merely ter-
minals, but station terminals.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Lordship is quite right.
Mr. Darlington.] My objection at present
relates not in any way to service terminals, but
station terminals.
Chairman.] I have got to put the question,
before you argue that, that Clause 3 be con-
sidered. -
Mr. Darlington.] I object to the clause, your
Grace. -
Chairmon.] Now we will hear your objection
to that clause being considered.
Mr. Darlington.] I propose that it should be
struck out.
Chairman.] Then now you must give us some
arguments why it is to be struck out.
Mr. Darlington.] The first ground which I
have to submit to your Grace's consideration
is that a special charge in respect of station
terminals, and the uniform charge which I
am now dealing with, bears very hardly upon
the short distance traffic as opposed to long
distance traffic. It is very easy to see in the
case of long distance traffic that a terminal
charge is very soon absorbed into the mileage
rate ; but in the case of short distance traffic
the rate in respect of mileage is so small that
the total rate is piled up, and therefore the short
distance traffic is at great disadvantage in respect
of long distance traffic. With regard to the
slate industry in particular, that applies chiefly to
traffic that is going for export ; traffic that is
going inland, so far as the slate industry is
concerned, is nearly all long distance traffic ;
the traffic that is going down to the sea and is for
export is short distance traffic, and that short
distance traffic will be very heavily and oppres-
sively borne upon by these station terminals.
Then in the second place it so happens that in
the case of the slate industry in particular the
accommodation that is afforded to the traders
at the stations, in respect of which this station
terminal will be charged, varies very much, so
that in one case the trader may have very ample
and sufficient accommodation afforded him,
whereas a neighbouring trader has very little
accommodation afforded indeed. Now by this
schedule a uniform station terminal is asked
for ; whether a large amount of accommodation
is required, or a small amount of accommodation
is required, the same charge is asked irrespective
of the amount of accommodation afforded. Now
I can call witnesses to show your Grace that in
rspect of the slate traffic, at all events, the
accommodation varies very much, and also
affects the trade, so that where the accommoda-
tion is bad it sometimes entails a loss to the
trader of upwards of 10 per cent. of his traffic
through breakage. .
Then the next point I want to bring before
your. Grace is that there is already a clause in
another part of the schedule which provides
that where a distance of six miles is not traversed
by the goods, there the company are entitled to
charge for six miles; that, I think, is in Part II.,
Clause 8; it is: “Where merchandise is con-
veyed for an entire distance, which does not,
except in the case of merchandise, in respect of
which a station terminal is chargeable at each
end of the transit, three miles, or in the case of
merchandise not so chargeable, six miles, the
Company may, except as hereinafter specially
provided, make the charges for conveyance
authorised by this schedule as for three miles
or six miles respectively.” What we say with
regard to that is this ; that if you have a station
terminal you do not want the six-mile clause,
and that if you keep this six-mile clause you do
not want a station terminal. The object of the
six-mile clause was to provide exactly the same
thing as the companies are now asking in asking
for a station terminal. It is obvious, of course,
that traffic which requires accommodation pro-
vided for it at one or both ends of the journey,
when it goes only a short distance costs the
company more if carried for a short distance
proportionately than the same traffic does if
it goes a long distance. I must admit that
of course. And this short distance clause
was specially inserted in Act of Parliament to
provide for that. The two principles we submit
are quite incompatible; if you have the six-mile
clause you do not want the station terminal, and
if you have the station terminal you do not
want the six-mile clause.
The next point to which I want to direct your
Grace's attention is that the existing Act of Parlia-
ment under which the charges are made to the
Nantlle Railway (which is a railway over which the
Petitioners for whom I appear have their goods
consigned) contains a clause that the maximum
sum per ton per mile is to include “tolls for
the use of the railway and of carriages, and for
locomotive power, and every other expense in-
cidental to such conveyance except a reasonable
sum for loading, covering and unloading goods,
and for delivery and collection at any terminal
station of such goods, and other services in-
cidental to the business and duty of a carrier
where such services, or any of them, are or is
performed by the company.” Now we contend that
the word “services” does not apply to a fixture;
that when you are dealing with a fixture that is
not a service rendered by the company, but
that a service rendered by the company must
be something actually performed.
Chairman.] But we are now upon the question
of service terminals.
Mr. Darlington.] No, your Grace; I am upon
the station terminals. I say that under the
present Act the railway company has no
(81.) - I
power
66 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
power whatever to charge for station terminals
under the Act that applies to this particular dis-
trict of North Wales; the only power they have
is to charge for services. The Act is the Nantlle
Railway Act of 1865. I must admit at the same
time that that clause was very similar to that which
was the subject of a recent decision in Hall’s
case, and that a judicial decision has been passed
upon it which has not interpreted the word “ser-
vices” with the same meaning for which I am
now contending. But I contend before your
Grace that the intention of Parliament when that
Act was passed must have been, when they used
the “services,” to use it in respect of some
manual act presently performed, and not in re-
Spect or something like permanent way or like
station buildings, or something that is there and
simply used by the railway company or trader
for the purposes of their traffic and is in the nature
of capital rather than of services.
Chairman.]. Then how do you interpret the de-
cision of the Court of Appeal the other day in
Sowerby v. the Great Northern Railway Com-
pany ”
Mr. Darlington.] Your Grace, I am bound to
admit that the Courts of Law have decided to
Some extent in a way which is not the same for
which I am contending before your Grace.
Chairman.] Then are you asking us to disagree
with the decision given by the Lord Chancellor
the other day ?
Mr. Darlington.] I am asking your Grace to
go behind that decision, and to say that whatever
may have been the intention of Parliament then,
Structures and structural matters stand on a
totally different footing, and ought to be charged
for in a totally different manner from accommo-
dation of all kinds. What I am contending for
now is, that there is no distinction whatever
between a goods shed, in which the goods are
stored for a few minutes before they are brought
by the consignor to the same, where it is put by
the consignor or railway company’s servants on
the trucks, or any other part of the permanent
Way ; that the station that is required for the
goods and provided by the railway company for
the use of goods is just as much necessary for the
work of the railway company as any part of the
line. They might just as well ask for a special
charge in respect of signals.
Chairman.] But in the judgment of the Lord
Chancellor he says if services are done by the
companies as carriers which could be distinguished
from the actual carriage of the goods, then it was
luce clarius that they were entitled to charge for
them, and that the judgment was right. How
do you get over that ? That was only delivered
within the last month or six weeks.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was delivered on the
20th March.
Mr. Darlington.] I think I am bound to admit
that where this Hall's clause occurs this legal
decision is absolutely binding on the company
at present, and I think that at present, possibly
at all events, it is capable of argument that they
might under this clause charge a station terminal.
Chair man.] I only wanted to point it out to
you.
to another.
Mr. Darlington.] But your Grace is not here
sitting as a legal tribunal to determine whether
they could or not, under certain circumstances,
make a specific charge ; your Grace is sitting
here to determine certain rates in future.
Chairman.] But what you ask us to do is to
say that the Lord Chancellor is wrong.
Mr. Darlington.] Oh, no your Grace; that is a
total misapprehension. That is the distinct law
existing at present.
Chairman.] Then you are asking us to make a
new law which would be a different law from
that laid down by the Lord Chancellor
Mr. Darlington.j Different from the law as it
is at present; and I am asking it on this ground,
that the railway companies provide the accom-
modation at stations to a large extent, not el-
tirely, of course, for their own convenience.
Very often, as I shall have occasion to show your
Grace, when I bring my evidence, there is very
little provided beyond a mere loading place,
sometimes not even a shed, no terminal accom-
modation at all ; if the railway company chooses
to put up a shed there for their own convenience,
why should they charge me something extra for
it, and if they do not choose to put up a shed,
why should I be charged because they put up a
shed at a different station which I do not use 2
Now the argument that I wish lo press upon
you most to-day is, that by a payment in respect
of a uniform charge for station terminals, the
trader at one place may, and I think I shall show
your Grace, if this clause is passed, as it at
present stands, in some cases would have to pay
for the accommodation provided for his rival
trader, for the man who is competing with him
in trade. Now the discontent of traders all over
the country has almost always arisen from this
fact : that the railway company have given to
one trader greater facilities than they have given
Is not the sting of that on the
particular trader very much increased when he
has to provide himself the money out of which
the extra accommodation is afforded to his
rival 2
Well your Grace, I pass from that point, and
the last point that I have to bring before your
Grace is this : that you will find, when you come
to deal with the maximum rates, that they are
made graduating rates, that for the first 20 miles
a larger sum is asked than for 50 miles, and that
a larger sum is asked for 50 miles than for 100
miles, and so on. That again we say is totally un-
necessary if you have a terminal charge. The effect
of having both a terminal charge and a graduat-
ing rate is to pile up the rate on to the short
distance traffic. Now traders, at all events our
slate traders, do not care much about the long
distance rates; they do not want the protection
of Parliament over them, because the question
of competition will then come in and prevent the
railway company from charging more than they
are fairly entitled to charge. But in the short
distance rates that is not so. I can put into the
box a gentleman who will tell your Grace that
he has to trade from the Nantlle Valley down to
the sea, and that there is no competition what-
ever; that the railway company have in fact
taken away the hope of any competition ever
coming
ON RAILWAY R AT ES AND CEIARGES PROVISION AL () R.D.E.R. BILLS. 67
15 April 189}.
coming to his valley by buying up the tramway
that originally ran there, and that consequently
the only thing that will prevent the railway
company from charging him exorbitant rates is
the maximum which your Grace is pleased to put
in here. If therefore his quarry, which is situated
in a district to which there are no competing
railways, is capable of being charged high and
exorbitant rates, I have very little doubt that it
will be done, that the railway company will
charge as much as ever they can get out of that
traffic, whether those rates are fair with regard
to the rates that are charged elsewhere or not.
And therefore I ask your Grace to have the
short distance traffic prominently before your
mind in settling these clauses. -
Now I wish to call Mr. Darbishire.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
On the clause that affects the station terminal.
I should like to ask the Board of Trade whether
they have put in and defined the two terminals
now for the first time; is that so P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Yes, it is so ; they
are separated more distinctly under our schedule
than they have ever been before.
Chairman.] And what was the view you had
in doing that ? -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] The view is stated
shortly in the report, to which I will refer you ;
it is simply this in two words ; that it is public
policy and for the advantage both of the railway
companies and of the traders that any charge
that is to be made for station terminals, whatever
its amount may be, should be divided from the
conveyance rate, mainly upon this ground: that
if you do not divide the charge for station termi-
nals from the conveyance rate the man who pays
the charge for a long haul will pay a larger pro-
portion of station terminal than the man who only
takes his traffic for a short distance ; whereas the
service at the station to both classes of traders
will be exactly the same ; and also, your Grace,
that unless you define the station terminal in a
clause by itself it will render it very difficult, if
not impossible, to prevent the owner of a private
siding, because it is our intention, as you will
hear hereafter, for the first time to make it quite
clear that the owners of private sidings are not
to be charged the charge for the station termi-
mals, from being so charged.
Mr. Hanbury.] But that otherwise the station
terminal should be the same for one mile as for
100 miles.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That is our inten-
tion
MR. WILLIAM ARTHUR DARBISHIRE is called in, and having been sworn, is examined by
Mr. Darlington, as follows:–
Chairman.] What is this gentleman going to
prove 2 What do you propose to call him to
prove 2
Mr. Darlington.] I am calling this gentleman
to prove in the first place that these clauses will
bear very hardly in this district upon his short
distance traffic, and secondly that the accommo-
dation varies very largely, at all events as re-
gards the slate traffic, which is provided by the
railway companies at different stations.
Mr. Bidder.] That I will admit at once.
Chairman, I think we all know that. Upon
the question whether there shall be station
terminal charges, the inconvenience of some
stations, and the convenience of others, really
would not have anything whatever to say, to the
question.
Mr. Darlington.] But I can show to your
Grace that this will cause great injustice to a
considerable number of traders in the country.
Chairman.] How injustice 2
Mr. Darlington.] Because supposing that a
freighter at one station, who has to suffer a great
deal of loss through want of accommodation
provided for him, is charged this station terminal,
whereas at another station a little bit further on
the line ——
Chairman.] Has he not a remedy, if he is not
given certain facilities 2 -
Mr. Darlington.] He can only get reasonable
facilities. -
Mr. Bidder.] If I might suggest to my learned
friend, he is perfectly entitled to call witnesses
if he thinks proper; but I would admit all these
matters of fact I think are matters more for
argument than for evidence. I do not dispute
that the money spent upon accommodation is
very different at town stations and wayside
country stations.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Darlington).]
But do you contend that there will be certain
cases in which a person will be charged no
station terminal at all. -
Mr. /)arlington.] No, it may possibly be——
Earl of Camperdown.] But if they are to be
charged a station terminal; if you answer no to
that, I will ask you a further question : It comes
to this, does it not, that station terminal, service
terminal, and conveyance, those three charges,
are simply a particular form of dividing the
charge 2
Mr. Darlington.] They are.
Earl of Camperdown.] And apparently you
say that you admit that everybody will have to
pay a station terminal.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think my learned
friend is wrong there.
Earl of Camperdown.] But he must speak for
himself; he says that every one will pay a station
terminal.
Mr. Darlington.] I beg your Lordship's pardon.
What I meant to admit was, that if this clause
was passed in its present form, the railway com-
panies will have power to charge everybody a
station terminal.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then I ask whether
you state or contend that in certain cases the
railway companies will charge no station terminal
(81.)
I 2 Mr.
68
MINUTEs of EvidENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT committ EE
15 April 1891.
Mr. Darlington.] I do not wish to say what
the railway companies will do, I think it is highly
probable. *
Chairman.] We have always been told, you
know, that the great inconvenience of the present
system is, that nobody knew what they paid for,
and that station terminals were inconvenient
because nobody knew what they meant. Now for
the first time the Board of Trade have divided
the station terminal into two heads and declared
what it means. Would you prefer to go back to
the old system, when you would be charged
for terminal charges without having them speci-
fied ?
me to say a-word 2 I have an amendment that
follows on, which is somewhat similar. I will
put before you my view. What we affirm necessary.
Chairman.] But we have a witness in the box.
Mr. Bºdder.]. Upon what petition does the
amendment of my learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, arise ? - *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] On the petition of
Messrs. J. & J. Colman; the next in order.
Mr. Darlington.] I want to call this gentleman
to show that the hardship will be greater than
your Grace supposes. * *
Chairman.] You have your witness in the box.
Will you examine him to the point to which you
wish particularly to direct our attention ? We
do not want this gentleman to tell us that the
accommodation at all the stations throughout the
country is different. That we know. *
Mr. Darlington.] Of course it varies, and I
want to show your Grace to what extent i
varies. .
Mir. Bidder.]
'he wants to prove through this witness, probably
I will admit it at once. . . .
Lord Belper.] Are you contending that you
would prefer to have a higher maximum rate than
the present rate suggested, rather than to have
the present rate suggested together with a
terminal rate? - - -
Mr. Darlington.] When I come to deal with.
the maximum rate I shall have to contend this :
that the rate proposed by the Board of Trade at
the present time, the maximum rate proposed by
the Board of Trade is, as it stands, a just one,
if there were no charge made for station ter-
IBut if the Committee holds that a
minals.
station terminal is also chargeable, then I shall
have to contend that a reduction from the present
maximum rate proposed will be necessary.
Chairman.] You would prefer, in fact, to in-
clude all station terminals in the maximum
mileage rate 2 -
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, I would.
Chairman'] Then will you examine this gen-
tleman as shortly as you can. • , ,
Mr. Darlington.
129. (To the witness).]. Are you a
slate
quarry proprietor of Nantlle —Yes. •,
Mr. Bidder.] If my learned friend would tell
me what he wants to prove, I think I could
admit it at once. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will your Grace allow
London and North Western gauge.
If my friend will tell me what
them.
to the railway. *
Mr. Darlington.] I would rather take my
evidence. - - *
Chairman.] We will hear what this gentleman
has to say, as he has had the trouble of being
called. g - $ * *
& Mr. Darlington. e *
130. (To the witness).] Will you describe the
accommodation provided at your station ?—At the
Nantlle station on the London and North
Western line there is a raised platform upon
which small quarry trucks are run; the slates
are transferred from those trucks to the London
and North Western trucks at the expense of the
trader, and that is all; there is no further
accommodation. For slates that are shipped by
sea, the London and North Western truck is
brought on to the Carnarvon Quay; "the slates
are there shipped on board the vessel at the ex-
pense of the trader ; the trucks are also moved
about by the trader; no service whatever is per-
formed; there is no accommodation whatever.
l31. Does this want of accommodation entail
considerable loss to the trade 7–The transference
of the slates from the small truck to the large
one entails a loss of six per cent. at the very
smallest upon the production, which is wasted. .
132. Will you also describe the accommoda-
tion which is provided at another station on the
London and North Western Railway at Blaenau
Festiniog 2—At Blaenau Festiniog there is a very .
large area of station with numerous lines for the
small quarry trucks to be brought alongside the
* The quarry.
trucks are then transferred to the London and
North Western.trucks by the London and North
Western Company’s servants; they are then
carried down to the seaport belonging to the
London and North Western Company, where
they are again taken off these trucks and handed
to the trader who deals with the slates out of
- Chairman.
133. Why do you have these slates in small
quarry trucks and then put them into larger
ones?—The small quarry trucks are the only
means of getting the slates from the quarry itself
134. Then it is a case of necessity, transfer-
ring them from the small truck to the big truck 2
—At one point, yes, certainly. . . . . . . .
135. You made a complaint of that, that it
damaged them, 6 per cent. Nobody can help that,
I suppose ?—But we need not have to do it more .
than once. In the one case, we have to put them
on to the London and North Western Railway,
and then take them off again; but in the other
case the whole truck is put on the London and
North Western Railway and the slates are only
moved once instead of twice. e
136. What is the reason for the second change 2
—The London and North Western Company
never completed their line up to the quarries in
* Nantlle.
Mr. Darlington.] I think that is the only .
thing. I have to ask the witness with regard to
terminals. *
Chairman.] But I do not think that has any
bearing on terminals. *
Mr. Darlington.] It has a bearing to this
extent, that it—— - - . . '
Chairman.]
oN RAILw AY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
15 April 1891.
Chairman.] However, you and I need not
argue that. -
Lord Belper.
137. I suppose if you made the line yourself
you would not have to transfer your slates ?–I
can explain that if you wish; but I do not think
it bears upon the question. -
138. Because you have not got the line you
are at a disadvantage; that is what it comes to ?
—Your Lordship is under a mistake entirely
there ; I should explain that there was originally
the Nantile tramway from the quarries to the
side of the ship. The London and North Western
Company bought that line, and ought to have
completed the alteration of it to their own gauge,
but they only did about two-thirds of it. -
Chairman.] We are on the principle whether
there should be a station terminal ; it does not
seem to me that what this gentleman has told us
has anything to do with the principle.
Witness.] I should like to put it in a few
words, if I might. The point seems to me to be
this ; that having a station terminal affects the
slate trade peculiarly, because it raises the
short-distance rate to three times the maximum
rate. On the long-distance traffic it only adds at
the outside one-tenth of a penny per mile to any
of the rates. - -
139. Rut that is not peculiar to the slate trade,
is it?—Yes, it is peculiar to the slate trade.
140. Because of the short distance 2–Yes, be-
cause the slates are so situated in Carnarvonshire
and Monmouthshire that every transport of them
from the quarry to the ship is short distance
traffic, and every transport from the quarry to
the inland consumer is long-distance traffic.
Therefore it kills the shipping of slate, which is
a very important part of the trade. That is the
way the terminals affect it.
Mr. Darlington.
141. Now supposing that there are two
slate quarry proprietors at two different stations,
and that in the one case the railway com-
panies take trains that come down from the
quarries and cart the tram away altogether, and
in the other case the railway company makes the
quarry proprietor transfer his slates from the
tram upon which they come down from the quarry
on to the railway truck, would the one be at a
disadvantage as compared with the other ?–Very
distinctly, very largely. - - -
142. And is that a facility that is sometimes
provided by the railway company 2–It is actually
provided by the railway company in one instance,
and not provided in the other.
143. And if this clause were passed would you
to some extent in your opinion be paying out of
the charge made to you for terminals for the ac-
commodation that is provided for the other
trader 7—Yes; indeed there is no doubt of it.
144. I want you to give one instance of the
charge that is proposed. I think you took out
the amount of traffic that left Nantlle station
in the year 1888?–Yes; I believe it was about
60,000 tons. . $
145. There are forty sixpences in a pound.
That means somewhere about 1,200 l. in the
course of the year 2–1,500 l.
146. Can you make any estimate of the ter-
minal accommodation provided at Nantlle, as to
what it cost the company ?—It cannot have cost
more than 300 l. altogether ; so that it would
have been paid five times over in any one year.
Mr. Darlington.] That is all I have to ask.
Mr. Bidder.] I have no questions to ask the
Witness. -
(The witness is directed to withdraw.)
Mr. Bidder.] Now, your Grace, unless my
learned friend wishes to call any other evi
dence—— • -
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald.] I appear, your Grace,
for the Corporation of Leicester, who gave notice
of a similar amendment to omit this clause ; but
as their only interest in this matter is as very
large consumers of coal, I have advised them not
to raise this large question before the Committee,
but to content themselves with supporting one of
the other amendments which substantially gives
them the protection they require.
Mr. Bidder.] Then on behalf of Leicester you
withdraw P
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald.] I do.
Mr. Bidder.] Then with regard to the proposal
of the slate quarry owners, which really goes to the
whole root of the question, the question is a very
simple one. The service which the railway com-
panies perform is of two kinds; one part of it is
conveyance on transport from A. to B. ; the other
part is what is called the terminal service, which
may be divided into the accommodation provided,
of which all the goods and traffic, if they use the
terminus, avail themselves, and what is called the
Service terminal, which is sometimes availed of
by the train and sometimes not ; the one is pro-
portionate to the length of the journey, and the
other is not ; and if you were to adopt the
alternative which this amendment proposes,
that the mileage rate shall cover the whole,
that
means that you would be making
people pay, for the same service, a different
rate, which has nothing to do with the service,
but is in proportion to the length of the
journey which their goods pass over; so far there-
fore from its being a hardship, as my learned
friend says, to short distance traffic, the other
principle would be a monstrous hardship to the
long distance traffic, because it would mean that
a man who sent his goods 100 miles would pay
10 times as much for the same service as the one
who sent his goods 10 miles. The law of the
subject as to the right of the company to charge
terminals separately is clear. Of course your
Lordships are legislating and are entitled, if you,
think proper, to go behind the law, but Mr.
Justice Wills and the Lord Chancellor have
made it clear beyond doubt.
Chairman.] I think we need not trouble you,
Mr. Bidder. -
Mr. Darlington.] The only thing I should
like to point out in reply to my learned friend
--Mr. Bidder.
Mr. Bidder.] Oh! no, the question is settled.
Then the next amendment is on behalf of Messrs.
J. & J. Colman. I do not know whether anybody
appears for them.
(81.)
Mr.
70 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
B EFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
TAKEN
15 April 1891.
Mr. Murison.] I appear, your Grace, for
Messrs. Colman, and after what has been said, I
do not mean to press the objection but to rely
upon the alternative set out on the top of Page 4.
Chairman.] That, of course, we will deal with
at the proper time.
Mr. Bidder. Then on the top of Page 2 of
the collated document there is an amendment
proposed by the landowners, traders and colliery
owners, &c., of South Wales and Monmouthshire,
and by the Marquis of Bute.
Mr. Shaw.] I appear, your Grace, with my
learned friend Mr. Ram, who was here for the
South Wales and Monmouthshire coalowners.
We submit that after the words “maximum
charge " should be inserted the words “over and
above the rate for conveyance.” After what
took place yesterday, a certain amendment having
been agree to, which you will find on page 53 of
yesterday’s proceedings: “Every other expense
incidental to such conveyance not otherwise
hereinafter provided for,” some discussion took
place as to the necessity of defining, and defining
clearly, the word “conveyance.” In drafting
originally, in our proposed amendments, we were
afraid that perhaps, in fact, our intention was,
that as far as possible we should clear up the
point, so that there might be no debateable
ground left between the conveyance rate and the
station terminal. We do not want any disjointed
charging power; we want to have it clear and
straight that the railway companies can charge
for transition of their goods, and over and above
that charge for their terminal accommodation and
terminal services when rendered to the trader.
In order to make it perfectly clear that that was
our intention, and that there was no intention to
cover up the station terminal in that other rate,
we wanted to introduce, in order to make it per-
ſectly safe, after the words “maximum charge,”
“over and above the rate for conveyance.” I do
not think there can be any objection to that ; it
is only to make the thing more clear. Our con-
tention is, as business people here, apart from any
decisions of the Courts, to make the thing perfectly
clear that the trader shall know what it is he has
to pay for transit rate, and what for station ter-
minal.
Mr. Bidder.] I understand Mr. Shaw to bring
up in the first instance the first words in italics
“over and above the rate for coveyance.”
Mr. Woodfall.] As the Marquis of Bute, for
whom I appear, proposes that the same words
should be inserted, I thought, it would be a con-
venient course if I said now the few words I
have to say, in support of what my learned
friend, Mr. Shaw, has said. I adopt, your Grace,
on behalf of the Marquis of Bute, the argu-
ments in support of the insertion of those words
which have been put before the Committee by
my learned friend, Mr. Shaw. It is a desire of
the traders, and it is a desire which has been
intensified and strengthened from what was said
by Counsel for the railway companies as to what
was meant in their minds by “ conveyance,” that
what the railway companies mean by “convey-
ance " shall be distinctly defined. Now, I
understood the Committee yesterday to say, that
a definition of “conveyance " shall be placed
distinct and definite as can be.
before them ; but it is most desirable that a
strong and clear line should be drawn between
charges for conveyance.
Chairman.] I think you are mistaken. We
did not require that any definition of “ convey-
ance" should be put before us.
Mr. Ram.] It is in the Lancashire and Cheshire
Traders’ Petition.
Chairman.] But we have not adopted it.
Mr. Shaw.] I think yesterday it was raised,
on page 50, by the Earl of Camperdown, who
said that the definition of “ conveyance ’’ should
be an exhaustive definition. We were then
discussing the question whether the words
“carriage and conveyance ’’ should stand instead
of the word “conveyance” only. -
Chairman, And we left in the word “con-
veyance.” -
Mr. Shaw.] But I understood that that was
with the understanding that the word “con-
veyance ’’ should be properly defined hereafter.
2
Earl of Camperdown.] On what page is this?
Mr. Shaw.] It is at page 50 of yesterday's
proceedings. *}
Mr. Woodfall.] I was under the impression
that the Committee had desired that defini-
tion.
Chairman.] That was not so.
Mr. Woodfall.] At any rate it will be in your
Grace's mind that the interpretation given by the
railway companies of “ conveyance” yesterday
was “mere transit,” and your Grace will see, in
considering this Clause 3, it is absolutely neces-
sary to consider it by the light of Clause 7, and
that so far as regards this Clause 3 it is almost
impossible to speak of one or two words without
speaking of the effect of the whole clause. This
Clause 3 is extremely elastic, and its elasticity
is in favour of the railway companies; and it is
the desire of the traders to take great care that
in any of these defining clauses, a clear and
broad line shall be drawn as to what charges
the railway companies may make and in respect
of what services the railway companies may
impose those charges so as to leave no debateable
ground, and no ground for litigation hereafter.
Therefore it is that we wish, at each stage of
the clause, to insert words for the protection of
the traders, and on behalf of the Marquis of
Bute I beg to submit to the Committee, that
after the words “ maximum charge,” should be
inserted the words “over and above the rate for
conveyance.”
Mr. Bidder.] I quite agree; we all agree with
my learned friend, that it is desirable that every-
thing should be defined in this schedule as clearly
as can be ; and my objection to these words is that
they do not further that object at all, they are
simply useless from our point of view. I do not
think they operate to any good or any ill purpose.
If your Grace looks at the words as they are in
the Board of Trade Clause, they seem to be as
* * We are at
present dealing not with conveyance, but with
what is called the maximum station terminal;
and it is provided that that is “the maximum
charge which the company may make to a tº:
Ol'
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 71
15 April 1891.
for the use of the accommodation (exclusive of
coal drops) provided, and for the duties under-
taken, for which no other provision is made in
this schedule by the company at the terminal
station.” Now it appears to me that you do not
in the least degree improve that by adding, the
words after “maximum charge ’’ “over and above
the rate for conveyance.” It is over and above
the rate for cºnveyance, and in Some sense it is
over and above the service terminals, and it is
over and above the charge for weighing.
adds nothing. The point is to define what the
maximum station terminal is for. It is not for
conveyance, and it does not help by saying that
it is not for conveyance.
Chairman.] Then with regard to those words
at the end ºf the clause, “before or after con
veyance,” do they apply to the whole clause
Mr. Bidder.] I think so, distinctly.
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace, because they
have to be read with the words “As carriers
thereof.”
Mr. Bidder.] I think they do apply distinctly
to the whole clause.
Mr. Shaw.] I propose to strike those words
out.
Mr. Bidder.] It is a very bad reason, for
putting words in that they do not harm. They
do not really help the definition. We are de-
fining what the maximum station terminal is.
You do not help the definition by saying over
and above the rate for conveyance.
Chairman.] If the words “before or after
conveyance" cover the whole clause, I do not
think those other words would be necessary.
Mr. Woodſall.] But we have further argu-
ments to submit that those words should be
omitted altogether. -
Chairman.] But we must go by steps. The
question we are now considering is, whether the
words “over and above the rate for conveyance”
shall be put into the clause; and what I want to
know is whether the words “before or after con-
veyance” cover the whole clause. If they do, I
think those other words would be unnecessary.
Mr. IWoodfall.] I think it is quite sufficient
to say that even , before this Committee,
which is not a legal tribunal, it becomes a
matter of argument whether those words
“ before and after conveyance ’ do refer to
the whole clause; that is one of the doors to
litigation which is open to the railway companies
hereafter. And when we find a large body of
experienced traders taking different views as to
the construction of this clause, how can it lie in
the mouth of my learned friend appearing for the
railway companies to apprehend any danger by
the over insertion of protective clauses 2 He
says that will do harm to add words. It will do
no harm to the traders certainly.
Mr. Bidder.] I humbly protest, your Grace,
against putting in words because they will not
do harm; it is a shocking bad principle. If my
learned friend will show what good it is that is
another thing.
Chairman.] The Committee will not insert the
words “over and above the rate for conveyance.”
Therefore we go to the next amendment.
But it
Mr. Shaw.] I think the next amendment
stands also in the name of the colliery owners of
South Wales, and it is to move that after the
word “duties " a little lower down to add “ and
services,” and then I find they have put in twice
over “in respect of such use and accommodation.”
It ought to run “duties and services undertaken
in respect of the use of such accommodation.”
The reason for introducing those words here is
that in providing a certain amount of accommo-
dation for the use of traders, the railway
companies have to undertake to do certain duties
and certain services. In a vast amount of papers
that were put before the Board of Trade when
we were discussing this matter on a former
occasion, there were a great number of these
items shown, and what they represented ; and
we want this clearly understood : that for a par
ticular portion of the accommodation that each
trader has to use, and the proportion of the
services and the duties necessary to provide that
accommodation, he should pay, and that only ;
that he should not have to pay something that
other people get the benefit of. Every man says,
“I want to pay for the services I have rendered
to myself; I do not want to pay for anybody
else’s ”; and we think it absolutely necessary
that some such words as these should be intro-
duced to meet that case. -
Earl of Belmore..] Would not that give a
separate terminal to each individual trader all
over the country P
Mr. Shaw.j [t might; but still I think it is
very hard that one trader, who has perhaps his
terminals only worth one penny, has to pay six-
pence, as the case may be, especially in such a
large trade as I have to deal with, the coal trade,
which goes into millions. The South Wales
coal trade is 15,000,000 tons a year.
Mr. Bidder.] But this point does not touch
them.
Mr. Shaw.] It does.
Earl of Belmore.] My point is that this amend-
ment will involve not making one schedule, but
millions of schedules.
Chairmae..] what words do you propose to
insert P
Mr. Shaw.] “And for duties and services
undertaken in respect of the use of such
accommodation,” and later on you will see “when
such accommodation is used by the trader.” "
Earl of Camperdown.] Then your proposal is
surely narrower than the proposal already in the
clause. The clause states that this maximum
charge is to be made in respect of the duties
undertaken for which no other provision is
made ; that means all duties.
Mr. Shaw.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] You propose, instead
of that, to limit all duties in this way; that
you are going to say: “ and services under-
taken in respect of the use of such accom-
modation.” On the face of it, you appear to be
going against the interests of your own clients.
Mr. Shaw.] I do not quite see that. I
should be glad if your Lordship would point
that out.
(81.)
I 4 Earl
72 . MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] I shall be glad if you
will clear that up to my mind.
Mr. Shaw.] What we mean here, and I
thought it was quite clear, is that the railway
companies are not to have power to charge us,
or any one trader for services which are ren-
dered to another trader. If he is supplied a
certain amount of accommodation at the station,
the railway company are to have the power to
charge for that accommodation, and the duties
relating to that accommodation, and not to the
general station. You see these services are
most incomplete.
Earl of Camperdown.] But the clause says that
this is to be the maximum sum which they shall
charge in respect of all duties, and all “ duties”
includes services. -
Mr. Shaw.] Yes. - s
Earl of Camperdown.] Very well. You pro-
pose that instead of that, this shall be the charge
for certain services. -
Mr. Shaw.] No, not that my Lord. I limit
the charge under the maximum to the charges
actually incurred by the railway company for
providing that portion of the accommodation
which is used by that particular trader, not that
the railway company should say: “Here is our
maximum charge ; we have power to charge this
whether those services are rendered to you or
not with regard to that accommodation ; we can
charge this, and shall charge this.” What we
venture to say is that it is fair to us if we only
use a certain portion of that accommodation,
and very few services, that we shall only pay
for the actual services incurred by the railway
company in giving that accommodation to us.
Chairman.] But surely the trader can only be
called upon to pay for the use of the accommo-
dation provided; he cannot be called upon to pay
for other people's 2 -
Mr. Shaw.] I am afraid, your Grace, if that
clause goes in as it stands, the railway companies
will be able to charge their full maximum, no
matter whether the services are done for one
particular trader or not.
Lord /3elper.] If your words were introduced
would they not also cover service terminals 2
You would be making this clause cover service
terminals as well ?
Mr. Shaw.] No, my Lord. There are a great
number of duties and services undertaken with
regard to station terminals which are not before
your Lordships, but which were before the Board
of Trade.
Lord Belper.] But surely the use of the word
“ services * is very unfortunate here !
Mr. Woodfall.] On behalf of the Marquess of
Bute I have to move that these words be in-
serted. I do not want to add anything to what
has been placed before the Committee by my
learned friend, Mr. Shaw ; but I must say this :
that it would relieve the apprehension in the
minds of the traders who are appearing here, if
the railway companies would give some evidence,
I see they have plenty of witnesses in the room
who could do so, of what they mean by station
terminals; because we do not know. And, if
the Committee would examine this clause, it is
of the widest description, and, as I have already
said, not one of the traders here is able to say:
what the railway companies mean by station
terminals, and I even dare to say that the rail-
Way Companies would have great difficulty them-
selves in telling the Committee what they mean
by station terminals. Do they mean services
undertaken for their own convenience, such as
watching goods? If it could be defined by the
railway companies what they meant by station
terminals, then it would be seen by those whom
I represent that those words should go in for
their protection.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Can you
tell the Committee what your idea of station
terminals.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] When the schedule
first came before Lord Balfour of Burleigh and
myself, the proposals of the railway companies
were somewhat different from this clause, and
we endeavoured to see whether it would be
possible, in attempting to settle station terminals,
to settle, a charge to be made in respect of each
work or each duty performed by the railway
companies. I think we found that that was
impossible, that it was not possible to say that
there should be so much for booking, so much
for clerking, so much for warehousing, so much
for storage, and so much for all the many things
which are done at stations; and on the whole
we thought it was better to have a lump maximum
sum covering the whole of accommodation provided,
and the duties undertaken, as station terminals.
If the Committee will look, the clause is very
carefully worded, “the maximum station ter-
minal is the maximum charge which the company
may make to a trader for the use of the accommo-
dation provided.” We believe that if the
accommodation is not provided, and if the accom-
modation is not used, no charge can be made. It
is “ for the use of the accommodation provided.”
Then it goes on to say, “ and for the duties,”
not “duties or services"; because (for a reason
which I think is present to the minds of some
members of the Committee) we thought it very
important not to use the word “services" in that
particular clause, “for the duties undertaken.”
And there again comes in a proviso for the pro-
tection of traders, “for which no other provision
is made in this schedule by the company,” and
them, “at the terminal station for or in dealing
with merchandise as carriers thereof before or
after conveyance.” We believe that those words
limit the powers of the railway companies to
charge to the duties undertaken by them before
conveyance, but do not enable them to charge as a
station terminal for anything which is properly
part of or a portion of conveyance, That I think
is the intention of the clause.
Mr. Murison.] Your Grace, I see that in the
print of the amendments, one part of the Iroposals
on behalf of Messrs. Colman has been omitted.
There was an unformulated part which indicated
in an informal way.
Chairman.] What are you upon 2
Mr Marison.] That unformulated part which
is not printed on page 4, and which bears º
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
73
the particular point now under discussion, and I
think it would come in most serviceable here, if
your Grace will allow me to speak upon it now.
Chairman.] What are you upon, station ter-
minals 2
Mr. Murison.] I am upon the point of station
terminals.
Chairman.] What is your petition then P
Mr. Bidder.] If I might suggest in the interests
of order
Chairman.] We had better deal with this
first. What we have now before us is whether
the words “services undertaken in respect of the
use of such accommodation,” shall be part of the
clause. If you are going to argue that they should
be part of the clause we can hear you, but your
amendment goes beyond that I think.
Mr. Murison.] I am speaking with reference
to part of my amendment which has not been
formulated, and is not here at all.
Chairman.] Why is it not formulated 2
Mr. Murison.] I am prepared now to for-
mulate it.
Mr. Bidder.] With great respect, I would
suggest that when we are dealing with a particu-
lar amendment, only the Counsel should be heard
who is dealing with that particular amendment,
because if every Counsel is to be heard who is
interested in the amendment, we shall never get
OD1.
Chairman (to Mr. Murison).] Yes, your
amendment is the same as what we are discussing,
only in other words.
Mr. Murison. The point I wish to speak to at
the present moment has not been formulated as
an amendment. In the alteration submitted, the
part I wish to speak on now is only indicated
informally, and not in the very words that I
should propose to give effect to the meaning. It
is this: if your Grace will look at the alterations
proposed on behalf of Messrs. Colman, in para-
graph 2, the last section of paragraph 2, beginning
* In the alternative reduce the maximum rates
for conveyance by the amount of terminals
allowed,” in those words I have given informal
notice of the line I intended to take, although
I did not formulate it and could not formulate
it until I saw what decision the Committee
would come to as to the precise meaning of
“ conveyance,” whether conveyance included
accommodation.
Chairman.] We have done all that on the
first day; we left in the word “conveyance.”
Mr. Bidder.] I might point out that what
my learned friend has read now, is a question
that he will raise at a subsequent stage. If he
wishes to suggest to the Committee that having
allowed terminals they ought to make a reduction
in the conveyance rate, that will come in the
rateS.
Chairman.] We must finish the clause as to
whether it is to stand, according to the sug-
gestion of the Board of Trade, or whether we
shall alter it by the insertion of words put before
us. I will take care Mr. Murison, that you shall
have your opportunity.
15 April 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] With regard to these particular
words, the view of the railway companies is this;
that we have no strong feeling on the matter
at all but are satisfied with the words of the
schedule as drafted by the Board of Trade, and
we certainly agree with what Mr. Courteney
Boyle said, that it is quite absolutely impossible to
adopt, what they really aim at, a separation of all
the different services performed at the terminus.
That would be utterly impracticable.
The Committee deliberate.
Mr. Hanbury (to ſlord Balfour of Burleigh).]
When you say “may make to a trader for the
use of the accommodation (exclusive of coal
drops) provided,” do you mean provided for that
particular trader or for traders in general?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] General provision
certainly provided at the station. -
Mr. Hanbury.] For all traders ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] For any trader,
for everybody that may come to the station and
use it.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is it stated anywhere
precisely what accommodation is included, what
you mean by the word “accommodation ”?
Take, for instance, this witness who was here.
It just occurs to me that he stated that at his
particular Nantlle station there was a little
siding, and he said, “I contend that that is not
station accommodation.” Supposing that he was
to carry out that view, and this word “accom-
modation” was the only word remaining in the
section the result would be a very good law suit,
very likely.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] The only method
in which you can discriminate is the method
between the classes. Class goods, that is those
in sheds, use a more expensive class of accom-
modation and are charged higher. Slates and
coals and things in the lower classes use less
accommodation, and they are charged lower
terminals according to the schedule of terminals
in the rate column.
Mr. Bidder.] It by no means follows, your
Grace, that because at a wayside station the
amount of accommodation is comparatively very
insignificant per ton of goods using that station,
it is not comparatively as high as for a larger
sort of traffic.
Earl of Camperdown.] I am only trying to
find out how it is decided in the Bill, and, as
Lord Balfour of Burleigh tells me, it is done in
£. s. d. in the schedules.
Mr. Bidder.] That is so.
Chairman.] The Committee are of opinion not
to insert those words.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know whether
I might point out what Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh says is quite true, but it discriminates
between various classes of traffic, and not between
individual stations.
Chairman.] What is the next amendment
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether my Lord
Camperdown notices that there is a definition of
terminal station later on.
K Earl
74 MINUTEs of Evi DENCE TAKEN
}BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] But not of station
terminal. -
Mr. Bidder.] That is quite so.
Mr. Shaw I have got a further alteration, a
little lower down, to leave out the words, “as
carriers thereof before and after conveyance.”
To use my learned friend Mr. Bidder's argu-
ment, which he just now raised, that the words
“over and above the rate for conveyance ’’ were
absolutely useless, and therefore had better be put
out; I use the same words here, and say that these
words are useless. “Carriers ” is a well-known
term in law by everybody; the railway companies
are carriers in law as well before as during and
after conveyance. “Carriage * and “conveyance.”
in the English language are synonomous terms.
It is simply to do justice, according to the railway
companies' point of view, to a certain railway
company which had an Act of Parliament passed
in old days, and the courts of law had to dis-
tinguish between those words, as used in a par-
ticular special Act, and Mr. Justice Wills
himself said that he had to strain the English
language to do so. Why is it necessary to put
in words here which will certainly give openings
for constant litigations hereafter as to what is
the exact meaning of these words, “carriers
before and after conveyance ’’’ When does con-
veyance begin 2 When does carriage begin
Are not railway companies carriers all through,
and is not their liability to the public as carriers
from the moment they take in goods to the
moment they hand them over to the consignee.
I move to leave them out.
Mr. Bidder.] I must against this, on behalf of
the railway companies, offer the most strenuous
opposition. The words were put in for a defi-
nite purpose, and it would entirely alter the
scope of that purpose if they were omitted. The
point is that the actual station terminal is the
charge that covers the accommodation provided
and the duties undertaken, for which no other
provision is made at the terminal station, dealing
as merchandise carriers thereof. There may be
many cases where duties are performed, and ac-
commodation is provided, not as carriers. One
is station warehouses forwarehousing goods, which
is the subject of a separate charge. If youwere to
strike out the words “as carriers thereof before
and after conveyance,” the effect would be that
under this station terminal you would include any
services rendered by the company as warehouse-
men, and not as carriers at all. It is most
essential that those words should remain as the
Board of Trade of Trade put them.
Earl of Belmore.] The railway companies have
in some cases bonded warehouses, have they not ?
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, to a very great extent in
London. In fact, it is the practice of traders to
keep their goods in stock.
Mr. Shaw.] The only point that my learned
friend makes against that point is warehousing.
Mr. Bidder.] That is one illustration only.
Mr. Shaw.] Warehousing is a perfectly sepa-
rate thing. If they act as warehousemen they
get paid as warehousemen ; it is quite distinct
from their business as carriers.
Mr. Bidder.] That is a very good reason why
you should not ask for the words, because it will
cover it.
Mr. Shaw.] It is dealt with separately.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle). With re-
gard to these words, “as carriers thereof,” you
have heard what has been said. Can you give
us any reason why the words were put in P
Mr. Courteney Boyle.] Those words were put
in upon the highest possible legal advice, and in
order, as we believe, to protect the traders
more than to protect the railway companies.
We believe if the words were left out
it might be arguable that the companies
might charge a station terminal for duties under-
taken in respect of conveyance, and for duties
undertaken at the station when they were simply
conveying. It is very possible, I do not say that
it would be so, that they might argue they were
enabled to charge for signals, home signals,
and distance signals at stations, and so on. The
intention of those words is to limit their powers
to charge to the duties undertaken before or
after conveyance. Goods are consigned to the
railway company for conveyance and very often
the consignment is accompanied by a request that
the conveyance may be delayed for a few days.
On the other hand, at the other end, goods are
conveyed by the companies but delivery is not
taken because it does not suit the convenience of
the trader to take them. On those occasions the
companies ought to have power to charge a
station terminal but we do not think they ought
to have power to charge a station terminal in
respect of duties purely as conveyers, simply and
solely as conveyers. Therefore those words were
inserted, we earnestly believe in the interest of the
traders.
Darl of Belmore.] You meant by them to limit
these charges to duties performed at either end of
the journey, and not to any duties performed in
the middle of the lourney, at a junction ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not to duties undertaken
during conveyance. -
Lord Belper.] Would it not read better if the
the first comma was left out between “merchan-
dise ’’ and “ as ”?
Air, Courtenay Boyle..] If you leave out both
commas I should say, perhaps it would be an
improvement. The comma after “merchandise ’’
and the comma after “ thereof.”
Chairman.] I think the two commas shºuld
be left out, certainly.
Mr. Hunter (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] “As
carriers thereof,” the contrast to that would be
“ as a railway company.” I mean the alterna-
tive, what is omitted by inserting the words “as
carriers thereof.” is this, “ the duties undertaken
for which no other provision is made at the
terminal station by the company as a railway
company.” Now supposing that there are any
duties performed by a railway company as such,
but not duties as carriers, would the company
not be entitled to add to the maximum terminal
an additional charge for those services 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I am afraid I missed
One or two words of the honourable member's
question.
Mr. Hunter.] In the Sowerby case the other
day the Court of Appeal decided that where the
words
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 75
15 April 1891.
}
words “the duty or business of a carrier’ were
inserted in the maximum rate clause, then the
company were not entitled to charge any of the
maximum rate for so much of a terminal accom-
modation as was provided by them as a railway
company, but that they were entitled to add only
so much, whatever it might be, of the accommo-
dation as was performed by them as carriers.
Well, if you insert the words “as carriers there-
of,” you exclude the words “as a railway com-
pany.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We exclude the words
“as conveyers.” Our belief is that we exclude
the conveyance. I do not quite appreciate what
is meant by “as a railway company ”; but we do
exclude the power to charge as conveyers
Mr. Hunter.] The Lord Chancellor said that
he did not understand what was meant by the
distinction between “conveyers ” and “carriers.”
That was the decision of the Court of Appeal
with regard to the services of the railway com-
pany.
Chairman.] Where was it the Lord Chancellor
said that ?
Mr. Hunter.] In Sowerby's case.
Chairman.] Yes, I know, I have had that
before me.
|Mr. Hunter.] The authentic report of the judg-
ment is not published.
Mr. Bidder.] I can give your Grace a copy of
the shorthand report (handing ºn the same).
Chairman.] I suppose you mean at the end of
his judgment. “We simply have to pronounce as
a matter of law whether the expenses, if they are
proved to be, in the language of the instrument
itself, attributable to carriers' accommodation for
dealing with merchandise traffic as carriers, are to
be attributable to carriers’ services, and so on, for
shunting, locomotive power, horses, staff, and so
forth ; carriers’ services in the sense in which those
words are distinguished from the ordinary course
of propulsion by the railway from one point to
another ; if, as a matter of fact, they can be so
distinguished, it seems to me luce clarius that the
railway company, in their character as distribut-
ing or forwarding carriers, are entitled to charge
something. What those charges are, and how
far they are to go, is, fortunately, not for us. I
am content with saying that the judgment, to my
mind, is manifestly right, and ought to be
affirmed.”
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether I might
say upon this clause that it reduces itself to this:
a carrier is a conveyer and something more ; he
has other duties to do before he has completed
his contract for carriage, and ceased to convey,
and the scope of this order is to provide the pay-
ment for the completion of his duties of carriage.
The mileage rate provides for that part of his
duty which is conveyance, and the station terminal
provides for another part of that duty which he
performs as a carrier.
Mr. Hunter.] I think we might cut it short.
We quite agree, I think, with both you and the
Board of Trade as to the meaning, and the effect
of what is meant. The only doubt is a question
of drafting, the only doubt is whether conveyance
is clearly included in the maximum terminal.
Mr. Bidder.] Clearly.
Mr. Hunter.] That the duties undertaken,
under the construction of Sowerby's case, what-
ever it may mean, would be within the maximum
terminal.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not follow that, because,
whatever they say, they are acting as a railway
company as carriers. If they were undertaking
duties as a railway company, which were in no
sense part of a carrier's function, then they
ought to be entitled to charge separately.
Earl of Camperdown.] To clear up that point
might I ask this question. You said just now
that a carrier is a conveyer, and something more.
Will you point out to me what settles and
exhausts all the elements in the “ something
more ”?
Mr. Bidder.] That is rather a large order.
Earl of Camperdown.] But it is a very
necessary thing to do. I will tell you why I
put the question to you in that form, because,
with regard to the element of warehousing, it
was stated before, that warehousing is an element
for which the railway company is clearly (I do
not know by what practice, but you all do)
entitled to charge separately. Now what I
want to know is, why is it and when is it stated
that warehousing is not a part of the “something
more,” and for that reason what does the
“something more ” contain P
Mr. Bidder.] If I may try on the spur of the
moment to answer your Lordship's question, I
should say that the duty of a carrier arises the
moment he receives the goods from the consignor,
and covers everything up to when he actually
or constructively delivers to the consignee, and
which is necessary for the performance of that
contract; the conveying safely, the delivering
within a reasonable time, and quoad warehousing
if it is necessary, in order to protect the goods
from the weather, arriving one evening at a
station, that they should be put under cover and
kept safely until the following morning, so much
of warehousing is a part of his duty as a carrier.
But the warehousing I had in my mind when I
spoke to your Lordships, is the practice which
has grown up, for instance, in London, and
other places, where the companies provide
depôts to which the Bradford merchants and
others send up their goods, instead of having
stores of their own to leave them there for a
month, and order them out as they wish :
Clearly that is no part of the companies’ duties
3.S Cºll’l”]. CIS.
Earl of Camderdown.] Then your definition
is, everything that is necessary from the moment
the carrier has received the goods till the
moment when he can reasonably deliver them.
Mr. Bidder.] Pverything necessary as part
of his duty as a carrier.
Mr. Shaw.] And to add to what my learned
friend, Mr. Bidder, has said, the usual practice
is, that the railway companies give notice to the
consignee when the goods have arrived at the
station, and they hold them as warehousemen
afterwards.
Mr. Bidder.] The scope of the clause is, that
this may cover everything of that kind; but that
(81.)
K 2
76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
if there is anything the Company have done
which is no part of the contract legally, it is not
covered, and it is right that it should not be
covered.
Earl of Camperdown.] And do you state
positively that, under the clause as it stands, the
railway company, being the carrier, that is to
say, the conveyer and certain more things could
not make any charge for conveyance 2
Mr. Bidder.] Certainly I say so, because their
only power to charge for conveyance is under
the previous Clause 2. Your Lordship notices,
too, that this clause is limited distinctly to that
which is “before or after conveyance ’’’
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes; but then I think
we were speaking of that among ourselves, and
some of us thought that the railway company
might possibly make a charge (being entitled to
charge as carriers), a portion of which was for
the conveying part of carrying do you see, that
is the point. But you are clear that that would
not be so.
Mr. Bidder.] Clearly so.
Mr. Pope.] Not under this station terminal
definition you mean, of course P
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Mr. Hunter.] Is “carrier * used as governing
the word “accommodation ” as well as “con-
veyance.”
Mr. Bidwer.] I think so.
Mr. Hunter. Under the decision in Somerby's
case, do not you see that a distinction is drawn
between that amount of station accommodation
which the railway company, qua railway
company, must provide, and such station accom-
modation as the railway company as a carrier
must provide 2 Now, as this clause is drawn,
you will exclude from the maximum station
terminal so much of the station accommodation
as ought to be provided by them qua railway
company within the meaning of that decision.
Mr. Pope.] If I follow you rightly, your
argument would be rather in the direction of
the railway company than of the trader.
Mr. Hunter.] I think we are all agreed as to
the object, that the whole of the station accommo-
dation should be dealt with in the present
clause.
Mr. Bidder.] I am not quite clear in my mind
as to what passage in the judgment the Honour-
able Member refers to.
Mr. Hunter.] I will read the words, it is in
the judgment by Lord Justice Fry: “It appears
to me to be plain that the Legislature intended
to divide the entire gross business carried on by
the railway company under the powers of this
Act into business of two kinds, the one, that
which would have been done by a carrier if a
carrier had been doing the business as well as the
railway company ; and the second, that which
would have been performed by the railway com-
pany if there had been a carrier as well as the
company.” Under the clause as it has passcd
you, the maximum station terminal includes only
so much of the accommodation as would be
provided by the company as carriers, and there-
fore excludes the very thing that it is intended
to deal with.
Mr. Bidder.] I would suggest to the Honour-
able Member to consider whether this does not
answer the question in the point he refers to.
In Lord Justice Fry's judgment, no doubt he
refers to the state of things under which in
former times, when Messrs. Pickford and Chaplin
and Horne carried on the business, the railway
company were mere conveyers, Chaplin and
Horne were the carriers; and yet the railway
company provided the station. But for the
purposes of considering this schedule is not this the
answer P Here we have in the two sections 2
and 3 the charge which the railway company is
to make for conveyance, and the charge which
they are to make for a terminal charge as carriers;
and with regard to the distinction which the
Honourable Member has referred to, if that dis-
tinction is drawn, that which does not come under
Section 3 as carriers, falls under their duty as
conveyers? I think the point is an extremely
subtle one ; but if there is any distinction to be
drawn in such a case, I do not think there is,
and because here they are both conveyers and
carriers; but if it is not in the charge for
carriage, it falls under the charge for con-
veyance.
Mr. Shaw.] Might I reply to my learned
friend, Mr. Bidder, by just asking him one
question ? That is where exactly the conveyer's
business begins, and where the carrier's business
begins. They are both exactly the same thing,
and I do not believe that any railway company
can show you exactly where the conveyer's
business begins, and where the carrier's business
begins. We must have something extra. The
service is rendered by the railway company as
carriers all through.
Mr. Bidder.] There was a time, no doubt,
when the conveyer and the carrier were different
persons, and it might have been wanted then to
show where one began, and where the other
ended. But that has gone by entirely. The
railway company now are both carriers and con-
veyers, and it is impossible for a railway com-
pany to set up the provision of a railway station
as a tertium quid, which is neither conveyance
nor carriage. If it is conveyance it falls under
the one clause, if it is carriage it falls under the
other.
Chairman.] Then the Committee are of opinion
that Clause 3 shall stand without alteration ?
Mr. Poyser.] That is subject to the further
amendments that stand on the paper of course 2
Chairman.] Then you want to put in some
amendments, do you ?
Mr. Poyser.j I want to put the next amend-
ment that stands on the list if your Grace pleases:
“The maximum station terminal is the maximum
charge which the company may make to a trader
for the use of the accommodation (exclusively of
coal drops) provided,” that is the way in which
the section stands at the present time. Now
that word “provided” there, I suggest, does not
specify and distinguish really the accommodation
that is being dealt with in this maximum station
terminal, and the words that I suggest in amend-
ment
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
77
15 April 1891.
ment are “which is specially provided by them for
the reception and delivery of merchandise and
for services rendered by the company for which
no other provision is made, in this schedule.”
I have considered very carefully what has been
said with regard to the last amendment that I
might try to arrive at what was passing in
the minds of the Committee as to the points at
issue now. It appears to me to be this: that you
and we all want a clause that shall cover all the
charges to be made by the railway company;
that is to say, your station terminal, your service
terminal, and your conveyance rate. Now
having got your service terminal and your
conveyance rate, your station terminal must
cover everything i suggest; and these words are
necessary I think, because no definition here will
determine by-and-bye the rate you are to affix to
the terminal, and it is necessary to see here what
it is that constitutes this station terminal upon
which by-and-bye you are going to fix the rate,
that is to say, the rate that you are going to
charge for the terminal. From the words in the
clause “a trader for the use of the accommodation
provided " it is very difficult to say to what
“ accommodation provided ” means in this section,
because it might mean part of the accommoda-
tion necessary for conveyance. I suggest, and
what we want to have defined is, that it shall
be especially for the delivery and reception of
merchandise; and then we go on by-and-bye
to deal with services that are not covered by
the rest of the schedule. Now, I think your
Grace, that I may put it in this way. The
accommodation supplied for loading and unload-
ing merchandise may be accommodation which is
actually in the first instance provided for the
accommodation of the railway company, and
not for the accommodation of the trader at all,
and it would be manifestly unfair if in that
case the trader were to be made to pay an extra
sum for the accommodation provided for the
advantage of the railway company as conveyers
or what not. I may put it in this way : I
have got certain goods to be carried ; the railway
company must take possession of those goods
before they can carry them. I must deliver
them to the railway company, and they must
deliver them back to the consignee ; They
have got to do all between my handing
over the goods to them and their hand-
ing them over to the consignee, the inter-
mediate part is their conveyance of the goods.
I do not care whether they hand them over to
me particularly. Take an instance, say some
goods only are to be used, what we call yard
goods. I have got a lot of corn, five tons of
corn that I have to deliver into the trucks of
the company. I put them in and pay my service
terminal for putting them in, or put them in
myself. Then the company have to convey them
to the consignee and deliver them up to the con-
signee, I paying the charge for delivering them
up or taking the delivery myself out of the
trucks. But so far as concerns the position in
which the truck stands for me to take the stuff
out of it, and so far as I am concerned as a
trader, it might just as well stand on the main
line as not ; I do not care so that you put your
truck somewhere so that I can get the stuff out
*
— .
of it, that is all I ask from you, and let your
truck stand on the main line, but no, they say
they will not let their truck stand on the main
line. Why, because they want to accommodate
other traffic, to make room for their express
trains on their main line, and there are a variety
of reasons why it is convenient for them to have
sidings made where they can put their truck for
me to unload it. I suggest that those sidings
are not something provided for the accommodation
of the trader in unloading the truck, but for the
joint convenience of the railway company they
have their main line cleared and so can run their
fast passenger trains and fast goods trains past
this particular point; and they have those sidings
made there that they may have that accommo-
dation themselves.
Chairman.] Then would you argue in favour
of having no sidings and working all this traffic
on the main line 2
Mr. Poyser.] No, my lord, but I say that from
a trader's point of view, and from the point of
view of absolute necessity, it is not necessary to
have the siding ; but when you have got the
siding that contributes of course immensely to
the convenience of the trader, and whether the
trader should pay something for that convenience
or not is one thing; but what I say is that
where it is a joint convenience, that is to say
where it is provided both for the advantage of
the railway company, and for the advantage of
the trader, we should not be made to pay the
whole charge for that provision.
Lord Belper.] Would you be satisfied without
a road to get to it?
Mr. Bidder.] May I suggest that my learned
friend is rather addressing himself to a future
question : What should be the amount of the ter-
minal '! It is in the interest of the traders that it
should be general, and he is trying to limit it.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, his words are :
“which is especially provided by them for the re-
ception and delivery of merchandise.” He has
gone a little beyond that in his argument.
Mr. Bidder.] He wants to have it, because he
wants the words of the section more general. If
so, so much the better for him. What my learned
friend is driving at is, that when you come to
settle what the station terminal should be, you
ought not to include anything in your calcmlation
that is not expressly provided for his goods,
Mr. Poyser.] I am very much obliged for my
learned friend thinking that this is better for us,
but I want to eliminate from it that por-
tion of the accommodation which is provided
really for the advantage of the railway
company, and I think I may make it
clear to the Committee in a moment. In
arriving at this station terminal there was a dis-
cussion for a long time before the tribunal below
upon the question of sidings which were used
merely for marshalling traffic. Sidings used
merely for marshalling traffic, I believe, were
excluded in arriving at the station terminal from
the way in which they arrived at that station
terminal. At a station at Liverpool, for instance,
there is one siding which they call the Gridiron,
on which they simply marshal trucks. That, of
(81.)
K 3 COurSe,
78 MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
course, is not an accommodation provided for the
accommodation of traders. But when you get
to a town station you will find that, in the goods
yard there are a large number of sidings which
are included in the cost on which the estimate of
the station terminal is based, in the cost of the
station. Of those sidings in the goods yard a
large number are really used for the purposes of
marshalling the traffic and for the accommoda-
tion of the railway company in getting trucks
going to certain destinations together, just as
they would do at a large marshalling siding.
What I would suggest to the Committee is that
it is unfair, if you exclude marshalling sidings
from the terminal charge, or from the method in
which you arrive at that terminal charge, that
because upon certain sidings goods are some-
times put into trucks, you should allow the cost
of all those sidings in the goods yards which are
not exclusively used for marshalling purposes,
to be applied and charged to the trader.
fore we ask the Committee to say that that part
of a station which is used for the accommodation
of the trader in loading and unloading his goods
should alone be taken into account.
Chairman.] Your words seem to me to include
all those services which you object to, because
they say “especially provided by them for the
reception and delivery of merchandise.” wº
Mr. Poyser.] That is to say that only so much
of the accommodation as is absolutely for the
reception and delivery of merchandise into a
number of sidings. If any member of the
Committee would recall for a moment a goods
yard he will know that there are 20 or 30 sidings,
or more in that particular goods yard, and that
for the reception and delivery of merchandise
only one of those sidings is necessary ; you can
put your truck upon it, but that in order to shunt
the trains, and get the thing most conveniently
arranged for the purposes of conveyance, then it
is increased ; and I say that the increase is put
on because of the accommodation afforded to the
railway company for the management of their
own traffic. Therefore, I submit to your Grace
(I do not want to go over it again and again)
that what I wish to separate by those
words, “Especially provided by them for the
reception and delivery of merchandise,” are
those parts of the station which are added
for the convenience of the railway company;
that is to say, that it is for their own convenience
that they have the shunting done in the goods
yard. I ask the Committee therefore to say that
the words “Especially provided by them for the
reception and delivery of merchandise,” should
be added to the word “provided " here. And I
think that the word “provided,” as it stands,
itself at once suggests that there is something
wanted. It is in the very baldest terms set out
in this section, and I ask that it may be modified
by the insertion of these words “Especially pro-
vided by them for the reception and delivery of
merchandise.” Then I do not know whether I
should go on to the next part.
Chairman.] No, we must have that settled.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether your
Grace has looked at tha Board of Trade Report
upon this part of the clause, because they have
pointed out that what my learned friend is deal-
There-
ing with is practically an impossibility. If your
Lordships will look at what in my copy is at the
bottom of page 11, they say with regard to this
matter, “As regards the amount of station ter-
minals, we may say at once that we have not
been able to suggest a logical basis for fixing the
power to charge. Even if the cost of every one
of the stations in the United Kingdom (number-
ing as they do some thousands), and of the
accommodation provided thereat could be accu-
rately ascertained (and this would be a gigantic, if
not an impossible task), such a basis would not be
obtained unless that cost could be apportioned
between the several classes of merchandise in
respect of which the charges would be autho-
rised. In other words it would be impossible
to say how much of the expenditure of capital
and of income was due to mineral traffic, how
much to goods traffie. and how much to
animal traffic with anything approaching accu-
racy.” Then they go on to say that three
courses appear possible, the things I do not
read because it refers to the way in which they
arrived at a settlement ; but it seems to me that
that is the best answer to the proposal of my
learned friend, that what he is aiming at, namely,
distinguishing the portion of the terminal ac-
commodation which has been provided for the
reception and delivery of merchandise from
other parts, is practically absolutely impossible
of accomplishment, and hopeless to attempt.
Mr. Poyser.] In reply to that I would beg to
point out this: that the railway companies have
furnished us with details of the charges incurred
by them in erecting their stations (I was
before the Board of Trade), and what I want to
do is this. Take one station's sidings, they put
the figure at 619 l., I take that by way of illus-
tration. I say that when the Board of Trade
are fixing an average terminal, which, of course,
cannot be precise, and I do not for a moment
suggest that if should be the precise amount of
the service rendered to us, because you would
never arrive at an average at all ; but arriving
at that average they should not take into
account the 619 l. for sidings, but should only
take into account say, 500 l. or 400 l. for sidings
because the other half of the accommodation is
provided for the benefit of the railway company
as conveyers.
Chairman.] But without which your goods
could not be conveyed. -
Mr. Poyser.] Without which our goods could
not be conveyed, and which, therefore, must
be included in the charge for conveyance. That
is exactly the point. -
Chairman.] That would be a reason against
your argument, would it not ?
Mr. Poyser.] No ; because if that comes in as
conveyance, as I say it does, I say that the
sidings provided for shunting and marshalling
comes in for conveyance, and therefore I want to
exclude them from the station terminals.
Lord Houghton.] But that all helps their
speedy delivery.
Mr. Poyser.]. So does marshalling trucks tend
to the speedy delivery of goods; but it has never
been suggested that marshalling should be in-
cluded as part of the charge ; and it is to meet
that that we want to tie down the words to
accommodation
ON RAIL WAY RATES
PROVISIONAL ORDE R BILLS. 79
AND C FHARGES
15 April 1891.
accommodation specially provided for the good
of the trader.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).] Mr.
Bidder has read the reasons which you gave for
the conclusions you arrived at. What are the
reasons why you made this clause more general,
that is to say, that for the use of the accon mo–
dation, exclusive of coal drops provided, that is to
cover everything except the transport along the
line P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] We desire that the
schedule as a whole should be absolutely exhaust-
ive, that there should be special charges for
station terminals and service terminals and that
everything which is not in them, is in convey-
£bl] C62.
Mr. Pope.] And this clause defines station
terminals as duties which arise or accommodation
provided before or after conveyance. The words
of the definition are exceedingly plain and
definite. Marshalling is part of conveyance; it
must arise during conveyance ; therefore it can-
not be a stational terminal, which is only charge-
able for the duties before and after conveyance.
It is very much better defined in the language of
the Board of Trade than in that of my learned
friend’s amendment.
Mr. Poyser.] But marshalling may take place
in the goods yard. That is the thing I want to
guard against.
Mr.
Poyser.
Chairman.] Then these words will not be
inserted. +
Mr. Poyser.] The next point is for services
rendered by the company, “for which no other
prov.sion is made in this schedule.” It was in-
tended to make the whole schedule complete with
regard to that, and I should like to point out
that that would cover the whole of the three
charges, because all other services rendered need
Pope.j It is provided against, Mr.
not be at the terminal station, but further on if
convenient; it may be things with regard to
signalling and what not. The only objection
was warehousing, suggested by my Lord Camper-
down, and the difficulty of dealing with it.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, I did not suggest
it.
Chairman.] Then do you move the whole of
those words P
Mr. Poyser.] No, I did not deal with the
“services rendered by the company for which no
other provision is made in this schedule.” I
wish to point out that those words are met really
by page 4 of the Order as to warehousing,
because “the detention of trucks, or the use or
the occupation of any accommodation before or
after conveyance beyond such period as shall be
reasonably necessary for enabling the company to
deal with the merchandise as carriers thereof or
the consignor or consignee to give or take
delivery thereof.” are provided for these, so that
the words “ or other services” can be met by
that.
Chairman.] Then what is the next amend-
ment P
Mr. Waghorn.] On behalf of the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference I wish to speak on this
clause. We wish rather to support the view
taken by the railway companies at the present
time.
Chairman.] What amendment have you to
propose ? O
Mr. Waghorn.] The amendment we have to
propose, we put it before your Lordships, is that
the clause should run to this effect: “ The maxi-
mum station terminal is the maximum.”
Mr. Hanbury.] After what words does that
come in 7
Mr. Wag horn.] It is the whole of the section.
These have been put in before the Committee.
Mr. Hambury.] Is that in the printed amend-
ments
Mr. Pope.] No, because it is part of the alter-
native schedule of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference.
('hairman (to Mr. Waghorn).] Then, perhaps,
you will point out where they come in.
Mr. Waghorn.] The schedule which the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference have put
in, your Grace, is in a somewhat different form
from that which has been put in by the Board of
Trade and the railway companies; but I under-
stand that the ruling of your Grace this morning
was, that when the whole schedule was settled
you would take into account the schedule put in
by the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, but
that, at the same time, we might be heard upon
the clauses as they proceed.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Waghorn.] And the amendment which we
wish to suggest now would be, for the sake of
simplicity, that the clause should run something
like this
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend's, Mr. Poyser's.
amendment has been negatived ; we must have
another amendment up.
Mr. Pope.] He is proposing another amend-
ment; he is bringing forward the substantive
section in his proposed schedule, and saying that
the clause ought to run like this
Mr. Waghorn.] That is so; and the words
that we propose are these——
Chairman.] Where ?
Mr. Waghorn ) It is part of our schedule,
which is, I believe, before the Committee; but
if I might be allowed, I would just read the
words: they are very simple.
Chairman.] Whereabouts are they
Mr. [Waghorn.] I hardly know what documents
your Grace has before you
Mr. Bidder.] As a matter of order, if my
friend will forgive me, I think it is essential to
know whether the whole of Mr. Poyser's amend-
ments are disposed of before we go to somebody
else’s.
Mr. Poyser.] I have not got to the proviso
yet.
Mr. Bidder.] I thought Mr. Poyser's amend-
ments were not done,
Mr. Hanbury.] We have only dealt with part
(81.)
K 4 of
80 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
of Poyser's amendments; you have got a further
amendment, have you not, Mr. Poyser 7
Mr. Poyser.] Yes, sir; I understood it was
some amendment on the clause that my learned
friend was proposing. The next amendment
that I have, yºur Grace, is as regards the first
proviso here. “Where merchandise is loaded or
unloaded elsewhere than in a shed or building of
the company, the company may not charge any
station terminal in respect thereof.” I would
deal with that in dealing with the next one;
“ maximum station terminals shall be charged
in accordance with the following scale.” The
reason why I venture to put that before the Com-
mittee, with regard to the terminal, I think your
Grace will see directly. At the present moment
in fixing this maximum station terminal what
has been——
Chairman.] This must come on later; this has
nothing to do with the question now before us.
Mr. Poyser.] With all respect, your Grace, I
submit that this is the time to put in a proviso
such as this: “Where merchandise is loaded or
unloaded elsewhere than in a shed or building of
the company, the company may not charge any
station terminal in respect thereof.”
Earl of Belmore.] Is not that provided for in
another part of the schedule of the Board of
Trade. -
Mr. Poyser.] No, with all respect.
Earl of Belmore (to Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh).] Is not that provided for further on ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] The Committee
are right, I think, in saying that this proviso
about loading or unloading should surely not
come into a clause which deals entirely with
station terminals. Loading or unloading is dis-
tinctly a service terminal. But I understand
the point of the objection to be that where there
is to be no shed or building there is to be no
station terminal.
Mr. Poyser. That is the point of the proviso
that I suggest in dealing with that.
Mr. Pope..] I do not want to interrupt my
learned friend ; but this question of whether a
station terminal is to be charged where there is no
building has been already decided by the Com-
mittee on this principle, as it was explained by
my Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I think, yester-
day, that that is dealt with in the amount of the
station terminal, that where the class of traffic
requires the provision of a warehouse or shed
there the amount which is allowed for the station
terminal is larger, and where no building is re-
quired in that class of traffic the station terminal
is smaller. That was explained yesterday; and
I thought the whole of this question was disposed
of by that explanation.
Mr. Poyser.] This question, with all respect—
I have followed the arguments very carefully—
has never been decided by the Committee; that
is to say, that station terminals being chargeable
(as a rule you charge station terminals), then on
what goods are the station terminals to be
charged 2 On shed goods I submit. Yes, charge
station terminals ; but when you get to distinctly
goods which are not loaded in a building or shed
provided by the company, in that case it is
perfectly open to provide here in this schedule,
which imposes station terminals, that there shall
be no station terminal with regard to those par-
ticular goods. I am treating the whole as a
schedule. But my learned friend, Mr. Pope,
says, that it is at some previous part of the dis-
cussion on these provisions you have dealt with
this point of yard goods.
Earl of Belmore.] Your point is that goods
loaded in the yard, not a shed, should not have
station terminals 2
Mr. Poyser.] None at all.
Earl of Belmore.] Although the yard is pro-
vided by the company ?
Mr. Poyser.] The broad distinction between
yard goods and shed goods.
Chairman.] Do I rightly understand you to
apply that to a yard belonging to the Company?
Mr. Poyser. Yard and sidings belonging to
the company where no buildings are provided,
and there is no special machinery for loading or
unloading ; that is to say, where a truck merely
stands on the siding for somebody to come and
take delivery.
Lord Belper.] Your amendment would do
away with any terminals on coal or any class of
goods in Class A P
Mr. Poyser.] Practically.
Lord Belper.] No terminal would be charged
on them P * -
Mr. Poyser.] For whatever is in Class A,
there should be no terminal at all. Your Lord-
ship, I am sure, will follow this. I admit at
once that where accommodation is provided by
sheds or buildings, or hydraulic machinery, or
anything else there should be a terminal.
Chairman.] I do not think we need go into
that now.
|Mr. Poyser.] I submit that now is the time to
do it; but if your Grace will reserve the right
to me to do it hereafter, when we come to fixing
rateS-—
Chairman.] Then you may go on, and we will
hear you,
Mr. Poyser.] I only suggested, your Grace,
that that is a distinction that should be made
between the two classes of traffic. A totally
different distinction has been made in the classi-
fication for the purpose of conveyance ; and
what I want the Committee to mark is the
difference between the two. It may seem almost
absurd to say at the present moment, that if I
get a ton of common bricks delivered at a road-
side station, I pay exactly the same station
terminal as if I get a ton of feathers or artificial
flowers delivered at Broad-street Station in
London. That is monstrous. If I get a ton of
cinders for garden purposes, I am charged the
same station terminal as if I got a ton of baro-
meters or arsenic, or anything in Class 5. If
that is to be so, I can say nothing more about it.
If it is the idea of the Committee that that
should be so, I can only say that it is a way of
dealing with these terminals that I cannot assent
to
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
81
15 April 1891.
to on behalf of those whom I represent. That
we are bound by that your Lordships will see.
Chairman.] Then your amendment terminates
in the terminal Clause X., is that it !
Mr. Poyser.] Yes, your Grace. What I want
to do is this, if I may put it to your Grace in a
few words, to have a particular article specified,
and the terminal applicable to that article at this
time. At the present time I say the result is
you may get a ton of Basic salt or gravel, and
you may have exactly the same terminal charge
for that as for anything in Class 5.
Earl of Camperdown.] But a ton is a ton is it
not ? - &
Mr. Poyser.] A ton is a ton.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then why should you
not pay in respect of a ton, what you pay for a
ton P -
Mr. Poyser.] I quite agree with your Lord-
ship; but what I suggest is this : that if the
Board of Trade are quite content to say, charge
a ton as a ton, I am perfectly content, let there be
one charge and I fall in with it at once. But if you
charge for one ton 3 d., and make a distinction in the
charges, 6 d., 1 s. and 1 s. 6d. as they do, then I say
why should you charge 1 s. 6 d. for a ton of gravel
while at the same time you charge 1 s. 6 d.--—
Earl of Camperdown.] But you do not.
Mr. Poyser.] Is not that so
Mr. Pope.] No.
Mr. Poyser.] My learned friend says no, but
in Class A. that is only applicable to consign-
ments of four tons. If I send one ton of gravel,
it is not in Class A. it is in Class C.
Earl of Camperdown.] Now you are on the
schedules.
Mr. Poyser.] That may be, but I say here that
we must specify the article to which the terminal
is attached ; because aton of gravel sent by railway
is put up into Class 1 of the schedule, which pays
a terminal of 1 s. 6d. That ought to be guarded
against, and if words are inserted which will
guard against it, that is all I want, that there
should be a distinction between goods that only
use outside accommodation and goods that use
accommodation inside. I do not believe that if
Lord Balfour of Burleigh was asked he would say
for the moment that a ton of bricks is not in
Class 1. * i
Chairman.] But you see we are not going
into Class I., or what is in Class I. ; we are
dealing with the amendment that you have put
before us, which is : “maximum station ter-
minals shall be charged in accordance with the
following scale.” You give us the scale, and
then go on. What we have to decide is, whether
those words shall be added to the clause.
Mr. Poyser.] I put this in for this reason,
that the Board of Trade have suggested a dif-
ferent division of these terminals, and I say that
the real division is between yard goods and shed
goods. What the Board of Trade have done
is this ; they have divided yard goods into three
classes, and shed goods into one. I say that it
should be just the contrarv : Yard goods as only
having one class, and shed goods being put into
three classes.
--º
Chairman.] We are not upon that.
Mr. Poyser.] If your Grace says that when
we come to deal with classification——
Chairman] I do not say anything. We are
dealing with the clause you have proposed.
Mr. Poyser.] If we do not deal with station
terminals now, and their amount, I cannot con-
ceive a time when we shall deal with them.
Chairman.] We have been all day at it.
Mr. Poyser.] Quite so, and I suggest that
now would be the time to make the distinction
between the two classes. Of course if it is open
to me when we come to classification, I am
Content. t
Chairman.] I say nothing.
with that when we come to it.
thing more to say ?
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to specifying the
thing, I ask that when station terminals are ap-
plied a mark should be indicated in the case of
each article as to the terminal applicable to that
article. - -
Mr. Bidder.] But can you do that when we
come to that part of the case.
Mr. Poyser.] If it is agreed to that I shall
be at liberty to do so.
Chairman.] You want to bind the Committee.
I am not going to bind the Committee. I am
not going to bind the Committee to anything.
Mr. Poyser.j I do not want to bind the Com-
mittee.
Chairman.] But the Committee will not be
bound. We want to come to a decision upon
what you are now arguing. I cannot bind the
We shall deal
Have you any-
Committee beyond that.
Mr. Poyser.] Then, your Grace, the last point
arising out of this amendment is this ; and I
put it that the terminal to be charged should be
indicated by the article in the classification here-
after, that is by some letter. I leave it in that
way. lf it is thought that it does not matter I
I cannot put it further.
Chairman.] If either Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh or Mr. Courtenay Boyle would give us their
opinion with regard to the proposal “ where
“merchandise is loaded or unloaded elsewhere
than in a shed or building of the company, the
company may not charge any station terminal in
respect thereof,” we should like to hear what
you have to say upon that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We think, your
Grace, that it would not be fair as it stands,
because although there may be no shed or
building, there are some works necessary for the
delivery of the traffic, which is called in
technical parlance yard traffic ; there are
sidings for coal and other merchandise, but not
necessarily for coal and that merchandise so
elaborate as for schedule goods. But because
there is not so much provision necessary for
that we did not think it right that the railway
company should be prevented from making some
charge. The charges which we have set out
for Clauses A., B., and C., are lower than the
amount for charges for station terminals in what
we call the rough traffic. I do not say that it is
(81.)
L absolutely
82
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
e-
absolutely accurate, but it is generally under-
stood that what is called yard-traffic is in
Classes A., B., and C., and shed-traffic is in
the numbered classes to 5. I will not say
that there is no traffic in the Classes A., B.,
and C. that is not shed traffic, or no traffic in
Classes 1 and 2 which is not yard traffic. But
that is generally speaking the division.
I may say that in ihe course of Mr. Poyser's
remarks there is a slight point which may be
hereafter dealt with. It is a somewhat technical
point, and if the Committee will bear with me
for a moment, I will explain it. We have made
the provision that were traffic that is now in
Class A, goes beyond in small lots of one ton, it
is to go into higher classes. We understand
Mr. Poyser's point to be, that under those cir-
cumstances it is right to increase the convey-
ance rate, but that it is not right to increase the
terminal charge. We think it possible that
there may be something in that; but we think
that the right place to deal with it will be
when you come to the classification, which in
the London and North Western Provisional
Order is on page 20. If the Committee would
kindly refer to that for one moment, on page 20
of the London and North Western Order, at
the end of Class B. it will be found that mer-
chandise is classed in Class A., if sent in quan-
tities of not less than four tons; and a corre-
sponding co-relative provision on page 24 is, that
merchandise is classed in Class B., if sent in
quantities of less than two tons. To meet that
part of Mr. Poyser's contention, I think it
would be fair for him at any rate to make a
suggestion to the Committee that that condition
should be modified in some way or other, so as
to provide that the increase that we suggest for
the small lot should be upon the conveyance
rate, and not on the terminal charge. But this,
we think, would not be the time to deal with it,
but that it would be better to postpone it.
Mr. Poyser.] That was the point I was en-
deavouring to make.
Chairman.] Then the Committee will not
insert these words.
Mr. Woodſall.] On behalf of South Wales
and Monmouthshire traders there is an amend-
ment that has not been printed by the railway
companies for some reason, I know not why, be-
cause the amendments weae handed in some days
ago.
Mr. Bidder.] If so it is quite unintentional.
Chairman.] What are you proposing 2
Mr. Woodfall.] I have to bring up a proviso
on behalf of the South Wales and Monmouth-
shire Freighters Association ; an association re-
presenting a very large and important body.
Mr. Bidder.] May I say for one moment that
we did find out that omission.
Mr. Shaw.] That is as to the coalowners.
Mr. Bidder.] We have found out that we have
accidentally omitted the two. We have since
had them printed, and they shall now be handed
to the Committee. It is our fault.
Chairman.] What is it you propose, and where,
Mr. Woodfall P
Mr. Woodfall.] I propose that, at the end of
Clause 3, there should be a proviso inserted for
the protection of that Association of Freighters
whom I represent, in the following words: “Pro-
vided that the company may not charge for the
performance of duties undertaken by them for
their own convenience or protection such as
signalling, pointsmen, and the cost of working
junctions, watching goods, the use of gas and
other lighting, and that the company may not
charge a station terminal at the end of a railway
where such a railway joins the dock lines of the
company’s dock, and shipping charges are ap-
plicable, or at any point on the company's rail-
way where such railway or any part thereof joins
a siding not belonging to the company.”
Mr Bidder.] What are you reading from ?
Mr. Woodfall.] I am reading from the proviso.
These amendments were put in last Friday and
are before you.
Mr. Bidder.] By whom ?
Mr. Woodfall.] By the South Wales and
Monmouthshire Freighters Association.
Mr. Bidder.] We have not got them. I can.
not take any blame to ourselves in respect to the
omission of this. I understand that so far as we
know they are not handed into the Committee
Clerk.
Mr. Woodfall.] I can assure your Grace I am
instructed that they were handed in ; I was not
throwing blame on anybody.
Mr. Bidder.] We printed everything with the
omission I have referred to that was given to us
by Mr. Jeune.
Mr. Woodfall.] That is the proviso. I am
going to move afterwards on behalf of the
Marquis of Bute.
Chairman.] You had better read it again, we
have not got a copy.
Mr. Woodfall.] I have handed up to your
Grace a copy. It is certainly by some over-
sight; I am told that plenty of copies were
supplied.
Chairman.] There is no complaint made. I
only want to get the article.
Mr. Woodfall.] I have handed your Grace a
Copy.
Mr. Bidder.] Can you let us have a copy P
Mr. Woodfall.] To take this proviso in detail,
it provides first, that “the company may not
charge for the performance of duties undertaken
by them for their own convenience or protection,
such as signalling, pointsmen, and the cost of
working junctions, watching goods, the use of
gas and other lighting.” At this moment after
all the discussion we have had, the Committee
have not had a definition in detail of the duties
which are included by the railway company in
station terminals; and it shows the general
apprehension that is felt among traders, that they
are going to be put upon hereafter, that they
appear one after another seeking to know what
the railway companies mean ; and this association,
this large association of iron masters in South
Wales, feel that it is necessary for their protec-
tion that they should have expressed in detail those
station
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
83
15 April 1891.
station terminals which would affect themselves.
Therefore they wish to say, and it is a reasonable
demand, that the company may not charge for
the performance of the duties undertaken by
them for their own convenience or protection.
When the cases have been before the Law Courts
as to the principle of imposition of terminal
charges it was pointed out that companies might
well perform terminal services because it was
an advantage to them to be carriers upon their
own line, and that there were certain terminal
services, that might be imposed by them, and
not included in any rate, so as to be made a
charge to the trader. And certain of these
services such as are set out in this proviso,
sign ailing, pointsmen, cost of working junctions,
watching goods, use of gas and other ligthing,
I submit are all services which the railway
company would have to perform for their own
safety, and for their own convenience, and this
clause being so wide, I have said so before, so
elastic, although I do not care to repeat it
because the Committee on that point held against
me, I say it is a clause that does not adequately
in detail protect the traders, and that it is
necessary for this Association of Freighters
that they should have some detailed protection,
such as I suggest by that part of the proviso.
Going on to the second part—
Chairman.] We will take the first part first,
because the next goes into terminal dock lines.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, that is so.
Mr. Bidder.] Will you let me have the copy.
(A Copy is handed to Mr. Bidder.)
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh). Have
you had this under your notice
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I have it here.
Chairman.] I mean when you were deciding
the point.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] There was a con-
siderable amount of argument as to what should
be included in the station terminal at Westmin-
ster Town Hall.
Chairman.] Then we should like to hear what
we have to hear upon this.
Mr. Bal/our Browne.] Will your Grace ask
that after I have proposed my amendment 2 I
think it will save Lord Balfour's time.
Chairman.] We have an amendment now be-
fore us.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This really is a proviso;
and I thought that provisos came after the amend-
ments in this section.
Earl of Camperdown.] We are at the end of
the section, and this is the proviso.
Mr. Woodfall.] I am proposing this simply as
a proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We have got a great
many things as amendments to propose.
Chairman.] We have gone through the Sec-
tion 3, we have heard various amendments upon
it, and we have decided that the clause is right as
it stands. Then Mr. Woodfall, appearing for
Lord Bute and some others, moves this proviso.
That proviso we are now discussing.
—–s--"
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You will find that you
have not disposed of all the amendments suggested
on this paper yet by a good many upon Clause 3 ;
and until you have disposed of them I thought
the usual course was to keep something that was
to be added to the clause until after the disposal
of them.
Chairman.] That would be so; but I thought
we had finished the amendments.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; I assure you there
are a great number of amendments.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then why was not that
objection taken before we proceeded to the
proviso P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I rose at the same
moment as my learned friend, and you said you
would hear him. -
Chairman.] I did not see you.
Mr. Bidder.] It can make no difference which
order we take.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It does make a great
difference if you are going to put in a proviso,
when the section would itself do it.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend, Mr. Wood-
fall, has entirely failed to point out to the Com-
mittee what his proviso aimed at. There is no-
where in the schedule where the company pro-
pose or would have power to charge in respect to
any of these things. On the contrary, the clause
we are on provides for the duties undertaken, for
which no other schedule provides. The maximum
station terminal covers them therefore, and the
duties enumerated here are either things for
which provision is made somewhere else in the
schedule, in which case they would be separately
chargeable; or else they are covered by the
station terminal. If it is a question of signalling
along the line, that is obviously part of con-
veyance. My learned friend fails to show the
Committee any ground for the proviso, because he
does not point to anything in the schedule which
would support the claim upon the company to
charge separately in respect of anything except
that which is specially provided for in the different
classes of the schedule.
Mr. Woodfall.] I would just, in answer to
that, say this : that if your Grace looks at the
scale of charges, and where the station terminals
are set out, whereas the companies have given
details of the service terminals, when you come
to the classification you will find that they have
still lumped together the station terminals; and
so the traders are quite in the dark as to what
the term “station terminals " covers, they have
lumped it together in the clause, and they have
lumped it together in the classification, although
they separate the separate service terminals.
Mr. Bidder.] What can be more distinct than
saying that it covers all the duties for which no
other provision is made in the schedule?
Earl of Camperdown. Then this proviso pro-
poses to limit your clause 2
Mr. Bidder.] The proviso proposes to prevent
our charging for something.
Earl of Camperdown.] Certainly, it may be
right or wrong.
(81.)
L 2 Mr.
84 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE' TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
*–-
Mr. Bidder.] The first ground for a proviso is
to show that we are proposing to make the goods
an improper subject of charge.
Mr. Woodfall.j Pardon me.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] We
should like ro hear what you have to say upon
this point.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We do not think, your
Grace, that there is any possibility of its being
argued that the charges referred to, such as
signalling, pointsman, and the cost of working
junctions, can be made the subject of a station
terminal charge, and we believe that it is very
unwise drafting to put in a statement that some-
thing must not be done of a certain kind, and
then set out certain details of what must be done
because it always raises the argument, it opens
the door to the argument, that the very setting
out of those things that may be done means that
other things may be done. It is for that reason
that we do not quite approve.
Mr. Woodfall.] May I say just this one word P
Will my learned friend Mr. Bidder venture, to
say, on behalf of the railway companies, that
they do not include in their term “station termi-
nals’’ those services which are for their own
convenience and protection, and which we have
set out here 2 It will be a very simple thing
to do.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not understand what my
learned friend means. We include in one or
other of the charges the whole of the services
that we render in the carriage of goods; it
either comes under “conveyance ’’ or under
“ service terminals” or under “station termi-
nals,” which we expressly make to cover every-
thing not otherwise charged. I entirely endorse
what Mr. Courtenay Boyle says as to the inex-
pedience of inserting this proviso.
Chairman.] The Committee are of opinion not
to insert the words from “provided " down to
“lighting.”
Mr. Woodfall.] Now the second part is, “ and
that the company may not charge a station
terminal at the end of the railway where such
railway joins the dock lines of the company's
dock and shipping charges are applicable,” and
then it goes on, “ or at any point on the com-
pany’s railway where such railway or any part
thereof joins a siding not belonging to the com-
pany.” Your Grace will have observed, as was
pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Camper-
down, that the definition given is not of station
terminals, but of a terminal station ; and there-
fore there is nothing in this schedule at all to
prevent the companies—— -
Mr. Pºpe.] Look at the definition of “terminal
station.”
Mr. Woodſall.] I am looking at the definition
of terminal station, but there is no definition of
“station terminal.” Now, your Grace, the com-
panies are absolutely, free to call any part of their
line they like a terminal station, qua that special
consignment of traffic; and this might happen.
I take the Crockherbtown Station at Cardiff
where the goods are carried right through.
Mr. Pope.] Forgive me one moment.
Mr. Woodfall.] It is really more convenient
that I should state my case.
Mr. Pope.] I assure you that it is not, if you
only will do me the favour of listening. If you
will look at the clause that you are criticising, it
provides for accommodation “at the terminal
station.” Then if you turn to see what the
terminal station means, you will find that it does
not mean a junction with dock lines, or anything
of the kind. It is distinctly defined. The whole
question is settled by the definition.
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace will see that in the
definition to which my learned friend, Mr. Pope,
refers, it is quite open to the argument, and to
the construction that that only refers to traffic to
which the terminal charge is applicable; and I
should, of course, very respectfully venture to
submit that one of the objects of the Committee
in framing this Bill will be to frame such a Bill
as to limit all possible litigation in future. And
I cannot conceive myself why the railway com-
panies should one after another object to these
words being added, if it was not to prevent them
doing something which is latent in their minds.
Chairman.] But this part of your clause seems
to be covered on page 7, where the terminal
station is defined. There it says that a terminal
station “does not include any station or junction
at which the merchandise in respect of which
any terminal is charged has been exchanged with
handed over to or received from any other rail-
way or a junction between the railway and a
siding not belonging to the company or any station
with which such siding may be connected, or any
dock or shipping place, the charges for the use
of which are regulated by Act of Parliament.”
Does not that in other words meet it 2
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, your Grace, that would
be applicable to any traffic in respect to which
any terminal is charged. But what we contend
is, that it does not sufficiently prevent the com-
panies from calling a place a terminus and charg—
ing terminals or traffic which ought properly to
be subject to no terminal charge at all.
Chairman.] You do not mean to say that the
company can call a terminal station that which is
not a terminal station ?
Mr. Woodſ all.] To take a concrete instance,
if traffic is handed through that Crockherbtown
station to a point a hundred yards beyond, if it
has to be handed over to go down to the docks,
there is no terminal service to be rendered by
the companies, but under this clause we say that
they will have the right to call that a terminal
Station for that purpose. I can see the point
that is made against me by my learned friend,
Mr. Pope. But on the other hand I can only
say this : that on the part of a large experienced
body of traders, they interpret it differently.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Might I say that
this clause with the definition which your Grace
has referred to, was expressly drafted by the
Attorney-General, after most careful consi–
deration, for the express purpose of barring the
contention which Counsel has put forward.
Chairman.] Then I think we cannot insert
those words.
Mr.
on RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. | 85
15 April 1891.
Mr. Woodfall. Then I have to move a proviso
on behalf of the Marquis of Bute.
Mr. Balfour Browne] Are we still to go on
with provisoes 2
Mr. Woodfall.] I do so, because your Grace
called upon my learned friend Mr. Poyser to
move his proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If your Grace will look
at these papers which have been handed in by
the railway companies, you will find a great
number of absolute amendments to the clause
itself; and we are assuming apparently that the
clause is passed.
Earl of Camperdown.] The last question was,
that this clause as amended stand part of the
Bill. ;
Chairman.] Then I think we had better go on
with the amendment now, and take the provisoes
afterwards. We were wrong in that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] the next amendment I
have in order is on page 3, by the Mansion
House United Association on railway rates, and
I do not propose to proceed with that amend-
ment, but I do ask your Grace, for the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference, to put in one which we
have given notice of as in the schedule, although
not put in here, because we could not do it. In
place of that, I can only read it to you, it is in
our schedule. .
Mr. Bidder.] Before my learned friend
proves the first amendment for the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference, I think, your Grace,
his position should be a little more distinctly
defined. In this morning's discussion the sug-
gestion was that, having an alternative suggestion,
my learned friend should move that after we
have finished our amendments. If he prefers to
bring up his amendments piecemeal, bit by bit,
I do not know that one ought to object; but I
venture to suggest that he must elect one way or
the other, he must not have it both ways; to
bring up an alternative schedule bit by bit, and
then to bring it up at the end as a whole.
Earl of Camperdown.] That was on a different
clause, on Clause 2. -
Mr. Bidder.] But I am on the whole question.
My learned friend is now taking the alternative,
or what he called the alternative schedule, which
he reserved the right to move for at the end as a
whole. Is he now proposing to adopt another
course ? [ say that he ought to elect one way or
the other ; if he is going to move it piecemeal,
he must give up his right to amend the Bill in
the end.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] What I
understood you to say was that you could not
propose amendments now.
Mr. Balfour Browne. In some respects I
cannot; but wherever I can I said distinctly, I
will try to make the schedule you are passing as
good as I can. If I fail in that as I explained I
will bring up the schedule; but if you make it
suit all our requirements I will not bring up my
alternative at all.
Chairman.] Then it might so happen that the
schedule would be amended partly in your favour
and partly not ; and then you would be bringing
up a schedule in opposition to one already
amended in accordance with your own case.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It still lies in the mouth
of anybody, if he is not satisfied, to bring up an
alternative. I understood your Grace to say so.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] By a schedule do you mean
the entire Bill?
Mr. Balfour Browne] Practically, the entire
Bill. - .
Mr. Bidder.] The course which my learned
friend now proposes involves this: that he, in a
different position from all other petititioners,
shall be entitled to bring up amendments from
time to time of which we have no notice.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon.
Mr. Bidder.] With the reserved right of an
alternative scheme afterwards. I venture to sub-
mit that it is most inconvenient. If my learned
friend now will give us notice of the amendments,
I do not wish in the least degree to object to my
learned friend doing it in this way, bit by bit, as
the clauses arise, if he will give us some reason-
able notice of what amendments he is going to
bring forward.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You have it there if you
choose to look.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know what you are
going to do.
Mr. Pope.] I could not help overhearing what
my learned friend said just now, that there are
some portions of the schedule he cannot present
in the form of an amendment, but some he thinks
he can. What we want to know is, what parts
of the schedule he thinks he can so present, if he
will only give us notice of them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think my learned
friend has put in sufficient notice from our schedule
but I will give him sufficient indication of the
points I wish to bring up.
Mr. Pope.] We were put in the knowledge
that when we have amended a schedule with
the decision of the Committee, then my learned
friend would move to strike out from the first
word to the last, and substitute his own schedule.
That I understand. But if he chooses to bring
them up as particular amendments I do not
object. All I want to know is, what particu-
lar provisions he is proposing to bring up in
that form.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I agree with my
learned friend that there are some provisions I
can bring up as particular amendments, but some
I cannot. With regard to the first class I will
give the railway companies information as to
those. -
Mr. Pope.] That is right, and they shall be
printed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And they shall be
printed if you like.
Mr. Pope.] That they may be before the
Committee as the others have been.
Chairman.] I think there can be no doubt
that Mr. Balfour Browne has the right to
endeavour to amend this Order by bringing up
various amendments which he says he can do.
(81.)
L 3 Others
86 MINUTEs of Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
Others, he says, he cannot do. Therefore it would
be in his power, right, and I think, that, at the
end of the discussion upon this measure we should
either except this Order or except Mr. Balfour
Browne’s as a whole. But I do not think he
would have the right to substitute anything at
the end as a whole, if he had been enabled to
bring it forward by way of amendment during the
progress of this discussion. Do you understand
me, Mr. Pope 2
Mr. Pope.] Perfectly, your Grace. That is
the difficulty I foresee for my learned friend,
not for us.
Mr. Bafour Browne.] I quite understand that
if I could bring it forward in the shape of amend-
ments, I should not be entitled to bring it up in
the shape of a schedule, and I should not wish to
do so.
Mr. Pope.] But if you bring it up in the form
of amendments, you cannot bring it up again in
the form of a schednle.
Mr Balfour Browne.] Certainly not.
Mr. Pope.] Then let Mr. Marshall Stephens
consider whether that would not so dislocate your
arguments for the amendments that you could
not bring them forward again for the whole
schedule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace, I think
there is such force in the remark that has been
made that if in the first instance I brought up an
amendment just now and it were rejected, and I
could not bring it up again, that would so dislo-
cate the schedule, which is a complete thing,
that I could not bring forward the schedule. You
see if you take away one part of the schedule the
schedule is no longer complete. Therefore, I
think, I had better elect not to bring up particular
amendments just now, but leave it and bring up
the schedule in a complete form. Even if the
Committee are determined upon rejecting that
schedule, I hope they will give us an opportunity
of explaining the grounds we have for putting in
that schedule.
Chairman.] Of course you will be heard.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then in that case I
will not mention the amendment just now, but
keep it for the schedule.
Chair inam.] I do not think you will suggest
that we want to burke anything.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am perfectly certain
you would not, but I only want to guard myself.
Mr. Pope.] I take it that my learned friend
will be entitled to argue for every particular
article in his schedule if he likes.
Chairman.] And take a month to argue it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will promise not to do so.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Will not that re-open
questions which we have decided ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so decidedly—
every one of the questions you have decided.
Chairman.] But we shall have decided the
points put before us in the absence of any better
scheme, and although with the materials before
us that may be right, it may be that your argu-
ments and eloquence will Convince us that yours
is better.
Mr. Balfour Broume.] I hope not the elo"
quence, but the arguments would satisfy you
that the schedule we shall propose ought to be
Substituted.
Chairman.] And in the meantime we are
arguing these points in the absence of one of the
parties, that is to say, the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.]. Can you give us roughly what it
is that you will propose ?
Earl of Camperdown.] Is it a new Bill ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Practically, my Lord, it
is a new Bill ?
Chairman.] Supposing that we agree to your
proposal, when y on bring it up at the proper
time, what I want to know is how much of this
Bill will remain.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I should think none of
it, or rather all the Bill will remain. That is
the confirmation, but all the schedule really will
be gone. -
Chairman.] That is to say, all the part of the
Bill that is worth nothing will remain.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is worth everything,
your Grace; it is the thing that confirms their
schedule.
Earl of Camperdown.] And you have told us
that most of the proposals in your Bill as .
scheduled will not fit into this Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I admit that, my
Lord.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] May I ask if the learned
Counsel has read the 24th Section of the Rail-
ways and Canal Traffic Act, 1888; if he has
not, I think he had better do so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have done so several
times, but would you mind telling me, Sir, the
section which you would like me to read
again. -
Sir Joseph Bailey. It is in sub-Section 6 of
the 24th Section, I think.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is in sub-Section 7,
and then comes your procedure with regard to
petitioning, and then comes sub-Section 10 ; it is
a public general Act.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] As I read it, the intiative
is entirely with the Board of Trade.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There cannot be a
question about the initiative. I quite agree that
the initiative is with the Board of Trade.
Earl of Camperdown.] And it has been taken
by them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, and they are here,
and thay have submitted their schedule.
Earl of Camperdown.] Which they think is
the just and reasonable one.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, that Parliament
has to determine, whether it is just and reasonable,
my Lord, and it seems to me that every petitioner
on a private Bill has a right to propose amend.
ments striking out every clause of the Bill, and
to propose clauses which will take the place of
every one of those clauses.
Earl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
87
15 April 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then do you propose
an alternative Bill?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Alternative clauses, my
Lord. e
Earl of Camperdown.] But do you propose an
alternative Bill ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, my Lord, not an
alternative Bill, because the Bill, as far as this is
concerned, is only the confirmation of the Pro-
visional Order.
of the Bill, I do not think that a petitioner would
have any right to suggest if this were a Bill for
costs to tax, say, the salt people in Cheshire that
you shall change that into taxing other people,
because they have wells; he could not do that,
but any clause in the Bill he could strike out, or
all of them, and propose entirely different clauses.
That is all we have done, only that our clauses
à l’e l'Y) Ol’é l'h Ul IY) GI’OUlS.
Mr. Bidder.] I think my learned friend goes
a little further. He proposes, as I understand,
an alternative Provisional Order.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I do not. I am
perfectly satisfied with the Bill as it has been
brought up, but all the clauses I object to.
Earl of Camperdown.] And then you begin
very soon after “ whereas.” I suppose.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, my Lord, but
where it says that this cannot be done without
the assistance of Parliament. But I may say
that it seems to me to be quite clear that an op-
ponent of a Bill has a right to object to every
clause in the Bill.
Earl of Camperdown.] On the discussion of
clauses 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I quite agree.
Lord Houghton.] Then when the first clause
comes to be discussed you will object to it, I take
it, and move your amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If it has anything to do
with my clause ; but supposing a petitioner has
50 clauses in substitution for a Bill that has 25,
how is he to move the 50 clauses on the 25 !
Chairman.] Supposing you were before me on
a Private Bill and you had five clauses in place
of one, when you came to the one clause which
you were opposed to, you would object to that
clause and you would move your own clauses.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In the first place, I
ought to ask your Grace to strike out that clause
and insert something in the place of it.
Mr. Hanbury.] Take the clause we have
actually passed, Clause 2, shall you propose ulti-
mately to strike that out? -
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Will you just look at
what we do propose.
Mr. Hanbury. No, I want an answer to that
question. I say take the clause we have actually
passed ; should you propose ultimately to strike
that out or do you accept that clause as we have
passed it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly not ; but
that was discussed upon the understanding, as I
stood by on that discussion upon the under-
standing that I was to be heard against it at the
end.
With regard to the Preamble
Earl of Camperdown.] Just observe what your
position is : You assented to the question that
this Bill do proceed, and upon that we went
into clauses. Now your contention is that when
we have got through the clauses, you shall
retreat altogether from your position bringing in
a new set of clauses entirely ; I might call it a
new Bill, but you prefer to call it a completely
new set of clauses.
Chairman.] No, he calls it a Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Practically I call it a
new Bill. Your Grace, so far as the Preamble,
or the enacting part of it is concerned, I am
content with that, but everything else, I pro-
pose to substitute something for. All I can say
is that I went upon what the Committee decided
yesterday : “Then if at the end of it all there is
a motion to strike out the whole of that which
has been amended, it will be for us to consider
whether we prefer the amended clause, or the
one which may be brought up by Mr. Balfour
Browne.” At the end I shall propose that all
the clauses be struck out.
Chairman.] Not at the end of the Bill.
Earl of Belmore.] At the end of Clause 26 °
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Chairman.] Then you have got schedules
afterwards. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, it is then I want
to come in, because with regard to the schedules
of rates, I have not proposed anything, because
in the meantime I am not in a position to show
what the rates are to be. I am quite willing to
come in at Clause 26.
Mr. Shaw.] Might I ask one question ?
Chairman.] No, we must finish with Mr.
Balfour Browne first.
Mr. Dickson.] IDo I understand that you
want the Committee to throw overboard all the
experience that has been gained by the Board of
Trade during their year or two years of inquiry,
and to adopt an entirely new Bill that has not
been before them.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Most distinctly not.
In most cases I say the clauses which I embody,
carry out perhaps more fully the report of
the Board of Trade thon the schedule which is
before the Committee.
Mr. Dickson.] But it would not appear that
you think so when you say that you want to
Substitute new clauses for their clauses.
Mr. Balfour Browne. It really comes to a
question of drafting.
Chairman.] I think a learned counsel wished
to say something.
Mr. Shaw.] I was going to ask your Grace whe-
ther in the case of this scheme of my learned friend
Mr. Balfour Browne coming before the Committee,
the other traders might have a voice in the
matter of saying whether they would agree to
this scheme as proposed. There may be things
in this scheme which we would object to more
strongly than any of the things which the Board
of Trade have put before the Committee.
T Chairman.] The parties will be heard upon
the Petitions they have lodged.
(81.)
L 4 Mr. Pope.
, 88 ' MINUTES OF Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT, CoMMITTEE
&
—it 1. *
15 April 1891. {
a-
Mr. Pope.] They have not lodged, your Grace,
any petition against Mr. Balfour Browne's sche-
dule. , * #
Mr. Shaw.] Just so, that is the position we
are in. • f
The Committee retire, and after a time
resume. . . t -
Chairman.] The Committee have been con-
sidering the question which arose with regard to
the position that Mr. Balfour Browne was to
occupy, and they see that there would be very
great difficulty; in fact, insuperable difficulty,
in Mr. Balfour Browne bringing up an entirely
new Bill at the end of the Bill we have before us.
We do not see that that it could be carried out
in that shape, and therefore we think it will be
necessary for Mr. Balfour Browne to move
amendments to each of the clauses as the clauses
are brought up for discussion in the ordinary way.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Except with regard to
Clause 2 which the Cómmittee has passed. . .
Chairman.]. No, we have not passed it, we
have still kept that postponed, and you are per-
fectly at liberty to discuss Clause 2 after we
have passed Clause 3, because we are now in the
middle of Clause 3. You quite understand what
I mean, we do not think we can take another
Bill at the end of this Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I fully understand your
Gracc.
Chairman.] And that you must amend as far
as you can. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will do so, your Grace;
but, of course, it is not possible to be done at this
instant ; but before perhaps to-morrow morning
we may be able to hand to your Grace all the
amendments we have to propose, and where we
cannot do it absolutely upon clause, we may say,
“Strike out Clause 1, and substitute, the new
Clauses 3, 4, 5, and 6.” I can do something of
that sort, and that shall be done at the very
earliest opportunity. In the meantime, perhaps,
I had better propose the next amendment.
Mr. Bidder.] I might suggest with regard to
that, if before waiting for the formality of hand-
ing it to the Committee Clerk, my learned friend
will hand his amendments as soon as he can to
us, we will have them printed at once.
Chairman.] It would simplify matters very
much if the amendments were printed in some shape.
Mr. Bidder.] So that they would dove-tail in.
Chairman.] Just so. - º
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am quite willing to
print my own amendments if my learned friend’s
clients on the other side will not print them, in
their proper place, so as to dovetail them in with
the others. That, I think, will be more convenient. .
Earl of Belmore.] What we should like would
be to have the clauses printed in such a way as to
correspond with the clauses as they are dealt with
in the House of Commons. . 4. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Just so. 4. º:
Mr. Pope.] ‘ I do not know, your Grace
whether this would be a goód opportunity when
I should ask your Grace whether we might
adjourn over to-morrow. We cañnot, I am afraid,
have this room to-morrow, and the enormous,
convenience of this room, as compared with the
room we were in yesterday, is such as that I
think it would be for the convenience of all
parties if we could adjourn over to-morrow.
Chairman.] No, I think we cannot adjourn
OVer to-morrow. t
Mr. Pope. Then, of course, we must endure it.
Chairman.] I think we must sit to-morrow;
we have got rather a lengthened inquiry before us.
Mr. Pope: That is so, no doubt, your Grace;
I think it must be a long inquiry. Then, your
Grace, my difficulty with regard to what my
learned friend proposes is really, this: that his
Schedule is not framed so as to run numerically
with the Bill before the Committee. For instance,
he cannot move as an amendment to strike out
Clause 2 and substitute my Clause 2. His
Clause 2 does not refer to our Clause 2. {
Chairman.] I think when the question is put,
“That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill, then we
will hear Mr. Balfour Browne, upon the general
principle of his Bill which he proposes to substitute.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] What I propose to do
is to say something of this sort: “Strike out
Clauses 2 and 3, and substitute this proposal,”
and I will hand in the proposal. º
Mr. Pope.] That we understand.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And we will put it as
far as we can in the form in which it would be
discussed in the House of Commons.
Chairman.] It must be put in the form of an
amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will do it in that way,
your Grace. º *
Earl of Camperdown..] Your amendment must
be cognate to the substance of the clauses.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Certainly, my Lord.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Arranged numerically, so
that we can interpolate them in the paper, before
the Committee. . " º w
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might I ask, would it
he conformable with your Grace's convenience to
adjourn now. I have got the next amendment I
have to propose before me, but I have only got
it separately from the others in another sheet.
Mr. Pope.] Put you have got plenty of other
amendments that you can bring up. *
Chairman.] We propose that these amend-
ments should be before us in the same way in
which they are before Committees of the whole .
House of Lords and the House of Commons: In
Clause 3, line 10, strike out such and such words,
and insert such and such words. That is the way
in which we want to proceed. The amendment
should be put in regular order. º
. Mr. Balfour. Browne.] We will do so, your
Grace, certainly. * * * * *
Chairman.] And then, when I put the question,
we shall hear you upon the principle of the amend-
ment. w g
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, your Grace.
Then I will postpone the amendment just for the
present. , º a *
, Mr. Lush Wiſson.] I beg to withdraw from the
Committee the last amendment but one on page 4.
* * & Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 89
15 April 1891.
Chairman.] Then we have nothing to do with
the Westry of St. Mary, Newington.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not at present, but I
think you will hear of it again. tº
Chairman.] Then where is the next amendment?
Mr. Bidder.] At page 3, your Grace; the
Mansion House amendment is the next amend-
ment before us.
Mr. Clifford.] That has been withdrawn.
Mr. Bidder.] Then we come to the one at the
bottom of the page.
Mr. Pope.] Then the South Yorkshire Coal-
owners propose to strike out the words “exclu-
sive of coal drops,” and insert the words “inclu-
sive of coal drops.” -
Chairman. By whom are the South Yorkshire
Coalowners represented ?
Mr. Pope.] I do not think they appear by
counsel. -
Mr. Clifford.] Yes, the South Yorkshire Cola-
--e.
owners are represented by Mr. Balfour Browne,
I believe.
Chairman.] The next amendment, I under-
stand, is to strike out the words “exclusive of
coal drops” and insert the words “inclusive of
coal drops.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For the South York-
shire and West Yorkshire Coal Associations I
propose that that should be modified by making
the words “exclusive of coal drops,” on line 24,
“ inclusive of coal drops.” First of all we think
the terminal charge (of course I am only speak-
ing for these particular clients just now) should
include everything. It conduces to clearness, it
is a provision at the terminus for dealing with
coal the same way as a crane is for dealing with
goods. I do not think there is anything
more I need say at this moment ; but I will call
before the Committee a witness who will tell you
the view of his association, which is a very large
one, sending out millions of tons a year, upon
that matter, and then I will leave the matter to
be discussed with my learned friend.
MR. ARTHUR MARSHALL CHAMBERS is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
147. YoU are managing director of the New-
ton Chambers Coal Company, Limited ?—Yes.
148. Are you President of the Sheffield Cham-
ber of Commerce 2–I am.
149. Does your firm own large collieries 2–
Yes.
150. What is the output 2— Nearly a million
tons a year,
151. Your firm are members of the South
Yorkshire Coal Association ?—Yes.
152. And in this particular matter, I believe,
you represent the other members of the associa-
tion ?—I do. -
153. Does the association or the individual
members of it object to the charge proposed to be
made for coal drops over and beyond the terminal
charge —They do. -
154. There is a terminal charge proposed in
the schedule with reference to coal 2–Yes.
155. That is to say, where coal uses a yard or
a siding of the railway company that coal has to
pay 3 d. a ton 2–Yes.
156. Where it does not use that the proposal
is that no charge should be made 2–That is so.
157. And where it is coal going from your own
colliery, and your own colliery as connected with
the line, there is no terminal upon coal there 2–
None.
158. The proposal is that beyond the 3 d. a
ton they shonld have the power to charge you
for the use of coal drops?—That is so.
159. Would you tell the Committee, please,
what your view and the view of your colleagues
upon the association is upon that point 2–We
think that the terminal charge of 3 d. a ton is
sufficient to cover the whole of the terminal ex-
penses, and that if an extra charge is made for
coal drops it would put us in a different position
from other traders whose terminal charges in-
clude the whole of what they have to pay on that
account.
160. Up to the present time there has been no
terminal at all on coal –-I am not aware that
there has.
16 l. This is an absolutely extra allowance
made to the railway companies?—I believe so.
162. Seeing that you provided the station at
one end, that is the forwarding end, do you know
what the station accommodation costs fairly 7–
Yes.
163. And is it the view of your people that 3 d.
to cover the cost of providing the sidings at the
other end is quite sufficient to include the coal
drops ?—Yes.
164. What does your firm send to yards or
sidings of the railway companies; how many tons?
—In London we send about 350,000 tons a year.
165, And 3 d. upon that tonnage would be
4,000 l. a year 2—Somewhere about that ; a little
over that. #
166. Do you think that there is any possibility
that that 4,000 l. a-year does not pay for the in-
terest upon the providing of the coal drops as
well as the sidings and other matters that yon
have mentioned 2–I think it should do.
167. At the present time do you, where coal
drops are provided, pay an extra charge 2–We
pay an extra charge of 2 d. per ton.
168. And this new charge of 3 d. is going to
be put upon you ?–Yes, I understand it so.
Earl of Belmore.] Will you just ask him what
the coal drops are exactly 7
Witness.] Coal drops are shoots by which the
trucks are emptied very rapidly; trucks with
bottom doors drop down into shoots which convey
the coal down into the waggons beneath, or the
sacks, or whatever vehicle they are dealt with.
169. That is assuming the railway is on an
elevation or viaduct?––Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
170. And they are dropped down into a cart
or your stores where they are dealt with ?—Yes.
171. At the present time the whole charge
made to you for the use of a dock is 2 d. 2–Yes.
172. Do you think the 3 d. is more than
sufficient to cover that and all other services in
(81.)
M the
90. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT committee
15 April 1891.
the way of accommodation given to you at the
station ?—Yes. * *
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
173. At the present time the company quote a
rate to London, or wherever you coal is going,
which does not distinguish the conveyance from
the terminal 2–It does not say anything about
terminal. It is 2 d. for drops.
174. At the present time the companies quote
your rate per ton inclusive of carriage and ter-
minal?—Not terminal. We are not aware that
there is any terminal charge, and I believe that
those rates are usually calculated at so much a
ton per mile.
175. As a matter of fact there is no indication
of terminal in the rate 2–No.
176. Now sometimes you use the coal drops
and sometimes you do not ?–Yes.
177. If you use the coal drops you pay 2 d. a
ton for that use ?–Yes. - º
178. That is perfectly optional with the coal
merchant, is it not ?–Is is not perfectly optional,
because at some places there are only coal drops,
and at other places there are both coal drops and
sidings. -
179. You do not object to pay 2 d. for coal
drops when you use them 2–No.
180. Do you think it would be reasonable that
you should pay for them when you do not use
them?—No, I do not.
181. Your proposal is now that the station
terminal shall include the coal drops ?–Yes.
182. If it does you will have to pay for them
whether you use them or not, will you not ?—
Not necessarily. It is a maximum charge.
183. Does it commend itself to your mind that
the maximum station terminal should be the
same to the man who does use the coal drops as
to the man who does not ?–No, but I take it as
a maximum charge to pay for all the accommo-
dation that is provided, because if the accom-
modation was provided, the 3 d. a ton terminal
would be an unreasonable price to charge.
184. The 3 d. per ton we will talk of when we
come to talk of quantwm. I want to get it clear
from you; do you think it right or reasonable
that the coal merchant who does not use the
drops should pay the same as the one who does?
—No ; I should not, except to this extent; that
the coal drop is a very much better thing for the
railway company than the coal siding, because the
railway company get their traffic moved very
much quicker when it is dealt with by the drops
than on the sidings.
185. Except to this extent that either one way
or the other the merchants do not use the coal
drops you say in many cases 2–Yes.
186. Do you assent to the proposal that those
who do not use them should pay that 2 d. 2–It
depends upon what accommodation is provided
for them. I say that the coal drop is a part of
the terminal accommodation provided by the
railway company, and that 3 d. per ton for
terminal is sufficient to cover that accommo-
dation.
187. Leave the 3 d. alone. I ask you, is it a
reasonable thing that the merchant who does not
want to use the coal drop, should pay 2 d. for the
coal drop 2–Certainly not.
188. Then, if he is not to do so, is it not clear
MR. CHAMBERs.
[Continued.
that you must distinguish that 2 d. as a separable
charge from the other portion of the station
terminal 7–I do not think so.
*
Chairman.
189. Let me put this to you. Supposing that
the company charged for the services at the
terminal, and the coal drops were within that
figure do you think that figure would be a
greater or a less figure if the coal drops were
excluded ?–It should be a less figure if they
were excluded. -
190. Then you would make the person who
did not use them pay when he did not want to ?
—On the other hand, if there is to be an extra
charge for the coal drops, it makes the terminal
5 d. , Supposing the charge for the coal drop is
3 d., it makes the terminal 5 d. instead of 3 d.
191. But that is a question of amount, the 5 d.;
it may be that 5 d. is too much ; but it is a
question of principle whether the coal drop.
ought to be included or excluded; it is not a
question of figures?—We think the coal drop
ought to be quoted in the terminal charge.
192. You think it ought to be included ?—
Yes; it ought to be covered by the 3 d. per
ton. -
Lord Houghton.
193. Supposing the terminal was 1 d., and the
coal drop 2 d., how would that meet your view P
—That would meet our view entirely. -
Chairman.
194. You mean 3 d. for the whole P—Yes.
195. Then a man who did not want to use the
coal-drop would be paying 2 d. 2–I look upon
this as maximum charge, and I do not think he
would be able to charge the 3 d.
196. Whatever he paid he would pay more
than what he got accommodation for 2–Not if it
was not used.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
167. As it stands, is there anything in this
schedule that fixes the price for coal-drops at all?.
—There is not.
198. It merely cuts it out of the maximum
terminal, and leaves the railway company to
charge what they like for coal-drops?—That is so.
8-) de e
That is in Clause 5.
Mr. Bidder.] No, not what we like.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon. I
think it is what you like. i
Mr. Bidder.] It is such reasonable sum as shall
in case of difference be settled by the Board of
Trade,
Mr. Balfour Browne.
199. Quite so. As I understand there is the
fixing of this terminal. (To the Witness.) Do
you want something to be fixed that covers every-
thing at the station ?–Yes.
200. Is a coal-drop necessary for the delivery
of some of your coals?—It is not necessary.
201. But it is an advantage to you to have it?
—Yes, it is an advantage for some classes of coal,
and under some physical conditions, for instance,
where a railway is so much above a canal.
202. My learned friend put it to you, would #.
- IRG
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
9 |
15 April 1891.
MR. CHAMBERS.
[Continued.
*
Hike it if you do not use it. I do not know whether
know that in the schedule there is a provision
that if the accommodation is not used, it is not to
be paid for 2–Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I did not hear unfor-
tunately until just now that the Chairman of the
West Yorkshire Coal Association is unfortunately
detained. I do not think he could say anything
more. He is exactly in the same position as this
gentlemen. He is a large colliery proprietor, and
he would say very much the same as this gentle-
man has said, and therefore I do not propose to
call any more evidence upon that point, but when
my learned friend has been heard to make objec-
tion to it, I will ask your Grace to hear two or
three words from me upon the principle.
Chairman.] I do not think we need call upon
Mr. Bidder to make any remarks. These words
remain. Then what is the next amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Colman's amend-
ment. Unfortunately, although it is not the rail-
way companies' fault, they have missed out a
great portion of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Mason.] It was not formulated.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It may not have been
formulated, but it was distinctly set out. I will
read to your Lordships in place of that which
was not fairly set out the matter which I propose
to add to the clause in the Bill. º
Chairman.] Clause 3
Mr. Baſſour Browne.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman. That is an addition.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is an addition t
Clause 3, a proviso. - -
Chairman.] Then there are no more amend-
ments to Clause 3.
Mr. Bidder. J Yes, your Grace. The next
one is at the top of page 4 by Messrs. J.
and J. Colman, “alternative to omission of
Clause). ‘The maximum station terminal is
the maximum charge which the company
may make to a trader for the use of the ac-
commodation provided at the terminal station for
or in dealing with merchandise as carriers thereof
by road, before or after conveyance on the rail-
way.’”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have said that that
does not fairly set out what we put in our objec-
tions. -
Mr. Bidder.] That is what you claimed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not, indeed; this is
your want not ours. w
Earl of Camperdown.] Just read it.
Chairman. Before you go to that I want to
know if there are any amendments suggested or
proposed in Clause 3.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not for Messrs. Colman
just now. - -
Chairman.] But anybody.
Earl of Camperdown.] I think there are four or
five other alternatives. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Chairman.] You want to insert the words “by
road.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, your Grace; that
does not give it correctly. That is only the rail-
way company’s paraphrase of what we have.
lºarl of Camperdown.] Read us the reality.
Chairman.] First of all, as I understand, there
are no amendments to Clause 3.
Mr. Bidder.] There is another one by the Slate
Quarry Proprietors and Traders of the Nantlle
Valley, North Wales, in the middle of page 4. I
do not know whether that is withdrawn.
Mr. Darlington.] It is not withdrawn; it is a
proviso. r
1Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps Mr. Darlington will tell
us whether it is not really withdrawn.
Mr. Darlington.] No, I say it is not withdrawn;
it is a proviso.
Mr. Bidder. Then I think that is the next one
to deal with.
Chairman.] Who represents Messrs. J. & J.
Colman. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do, your Grace.
Chairman.] And what is the clause that you
propose to insert, or the amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] lt is this. I can con-
fine myself to the printed amendment that you
have before you.
Chairman.] Which is to insert the words “by
road.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Practically, your Grace.
The difficulty in this case, and in all terminal
cases, is to distinguish exactly what duties are
undertaken by a carrier by rail from those which
are undertaken by a carrier by road. The decision,
that your Grace has referred to, of the Lord
Chancellor sitting in the Court of Appeal the
other day, was only upon certain words. It did
not decide really anything with reference to a
railway company’s right to charge terminals at
all. It merely decided that under the words
“duties, incidental to the business or duty of a
carrier,” under those words a railway company
was entitled to charge a certain amount. What
amount is not yet decided, because that has to
go back to the Railway Commissioners to be
decided by the Court of Appeal. The clear dis-
tinction between the duties that were under-
taken by a carrier by rail, and those that were
undertaken by a carrier by road. Those that
are undertaken in connection with the distribu-
tion of business, they can at the present time
charge for; and those that are undertaken in
connection with their locomotive business,
that is to say, the carriage by rail, they can-
not charge for. The Lord Chancellor's words
are these : “I can quite understand that
as a matter of fact the analysis of these two
different classes of business, and the services
and accommodation rendered in respect of those
two classes of business, may sometimes be very
difficult indeed, especially one which I instanced
just now. The question of appointing, and the
use of railway sidings for the purpose, it may be,
of facilitating what may be called the locomotive
railway business and carriers' distribution busi-
ness.” And he further went on, “ They are
(81.)
M 2 permitted
92 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 April 1891.
permitted by law to carry on the business, not
only along their line, but also in connection
with, and as part of the same general under-
taking by which they make a profit, the business
of distributing goods which they so bring from
distant points to places where the different con-
signees intended that they shall be delivered,”
so that the decision of the Court of Appeal the
other day, although it is said to confirm. Hall's
case, does not confirm it in its entirety. It
draws a clear distinction between that portion of
the station which is provided in connection with
the distribution business, as the Lord Chancellor
instanced over and over again, of carrying goods
from a station to Belgrave-square, for instance.
That is one of the illustrations he gave of the
distribution business, and that which is inci-
dental to the carriage upon the railway. Now
that we are coming to give the railway com-
panies clear and distinct powers we want to
have it made quite clear what is included, and
to have everything included in the terminal.
I admit fully, yonr Grace, that a terminal will
be a great advantage to the traders. To split
up the rates into as many component parts as
they possibly can be must be an advantage to the
trader ; and to use the railway companies’ argu-
ment, I use it especially in referenae to Messrs.
J. & J. Colman, because they provide enormous
sidings at their works which do not use the
railway company’s station at all; they do not use
the company’s servants all ; and if you fix a real
and reasonable terminal, then that real and
reasonable terminal will not have to be paid by
Messrs. Colman; but we must have the amount
definitely determined, and we must know what
it is actually to cover. Now, in the section itself
you have thé word “carrier,” and that is ambigu-
ous. We want to know whether, that includes
carrier by rail and carrier by road. We want to
have this station terminal to cover both those
things. Otherwise we will have the argument
raised upon us; what has been allowed here is a
station terminal, merely for the station which was
provided in connection with, to use the Lord
Chancellor’s phrase, the locomotive business.
Chairman.] Did I understand you to say, that
there was no decision given in the case of Hall?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Oh yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] Because the Lord Chancellor said,
“but upon the question of principle I cannot
for my own part entertain the least doubt in the
world that the decision in Hall's case was right,
and Mr. Justice Wills' judgment is right, aud
that as I understand is the only question.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Justice Wills'
judgment, true, but what Mr. Justice Wills'
judgment decided in Hall's case was only that
all those services may be and primá facie were
duties undertaken as a carrier. It never was
decided how much was carrier by road and how
much was carrier by rail; and in Hall’s judg-
ment that nice distinction which the Lord Chan-
cellor has drawn, which was distinctly drawn,
however, I may say, by Sir Frederick Peel when
Hall's case was before the Railway Commis-
sioners, that nice distinction is drawn, I say,
between carrier by road and carrier by rail.
Now that you are going to fix the maximum
terminal at the station (I use that word ad-
visedly) you must have it eovering everything,
not merely that which is provided for the ap-
pointing and marshalling or for providing a plat-
form or shed, but also a shed from which they
would distribute their business through London;
and, therefore, I say, we must have some words.
I am not at all wedded to the form we have
suggested, but we must have some words
which will make it clear that the railway
station terminal is to cover everything that
the railway company does beyond conveyance
and outside services. The service terminal
comes on hereafter, but if they provide any-
thing at their station the terminal must cover
it; that seems to me 'fair : I do not want
to get anything in terminal that we have
already settled in conveyance, but something
outside conveyance, that is, not service ter–
minal, but in the nature of providing a station,
ought to be covered, and therefore I think those
words “by rail and road,” would have the effect
of showing that it was everything at the end of
the journey before or after conveyance. That is
all I want to get.
Chairman.] But your words are “as carriers
thereof by road.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But, your Grace, it is
quite clear that a portion of this was left out,
although it was suggested in another clause ; but
what we want to get is, of course, carrier by rail
and carrier by road, both. We want to cover the
while station accommodation. -
Earl of Belmore.] Surely, service by rail is
covered by “conveyance " ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what we thought :
that service by rail was covered by conveyance
but not by road; but if there is any doubt about
it, it ought to be made clear.
Chairman.] Then we insert the words “by
rail.” * * ,
Earl of Belmore.] You do not mean to insert
“by rail and by road.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All I want to make clear,
my Lord, is that all accommodation provided be-
fore and after conveyance shall be covered by the
station terminal.
Chairman.] It is not for us to draw up a clause
for you, but for you to draw up a clause for us ;
and therefore what I want to know is whether it
is to be “by rail or road " or simply “by road.”
Earl of Camperdown.] In the case of goods
delivered to a railway for conveyance, that is to
say at the receiving station, would under your
clause the railway as a carrier by road be
entitled to charge station terminal at all under
this amendment P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Oh yes, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown.] ln the case of goods
being delivered to a railway company at the
station, they receiving them, would the railway
company, being under this arrangement a carrier
by r, ad be entitled to charge any rotation ter-
minal 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, my Lord, I say
he would still have provided the station, and he
would
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
93
15 April 1891.
would be entitled to charge for that, but he
would not have provided carts and horses for
dragging it to the station because I have done
that myself. Therefore of the maximum station
terminal allowed he would not be allowed to get
the whole amount of the maximum allowed; but
only that portion which fairly covered the pro-
viding of the accommodation at the station.
Earl of Camperdown.] Now how do you bring
him under that amendment, under the words
“carrier by road”; I mean in what way does
he, being described as a carrier by road obtain
a right to charge a terminal for goods which he
does not carry on the road, and does not do any-
thing with, but simply are delivered at his station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He has got it in the
main clause already. -
Earl of Camperdown.] But will you kindly tell
me how he gets it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He does not get it
under the words “by road.”
Earl of Camperdown.] You specially bar him;
you say he is only to be allowed to charge for
the use of the accommodation provided for him
by the railway company as a carrier by road, and
as he does not carry in any way by road, or carry
at all for goods which are delivered to him ; how
does he get the right?
Chairman.] I think we had better let Mr.
Balfour Browne sit down and let Mr. Bidder get
up. Have you finished Mr. Balfour Browne 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, your Grace.
Mr. Bidder.] I really think there is a great
deal of misunderstanding, and unless my learned
friend wants to add anything I will address your
Lordships.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know that that
word does exactly what I want but I believe
I have made my meaning clear to the Committee
that whether it is carrier by road or carrier by
rail it should be covered by the maximum
charge, and I can bring up words to carry that
out. I think Lord Camperdown's suggestion is
possibly a good criticism upon the clause, but
what I want to do is to cover everything at the
terminal accommodation except after conveyance
or before conveyance.
Mr. Bidder.] I think there is a little mis-
understanding, and I cannot help thinking that
my learned friend himself and his junior do not
understand their amendment in the same light.
The duties of a railway company, as carriers, are
divided here into carriers by railway and carriers
by road. Carrier by road as regards the railway
company means the collecting and delivery of
goods in carts at the terminal stations, and I
want to draw your Lordship's attention to this :
that the scope of this Order is that that in no
part of the terminal charge or terminal service at
all but when it is rendered it is a special charge,
and that is settled and expressly dealt with in
the Provisional Order. If your Grace will be
good enough to look at Clause 5 of the Provi-
sional Order you will see it is provided that
“The Company may charge for the services
hereunder mentioned, when provided for or
rendered to a trader at his request or for his
confusion whatever about it.
convenience, such reasonable sums, by way of
addition to the tonnage rate, as shall, in case of
difference between the company and the person
liable to pay the charge, be determined by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade,”
and the second of those is: “The collection or
delivery of merchandise outside the terminals
station.” And therefore it is quite clear, going
back to our Clause 3, that that is one of the
things for which other provision is made in the
schedule of the company. There can be no
It is expressly
eliminated, and no words can be better than
those in the clause. But my learned friend's
amendment would have this effect, that in the
case of traffic such as Lord Camperdown referred
to, we should be entitled to no terminal charge
whatever.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect,
what my learned friend has been referring to is
services, and not providing accommodation at
all, and that is exactly it. If your Lordships
look at Clause 5 it is “The collection or delivery
of merchandise outside the terminal station.”
What the Lord Chancellor said is: Suppose they
have provided a shed at Euston not connected
with the railway at all, but for distribution
business that ought to be covered. I say it is
accommodation provided there for a carrier by
road, and that that ought to be covered in the
terminal that is allowed for station.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend has not studied
his own amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne, I admit that our amend-
ment does not do it, but I think my meaning is
perfectly clear to the Committee.
Chairman.] If your amendment does not carry
out what you want, we had better strike out the
amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think my meaning is
clear; but, if necessary, it can be brought up
in another form.
Chairman.] We do not desire that. If you
tell us that the amendment you propose, you be-
lieve will not carry out the object you have in
view, the best thing we can do is to get rid of
the amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No doubt, my Lord,
but if I have shown any case for the amendment,
I am sure your Grace will not strike it out; if
there is something to be met. I can bring up
words, if I am allowed a little time, that will
meet the case, if you think I have made out a
case, and if you are not satisfied that that should
be covered and added to the station for the
delivery of traffic in London, should not that be
covered in the maximum terminal P
Mr. Manbury.] You do not want to pay the
station terminal twice over.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Just so, that is what I
want to arrive at.
Earl of Camperdown.] In the meantime I
suppose you withdraw this amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, my Lord, I
will do that and bring up another amendment.
Mr. Pope.] It has been suggested by the Com-
(82.)
M 3 mittee
94
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
t
15 April 1891.
mittee that as far as possible the amendments
should be presented to the Committee in the
technical form in which they would appear upon
the notices of the House, if they were amend-
ments to be moved in the House. It is, of
course, exceedingly desirable that that should be
the case, I ventured to say so when I first
suggested the tabulation of the amendments.
Some of the objections of the other side are pre-
sented to us in such a form that it is impossible
for us to tabulate them in such a manner. If
they are required to be brought before the Com-
mittee, I would suggest that the Committee
should order the other side, or desire that the
other side should present those amendments in
the technical form in which they will bring them
up before the Committee. We will print them
and tabulate them afterwards; but it is impos-
sible for us without paraphrasing more general
observations to put them into that form.
Mr. Balfour Browne. When my learned
friend first proposed that I distinctly said we
could not be responsible absolutely for the words
of drafting, and my learned friend said: “We
will be perfectly content if you only indicate
what you do want.”
Mr. Pope.] I am not talking about what I
said, but about what the Committee said.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was upon your ap-
plication that that was done.
Chairman.] Never mind what Mr. Pope said;
it is what we say. We should get on much
faster if the amendments were put in such a shape
as they would be if they were to be discussed
in either House of Parliament. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For the future we will
do so, your Grace, but it means a great deal of
trouble to go over this again. After Clause 6
we will do it.
Chairman.] I think if Mr. Balfour Browne
and Mr. Pope, or their representatives were to
confer with Mr. Jeune, then probably the matter
would be easily arranged.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know how my learned
friend and I could alter the matter. All I can
say is, before the Committee can discuss an
amendment it will have to be reduced to some
such form as I have suggested, and it would have
been much more convenient that those who have
had charge of the amendment should reduce it to
form at once, than that there should be a general
discussion when the Committee put the question,
What is it you want? and then at the last
moment the formula is hurriedly put before the
Committee. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.' So far as my clients are
concerned, I promise to do it in the form that has
been suggested after Clause 6. Then as the
objections will have to be put here on Friday, I
am instructed to ask your Grace if, seeing the
progress we have made, you would extend the
time for putting in those objections from Friday
until Monday.
Mr. Pope. If they are not put in till Monda
we cannot have them on Saturday morning.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then we will give them
you on Saturday.
Chairman.] I do not think you quite under-
stand what it is we want. Take Clause 4, say,
and in line 2 of Clause 4, after the word “and”
you wish to insert certain words which are down
upon the paper. . Then when you come to Clause
5, the same thing will take place, and then we
shall have all the amendments in each case
seriatim.
Mr. Pope..] That is precisely what I should
like to see.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I promise to do that
with reference to all the future amendments.
Mr. Hanbury.] But you say, after Clause 6;
cannot you do something with Clauses 4, 5,
and 6.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If we can do so we will,
Sir.
Mr. Pope.] If the Committee will direct that
the practice of the House of Commons shall be
followed, and that no amendment will be re-
ceived that does not comply with that practice
all difficulty will vanish, and the agents will do
what they are told to do. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Only that some of these
are in print just now.
Mr. Pope.] Then they can be reprinted.
Chairman.] If we are asked to substitute one
clause for another we must have the clause set
out as it is in the Bill, and we must have the
amendment to the clause set out too.
Mr. Pope.] Very well, your Grace.
Mr. Woodfall.] Then that will be subject to
this: that if there had been a bond ſide effort to
put the clauses into techhical form, just on ac-
count of some technical objection taken, the
Committee would not rule that the petitioner is
not to be heard on his petition.
Chairman.] I think so, certainly. We must
have before us distinctly, in so many words, what
it is we are asked to put into the Bill, and if it
is not in words that can be put into the Bill we
shall not entertain it.
Mr. Woodfall.] Then, your Grace, you see
that this state of things will arise : that we may
put an amendment on one clause or on the other;
and if nothing else was brought before the Com-
mittee we should press this; but by that time
this amendment may be varied by some other
parties before the Committee.
Chairman.] You would move an amendment,
and that amendment would be dealt with and
either rejected or accepted, and then you would
have nothing more to say ; but because that was
amended by somebody else after your amend-
ment, you would not be heard again to make
another amendment.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs. 95
15 April 1891.
Mr. Pope.] Is it possible that the Parlia-
mentary agents, who are doing it every day, can
have any difficulty in doing now what is done
every night in the House of Commons?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I fully concur with my
learned friend, Mr. Pope, that it can be done,
but the only question is this, that of course these
matters involve exceedingly nice questions of
drafting, and they take a little time, and I say
distinctly, with regard to everything after Clause
6, I can do it, and if I can do it with reference
to Clauses 4, 5, and 6, I will do it.
Chairman.] I think you thoroughly under-
stand what it is we want.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly, your Grace.
Ordered —That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(82.)
M 4
( 96 )
( 97 )
I)ie Jovis 16° Apriſis 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDown.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir Joseph BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
The Counsel and Parties are ordered to be called in.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My Lord, one of the
Members of the Committee asked me, yesterday,
to refer him to the place where something is said
in the Notes.
|Earl of Camperdown.] I have found it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I find that copies are
being distributed among the Committee that are
totally different from those which we have, and
therefore it becomes most difficult, and it will, at
a subsequent stage, be almost impossible to refer
the Committee to any part of the proceedings
that have taken place. Your Lordships have
double printed columns and different paging.
Lord Belper.] I have never had any, so I
Gannot say that it makes any difference to me,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then your Lordship
will have an entirely open mind.
Earl of Camperdown.] I believe I am the per-
son who asked for the reference, and I have
found it, and I am perfectly satisfied. I am per-
fectly well aware that the paging is different,
and after one of the other Counsel was kind
enough to point out to me the thing I wanted, I
was satisfied. - -
Chairman.] But I think there is one thing that
is perfectly certain, which is that when you do
quote anything you must quote from the Official
Print. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I have not got it.
Chairman. But you can get it by application
to the Committee Clerk. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I did not know that.
Chairman.] Now we will go on with the ques-
tion of the road in Clause 3. -
(Continued.)
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yesterday, your Grace
was good enough to allowed me to withdraw my
amendment because I saw, I think, upon the
suggestion of one of the members of the Com-
mtttee, that it did not carry out the intention
ON CLAUSE 3.
that we had in view, and with your Grace's per-
mission I have brought it up in another form.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is to say, that I
propose to add to the words of the section,
“Carriers thereof by rail or by road.” I think
I can make this clear by a very small illustration.
I have taken point A. to point B. upon this little
diagram (producing a diagram), as covered by
conveyance. e -
Mr. Bidder.] Can you give me a copy of the
amendment that you are bringing up.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has been handed to
my learned friend. But at each end there is a
station. The part I have not cross-hatched
weuld, under Sowerby's case, at the present time
be treated as incidental to conveyance; the part
I have cross-hatched would, under the decision
of the Court of Appeal, be treated as incidental
to the business and duty of a carrier, and would
have to be charged extra.
Mr. Bidder.] May I interrupt my learned
friend for one moment. In order that we may
intelligently follow him, will he tell me, what
amendment he is dealing with now Ż
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have told you it is
Messrs. Colman's. -
Chairman.] The maximum station terminal.
Mr. Bidder.] Will you ask somebody to give
me a copy of that? *.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Mr. Bidder.] I have got it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, you see now you
had got it. ; :
Lord Houghton.] Have the amendments to
Clause 3 been printed in a new form 2 We have
nothing earlier than Clause 4 in an amended form.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will get them, my
Lord, immediately.
Mr. Bidder.] I assume, your Grace, that there
(81.) - -
N has
98 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN
BEFOTE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891,
has been handed to you a document we have
repared since last night in accordance with our
callating, so far as they have come into our hands,
all the amendments to Clause 4.
Chairman.] But we are now on Clause 3.
Mr. Hidder.] Probably you have got them both
with you; I merely mention that it has been put
before you.
Chairman. Yes, but Messrs. Colman's amend-
ments appear to be of two sorts.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace, we have
had them reprinted since last night in order to
make them intelligible.
Earl of Camperdown.] Where are they
Mr. Balfony Browne.] I thought they were
handed in ; I do not know really what has
become of the agent. -
Earl of Camperdown.] You promised last night
that you would withdraw the amendment, and
we said that we would perhaps hear you again
upon the other principle.
Earl of Belmore.] Then the one put in yester-
day may go.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, my Lord.
Earl of Belmore.] At all events we can put it
on one side.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Have you got the
reprinted amendment before you ?
Earl of Camperdown.] The amendment I have
got is this, that whereas before you proposed to
insert “by road º' you now propose to insert “ by
rail and by road.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Now, your Grace, I saw while I was arguing
it was suggested to me, that if I kept merely the
words “ by road " it would leave the charge for
that piece of station (describing the same by the
diagram), incidental to that piece of conveyance,
still in the conveyance rate; and the object of the
Board of Trade in allowing a station at all was
that those persons who did not use the station at
all should not be charged for the use of it. Now
I propose to put in the station terminal every-
thing beyond conveyance from A. to B. ; and, as
your Lordships have already determined, any-
thing incidental to that conveyance, the moving
of signals, or anything of that sort. But I mean
to have, with your Lordships’ permission, in the
station terminal the whole of the providing of
the accomuodation at the end A. and at the end
B. Then, if anybody has a siding, as Messrs.
Colman have a siding, and do not use the station
at all they will not be charged with any part of
the station terminal at B. because they would
have provided the station accommodation; but if,
on the other hand, it was only “ by road " that
had been kept in, Messrs. Colman would still
have no right of payment for that uncross-
hatched piece, the part of station B. And we
would have had to ask from the railway company
(which is a very inconvenient thing to do, and
we might not have got it) a rebate in respect of
providing our own station instead of using
theirs. .
Now the object of the whole of this Mitigation
is that the trader should know exactly what he is
being charged and what for. Therefore I ask
your Grace to say that the station terminal should
cover everything provided in ; the meantime
I am not upon service terminal at all, but
merely upon the provision of a terminus
at both ends beyond the mere conveyance upon
the railway from A. to B. ; that seems to me by
far the clearest way of doing it. At the present
time, under the decision in Sowerby's case, a por-
tion of that station is in the conveyance rate;
there is no question of that; and therefore when
we come to the question of what the maximum
rate shall be, the piece of the maximum rate that
has been allowed for that will have to be moved
out and put into the terminal; but in the future
the trader will know exactly what he is being
charged for. If he uses the station he will have
to pay for it; but if he does not use the station
he will not have to pay for it; and why I put in
“ by rail or by road" is this ; that, for instance,
this part which l have cross-hatched is, for the
purpose of my illustration, assumed to be the part
which the railway company use for a shed for dis-
tributing in the town ; but this is the part they
use for sidings and other things in connection
with the railway carriage, or what the Lord
Chancellor called the locomotive business of the
railway company. Under these circumstances, I
say, your Grace, that everything should be in
the station terminal; the providing of a shed
there for dealing with the town traffic, just as
the providing of sidings or a shed there for deal-
ing with the railway traffic. The amendment, of
course, can be easily altered when we come to
the schedule of amendments, but it seems to me
clear that we would have to pay for the station
if we did not use it, unless you took out every-
thing in connection with the station and put it
into the terminal. The railway companies’ argu-
ment for terminals is, it seems, a strong one; it
has prevailed with the Board of Trade, and I am
bound to say it seems reasonable and proper that
it should. It was this: that if there was to be an
inclusive rate, including the station at both ends,
then the owner's private sidings would have to
pay that rate, although he did not use the station,
and that they should separate the terminal in
order that that trader who provides his own sta-
tion accommodation and does not use the railway
company's station accommodation, may know that
he is not to be charged that particular amount.
But if you leave any part of the station in the
rate, then I will have to pay that, and I ask you,
therefore, to take out anything that is provided
by them, either as carriers by rail or as carriers
by road, and to deal with it as a terminal, and to
leave the conveyance from A. to B. absolutely
by itself without having any portion of the sta-
tion accommodation in it.
Mr. Bidder.] Will you refer me to the passage
in Sowerby's case, because I am bound to say
frankly that nobody on this side of the table
understands what you are arguing about.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am sorry; I think it
must be my fault. What I am referring to is
this : I read it to his Grace yesterday, that the
Lord Chancellor distinguished between “the
question of facilitating what I may call the loco-
motive railway business and the carriers’ distri-
bution business.” Now I see there two perfectly
distinct things in the Lord Chancellor's judg-
ment
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
9
9
16 April 1891.
ment. “They were permitted by law to carry on
the business, not only along their line, but also
in connection with it, and as part of the same
general undertaking by which they make profit,
the business of distributing the goods which they
so bring from distant points to the places where
the different consignees intend that they shall be
delivered.” That is to say, according to the
Lord Chancellor, the distribution business, as
distinguished from the locomotive business, the
carrying along the rail. For the distribution
business, under the words of that particular
section, be held that they were entitled to
charge a reasonable sum. But the difficulty is,
Can you always distinguish between the carrier's
business and the distribution business 2 When
I was arguing the case, the Lord Chancellor
said, “ Might not a shed be used both for the
distribution of goods in the town and for the
receipt of the goods from the railway.” And I
had to admit that it might. Then he said,
“How is it to be distinguished ”? and in his
judgment, in the piece which your Grace re-
ferred to yesterday, you will find that the Lord
Chancellor doubts whether in some cases you
can distinguish, because, he says, “if as a matter
of fact they can be so distinguished, it seems to
me luce clarius that the railway company, in their
character as distributing or forwarding carriers,
are entitled to charge something.” Now, your
Grace, I say that I have distinguished here just
in a rough way ; but if it cannot be distin-
guished, then I say that the charges should
cover the whole.
Mr. Bidder.] May I ask, does that line in my
learned friend's diagram represent a siding going
into Messrs. Colman's own property P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It represents Messrs.
Colman's sidings, upon which the whole of the
station work is done. I have drawn a line that
does not touch the station.
Mr. Bidder.] Then you do not pay any ter-
minal at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so. But if you
leave any portion of the terminal in the rate, I
have to pay the rate, and therefore I have to pay
a portion of the terminal. If you cut every-
thing due to terminal out of the rate, then I
do not have to pay anything that is due to the
station ; and that is what I desire. Of course,
your Grace, if I use the station at the other end,
I pay the whole of the station terminal. But I
will take the case as the railway companies put
it, which is often the case in collieries, going from
a private siding to a private siding. In that case
no station is used at all. In that case what more
should I pay but the conveyance rate P
Chairman.] That is all you would pay.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, your Grace, if you
leave, as the Lord Chancellor does in Sowerby's
case, the providing of stations as a part of the
conveyance rate, then I pay for that portion of
the station. •
Chairman.] You are mixing up the convey-
ance rate and the terminal charge.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At the present time
they are mixed up.
it, that is clear.
Mr. Bidder.] Which part of the rate do you
say you pay ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that I pay for
that part of the station which is provided, as the
Lord Chancellor says, in connection with your
locomotive business.
Mr. Bidder.] It is all locomotive business.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I mean what the Lord
Chancellor says. Take, for instance, your Grace,
a lot of sidings that they have provided in con-
nection with the shunting or marshalling of
trains.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That has cost some
money, and in some way they must be paid for
But if I do not use that, why
should I pay for it 2 The trader who gets the
benefit of that expenditure upon the land pur-
chased and sidings laid down, very properly
ought to pay, and then he would be charged
under the words “by rail or by road”; it is either
in connection with their carriage in the town, or
it is in connection with their carriage along the
railway. But when Messrs. Colman's traffic
comes to that point it has not used one of the
railway company sidings.
Chairman..] Then, how does it get on to the
line, and then be conveyed to the other station ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At a certain point here
(describing the same by the diagram), and there is
in the schedule, which you will come to imme-
diately, under Clause 5, a payment in connection
with that siding ; there is a payment to be made
in connection with that siding.
Chairman.] Then it does benefit by the
placing there of rails for the marshalling.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, not there, it is
here, where it does not use it at all, that the rails
have been put for marshalling. At the siding
there will be signalling to protect the railway
company's traffic, and that is dealt with in
Clause 5 of the schedule.
Mr. Bidder.] I want to understand my learned
friend's argument; he will therefore forgive me
for asking if I do rightly understand it. Is he
afraid that Mr. Colman, whose goods go off at a
siding of his own, may be saddled with part of
the charges for the terminus that he does not use 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so distinctly. I
say that at the present time it is so; the rate in-
cludes, according to the decision of the Lord
Chancellor, all that ground in connection with
shunting and marshalling you will see at the very
end of the case. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS :
“I forgot, in my argument, to deal with the argu-
ment as to the word ‘services,’” and that it
was quite understood. The Lord Chancellor
said: “Yes. It will be understood that that
alteration will be made in the order that Sir
Henry James agreed to ; the words ‘attributable
as aforesaid are to be added ; ” that is to say,
“ attributable as aforesaid " to the carriage by
road ; the other will be attributable to the car-
riage by rail, being in the rate. The argument
in Sowerby's case was this, that the whole is in-
cluded in the rate. The decision was, No, any-
(81.)
N 2 thing
100
MIN TJTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
*—
thing that is provided in the nature of a carrier's
business for distribution is not in the rate, and
therefore must be paid extra. -
Lord Belper.] Surely, so far as the principle
goes, everybody is agreed that the conveyance
rate is to cover conveyance only, and that ter-
minals are to cover terminal charges at both ends.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so.
Lord Belper.] Then if that is all agreed it is
merely a question what words will answer the
purpose.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so. I submit
that the only way to do it is by putting in, not
the dubious word “carriers” which might be
carriers either by road or rail, but to define car-
riers as carriers either by road or rail.
Chairman.] Now we will hear Mr. Bidder.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace, now that I under-
stand my learned friend's argument, I fail to trace
the connection between his argument and his
amendment ; my learned friends argument, I
do not know which to deal with first, and his
amendment are quite distinct. But the thing
which he now tells us he wants to guard against
(I had better take that first) is this, if I may use
his illustration : Messrs. Colman (and there are,
of course, plenty of other people in the same
position) have got a siding of their own, short of
the terminus, and their goods, instead of going
into the terminus and using the wharves and
sidings, and sheds, and other terminal accommo-
dation, are shunted at once into their sidings,
and the thing he tells us, the mischief he wants
to guard against, is that Messrs. Colman, who do
not use the terminus, shall not pay any part of
the terminal charge. I think, if your Grace
will turn to the schedule, you will see that that
is carefully and expressly dealt with as it
stands. .
Chairman.] At what page 2
Mr. Bidder.] On page 3. Of course I use the
Hlondon and North Western schedule, because
the clause, which we are upon, Clause 3, says:
“The maximum station terminal is the maximum
charge which the company may make to a trader
for the use of the accommodation (exclusive of
coal drops) provided, and for the duties under-
taken for which no other provision is made in
this schedule by the company, at the terminal
station ''; and then you have to look at the de-
finition of a terminal station ; it is “a station or
place upon the railway at which a consignment
of merchandise is loaded or unloaded, before or
after conveyance, on the railway, but does not
include any station or junction at which the
merchandise, in respect of which any terminal
is charged, has been exchanged,” and so on.
Therefore, if Mr. Colman's goods go into a
siding of his own, they are not loaded and un-
loaded at the terminal station ; it is not a ter-
minal station which he uses, and he is not liable
to a terminal charge. t
But, your Grace, that is not all; because, if
your Grace will look again at the 5th clause,
which I referred to for another purpose yester-
day, that is to say, you will see that Mr. Colman's
case is expressly provided for separately : “The
company may charge for the services hereunder
mentioned, when provided for or rendered to a
trader at his request or for his convenience, such
reasonable sums, by way of addition to the ton-
nage rate, as shall, in case of difference between
the company and the person liable to pay the
charge, be determined by an arbitrator to be ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade.” And then
the first is, “services rendered by the company at
or in connection with sidings not belonging to the
Company, and services in respect of the delivery
and reception of merchandise to and from such
sidings;” and I do not know whether it will be in
your Grace's recollection that there is a question
with regard to that, that originally the word
“ accommodation ” was there in the Board of
Trade's first draft, as well as “services,” so as to
provide for a case where the company themselves
have provided sidings specially for that trader;
and there will be a discussion hereafter
whether that word “accommodation ” should not
stop in. In any way you will see that Messrs.
Colman's case comes expressly under that pro-
VISIOI).
Mr. Hanbury.] But is not Mr. Colman's siding
a place on the railway at which the consigned
merchandise is loaded or unloaded ?
Mr. Bidder.] No, it is not a place on the rail-
way at which the consigned merchandise is loaded
or unloaded ; his goods are loaded or unloaded on
his own siding, not upon the railway at all. Ob-
serve, what happens is that we take the goods to
the point of junction, and we shunt them into
his siding; then he has got his own sheds there,
his own wharves, they go into his own private
station ; that is the place where they are loaded
or unloaded.
Earl of Camperdown..] Might I ask another
question that arises on that same definition which
you quoted P “The term ‘terminal station'
means a station or place upon the railway at
which a consignment of merchandise is loaded or
unloaded ”; it does not say “ at which Messrs.
Colman’s merchandise is loaded.” Would it be
possible under that definition to make a charge
in respect of all merchandise because certain
merchandise is loaded or unloaded ? w
Mr. Bidder.] Clearly not, my Lord. If you
will read the further words, I think your Lordship
will see that the next words point to this very
case : “ but it does not include * (the definition
goes on to say) “any station or junction at
which the merchandise in respect of which any
terminal ‘’— .
Earl of Camperdown.] That is quite right. -
Mr. Bidder.] It is absolutely excluded.
Therefore, as regards the mischief which my
learned friends wants to guard against, there is
no possibility of Mr. Colman paying terminal
rates in such a case. But if I followed my
learned friend's argument a little further—I
tried to follow the first part of it, he made a
suggestion of this kind ; and he will forgive me
if I have not understood him; I have done my
best. He says that there is a certain part,
possibly of the station, a shed or something,
which is partly provided for, and utilised in
connection with the distributing business in the
town, and that that is part of the terminal cost,
and that if it is not provided for in the station
- terminal
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
10)
16 April 1891.
terminal it gets into the conveyance rate, which
he does pay. Is that right !
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is right.
Mr. Bidder.] Therefore I understand my
learned friend to bring up his proposed amend-
ment, putting these words in, “by rail or by
road,” with the view of guarding against the
risk that so much of the station accommodation
as relates to carriage in the town by road
should escape into the conveyance rate, and so
he should pay a certain portion of it. I confess
that my first observation upon that is, that it
seems to me that if my learned friend is guarded
as to the whole terminal, he is guarded as to the
part; but surely, even from his own point of
view, his amendment is perfectly useless. The
clause as it stands runs, “as carriers thereof
before and after conveyance.” The word
“carriers,” I suppose, is perfectly distinct, “ The
maximum station terminal is the maximum charge
which the company may make to a trader for
the use of the accommodation (exclusive of coal
drops) provided ” (I read the words shortly) “at
the terminal station for or in dealing with mer-
chandise, as carriers thereof, before or after
conveyance.” My learned friend is quite con-
tent with that clause, with the exception of this:
he says that he wants to put in the words “by
rail and by road.” I venture to submit that the
words are perfectly useless for the purpose,
unless they are intended to be construed in a
certain way, which I will refer to presently,
in which case they would be mischievous.
“Carriers” includes carriers in whatever way
they carry. You do not make the word “carrier”
more emphatic by saying “ by rail or by road.”
They are carriers by rail if they carry by rail;
they are carriers by road if they carry by road;
either way they are carriers. Therefore it is
quite clear that you do not add to the word
“carriers” by putting in “by rail or by road.”
Indeed, according to the principle that Mr.
Courtenay Boyle referred to in another case, by
specifying certain modes of carriage, you exclude
possibly others. And, perhaps this has not oc-
cured to my learned friend; I will give you an
illustration of the mischief of this: Sometimes
railway companies are carriers by steamboat, as
in the case of the London and South Western
going to the Isle of Wight.
Mr. Balſour Browne.] Then put it in.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend says put it
in. But there is the mischief of trying to add
words of that kind. The word * carriers ” covers
railroad and steamboat, and everything else;
balloon, if they ever get it; and another thing
is canal. Your Grace, from that point of view
the words are useless; but from the other point
of view, I will show you how they will be posi-
tively mischievous, and that is the only reason
why I can conceive of anybody wishing to put
them in. It might be argued that “carriers by
rail or road” means the cases where you are
carriers both by rail and by road, and excludes
the cases where you only carry by rail, which is
monstrous. That is the only possible useful
significance to give to those words, and if that
interpretation were given, it would be a mon-
strous result, because it would exclude from the
station terminal all the accommodation which
traffic which goes both by rail and road.
—º
the company have provided, simply for rail
carriage, and only include that which is used for
I trust
I have satisfied your Grace that the clause as
drawn up by the Board of Trade is perfectly
sufficient and good, and that the words which my
learned friend proposes to add, are either useless
or mischievous, and that as regards the thing he
wants to guard against, the order has carefully
and specifically guarded him against it already.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] My learned friend has
understood the latter part of my argument, but
not the first. He says that Messrs. Colman are
protected because they are to be charged at the
siding. When Section 5 comes on, of course we
will deal with that. In the meantime, I will
assume that he is right.
Mr. Bidder.] Would my learned friend allow
me, there is one thing I forgot to point out, I
beg my learned friend’s pardon. If there was
any doubt whatever (though there is not), inas-
much as what I call the wiping up words are in
Clause 3, they do include in the station
terminal everything that is not expressly placed
in any other part.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend says
that Clause 5 does it. Clauses 5 provides for a
charge at that point, the point where my siding
joins the railway. That I am not now upon at
all just now, therefore he misunderstood it.
What I am upon is what is to be the charge for
the whole of that. If you do not take it out in
some way, if you do not take the whole of the
station in some way out of the conveyance rate,
I will have to pay for the bit of the station that
I do not use. My learned friend then goes on
to say that the word “carriers” is useless.
Mr. Bidder.] No, I did not say anything of the
kind. .
Chairman.] Oh, no. On the contrary, I under-
stood him to say that, adding the words “ by road
or by rail” was useless, because they might be
meant to combine both.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg my learned
friend's pardon, he says that the words “carriers”
covers carriers by road and rail, and therefore
that the words “ by road or rail” are unnecessary.
Chairman.] And possibly mischievous.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And possibly mis-
chievous. Now let us see. It has been held
otherwise. The decision of the Lord Chancellor
was that the words “incidental to the business
and duty of a carrier’ meant a carrier in his dis-
tributing business.
Mr. Bidder.] No, indeed it was not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg pardon, that is
my interpretation of it.
Chairman.] Well, let us have the words.
Mr. Bidder.] I am sure the Lord Chancellor
never decided that “carrier * did not mean
“carrier by road.” &
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Lord Chancellor's
words are, “The question of shunting and the use
of railway sidings for the purpose, it may be, of
facilitating what I may call locomotive railway
business and carriers' distribution business.”
(81.)
N 3 Mr.
102 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIK EN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] “What I may call locomotive
railway business.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.J. Quite right; the loco-
motive railway business is the carriage by rail-
way. But when the Lord Chancellor deals with
carriage in the town, he uses the terms “carriers’
distribution business” in the limited sense; and
therefore the word “carriers” will not cover it.
Mr. Bidder.] He does not say so, or anything
like it.
Chairman.] Will you refer me to the passage 3
I have been trying to find it; what are the
words of the Lord Chancellor that you are now
quoting 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The words on the first
page.
Lord Belper.] The second page.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your Lordship's
pardon, I have got a different print; it is at the
beginning of his judgment. “A railway com-
pany is carrying on a business divided into two
classes of business,” therefore I say at once the
word “carrier'' will not cover both of those,
unless yon make it clear. “They are caarying
by their trains from point to point, and they are
carrying by reason of the variety of goods they
have to take, and the places at which they have
to be delivered, a quantity of goods which they
deliver from the point at which the loco-
motive, by which the things have been con-
veyed, stops. I can quite understand that, as a
matter of fact the analysis of these two different
classes of business, and the services and accom-
modation rendered in respect of those two classes
of business, may sometimes be very difficult
indeed, especially one which I instanced just
now, the question of shunting and the use of
railway siding,” (he does not know which to
put it under apparently at that instant), “for the
purpose, it may be, of facilitating what I may call
locomotive railway business and carriers’ distribu-
tion business.” There I say the Lord Chancellor
clearly distinguishes between the two classes of
business; and what we want is, that if at the end
of the carriage from point to point (to use the
Lord Chancellor's words) they provide anything,
that should all be covered by the station terminal,
whether if is used for the locomotive business or
for the distribution business. If not, if you
leave anything of the locomotive business in the
rate, then, when Mr. Colman comes and pays
the rate, he will pay part of the provision of that
station.
Then my learned friend says, that the words
are defective, because they do not cover steam-
boats. Steamboats are always held under
special Acts of Parliament, and those special
Acts of l’arliament provide the charges that the
railway company may make. But we are
settling this 13ill, not for steamboats ; steamboats
are not mentioned.
tº Chairman.] No, you need not deal with that.
Mr. Bidder.] I only used that as an illustra-
tion of the mischief of putting in particular words.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect,
then, I say that there is no necessity for any
other words, because it covers the whole of what
the Lord Chancellor said was the business of a
railway company as carriers in both its charac-
ters. But unless you have both words, it is open
to ambiguity; it may mean either by road or
rail. It cannot do then any harm to include
everything. That is all I want, an absolutely
exhaustive definition of a station terminal.
Earl of Belmore.] How do you propose that
that should be given effect to. supposing we put
the words in P Do you propose that when a
company furnishes a note or bill to a trader, he
shall have three headings, conveyance on the
line, station terminal by rail, and station ter-
minal by road, and show it under three heads 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not necessarily so, my
Lord. What I should propose (and we have a
clause to bring it up afterwards) is that whenever
a trader does not use accommodation for which
certain charges are made, he shall not be charged
for it.
Earl of Belmore, How do you know that, if
you do not show it in the heading 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The way in which it is
done at the present time, and might be done in
future (though, perhaps, I shall ask for an
amendment in a later clause), is, that a trader, if
he is dissatisfied with an inclusive rate, including
all those charges, can go to the Railway Com-
msssioners and have them cut up and distin-
guished into three ; then he would see what he
was being charged for the station, what he was
being charged for service terminals at the sta-
tion, and what he was being charged for convey-
ance rate. And Mr. Colman would say, “I am
only bound to pay for conveyance rate.”
Mr. Bidder.] And the charge under Clause 5.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Naturally, any charge
that the company may arrive at under Clause 5
I should be bound to pay for any services at my
junction if you do them there. But my difficulty
is, that the Railway Commissioners cannot split
up the terminal, if you allow any portion of a
terminal, in the conveyance rate ; and I say
that these words are sufficient to cut the con-
veyance out and put it in the station terminal.
Chairman.] We should like to hear what Lord
Balfour of Burleigh, or Mr. Courtenay Boyle,
have to say. &
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We are of opinion that
the object sought to be considered by Mr. Balfour
Browne is attained by the clause as it stands at
the present moment. The object of that clause,
as I explained to the Committee yesterday, was
to bar a company from making any charge in
respect of the station terminal, which was part of
the conveyance rate ; and therefore the limitation
is to the use of the accommodation provided
by the company for dealing with merchandise
“as carriers thereof before or after conveyance.”
Therefore any accommodation provided, or duties
undertaken, by the company in dealing with
merchandise during conveyance, is, we believe,
barred by that section as it stands. But it is even
further barred, for a reason which has not yet
been pointed out. I must ask the Committee to
turn to the definition of a terminal station, and
to look at certain words which have not yet been
quoted to the Committee. You must remember
that, as Mr. Bidder pointed out, a station ter-
minal
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
103
16 April 1891.
minal can only be charged at a terminal station
If you look at line 16, on page 7, a station ter-
minal does not include “a junction, between
the railway and a siding not belonging to
the company,” and it also does not include “any
station with which such siding may be con-
nected.” Our belief was, that those words
absolutely barred the railway companies from
making such a charge as appears to be contem-
plated by Mr. Balfour Browne. As to any portion
of a station provided, and which is in course of
the transit, getting into the conveyance rate, we
do not quite see how that would be possible,
because the conveyance rate is a ton mileage rate,
absolutely fixed at the quantum ; we do not see
how it would be possible that any charge for a
station in the middle of the route, but not used
by the trader, could possibly be made part of the
conveyance rate. There is one more point (which
was undoubtedly a point present to our mind),
taken by Mr. Bidder: that, under certain cir-
cumstances, railway companies are carriers by
water, and that therefore the insertion of the
words “by rail or by road,” would bar that carried
by water. .
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
Take this case of Mr. Colman ; he has got a
siding, we will suppose, from Norwich Station to
his works, never mind the word Norwich ; we
will suppose it is all under the words which have
just been quoted. Do you admit that Mr. Col-
man would not be chargeable in respect of
Norwich Station ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In the first place, I do
not think it goes from a station at all, therefore
it would not come under the definition.
Earl of Camperdown.] I thought your siding
did go to a station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Short of a station;
and I think in most cases the sidings are not at
stations at all.
Mr. Bidder.] Then they are included in the
previous words.
Earl of Camperdown.] Your answer is, that it
is short of a station.
Mr. Balfour Rrowne.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] I wonder what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle would say to that ;
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] To what?
Earl of Camperdown.] To Mr. Balfour Browne's
answer, that Mr. Colman's siding is not a siding
into a station, but that it is a siding which starts
short of a station. *
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Our words “ or any
station with which such siding may be con-
nected * were put in on purpose to touch
that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that it is not con-
nected with a station at all.
Chairman.] Then if you hold, and it is ruled,
that it has no connection whatever with a station,
you would not be charged terminals; you would
only be charged the conveyance rate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect, I
submit that if there is anything left in the con-
Veyance rate for providing a station that I do not
use at all, I shall have to pay it.
Mr. Bidder.] We had better not mix up the
two things together. His Lordship asked, if I
may very respectfully say so, a very pertinent
question, whether my learned friend admits that
Mr. Colman, and people in his position, would
not be charged with the station terminal.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say they would be
chargeable with a portion of the station terminal;
I will show you how, my Lord.
Chairman.] What you mean is, that if in the
conveyance rate a certain calculation is made as
to what a station costs, and it was included in the
conveyance rate, they would be charged it,
though they did not use the station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so ; and when
this schedule was framed, the law was as it is
laid down in Sowerby’s case; that is to say, that
a portion of the station was in the conveyance
Tate.
Mr. Bidder.] No, it was not ; there is nothing
of the kind.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon.
Chairman.] We will not go on arguing about
Sowerby and the Lord Chancellor ; we have it
fully before us. Your contention is that if, in
the conveyance rate, a certain sum is set aside
and calculated as to the cost of the station, you
will have to pay it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly. I only
want it cut out of the conveyance rate and put
into the station terminal, which they themselves
say they are willing to do; they say they are not
going to charge us. Why should they object to
these words?
Mr. Bidder.] If there were, which I cannot
admit, any ambiguity about the word “carrier *
meaning carrier by horse or rail, Section 3 in-
cludes all duties for which no other provision is
made in the schedule. Therefore, if my learned
friend's case is, that this is a duty for which no
other provision is made, it pso facto falls within
that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that, at present,
they are entitled to include it in the conveyance
rate.
Mr. Bidder.] If it is an unappropriated resi-
duum that includes it.
The Committee deliberated.
Chairman.] The Committee are of opinion
that the words “by rail or road' shall not be in-
serted.
Lord Belmore (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
I want to ask you, or Mr. Courtenay Boyle, a
question about one word in the drafting of
Section 3. If you look at Section 3, after the
word “provided ” come these words, “ and for
the duties undertaken, for which no other pro-
vision is made in this schedule by the company.”
Should not the words “by the company ” come
next to the word “undertaken " ? I suppose it
means “duties undertaken by the company.”
As it reads grammatically, I think it would
mean that the provision was made by the com-
pany, whereas the traders are making the pro-
WIS1()I).
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I do not see any
objection to that at the moment.
(81.)
N 4 Chairman.]
104
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
Chairman.] Perhaps you will consider it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Certainly, your
Grace.
Earl of Belmore.] It is merely transferring the
words.
Mr. Bidder.] I think it would be an amend-
ment of great improvement. His Lordship pro-
poses to move the words “ by the company ”
up to after “undertaken.”
Lord Balfour of Rurleigh..] The essential part
is to provide that the two words “undertaken º'
and “provided ” both govern “by the com-
pany.”
Mr, Bidder.] I think it would still be so.
Chairman.] What is the next amendment upon
Clause 3.
Mr. Darlington.] I think, your Grace, my
amendment stands next. My amendment is to
this effect, to add as a proviso to Clause 3,
“ provided always that the actual sum charge-
able.”
Chairman.] But is there any amendment to the
body of the clause ?
Mr. Darlington.] I am not aware that there is.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether your
Grace has them before you, but somebody has
given me the formulated amendments of my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne’s clients, the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference. I do not
know whether anybody represents them.
Chairman.] No ; the next of Mr. Balfour
Browne's client’s amendments are on Clause 4.
Mr. Bidder.] That is another client. Your
Grace will recollect the discussion yesterday
about the gentlemen who had an alternative
schedule, and you intimated that they must bring
up what they proposed in the form of amend-
ments. Now we have had a paper handed to us.
Mr. Yates.] Those are the amendments which
your Grace said should be formulated by this
morning, and I would suggest that they should
be taken after the present list of amendments has
been dealt with on Clause 3.
Chairman.] No, we must go regularly through.
Mr. Bidder.] There is one of them on Clause 3.
Mr. Yates.] That would be to go through the
amendments to Clause 3, and, as soon as you
have finished the amendments to Clause 3, to
take those formulated last night in their order.
Earl of Belmore.] Have we got to the end of
the amendments P
Mr. Yates.] No, my Lord.
Mr. Hanbury.] There is an amendment at
line 25, to leave out everything after the word
“provided,” is there not ? That is on page 2 of
the amendments proposed by the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference.
Mr. Yates.] But that is governed by what is
put in Clause 2 ; there is to be an amendment to
Clause 2 first.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is not going to be moved
In O.W.
Mr. Yates.] I suggest that the two am end
ments to Clauses 2 and 3 work in together, and
that it would come very much better after the
end of the present discussion.
Mr. Bidder.] Would it not be better that we
should finish Clause 3, as we are in the middle of
it, before we go back to Clause 22
Mr. Yates.] Yes.
Chairman. Then is there any amendment in
the body of Clause 3 : If there is not, then we
could take the proviso.
Mr. Freeman.] Your Grace, there is one
amendment shown at the bottom of page 4 ; it is
put in the form of an observation, but it appears
to apply exclusively to the London, Brighton,
and South Coast Company, whom I represent ;
and I presume that the rule given with regard to
the London and North Western Company in
regard to this would be general.
Earl of Camperdown.] But there was no rule
as to observations; it was ruled that definite
amendments should be brought in, not observa-
tions. -
Chairman.] Clause 3, page 3, line 24, after
the words “for the ” insert “actual.” Does
anybody propose that?
Mr. Yates.] That is in the amendment of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, your
Grace. That all really hangs upon the amend-
ments, if your Grace accepts the amendments to
Clause 2, which we have not yet moved, and
which we suggest should be moved afterwards.
Chairman.] How is that ?
Mr. Yates.j Well, your Grace, the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference were to have been
heard upon the Schedule ; at least that was the
Suggestion.
Chairman.] I know that ; but what alteration
in Clause 2 that you propose would affect this
amendment 2 - f
Mr. Yates.] We propose to divide up the
conveyance rate into its component parts, into
tolls, maximum haulage rates, and maximum
truck rates. The effect of that would be that
any person who did not require a truck, or did
require trucks, would know by the truck rate that
was fixed exactly what he would have to pay,
and for what.
Chairman.] Yes, 1 see it hangs upon that,
Very well.
Mr. Yates.] If the amendment to Clause 2
prevail, that will obviate the necessity for bring-
ing in that amendment to Clause 3 at all.
Chairman.] Then, after we have dealt with
Clause 3, we shall go to Clause 2.
Mr. Yates.] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] Now then, there is no amend-
ment, as I understand it, proposed to Clause 3,
except one that will be in the nature of a proviso.
Now we will hear what that is.
Mr. Darlington.] The proviso that I suggest
to your Grace's consideration is this.
Chairman.] Where is that ?
Mr. Darlington.] It is on page 4 of the
amendments that have been tabulated and
collated by the railway companies: “Provided
always that the actual sum chargeable as a sta-
tlOn
ON RAILWAY RATES
ORDER BILLS. 105
AND CHARGES PROVISION AI,
16 April 1891.
tion terminal for any particular class of traffic
shall not exceed such amount as may be reason-
ably sufficient, regard being had to the average
annual quantity of such traffic, and to the accom-
modation provided for and actually used by such
traffic at the station where such station terminal
is charged.” Now your Grace, this is a proviso
to the section you have just considered, and I
think I should call your Grace's attention to that
section in order to make it clear what the princi-
ple is that we are contending for. . The section
is : “The maximum station terminal is the maxi-
mum charge which the company may make to a
trader for the use of the accommodation (exclu-
sive of coal drops provided) and for the duties
undertaken, for which no other provision is made
in this schedule by the company, at the terminal
station for or in dealing with merchandise as
carriers thereof before or after conveyance.”
Now that section has been explained yester-
day by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, and I should
like to call your Grace's attention to that
explanation. On page 112 of my copy of the
proceedings of yesterday, Mr. Courtenay Boyle
said to your Grace : “If the Committee
will look the clause is very carefully worded, ‘the
maximum station terminal is the maximum
charge which the company may make to the
trader for the use of the accommodation provided.”
We believe that if the accommodation is not
provided, and if the accommodation is not used,
no charge can be made. It is ‘for the use of
the accommodation provided.” Then it goes on
to say, ‘and for the duties,” not “duties or
services'; because (for a reason which I think is
present to the minds of some members of the
Committee) we thought it very important not to
use the word ‘services' in that particular clause,
‘ for duties undertaken.’” Then he goes on to
say that there is a proviso for the protection of
the traders. The result of that, therefore, is this :
that under that section if the trader does not
use the station at all he pays nothing for
it; but, supposing he uses it to any extent, for
the most trifling amount, he is likely to pay the
whole of the maximum terminal authorised,
should the railway company insist upon it. Now
what we want, by putting in this proviso, is that
if the amount of accommodation used by the
trader, or his traffic is not sufficient to warrant
the full Inaximum terminal authorised by the
schedule, only such part as may be sufficient to
pay for the accommodation actually used by the
traffic should be charged.
Chairman.] But then, I do not like interrupt-
ing you, how could you possibly carry out such a
proposal ; would you have a graduated scale that
if a person used a station for two days he should
pay a certain sum, and that if a man used it 50
days he should pay 25 times as much I do not
see how you would carry it out.
Mr. Darlington.] You would carry it out in
this way: that if your Grace adopted my pro-
posal, the maximum station terminal would
Primá facie be chargeable in all cases I take it;
but if a trader could show that he was not
getting his money's worth, if he could show that
the accommodation provided by the railway
company was of very little value, I mean if the
capital expense which the accommodation had
entailed was very small; if, for instance, he was
only using some one siding out of a station, then
he should not be obliged to pay for the whole
station ; and if he could prove that the charge
made to him was too much, he could come to
this tribunal.
Chairman.] But then that amounts to cutting
up the terminal charges into so many parts, and
would probably be the origin of a vast number
of law suits, because who is to settle between
him and the company as to whether he ought to
be charged for a less or a greater amount”
Mr. Bidder.] And not only into so many parts
your Grace.
Chairman.] No, Mr. Bidder, not now.
Mr. Darlington.] Well, your Grace, it might
be so; it might be that it would be a more con-
venient way to split up the terminal charges;
but I confess that this plan which I suggest
seems to me to meet the case equally.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does not that amount to split-
ting up parts of a station, too, and charging
separate charges for each part 2
Mr. Darlington.] Possibly.
Lord Houghton.] Would you not have a sepa-
rate rate for every station then on every line 2
Mr. Darlington.] I think that is what was
probably intended by Parliament.
Chairman.] Parliament has not intended any-
thing, yet; it is what Parliament is going to
intend that we are here to discuss.
Mr. Darlington.] May I call attention to the
words of Sub-section 1 of Section 24 of the Act of
1888, under which this order was drawn up?
“In the determination of the terminal charges of
any railway company regard shall be had only
to the expenditure reasonably necessary to pro-
vide the accommodation in respect of which such
charges arc made, irrespective of the outlay
which may have been actually incurred by the
railway company in providing that accommo-
dation.”
Chairman.] I do not think really it is worth
while you urging this, I am sure the Committee
would not agree to that. I think the proposal
is one that we could not possibly entertain.
Mr. Darlington.] The proposal to enable us
to have a separate terminal charge for each
station ?
Chairman.] No. Your proviso. I am quite
sure it could not work, to begin within.
Mr. Darlington.] Well your Grace, if you
leave the matter as it stands at present I think I
can show you that it would entail great hardship
on a large class of traders; and for this reason,
that the maximum station terminal will only
really come into effect when the railway company
are charging their maximum conveyance rate;
and where the company put down their rates as
a rule is in exactly the same case as when they
provide additional facilities, the consequence
will be, that in by far the majority of cases the
people who have to pay these high terminal
charges will be the people who have got no
facilities afforded them; that is to say, they wil
be the people who are paying for the advantages
(81.)
given
106
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
2.
given to their rivals. Now, take these two case
take the case of my trader at Nantlle whom
I put into the box yesterday, and his rival trader
at a place where the railway company are sub-
jected to competition. I think the gentleman I
put into the box yesterday informed your Grace
that the e was no competition for the carriage of
his goods between Nantlle and the sea. Take
the case of his rival trader situated some little
distance off, where the competition exists. Now
where the competition exists, the railway com-
pany, as he informed your Grace yesterday,
provide greater facilities to the trader at that
station, and, in addition to those facilities, they
provide the trader at that station with low rates.
But where there is no competition the railway
company can charge the trader what they like.
Chairman.] I am afraid that is incidental to
all trade. -
Mr. Darlington.] And they do it. The rail-
way managers over and over again in the inquiry
before Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Cour-
tenay Boyle - &
Chairman.] But we are not dealing with this
gentleman's case ; we dealt with him yesterday,
and I can assure you that, with all your elo-
quence, you will not persuade the Committee to
accept your proviso ; therefore I think you are
Only taking up time.
Mr. Darlington.] If your Grace puts it as
strongly as that, I can, of course, say no more.
Chairman.] What is the next amendment?
Mr. Woodfall.] I understand that your Grace
is taking the provisoes. - -
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Woodfall.] Then I have to bring up a
proviso on behalf of the Marquis of Bute ; it is
a proviso on a separate printed sheet ; “ that the
actual sum chargeable as station terminals " ——
Chairman.] We have dealt with the last pro-
viso proposed by the slate quarry proprietors and
For whom do you
traders ; is not that so?
appear, Mr. Darlington P
Mr. Darlington.] For the Nantlle quarry
owners, the quarry owners of North Wales.
Mr. Bidder.] And this amendment now to be
proposed is practically the same amendment
slightly varied in form.
Mr. Woodfall.] My learned friend, Mr. Bidder,
interpolates that... I am not going to say much
after what has fallen from your Grace ; but I do
ask you to hear what I have got to say.
Earl of Camperdown.] Where is your proviso
Mr. Woodfall. j. On a separate page 2.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] What is the name of the
paper; is there any title to it?
Mr. Woodfall.] It was a separate sheet; it
was the proviso that was brought up by land-
owners, traders, and colliery owners of South
Wales, and also brought up by the Marquess of
Bute.
Chairman.] Is it the same proviso as the one
we have just dealt with ? -
Mr. Woodfall.] I think I shall be able to show
your Grace that there is a distinction; and I do
rress it upon your Grace. I am not going to
epeat what was said by my learned friend who
has just addressed the Committee, because, of
course, my case must, to a certain extent, rest
on the arguments he advanced. But I do say
this, and I do not want to repeaf, so far as I can
help it, what I said to the Committee on the
various amendments which I brought forward
yesterday; but, your Grace, I do say this : that
when we get these different bodies of trades all
coming forward with practically the same amend-
ments, surely it is a very impressive and instrug-
tive thing as showing the apprehension which
exists in the minds of different traders through-
out the country. And this is the last battlefield
on which they can fight their battle, and the
apprehension does exist in their minds as to the
various railway companies in relation to this
clause, and the protection they seek under it.
Now, Mr. Courtenay Boyle told the Committee
yesterday that this clause had been carefully
drafted by the Attorney General ; but the Com-
mittee is well aware that the opinions of no
counsel, not even of the learned and accomplished
lawyer at the head of the bar at the present
time, is in any way a guide to the Courts of
Justice. Different counsel take different views
of different sections; and to make the opinion of
counsel any guide at all, it is absolutely necessary
to see and know the instructions which were
laid before him, and on which he founded his
opinion. I do, therefore, ask the Committee to
consider this proviso without, if I may use the
expression, being prejudiced by the fact that the
Attorney General carefully drafted this clause.
Now your Grace, I had better read the proviso,
“ Provided that the actual sum chargeable as
station terminal in respect of such consignment
shall be such reasonable sum within the maximum
as shall in case of dispute be determined by an
arbitration to be appointed by the Board of
Trade, or by the Railway and Canal Commission,
having regard to the actual station accommoda-
tion reasonably necessary to be provided in
each case.” Your Grace will recollect that this
Railway Act, whicd your Grace is now about to
prepare for Parliament, is to be in all respects
subject to the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.
Mr. Bidder. Do you not mean “each consign-
ment * instead of “such P”
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes “each.” I am much
obliged to my learned friend; I have it “such "
in my copy, but obviously it ought to be
‘‘ each.”
This Act of Parliament, your Grace, I was
saying, will be subject in all respects to the Rail-
way and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and your Grace
will see on looking at Section 24 of the Act of
1888, that we have actually incorporated the
words of that section in this amendment (it
has just been read to your Grace) that, “ In the
determination of the terminal charges of any
railway company regard shall be had only to the
expenditure reasonably necessary to provide the
accommodation in respect of which such charges
are made.” Now I told your Grace yesterday
that in the schedule which sets out what the
station terminals are, and as distinguished from the
service terminals, which they do separate and º
OW
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
107
16 April 1891.
how they are made up, they lump the station
terminals in one sum, so that the traders do not
know how that sum is made up, or for what they
are paying, or whether they are paying for what
they ought not to pay. It is true that Mr.
Courtenay Boyle told the Committee that the
Board of Trade considered it better to lump it
together; but I ask the Committee to take an
independent view ; and I respectfully submit
that it would be very much more satisfactory if,
instead of the mere fact of the section being put
before the Committee as drafted by eminent
counsel, some one or other of the very competent
railway authorities who were in the room should
have got into that chair and told the Committee
what they really do mean by lumping together
this station terminal. It would not have occu-
pied ten minutes. I challenged them yesterday to
do so, and I challenge them to do so againto-day.
Chairman.] But the Bill is put forward by the
Board of Trade, not by the managers of the
different railways. -
Mr. Woodfall.] I am quite sensible of that fact,
your Grace. -
Chairman.] Do you propose that the general
managers of the different railways should come
into the box and say why the Board of Trade
put this clause in P :
Mr. Woodfall.] I am afraid I have not made
myself clear to your Grace. What I say is this,
that the Committee have not had explained to
them what different minute services have been
lumped together in this term “station termi-
nals.” Moreover, I stated yesterday that it
would be equally satisfactory if the counsel for
the railway companies were to give some short
description of what they did mean. Your Grace
will recollect, and it is in the print of yesterday's
proceedings, that the counsel for the railway
companies rather astutely evaded doing that.
But I say that if only one of the railway autho-
rities, who are in the room, would do so, they
could tell the Committee in ten minutes what it
was that they included under this term “station
terminal.” Up to this point the Committee have
not had any definition or description whatever of
what it includes.
Mr. Hanbury.] But you can tell us what you
fear it does include.
Mr. Woodfa/l.] I am not able to tell the Com-
mittee everything I fear it does include ; but I
say this, as I said yesterday, that under the defini-
tion which has been given, the mere wide defini-
tion of station terminal, and seeing that it is lumped
in one sum, it is perfectly competent for the railway
companies to put into that charge services which
they perform for their own convenience, such as
lighting and watching, for all of which they have
no right to exact terminal charges of any descrip-
tion whatever under any name. As I told your
Grace yesterday, in deciding the cases in the
Courts of Law as to the right of the railway
companies to exact terminal charges, it has been
expressed by more than one judge, that railway
companies would incur some expenditure and
pay it out of their own pockets for the benefit
of carrying traffic on their own line, acting as
carriers. But under this section it is perfectly
competent for the railway companies (and the
traders would have no redress whatever) to in-
clude charges in that ambiguous phrase, “station
terminal,” which they have no right whatever to
impose on the traders.
Chairman.] Can you tell us some of those
things that you are afraid of? You say you
cannot tell us all, what are some of them P
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace will see that it is
almost impossible for a trader to detail all he is
afraid of, but I will suggest two or three things.
I say that they may put the charges for main-
taining their level crossings in it, for lighting, for
watching, for points, for signals, for share of
office expenses I hear suggested behind me.
Mr. Bidder.] I would suggest to my learned
friend, that inasmuch as the amount we may
charge for station terminals is fixed in the
schedule, the more we include in it, the better for
the trader; the more he gets for the 6 d. or 9 d.,
the better for him. .
Mr. Woodfall.] My mind is not able to follow
that. It seems to me not to answer the challenge
that I made. Why do they not up and tell the
Committee what they mean, Because, from the
nature of the case, we must be in the dark ; but
they are in the light, and they could let that
light be before the Committee.
Then if your Grace will look at the other part of
this proviso, if your Grace and if the Committee are
of opinion that they are content with what they
have heard, still I ask them to have some regard to
our apprehensions that this clause is fraught with
danger to us; and we say in that case, let what we
have to pay under this heading of station
terminal, that reasonable sum be determined
by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of
Trade, or appointed by the Railway and Canal
Commission ; and then, when this Bill has
passed and become law, if we suffer under the
charges which are made by the railway companies,
then that measure of redress (whatever its value
may be) will be open to us ; we can go and have
the sum determined, whether it be reasonable or
not, by the Board of Trade or by the Railway
and Canal Commission. Otherwise, under the
Act, the Railway Commission could not give the
traders any redress whatever; they cannot deter-
mine what is the amount we are to be charged,
they can only determine whether the charge
under which we are suffering is altogether illegal,
or whether it is really an undue preference.
I beg your Grace to bring up this proviso.
Chairman.] Will you just explain to me why
it is that it is advisable to strike out the arbi-
tration in Clause 2, and to insert it in Clause 3 °
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace will remember
that when I appeared on Clause 2 my amend-
ments were not in, and I was not heard.
Chairman.] But Mr. Balfour Browne was
heard, we have not excluded anything, and Mr.
Balfour Browne has to bring up a clause includ-
ing arbitration. What I want to know is, why it
is advisable for a trader that he should not have
a dispute settled by arbitration in regard to any-
thing that may arise under Clause 2, and it is
advisable that he should have those disputes
settled by arbitration under Clause 3.
Mr. Woodfall.] The only answer that occurs
(81.)
O 2 tC)
108
MINUTES OF EVIDENCF, TAKEN BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
to my mind is this, that the provision for arbitra-
tion under Clause 2 would affect only small
traders and small amounts; and it was said
yesterday
Chairman.] It may equally affect great traders
under Clause 3. -
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, your Grace; but I appea
now for a large trader, and I only consider his
interests.
Chairman.] You do not care for the interests
of the small traders ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I care for the small
traders.
Chairman.] Have you finished your address,
Mr. Woodfall ?
Mr. Woodfa/l.] Yes, your Grace.
Mr. Shaw.] I have to ask for exactly the same
proviso, your Grace.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
You have heard the objections raised to this
clause by the traders, inasmuch as it is said that
the terminal charges may include a great many
things that they ought not to pay for. Was
that present to your mind when you drew up this
clause ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes, your Grace,
we thought that the Board of Trade was doing
its duty in fixing the maximum amount that
should be charged as a terminal. If I might
venture to say so, the Board of Trade's duty
under the Act is to fix a schedule of maximum
charges; and this seems to me to be an attempt
to get the actual rate fixed by the arbitration of
the Board of Trade ; this is to be a “reasonable
sum within the maximum rate.” We have to
fix the maximum rate ; and the reasonableness of
the sum within that maximum rate does not seem
to us to be a matter for provision by the
schedule.
Earl of Camperdown (to Lord Balfour of
Burleigh).] The case which was just put, as I
understand it, was the case of a large trader who,
in a particular instance, felt that he had been
charged an unreasonable amount of terminal
station charge by the railway company, and he
wished, through his dvocate, to have the oppor-
tunity to go to the Board of Trade, and that it
should be for the Board of Trade to say how
much of that maximum station terminal charge
was a reasonable amount to charge in that par-
ticular case ; it was apparently meant to deal
only with large cases, namely, those cases in
which the injustice was so great as to warrant a
large trader in going to the expense of arbitra-
tion. That was the case, as I understand, that
was argued ; and that was not quite the case you
answered, was it?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have a clause of
exactly the same nature, your Grace. May I
bring it up now Ż
Chairman.] No ; Mr. Shaw is next.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All I want to ask your
Grace to do is to reserve your decision until you
have heard me upon it; because otherwise you
will decide this matter without one party having
been heard.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might not my question
to Lord Balfour be answered ?
Mr. Woodfall.] May I add one word to what
I said P that would not apply to my special case
at Cardiff where the terminal station in many
cases overlaps the dock sidings.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Your Grace, there
can be no doubt whatever of the extreme im-
portance of the point raised in Lord Camper-
down's question; it raises the whole question as
to what remedy, if any, the trader can have, or
ought to have, as to the reasonableness of any
particular charge within the maximum which is
settled in this schedule. As to whether there
ought to be such a remedy we do not feel that
we ought to express an opinion. It is our duty
to fix the maximum beyond which the charge to
the trader may not go ; we do not think that we
have the power, or that even if we had the
power, however that reasonableness should be
fixed, it should be a duty laid upon the Board of
Trade either by itself, or by arbitration, to fix
the reasonableness of the charge, provided that
the charge is within the maximum.
Lord Belper.] The railway company would
have the power, therefore, in every case of
charging the maximum.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No, we do not say
that. Provided that the goods are in the class
for which the maximum charge is fixed, and the
use of a station provided, the charge does not go
beyond the maximum fixed for that use of the
station. We do not see that the Board of Trade
should be asked to fix the reasonableness.
Lord Belper.] I understand, therefore, that
whether it is actually reasonable or unreasonable,
they would have the power of charging the
II].8 XIII] Ul II).
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, that is not decided
by our schedule at all. If the law is now that
within the maximum, and it is a moot point,
perhaps Mr. Bidder may have something to say
about it if the law is now that the trader can
argue that a rate, although it is within the maxi-
mum fixed by Parliament, is unreasonable ; he
will have that power in the future; we do not
disturb that right one way or the other ; we do
not say whether that is the law or is not. We
simply fix the maximum. Whether or not, if
the schedule is passed by the Committee, and
passed by Parliament, the trader would have
that appeal against the rate, we do not say.
Mr. Dickson.] That is to say, that in certain
cases, and in certain districts, your maximum
may be unreasonable, and the trader will have a
right to sppeal against it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not said so ; I
merely said that if the law is that the trader can
appeal against the rate now which is within the
maximum, that right is not touched by our
schedule one way or the other.
Mr. Hambury.] Is it in doubt
trader has that right 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has been decided by
the House of Lords that the railway companies
can charge the maximum. The railway com-
panies will not deny that.
whether the
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
l(19
16 April 1891.
Mr. Hanbury.] And that there is no appeal P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Without any appeal.
And in this case, if I may add a few words, why
we object is this——-
Chairman.] I think, Mr. Balfour Browne, you
really must sit down. Mr. Shaw is next.
Mr. Shaw.] I am on exactly the same proviso,
your Grace, as that for the Marquess of Bute.
I appear for the Colliery Owners of South
Wales, and I desire just to add a few words to
what my learned friend Mr. Woodfall has said.
I would ask your Grace and the Committee to
look again at Section 24 of the Act of 1888, at
the last part of Sub-section 1 : “ regard shall be
had only to the expenditure reasonably necessary
to provide the accommodation in respect of
which such charges are made, irrespective of the
outlay which may have been actually incurred
by the railway company in providing that accom-
modation.” It was evidently intended by Par-
liament in the year 1888 to give some benefit to the
traders, and we hope that Parliament in 1891 will
continue the same benefit to the trader. Now,
your Grace, it came out, and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle will, I am sure, not contradict me when I
say it came out, in the evidence before him and
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that a great deal of
the accommodation provided for these station
terminals, especially with regard to coal and such-
like things that I am interested in, was a great
deal more than was necessary for the actual deal-
ing with that coal, and that therefore the railway
companies have incurred a great deal more out-
lay than has been actually necessary for dealing
with the traffic for which here they are given a
maximum based upon the larger facilities. And
we ask that we should have in those cases some
power to go to the Board of Trade, and ask them,
Is it right that we should pay for a lot of money
that has been laid out by the railway companies
in speculating to get more traffic than they have
at the present moment? -
Lord Belper.] That part of the clause cuts
both ways, does it not, that if less has been laid
out than might usually be the case, if the accom-
modation is provided, then they can charge the
maximum, although it is less than is usually pro-
vided ?
Mr. Shaw.] It is open to that ; but I do not
think there is a case where the railway company
have got less accommodation.
Lord Belper, I do not say whether it is so or
not ; but the scope of the section would cover it;
it is “irrespective of the outlay.”
Mr. Shaw.] It is open to that objection.
Lord Belper.] I do not take it as an objection.
I only ask whether it is not open to that construc-
tion.
Mr. Shaw.] It is open to that construction.
Earl of Belmore.] What your words would go
to is, that the trader might go to an arbitrator and
say, “the station at such-and-such a place is too
good for my purposes; therefore I should not be
charged with a maximum rate.”
Mr. Shaw.] Yes, we found before the Board
of Trade, when we cross-examined witnesses as
to this, that at a great many stations there were
most elaborate things laid out which could have
dealt with thousands more tons of coal than the
trade that was done at those stations, instance
after instance came out ; and these maximum
figures were, I take it, based upon the figures
that were laid by the railway companies before
the Board of Trade.
Earl of Belmore.] Would the Act of 1888 still
apply, or will it be repealed by this Statute 2
Mr. Shaw.] I do not think it will apply unless
it is kept alive by what this Committee do at
present. - -
Lord Houghton.] Do you also want to take
the power of going to the Board of Trade, and
saying, “ The accommodation is not so good as
at other places, and therefore we ought to pay
less 2
Mr. Shaw.] It comes to that very nearly.
Lord Belper.] Then that is barred by the
clause, “irrespective of the outlay which may
be actually incurred by the railway com-
pany.”
Mr. Shaw.] No, I think that clause means,
and that it was put in more with the intention of
preventing the railway company from having
power to charge a trader for money which was
unnecessary expenditure upon some of their
accommodations.
Lord Belper.] You must not take the intention,
you must take the words.
Mr. Shaw.] I think the words carry out that
intention ; that is my reading of it.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do you carry that so far as to
say money spent upon accommodation other than
for this particular traffic 2 -
Mr. Shaw.] I think that in the case of coal,
for which I am appearing, coal is kept separate ;
so I do not think it arises very much.
Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to put a
question to you, which I think goes to the root
of the whole clause, and that is this: Section 24
apparently is simply a section laying down the
principle that the revised classification is to be
equal, and also laying down the principles upon
which that revised classification is to be based ;
is not that so?
Mr. Shaw. Certainly.
Earl of Camperdown.] And the proviso that
you have read, “In the determination,” &c.,
simply lays down a rule as to the mode in which
either by the railway company itself, or the
Board of Trade, if they did not agree, the
maxima should be fixed. As soon as those
maxima are fixed (which this schedule professes
to do), then does not the operation of the last
proviso of that sub-section cease, because the
whole duty of the sub-section will have ceased ?
Mr. Shaw.] I quite agree.
Earl of Camperdown.] Therefore, if I am right,
it would be a mistake to argue as to any future
operation, or the future state of the law, from
anything which is based upon this sub-section,
the whole intention and purpose of which is
simply to lay down the conditions on which the
future state of the law is to be based ; is not
that so 2
Mr. Shaw.] I quite agree.
(81. 4.)
O 3 Earl
| 1()
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then that falls out.
Mr. Shaw.] Except that the Board of Trade
have said, I think, yesterday, that it is impos-
sible to carry out those words.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No.
quote the words, please ?
Mr. Shaw.] I take that to be what your
Lordship said. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am afraid you
misinterpret my words. . -
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you take that view,
Mr. Bidder, which I have put to Mr. Shaw P
Mr. Bidder.] I entirely take that view.
Chairman (to Mr. Shaw).] I understand that
you quoted either what Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh or Mr. Courtenay Boyle said yesterday, and
that they want to have a reference to the exact
words. . .
Mr. Shaw.] I think, your Grace, it was not
in what they said yesterday, but in the Report.
Chairman.] Then upon what point was it 2
Mr. Bidder.] What my learned friend wants,
my learned friend and your Lordships will find
Will you
at the bottom of page 11 of the Report, in the
paragraph that begins “As regards the amount
of station terminals we may say at once ’’; it is
under the heading of terminals.
Earl of Camperdown, Then they proceed to
say, that one of the alternatives is to fix a uni-
form maximum based on as fair an average as it
is possible to attain,” and that course “we have
adopted as being, on the whole, fair to both
parties, though admittedly open to the objection
that an average which is probably high in one
place may be low in another.” They admit that
there may be objections on those grounds ; and
of course it is just these objections that this
amendment is aimed to meet.
Mr. Shaw.] It is on the bottom of page 15 of
the Report that I have got here : “As regards
the amount of station terminals we may say at
once that we have not been able to suggest a
logical basis for fixing the power to charge.
Even if the cost of every one of the stations in
the United Kingdom (numbering as they do
some thousands) and of the accommodation pro-
vided thereat, could be accurately ascertained
(and this would be a gigantic, if not an impossible
task), such a basis would not be obtained unless
that cost could be apportioned between the
several classes of nyerchandise in respect of
which the charges would be authorised. In other
words, it would be impossible to say how much of
the expenditure of capital and of income was
due to mineral traffic ’’; those are the words
that I had in my mind when I said that it seems
to me to be impossible to carry out the words of
this Act; the instructions of this Act to who-
ever were to frame this Bill, and to specify for
each particular class of traffic how much they
should pay for terminal, having regard only to
the cost of supplying the accommodation reason-
ably necessary for that particular traffic.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace
just allow me to add one word? I have a similar
amendment for Messrs. Colman, and I want to say
why I press it.
Chairman.] Where is that 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is upon Messrs.
Colman's papers, page 4, Clause 5 C.
Mr. Bidder.] It is quite the same, Mr. Balfour
Browne.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think it is quite the
same : “ Notwithstanding the provisions herein
contained, it shall not be lawful for the company
to charge in respect of station terminals or
Service terminals more than a reasonable sum,
regard being had only to the expenditure
reasonably necessary to provide the accommoda-
tion, or to perform the services in respect to
which such charges are made, irrespective of the
outlay which may have been actually incurred
by the company in providing that accomodation
or performing those services.” Those are the
words of the section. -
Mr. Bidder.] I suggest that this is a little
inconvenient ; that is a much wider amendment
and addresses itself to service terminus too.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say, your Grace,
that if you decide the first point on my learned
friend's suggestion against me, and I am precluded
from being heard on that point, that I should not
be precluded except owing to the fact that I
have put it as a substantive clause instead of an
amendment, and you would not shut out any-
body from being heard, I will be very short. I
only want to tell your Grace that I entirely con-
cur that the idea of the Act was, that just and
reasonable terminals should be fixed by the Board
of Trade and by Parliament, and that then the
railway companies should be entitled to charge
them. That I fully concur in. But, your
Grace, I think that the Board of Trade had not
the means of fixing just and reasonable terminals,
and I trust that I shall be able to show you,
when we come to them, that the amounts are far
too large, that they are unreasonable.
Chairman.] That goes to rates, does it not?
Mr. Balfonr Browne.] No, terminals and ter-
minals alone. It is a question of amounts, and I
say we cannot fix them here. Let me give you
one illustration. We have from the beginning
asked the railway companies to tell us what they
are actually charging for terminals. The Board
of Trade in the very first instance issued to the
railway companies before the inquiry was held at
all, a paper, telling them what they should show,
and they said that the railway companies should
show what terminals were actually being charged.
From that day to this the railway companies
have declined to do that ; they have not shown
them. But one railway company, a little less
discreet than the others, did put in a table,
namely, the London, Brighton, and South Coast
Company, showing what terminals were being
charged, and I find, for instance, for first-class
traffic, the Brighton Company always had a
terminal charge, because it was Hall's Company,
and it was charging for first-class traffic, taking
all the terminals together, station and service,
2 s. a ton. The Board of Trade have allowed
something like, I will not pledge myself to the
exact figure, I believe it is 4 s. 1 d.
Mr. Bidder.] Are
quantum ?
WG getting into
Mr.
In Ot
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. ,
Ill
16 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg my learned
friend’s pardon, it is on illustration, it is not
quantum. If I can show that to your Grace
you will then have this result, that the railway
companies can charge 4s. 1d., for what at present
they are charging, unlimited at the present time,
2s. ; and we shall have no hope, because you will
have fixed it at a just and reasonable sum. Now
the way to do that I admit fully would be for
you to do what the Board of Trade said they
were unable to do, to go into the cost of the
stations. But you cannot do that, you must fix
an average terminal all round, I fully admit
that. The Board of Trade said it was impos-
sible. If you fix an average terminal all around
justice will be done in some cases, but injustice
in others.
to go to some tribunal and say it is unjust 2 At
the present time, and curiously enough, there is
a curious discrepancy in this; under Section 15
of the Act of 1873, we have have full power to
have terminals revised, and that clause is abso-
lutely preserved in this Act of 1888, it is not
one of the repealed clauses. Let me read it to
you : “The Railway Commissioners shall have
full power to hear and determine any question
or dispute which may arise with respect to the
terminal charges of any railway company where
such charges have not been fixed by Act of
Parliament" (you are going to fix them now),
“ and to decide what is a reasonable sum to be
paid to any company for loading, unloading,
covering, collection, delivery, and other services
of a like nature. Any decision of the Commis-
sioners under this section shall be binding on all
courts and in all legal proceedings whatever.”
We have that power at the present time,
and I shall be barred, and I do not mind
being barred, if you are absolutely certain you
fix a just and reasonable amount. But I
say with great respect to the Board of Trade
that they had not the means of doing that.
We have never been heard upon it. Here is the
Board of Trade's own Report: “During the
inquiry the railway companies put in tables of
figures showing the cost of providing the accom-
modation, and of rendering services at certain
stations selected by themselves as fairly repre-
sentative of the whole. The accuracy of the
figures was at once challenged ” (there is the
Board of Trade's own statement),” and believing
it to be impossible without local examination to
ascertain even approximately how far, if at all,
such figures could be taken as a basis, the Board
of Trade appointed an expert to examine and
report thereon.” We have never been heard
upon that ; the Board of Trade very properly
said, and I do not quarrel with it, that the Report
is too voluminous to produce. I do not say it
is not, but we have never seen it; it has been
done entirely behind our backs; we were not
present at it; and Sir Douglas Galton, who was
the expert in question, must have to a large ex-
tent been guided by the railway companies, in
whose hands he was ; he had their figures before
him; they were not subject to cross-examination;
their witnesses were not subjected to cross-ex-
amination ; and we have never been heard upon
this matter of the amount of the terminals. And
if you fix them now you are absolutely fixing
Are we or are we not to be allowed
things to be just and reasonable without our
ever having been heard.
Chairman.] Do you not see that you are now
really going into the question of figures, rates,
and fixing 2 *- -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I venture to say that
I am not. If your Grace thinks that you can
absolutely fix just and reasonable terminals I
will sit down and withdraw the clause ; but J
tell your Grace that I do not believe that it is
possible that you can do so. If you cannot, are
you going to hand us over, tied hand and foot,
to the railway companies to charge what they
like? º
Earl of Camperdown.] "That is the point.
Mr. Balfour Browne] That is the point.
Mr. Bidder.] I think my learned friend has
only put part of his case before you ; and if |
may ask your Grace to go back to the Board of
Trade's Report again, and read it carefully, you
will see that the Board of Trade have rightly
appreciated the position, and you may discuss it
for any length of time, but it comes to the position
which they indicate. They say, “As regards
the amount of station terminals, we may say at
once that we have not been able to suggest a
logical basis for fixing the power to charge.”
Observe, the Act contemplated the fixing of a
terminal charge ; the Act of 1888 contemplated
its being fixed.
Mr. Hambury.] Did it contemplate it for each
separate station, or only an average, as is done by
the Board of Trade.
Mr. Bidder, I do not conceive that anybody
could suggest that it contemplated being fixed
for each separate station, because they could not
fix it for future stations it must be evident that it
was contemplated to be a general charge.
Earl of Camperdown.] A charge fixed upon
the general ex enditure for stations P
Mr. Bidder.j Clearly.
Earl of Belmore.] An average 2
Mr. Bidder.] Clearly. They say, “Even if the
cost of every one of the stations in the United
IXingdom (numbering as they do some thou-
sands), and of the accommodation provided
thereat could be accurately ascertained (and
this would be a gigantic, if not an impossi-
ble task), such a basis would not be obtained
unless that cost could be apportioned between
the several classes of merchandise in respect of
which the charges would be authorised. In
other words, it would be impossible to say how
much of the expenditure of capital and of income
was due to mineral traffic, how much to goods
traffic, and how much to animal traffic, with
anything approaching accuracy. Three courses
appeared possible: (1.) Not to fix any amount,
but to authorise the railway companies to make
charges which should be reasonable, with an
appeal ; (2.) To fix an individual maximum for
station terminals, and for service terminals at
every station in the United Kingdom ; and (3.)
To fix a uniform maximum based on as fair an
average as it is possible to attain. The first we
rejected because of the uncertainty and the
(81.)
O 4 litigation
112
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
litigation which it would entail. The second we
rejected as involving an investigation of a mag-
nitude entirely disproportionate to the value of
any possible result. The third we have adopted
as being, on the whole, fair to both parties,
though admittedly open to the objection that an
average which is probably high in one place may
be low in another.” The only quarrel I find
with that is that I should have said, “which is
certainly high in one case,” because it is not an
average unless it is below the cost in some cases
and above in others. Then the rest of that
paragraph goes on to explain the steps that the
Board of Trade took in consequence of our
figures, the railway companies’ figures being
challenged, appointing the expert (Sir Douglas
Galton, that is) to examine and report to them.
Then they say: “After careful consideration
of the report of the gentleman selected, as well
as the evidence adduced at the inquiry, we are
of opinion that the figures which we have inserted
in the schedule as the maximum charge for
station terminals are on the whole fair.” I do
not dwell upon that, because we are not upon
quantum now. We are only on the principle,
and I may put entirely aside the question
whether the Board of Trade have put the right
figures in the schedules.
But now, your Grace, observe this. I think
we may put aside, because nobody suggests, the
middle alternative, of collating the amount for
every individual station, either for the Board of
Trade to do that or for your Grace. There
remain two courses: to authorise the companies
to fix a reasonable amount, and to give the trader
a right of appeal to a tribunal (the Railway
Commissioners, or whoever you like); or to
obtain the convenience of the trader, knowing
what he has to pay, by fixing a fair average
price. One of the two the Board of Trade have
selected as the most convenient, the second.
But what these gentlemen are proposing is
neither. Your Grace observes that my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne says, very naively,
that an average charge does justice in some cases,
and injustice in others. He means by justice
that in some cases he pays less than he ought.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I mean enough.
Mr. Bidder.] Forgive me, it is an average
figure, which in the case of some stations is less
than the trader ought to pay, and in the case of
other stations it is more; it will not be an
average otherwise. Then in the cases where it
is less than he ought to pay, the railway companies
are getting an injustice, and what he means by
injustice is that he is paying less than he ought;
in other cases he is paying more than he ought.
Nor will your Grace forget that a trader is not a
trader at one station only; he must be a trader
at two stations, because, if he sends goods from a
place, they must go to some other place ; and he
probably sends to a great many other stations.
Therefore every trader who has any trade worth
speaking of, gets the benefit of the average.
But my objection is a far more crucial one
than that. When you appeal to the inequity of
having no remedy, I say, on behalf of the rail-
way companies, if you want to have the right of
challenging the reasonableness of a charge, we
do not object in the least, provided it is open
both ways. But a heads I win tails you lose
arbitration, which says, I will fix the average
and take the benefit of it when it is against
you ; I will pay the average where I ought to
pay more, but whenever it is on your side and
against me, then I will have an arbitration down-
wards ; is not just at all.
Earl of Camperdown.] This proviso tells in
both ways.
Mr. Bidder.] Which one 2
Earl of Camperdown.] The amendment which
is before us.
Mr. Bidder.] Which amendment does your
Lordship refer to ? *
Chairman.] We have three before us.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordship observes the
proviso first brought up, it is, “Provided that the
actual sum chargeable in respect of such con-
signment shall be such reasonable sum within
the maximum.” But the maximum is the average;
the maximum is the figure which the Board of
Trade fixes as the fair average to them, and says,
you shall never pay more than the fair average.
But by this proviso we are to have the right of
an arbitration downwards, but never of an arbi-
tration upwards. I say now, on behalf of the
railway companies, that so far as we are con-
cermed, we are quite willing to embrace the
proposal in the first alternative of the Board of
Trade; we are quite content if you want arbi-
tration, to say that we shall charge in every case
a reasonable charge, leaving it to the Railway
Commissioners or some other tribunal to settle ;
we are quite content with the principle that the
Board of Trade have adopted, which is an obvious
advantage and convenience. But this tertium
quid is so unreasonable that I cannot imagine
your Grace would entertain it for a moment.
Lord Belper (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
I want to ask you whether, in fixing what is
called in the Bill the maximum for terminal
charges, you consider that you are fixing an
average of what is the proper terminal charge;
because it seems to me that if you are fixing an
average, although you choose to call it a maxi-
mum, it will be a maximum which will be in-
variably used, and never lower in any case. If,
on the other hand, it is meant to be a higher
charge than is ever made, you naturally suppose
in many cases you ought to be charged less than
that. Therefore you are not really using the
right expression, are you, if the maximum is the
charge which is to be invariably used as the
terminal P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Undoubtedly the
charge is, the average maximum, not the average
charge ; but the question of the noble Lord goes
very near to the point of quantum, and it is not
easy for us here, in a casual discussion, to justify
all the reasons why we have put in a quantum
of terminal, or a quantum of the rate, the two
must be taken together and compared, not only
with one consideration dealt with in the Act and
in the Report, but with all the considerations
that go to fixing all the present actual charging.
Therefore, if the Committee allow me, I would
prefer not to say anything about quantum at the
present time. But undoubtedly our duty was to
fix
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
113
16 April 1891.
fix a maximum, and we considered what we
fixed an average maximum. -
Earl of Belmore.] But when you were consider-
ing the average maximum for the whole of the
United Kingdom, did you take into account that
the great English stations cost a great deal more
than the stations in Ireland did P’
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Certainly ; but of
course the answer (I do not wish to argue upon
it) is that in the large stations which cost most
the average volume of traffic is so large that it
does not follow at all that the most costly station
would be the one that would yield the highest
average terminal. - - -
Mr. Bidder.] As a matter of fact, If I might
add to what my Lord. Balfour has said, I believe
the figures showed that the highest tonnage cost
of terminal was often in the smallest stations.
Earl of Camperdown || But might I ask a
question on that average maximum ? I am
bound to say it confuses me. What does it
mean?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Perhaps it is a
somewhat incautious word, and I would prefer to
take the exact term, which was carefully con-
sidered in the Report, in the third alternative,
“a uniform maximum based on a fair average.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Then did you, in fixing
that maximum, arrive at the conclusion that
there might be cases in which, although the
maximum rate was charged, yet the railway
company might be insufficiently remunerated.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Clearly.
Lord Houghton.] It would not cover the most
expensive cases. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, it would
not.
Mr. Hanbury.] Then there would be some
stations, you admit, I suppose, at which under
the average maximum the railway company
might be getting possibly too little, and others at
which they might be getting too much 3
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Clearly.
Mr. Hambury.] If you strike a balance, would
not it come to this : that it would be no advan-
tage to a trader at a station where he is being
charged too much, to learn that another trader at
another was paying too little P -
Lord Balſour of Burleigh.] That argument
was freely and fully put before us at the West-
minster Town Hall; and it touches again, as I
said, on the question of quantum. When you
come to quantum you must bear in mind that
there are other considerations than the cost of
the station; that the maximum which we have
put in for terminals and conveyance rate taken
together was also to be considered in relation to
a good many other considerations, on which no
doubt there will be a certain amount of argument
when we come to deal with the question of
quantum both of terminals and conveyance
fate. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just say one
word 2
Mr. Bidder.] If I am not entitled to reply, my
learned friend is not. -
(81.)
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not going to reply
to my Lord Balfour, but to my learned friend.
Chairman.] No ; we have had three alterna-
tives already. . .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I thought there was a
reply upon my learned friend. -
Chairman.] Are all three going to reply 2
Mr. Woodfall.] I should like, your Grace, to
make two or three observations only in reply.
One is, that my learned friend Mr. Bidder has
not answered the question of the noble Lord,
whether the trader should not be obliged, if he
was required by the railway companies, to pay the
maximum ? It has been well settled that the
railway companies can legally impose their maxi-
IIllll]]. - -
Mr. Bidder.] If you ask me, I can answer it.
Mr. Hoodfall.] Now, my learned friend Mr.
Bidder is replying on me again.
Mr. Bidder.] If you wish me to answer it.
Mr. Woodfall.] I do not wish you to answer it.
... Chairman.] I think it is only fair to Mr. Bidder,
if you put that to him, to answer it if he
Cºlll . - -
Mr. Woodfall.] If your Grace pleases.
Mr. Bidder.] I am quite content to treat this
question (if there be any doubt) upon the as-
sumption that the railway companies are entitled
to charge that which is fixed as the maximum.
Mr. Woodfall, Then we are agreed. It has
been well settled that the railway companies can
impose their maximum, and there is no redress to
the trader in that respect; in every case they
must pay it. As to the other question which has
been raised, that in some cases the trader is pay-
ing less than he ought. Well, your Grace, the
railway companies, in giving evidence before the
Board of Trade, got the average fixed no doubt
in such a manner that it is probable they will not
suffer in that respect. -
Mr. Bidder.] That is a question of quantum.
Mr. W.Qodfall.] Then, your Grace, I am re-
minded of this, that the railway companies in one
case showed that their terminal was 6 d. per ton;
the cost was 6d. per ton.
Chairman.] What are you quoting from now
Mr. Woodful/.] I am quoting from some of th
evidence that was given by the railway companies
before the Board of Trade.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not see how that is a reply
upon me.
Chairman.] No, we cannot go into that.
The Committee retire to conselt, and after
Some time resume. -
Chairman.] The Committee are prepared to add
the proviso in the forin which they have amended,
leaving out the last words, and the proviso will
run, “Provided that, the actual sum chargeable
as station terminal in respect of each consign-
ment shall be such reasonable sum within the
maximum as shall in case of dispute be deter-
mined by appointed by the Board of Trade or by
the Railway and Canal Commission.”
Fºr Balſour ºf Burleigh.] May I ask (without
of
114 .
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOR E THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
of course making any comment) who is to settle
whether the arbitrator is to be appointed by the
Board of Trade, or whether the Railway Com-
missioners are to do that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Apparently, if we went
to the Board of Trade, they would appoint the
Railway Commission.
Earl of Belmore.] Not necessarily.
Mr. Balfour Browne, They might.
Chairman (to Mr. Woodfall).] We have added
that proviso at your instance; how do you pro-
pose to deal with that point 2
Mr. Woodfall.] I should suggest, your Grace
to leave the Ralway and Cannal Commission to
be the arbitrator; let the words run so that the
Railway and Canal Commission shall be the
aabitrator. -
Chairman.] Oh no.
Mr. Bidder.] Does my learned friend suggests
that in every case you are to go to the Railway
Commissioners ?
Earl of Belmore.]
intended.
Mr. Bidder.] That would be a very fine
future for us at the bar.
Chairman.] Then we will leave out the Rail-
way Commission altogether, and stop it at the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Woodfall.] Of course under the Act the
Board of Trade can appoint the Railway Com-
mission and probably would. -
Chairman.] Then this is how it will end : “ by
an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade,”
and we strike out all the words to the end of the
clause.
Mr. Freeman.] Might I be allowed one word
your grace, in one sentence to correct an error
which, if it remains upon the notes, might be a
serious matter for the Brighton Company, whom
I represent 2 Mr. Balfour Browne stated, by
way of illustration, that the Brighton Company
had put in a schedule showing certain high
maximum charges or rather figures. I wish to
correct the statement, and to say that no such
schedule was ever put in by the company.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace, I am
obliged to my learned friend for giving me the
opportunity. I find the schedule was put in by
the Brighton traders; and I find (I was only
speaking from instructions) that the note is the
amounts stated to be theactual terminal charges.
That is not what we
Chaºrman.] If it is only the Brighton traders
it is not the Brighton Company.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your Grace's
pardon, it was admitted to be correct by Mr. R.
S. Wright (now Mr. Justice Wright), who was
then acting for the Brighton Company.
Mr. Freeman.] That is not so, my learned
friend is misinstructed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect I
am absolutely correct.
Chairman.] We will not dispute over that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will you take the
amendment of the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference P
Chairman.] Which is that?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is a proviso on
the bottom of page 5 I forgot, of the South Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Coal Association ; I must
deal with that ; and that, I think, finishes the
amendments. At page 5 of the railway matters,
I do not think your Grace need look it up, and
I will tell you why, it is a proposal that has been
made by the Lancashire and Cheshire Coal
Association to preserve certain rates which were
agreed upon between the London and North
Western Company and ourselves, and were em-
bodied in an Act of Parliament. Negotiations
I say are going on ; I believe they will abso-
lutely result in an agreement between ourselves.
Mr. Pope.] They have so resulted.
Mr. Balfour 13rowne.] I am not quite certain.
Mr. Pope.] I have seen the agreement, and
seen it signed. -
Earl of Camperdown.] This will not be the
place to put it in, these are general conditions.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] I merely wanted to
postpone that. -
Chairman.] Then with regard to Clause 3,
are there any other amendments upon it ; no
other. t
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now your Grace, I do
not know whether you will hear what we have
to say for the Lancashire and Cheshire Confer-
ence. It deals with both Clause 2 and Clause 3.
We have put in our amendments, and, perhaps,
this is the best time to deal with them before we
pass from this clause.
Chairman.] This is upon your Bill, in fact.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We do not call it our
Bill now ; we are now proposing amendments.
Chairman.] But it will be, according to your
statement, another Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not now, I assure your
Grace, I have made it now in the form of amend-
ments, and you can adopt every one of our
amendments, and put them into the Bill sub-
mitted by the Board of Trade.
Chairman.] Yes; but after having struck out.
all in the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not, your
Grace.
Chairman.] You told us so yesterday.
Mir. Balfour !3rowne.] A good deal will have
to be struck out ; but I think you will find it is
now in a modified form.
Chairman.] Then we will hear what you have
to say ; but you told us yesterday that accepting
your amendments was striking out the whole of
the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are printed sepa-
rately. They were not collated by the railway
companies, of course, because they had not got
them yesterday morning. They are on a separate
sheet.
Earl of Camperdown.] I have not got them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am very sorry, my
Lord, but the papers have got so fearfully
In Ul IQ6]"OllS. -
Will your Grace, before I address you, just
allow me to call two witnesses upon the matter,
and then I will tell you, so far as is necessary,
why I desire these amendments.
Earl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BII, LS.
115
16 April 1891.
Earl of Belmore..] Are those all your amend-
ments 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Those are all my
amendments up to Clause 6 ; we promised to put
them all in. In the meantime I will only deal
with Clauses 2 and 3, to make up leeway. If
your Grace will allow me to call three witnesses
it will shorten the matter to call them first, and
to hear me afterwards. es
Chairman.] Very well.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend
Mr. Yates will call Sir John Harwood.
SIR JOHN HARWOOD, is called in; and, having been sworn, is Examined.
Mr. Yates.
203. YoU have been a member of the Man-
chester City Council for a great many years ?—
I have, for 25 years next November. -
204. And you have been mayor three times 2–
Yes, I have.
205. Have you been chairman since 1885 of
the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference of
Railway Rates ?—I have.
206. Was that a conference formcd for the
purpose of protecting the manufacturing and
trading industries of Lancashire and Cheshire?—
It was formed at a public meeting held in the
Town Hall in 1885 for that purpose.
207. JDo you represent the Lancashire County
Council 2–The Lancashire County Council are
members of the association ; but they are repre-
sented here in addition. The Honourable Alger-
non Egerton is representing them here to-day.
Mr. Alderman Forrest has been here up to this day,
and I suppose the Honourable Algernon Egerton
will continue for some days, in the same way that
many other corporations are represented.
208. You represent 13 county boroughs——
Chairman.] How do you mean represent them 2
Mr. Yates
209. They are members of the conference
of which Sir John Harwood is chairman (to the
Witness), that is so, is it not 2–Yes.
Chairman.] How does he represent the county
council P
Mr. Yates. They are members of the con-
ference too, and attend the meetings.
Chairman.] But is that an act of the county
council 7
Witness.] It is by resolution ; and in the same
way with the other corporations and the local
boards also.
Mr. Yates.
210. You represent 13 county boroughs, I
think, 17 municipal boroughs, six local boards
and chambers of commerce, 26 trades and other
representatives of 36 trades 2–-Yes. As I have
it here, I think there are 32 municipal corpora-
tions, eight local boards, seven chambers of
commerce, and 26 large trade associations. In
addition to that we have about a million co-
operators. The co-operators of Lancashire have
been at the meetings, and have been at the local
board, and have generally attended; and they
have representatives here to-day. They number,
as was stated by their chairman at the local
board several times, upwards of a million.
211. They are members of the large co-
operative societies that exist in all the large
manufacturing towns 2–The wholesale societies,
and they are affiliated with retail societies also.
Mr. Yates—continued.
212. And you represent, I think, a population
of three millions 2—I should say, at the least.
I had better, perhaps, explain. The corporation
have held public meetings, and small traders
who could not afford to come to London, and
could not afford to spare the time and expense,
have asked the corporation and these public
meetings to take their case in hand, by resolu-
tion ; and that has been done. -
213. Are the railway rates and charges which
are now being discussed by this Committee
matters of vital importance to the interests you
represent?—They are, or we should not be giving
all our time. We have no renumeration any of
us, in any shape or form ; and we give our time,
and have done ever since 1885; and if we did
not think them of vital importance to the pros-
perity of the city and district, we should not be
here to-day.
214. Are many of the large trades affected
very considerably by the amounts that are
charged for rates under the name of either con-
veyance rates or terminal charges, or other
charges of the railway companies?—In Oldham,
the largest spinning concerns in the world have
put their case into our hands; they subscribed to
the funds. The Manchester. Chamber of Com-
merce represents probably the largest trading
industries in the United Kingdom.
215. Does your conference consider, or are
they of opinion that it is imperative that the
maximum rates for conveyance and for service
and other terminals should be separately defined?
—Unless they are so separately defined our
contention is, that the small traders would have
to pay; I know instances myself, and have known
of numbers of instances; a small trader when
there is a maſter of 4 l. or 5 l. or 6 l. at stake,
cannot afford to come to London, and ask
the Board of Trade to appoint an arbitrator, it
would cost him more money, so he pays. And
our contention is that a trader ought to know
what he has got to pay to send a ton of mer-
chandise from A. to B., just as a passenger knows
what he has got to pay if he goes from A. to B.
himself, or if he wants to send one of his servants;
and that ought to be in his office; it is so
in other countries; and ought to be so in this
country. -
216. And if the railway companies do not
perform for him certain of the duties and services
they hold themselves out as capable of perform-
ing, is it the opinion of the conference that the
trader should not be called upon to pay for those
services 2–Our contention is that Government
ought so to protect us.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether the learned
counsels examination of Sir John Harwood is
(81.) -
P 2 directed
116
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.]
Mr. Yates—continued.
directed to the amendment before us. This
amendment before us is a splitting up of the
maximum rate imto certain divisions, it has
nothing to do with the question whether a ter-
minal should be charged or not ; that will come
by-and-bye. -
Earl of Camperdown.] But the splitting up is
part of the Bill.
Witness.] We attach a great deal of import-
ance, your Grace ; to the splitting up of those
charges, and what we say to you is,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think it is
necessary to go further. I only wanted Sir John
Harwood to shew, what I think is a matter for
this Committee, that in appearing here for the
Sir J. HARWOOD.
[Continued.
—-º
Mr. Yates—continued.
conference I am representing practically all the
trade of Lancashire; Sir John Harwood had
shown that, and that the trade of Lancashire,
has been watched over by his conference.
Chairman.] Thatis enough.
Mr. Pope..] If that is all my learned friend
has to ask I have not a word to ask upon
that. - * - * .
Chairman.] Then Sir John may retire.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now, Mr. Marshall
Stevens. I am going to prove this now.
Mr. Pope.] It is just what I said. It is
repeal the Board of Trade Bill, and pass Mr.
Marshall Stevens’ Bill; that is about it.
MR. MARSHALL STEVENS, is called in; and, having been sworn, is Examined.
- Mr. Balfour Browne.
Mr. Dickson (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] WILL
you just state the exact amendment you are
upon
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Have you not got it,
Sir F
Mr. Dickson.] I have it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
217. It is the first amendment on Clause 2,
page 3, line 12: omit, the words, “provided that
such maximum rate shall be divided as follows,”
into maximum tolls, maximum haulage rates, and
maximum truck rates; it splits up conveyance
into threes. That is shortly what I am going to
call Mr. Marshall Stevens to show the reason
for. (To the Witness.) You are an executive
officer of the Manchester Ship Canal Company ?
—Yes.
218. And you are not appearing here in any
way in connection with the canal?—No.
219. You have been long familiar with the
course of trade in this country, and have been a
trader yourself?—Yes, that is so.
220. And you have been employed by the
Tancashire and Cheshire Conference to assist
them in the matter of railway rates ?–Yes.
221. I will just take you direct to this matter.
First of all, I find in the Board of Trade Report
that one of their recommendations is, with regard
to the trader, that “they will also be able to
know exactly not only what the actual rate is,
but also what the maximum charge is, and of
what component parts it is made up”?–Yes,
that is from the Board of Trade Report, or rather
the Report to the Board of Trade.
222. Just let me ask upon this amendment
which we have now before the Committee : you
propose to carry out that recommendation, and to
split up conveyance into its component parts 2–
Yes.
223. Is there anything at the present time in
the Order, as submitted to the Board of Trade,
which enables the trader to see what the com-
ponent parts of conveyance are 2–Not that I am
ware of. - -
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
224. Do you propose to split it up into maxi-
mum tolls first of all ?—Yes. -
225, That is a payment for the use of the
railway ?—Yes, I think I do not know of a single
Railway Act of Parliament that does not include
charges for tolls. • g
226. Why do you think it necessary to have a
statement in the Order limiting the tolls of the
company ?—When we were before the Board of
Trade, the railway companies intimated that if
the revision were such a revision that they could
not accept, they would fall back from the position
of carriers they now occupied, and would depend
upon their tolls. * .
227. And those tolls are unlimited except by
the old Acts of Parliament that are being re-
pealed by this Order?—That is so, excepting
that tolls form part of the conveyance rate.
228–9. Under these circumstances, do you
think that a trader ought to see what he is being
charged for the use of the railway ?—Yes. And
there is more than that. This revision is not
only a revision as between the traders and the
railway companies, it is also a revision that will
have to guide, and as I understand it, the only
revision that will have to guide the railway
companies as amongst themselves.
230. Are there a great number of railway
companies that use the railways of other com-
panies 2–Yes, I was going to say almost without
exception.
231. Under these circumstances they supply
probably their own haulage ; but they have to
pay something for the use of the road 2–Yes,
that is so. There are a great many instances.
For instance the Great Western Railway Com-
pany run into Manchester, they run over the
London and North Western Railway, and use
the terminal station of the London and North
Western Railway Company at Manchester.
Chairman.] Do you appear for the railway
companies 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, your Grace, not at
all ; I am appearing for the traders; and it will
be most important to them ; but it will be a
. . . makeweight
oN RAILwAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
117
16 April 1891.],
Mr. STEvens.
[ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Brown—continued.
makeweight surely if we can show that it will
be for the advantage of the railway companies
to O.
|Witness.] Then another very important in-
stance is that almost without exception, Our
corporations have their own railways.
232. Large sidings in connection with gas
works, waterworks, and other public works –
Yes. Again, the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, for instance, at Liverpool, have 60 miles
of railway on their estate, over which the
waggons of the railway companies now run to
SOme CXtent.
Chairman.] Do they petition in any form 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.
233. Yes, they are petitioning; my learned
friend Mr. Carver appears for the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board. (To the witness.) May I
ask, supposing a railway company runs over,
hauls trucks or waggons over a private siding of
the Corporation of Manchester, there is rothing
in this schedule fixing the price 2–Absolutely
nothing.
234. If you split up conveyance into the three
component parts, then we could see what they
charge for haulage?—Quite so ; and just in the
same way you get the charge for truck rates
without the necessity for all these sub-sections
that are being introduced into the Bill.
235. And you think that it would be cler ly
for the advantage of the traders, as the Board of
Trade said, to split up first the conveyance into
maximum tolls, maximum haulage rates, and
maximum truck rates?—Yes; and doing so
defines the whole question, and also defines the
question of station terminals and of service
terminals. -
236. How is that ?—Because then the tolls, as
we have it in our amendment, provide for the
charges for the use of the line of railway,
together with the cost of maintenance and
signalling ; and no points, such as have been
raised in the amendment just now, as to level
crossings and signalling, could come up at all as
questions of station terminals.
237. That is to say, the maximum tolls would
contain all that 7–Yes. ..
238. You define it to do that ?–Yes.
239, And the maximum haulage rates includes
what?—The charge for the use of locomotive
power and brake vans and their equipment, and
for marshalling and shunting. The railway com-
panies attempted at the Board of Trade inquiry
(and I do not know that they have withdrawn
from it yet) to put marshalling and shunting into
the station terminal, and so greatly to complicate
the very question that the Committee have just
been deciding. -
Chairman.] I think we have had it told us that
that belonged to the conveyance rate.
Mr. Pope.] Mr. Stevens is correct in saying
that before the Board of Trade we sought to
include in our station terminal, matters which the
Board of Trade have excluded; but we are now
acquiescing in the decision of the Board of
Trade, and do not seek to revive that question
again.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] I think
you had better confine it as much as possible to
what we are now dealing with, not to what was
proposed to the Board of Trade, and has been
decided; it confuses the Committee.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
240. Quite so, your Grace. What was raised
by the railway companies raises questions which
we try to meet by our amendments. (To the Wit-
mess). What have you to say with regard to the
necessity for truck rates, that is charges for the
provision of trucks or waggons for the carriage
of merchandise ?—Just in the same way, if a
separate column is shown for maximum truck-
rates, you get rid of the whole of the questions
that have been at present raised as to the amount
that should be returned by the railway com-
panies where a trader provides his own truck.
And you have had mentioned sundry articles
which the railway companies do not care to carry
in their trucks; but nothing has been said as to
the articles that the traders want to provide their
own trucks for. For instance, china clay.
You have that in the very return.
You have a return put in for their. Lordships on
the application of the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference, and ordered by the Board of Trade
(it was put in on the first day) of the actual
rates charged for certain typical articles; and if
you refer to that you will find that a very large
portion of the china clay trade is now carried in
owners' waggons. The owners of that traffic
want to know, not what they are to be charged
for waggons first of all, because they do not
want them ; but what they want to know is,
what the toll is on the railway, and what the
cost of haulage is upon the railway. :
241. If they could see that, then they would
know of what their rate was made up ; toll on
the railway and haulage 2–Yes.
242. Leaving out the charge that appeared in
your schedule, if it were adopted for the trucks 2
—-Yes. I only mention china clay incidentally ;
but you will find that in the whole of the traffic
throughout many of the classes.
243, With regard to stone and pit wood 2–
Yes. As you know, nearly the whole of the
stone from the different quarries is carried in the
owners waggons to a very large extent. Pit
wood is carried by colliery owners in their own
waggons returning from the port; chemicals again,
and so on.
244. Can there be any harm done to the rail-
way companies if the rate is cut up into three,
showing the amount of each as one-third 2–I
think not.
245. And it would be a great benefit I under-
stand you to say to the traders to know the com-
ponent parts of which the rate is made up 2–Yes,
it avoids nearly all the whole of the complica-
tions raised by charging one rate as conveyance
rate, and then leaving it to the Board of Trade
or the Railway Commissioners to decide ques-
tions which really it is not necessary should be
brought before them.
246. We have had, besides lime and salt, lias,
and other matters allowed as exceptions; all ex-
(81.)
P 3 ceptions
1 18
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN REFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
Mr. STEVENS.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
ceptions would be unnecessary if this scheme
were adopted 2–That exception might be neces-
sary in this way. I go with the railway com-
panies that should not be compelled to provide
trucks for the articles that were named. I do
not say that the railway companies should be
compelled to provide trucks for the articles they
want to exclude.
247. Certainly not; however, you said that could
be dealt with as a separate class?—But I do not
want to raise that now. I might say this, that
if any other article arises, like tarred chippings,
which has arisen within the last twelve months,
absolutely under the schedule of the Board of
Trade, and by the amendment that has been
made, there would be no classification to put it
into, and no place to put it.
248. I do not know whether you have suffi-
ciently explained all that you want to say upon
that first amendment 2—I would like to say this,
speaking generally, the provision would only
apply where the company owning the railway do
not provide the trucks, provision B. Surely
traders running over should be at liberty to
provide them if they desired to do so; that is the
trucks.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour
Browne).] Might I ask whether your amend-
ment is not really to omit from the word “pro-
vided ‘’ down to the end of the clause 7
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend proposes to
drop sub-section A. and to keep sub-section B.
Earl of Camperdown.] I thought these three
divisions were in substitution for A. and B.
Mr. Pope.] In substitution for B.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then the amendment
is not rightly printed ?
Mr. Pope.] Yes. If your Lordship will look
at the next proposition, he proposes to omit sub-
section B. ; that leaves A. standing, of course.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
249. I think it is wrongly printed. (To the
Witness.) Did you intend it to be substituted for
A. and B. P-To be substituted before A., but
A. to remain. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It comes in, taking out
the word “provided " before A. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Then B. remains with
no “provided ‘’ in front of it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] A. remains with the
amendment in front of it.
B. is struck out.
Witness.] B. becomes absolutely unnecessary
Earl of Camperdown.] And A. remains with
the amendment in front of it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
250. That will come in the next amendment,
Clause 2, page 3, omit sub-section B. (To the
Witness.) Is there anything else you desire to
say upon that part, as I understand it; to sum up
your evidence upon that part, it is in conformity
with the Board of Trade's recommendations?—
Yes. And I would like to say this, that nnder
the Act itself, th Act of 1888 provides that
panies.
Mr. Balfour Brown—continued.
revised tolls are to be sold by the railway com-
panies. There has never been a word about the
revision of them at all. It is Section, 33 I think.
251. Section 33 says “Printed copies of the
classification of merchandise traffic, and schedule
of maximum tolls, rates and charges of every
railway company authorised, as provided by this
Act” (that is Section 24) “shall be kept for sale
by the railway company at such places, and at
such reasonable price as the Board of Trade may
by any general or special order prescribe.” Is
there any provision in the schedule as submitted
by the Board of Trade for a revised schedule of
maximum tolls 7–None whatever, notwithstand-
ing the fact that they say “they will also be able
to know * (that is the traders) “exactly not only
what the actual rate is, but also what maximum
charge is, and of what component parts it is made
up.”
252. If the railway company said: “These
rates will not do for us ; we will be the owners
of the road simply, and work the signals, and the
traders must run, and we will charge the tolls,”
then for those tolls there would be no revision
whatever ?—None whatever.
253. And you want to guard against that ?—
Yes. There are a great many other instances
that I might give. Take the Cheshire lines for
instance, a line owned by three railway com-
If we attack one railway company for
running traffic over it they will stop running it.
254. The other two being carried ?—Yes, and
so on. A great many points arise on that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now the next thing
you have is the proposal on Clause 3, page 3, line
24, after the words “for the ” insert “actual.”
Mr. Pope.] Let us dispose of this first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will stop my ex-
amination there, your Grace, if that is the more
convenient course to follow ; or if the Committee
wish, I will go on to examine Mr. Marshall
Stevens as to the other clause ; but I think it
would be more convenient to stop there, and
discuss this amendment before I go on to the
next amendment, because it is on another clause.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
255. This proposed amendment to Clause 2
constitutes, in fact, the first clause of your pro-
posed substituted Bill, does it not ?—Yes.
256. And of course, if the Committee were to
acquiesce in your suggestion, it would involve
an entire revision of the subsequent parts of the
Bill, which are framed upon totally different
lines, would it not ?—Absolutely not on this
point, -
257. Would it not require an entire revision
of the rates and charges, in order to bring them
into conformity with your principle of subdivi-
sion ?–Not at all; because, assuming if you
wish me to go to the rate column——
258. I simply want an answer to my question ?
—I can only answer it upon the rate column.
Assuming the Board of Trade rate of convey
£1,1] C6.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
119.
16 April 1891.]
Mr. STEVENS.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
ance is accepted as the rate which should be in .
the Act, it is only necessary to divide that rate
into three component parts, either by percentage
or some other way. t
259. It would involve the division of every
maximum rate into the three component parts
you desire it to be divided into ?—The rate for.
each class. •
260. Who is to do that ?–-Those people who
have to consider the maximum columns when
we reach them. r .* .
261. It must go back to the Board of Trade
or be taken into the hands of this Committee ?—
Just as the rates will have to be considered by
this Committee. We take the actual rates as the
basis.
262. We will come to that by-and-bye. The
whole of your evidence, all this about the division
of the rate and everything else, was advocated
by you, was it not, before the inquiry by the
Board of Trade 2–Yes.
263. At great length 2–No, not at very great
length. -
264. That, no doubt, may be a matter of
estimation; at all events at some length 2–
Yes. we & -
265. And the Board of Trade decided, did they
not, that the Act of 1888 gave them no power to
deal with tolls in the ordinary sense 2–Not on
my evidence ; they decided that months before
they heard my evidence. * .
266. But they have heard your evidence since?
—Yes. • .
267. Really and truly you differ from the
decision of the Board of Trade, and think they
ought to have revised the tolls as well as the
rates ?—I do. I think that the toll is a rate. I
think it is one of the maximum rates and charges
provided for by Section 24 of the Act.
268. You quite agree they did so decide 2–
They did so decide, and I think about the first
day we met at the inquiry. -
269. Shortly after, no doubt. You urged that
it was in consequence of what the companies
said, that they might be driven by your sugges-
tion to cease to be carriers and to become toll
takers ?—That is one reason.
270. You said then it was necessary the tolls
should be revised ?–Yes, -
271. “Maximum tolls,” that is, the charge
for the use of the line of railway, together with the
cost of maintenance, and so on, is what is ordi-
narily meant by a toll, is it not; the charge for
the use of the railway by someone else ?—Not
necessarily by somebody else.
272. Surely 7 – It may be by a company run-
ning over somebody else’s railway.
273. It would be the portion of the rate al-
located to that ; but you propose that we are to
say what our maximum toll is; and you say your-
self that a company exercising running powers is to
pay within the maximum toll for the use of the
railway ?–Yes; it is no other than an ordinary
highway toll.
274. That is assuming the railway is to be used
as a highway by others than the owners of it 2–
Yes; or if it is used by the company itself and
they do not provide the haulage over it, then, by
having the toll separated from the haulage, you
Mr. Pope—continued.
ascertained how much of the conveyance rate
shall be charged for the haulage.
275. You propose to have three maxima instead
of one 2–Really there would be four maxima ;
because the three go to make up the conveyance
rate ; and we accept the clause as it has been
revised which deals with that one. -
276. I do not understand that you accept any-
thing that has been revised ?–Yes, indeed we do.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
277. It is not an amendment to the clause ; it
is an addition ?—Yes; there is an addition to
Clause 2 (I have not got it here), passed by the
Committee providing what conveyance should
consist of. I have not got the words before me.
378. I think it amounts to everything entitied
“conveyance ’’ “nothereinafter provided for "?—
It is after that we propose this amendment.
Mr. Pope.
279. I am correct, am I not, in saying you would
propose that the rate should be split up into
four divisions, each division having a separate
maximum of its own 2–A separate colurun.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne,
280. As I understand, that is because peopl
may have the advantage of any one of thes
things without using the other two 2–Yes.
281. They may use the road like other railway
companies?—Yes. .
282. They may have haulage, providing the
trucks themselves 2–Yes.
283. Or they may require the company to
provide the trucks?—That is so ; and unless you
fix the toll, you cannot get at the other two ; that
is to say, you cannot get the haulage rate or the
truck rate fixed. *
284. My learned friend is right in saying
that this point was raised, I think, upon the first
day of the inquiry that was held at Westminster
Town Hall; but the section at all events remains,
whatever the Board of Trade decided ?–Yes.
285. And the words of the section are,
“ Schedule of maximum tolls, rates, and charges
of every railway company authorised as provided
by this Act 2–Yes.
286. I see by another sub-section of that same
Clause 33, Sub-section 6, it is provided “Where
a railway company intend to make any increase
in the tolls, rates, or charges published in the
books required to be kept by the company for
public inspection under Section 14 of the Regu-
tation of Railways Act, 1873, or this Act, they
shall give by publication, in such manner as the
Board of Trade may prescribe, at least fourteen
days' notice of such intended increase, stating in
such notice the date on which the altered rate or
charge is to take effect; and no such increase in
the published tolls, rates, or charges of the rail-
way company shall bave effect unless and until
the fourteen days’ notice required under this sec-
has been given "?–Yes.
Mr. Baſfour Browne.] Perhaps, your Grace,
I may just say one word and then leave my
learned friend to answer me. The whole object
of this inquiry by the Board of Trade in the
first instance was, as far as possible, to let a
(81.) -
P 4 trader
120
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint committee
16 April 1891.
trader see what he was being charged, and what
for. Now you have heard from this witness a
description of the three component parts of
which “conveyance” is made up. -
Chairman.] Are there not four parts?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There are component
parts, and the fourth is the inclusion of them.
“Conveyance” is made up of the use of the road,
haulage, and trucks ; and, as you hear, lots of
traders provide their own trucks. Surely they
are entitled to see at the first glance what the
charge for trucks is, and to find out their rate on
the other two. Suppose a trader sends his
trucks along the railway, that is to say, he uses
the railway, and have the benefit of the com-
pany’s locomotives, he can, if this separation is
made at once, see what he is being charged.
But if on the other hand you put merely
“ conveyance,” you wrap up the three things in
one. Moreover, in order to cut out one of the
things, you have had to put in already an excep-
tion with regard to trucks. You have not,
however, put in anything with regard to locomo-
tive power. But supposing that the locomotive
power is supplied by the trader, what happens?
There is no question that the railways were
originally designed to be run over by private
persons, and the only difficulty in the way of
private persons running over railways is that the
Court of Chancery has decided in the Powell-
Duffryn case that they cannot compel a railway
company to work the signals ; not because they
cannot order it, but because they cannot see that
their order is carried out. But, my Lords, now,
since the Act of 1854, the Railway Commis-
sioners have had power to fine a company if an
order is not carried out, and the maximum fine
is put at 250 l. a day. Therefore that will see
that the signals are being worked, and, therefore,
I take it, under the Railway Clauses Act, a
trader has a right, if he chooses (although I do
not say that it would be to his benefit to do so),
to say, “I will run my own locomotive and
trucks over the line.” But if he does so, what
is he to pay ? The companies say, “Oh, there is
a conveyance rate ; ” but I say that the con-
veyance rate, by the decision of Parliament, in-
cludes locomotives; and the question at once
arises, If I do the duty, and supply my own
locomotive, how much of the rate does that re-
present P And there you have at once a fruitful
source of litigation. But, my Lords, if you
adopt this amendment, the trader can see at
once what is the rate for the locomotive and
what he has to pay merely for the use of the
road.
Earl of Belmore.] I remember that question
being argued before the Railway Commission
some years ago, where the evidence was that the
real reason, while the technical reason may be
as the learned counsel has put it, was that they
had no means of watering the locomotives,
because the water belonged to the company.
That, at least, was what was stated. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am quite aware of
that, my Lord ; but, under the Acts of 1854 and
1873, the railway companies are now bound to
give all facilities for the passage of traffic along
their line; and, although it has never been
argued, I think anybody would be prepared to
argue that they were not doing that unless they
supplied water for the locomotives, if the Act of
Parliament did contemplate the passage of such
locomotives along their line.
Earl of Belmore.] That was not the evidence
given to the Railway Commissioners.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Lordship will
remember that the Powell-Duffryn case is since
that time, and in that case the Court of Chancery
distinctly decided the right of a private person,
in that case the Powell-Duffryn Company, to
run along the line; but they said, We cannot
remedy it, because we cannot issue what is
called a continuing injunction, because they could
not see that their order was carried out. But
what I say is, that since the Railway and Canal
Traffic Act was passed, the Railway Com-
Commissioners have the power to say, “We will
see that our orders are carried out.” They make
orders every day which really amount to a con-
tinuing injunction ; they can enforce them by
fine, if necessary. In one case, for instance, they
said a railway was to be opened to the public
between the Chatham and Dover and the South
Eastern at Rochester. The railway companies
refused, but the Commissioners said, We will
fine one of you 60 l. and the other 10 l. That
was upset on appeal, I think, on prohibition, it
being held that not this order, but the first order
which they had made, to make the two com-
panies agree, was beyond their jurisdiction. All
that, however, is cured by the Act of 1888, and
therefore now the Railway Commissioners could
compel a railway company to let a trader use his
own locomotive on their line. But what is he to
pay ? Then there is the Act of Parliament. I
am quite aware that the Board of Trade decided
the point against me, but I submit that the
Board of Trade may make a mistake, as anyone
may make a mistake. The Board of Trade did
not take the view that the word “tolls” really
meant tolls there. I venture to think that it does.
If the Board of Trade had been right, surely the
section would have sad merely “rates and charges,
But Section 33 says distinctly “schedule of tolls,
rates, and charges”: and in this Order “tolls”
are not mentioned. I have quoted the section
from memory, but I will refer to it if necessary.
Section 33 says that “ Printed copies of the
classification of merchandise traffic, and schedule
of maximum tolls, rates, and charges of every
railway company authorised, as provided by this
Act.” That is the maximum schedule cf. tolls
which you are settling here, and tolls are not
mentioned in this Order. I say that that is an
anomaly. I say that the Act of Parliament cer-
tainly contemplated that being done by the
Board of Trade; and, if it contemplated that
being done by the Board of Trade, and it has
not been done, my only remedy is to come to this
Committee, and ask this Committee to do it for
me. I therefore ask your Lordships to put in
these three things. I say there can be no harm
to the railway companies in putting them in.
Supposing they ask one shilling for the three
things, if you split it up into three, they
will still get the same total amount. It
will be quite easy for an expert to tell you
what
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
121
4. —-mº
16 April 1891.
what the cost of these things would be. I have
no doubt there are many experts in this room
who could divide up the rate into the three com-
ponent parts. I could not do it myself, but I
have no doubt they could. That comes, of course,
to a question of quantum, and as your Lordships
know, we have been distinctly barred up to the
present time from arguing any question of
quantum. We are now simply settling the terms
upon which the railway companies shall have
these powers; and I suggest that this should be
split up so as to show, as the Board of Trade
thought they were doing, and as they thought
should be done, the component parts of the charge
for conveyance.
Mr. Pope.] Of course, if the Committee are
disposed to act as a court of legal appeal, then I
should have to argue that the decision of the
Board of Trade, with the aid of the advice of the
law officers of the Crown, is probably a better
legal opinion than that of Mr. Marshall Stevens,
the manager of the Ship Canal. But the truth of
the matter is that the question was raised whether
the Commission of the Board of Trade, before
whom we were appearing, had any power under
the Act of 1888 to deal with the question of tolls
at all. Of course, it is familiar enough to your
Grace and the other members of the Committee
that most Acts of Parliament contain two sets
of provisions, one regulating the tolls for the user
of the railway, founded on the old supposition
that a railway was a common highway to be used
by a number of carriers, which were fixed and
dealt with long before the question of railway
carriage passed, as it has now, into the hands of
the railway companies themselves; and then there
are a second class of provisions, which are called
rates provisions, and although my learned friend
has read Section 33, which provides that the com-
panies shall maintain at their stations copies of
certain tolls, and so on. Section 24, under which
the Commission proceeded, contains no mention of
tolls at all; it does not mention tolls. The
question to be agreed between the railway com-
panies and the Board of Trade, and failing
agreement, to be settled by the Board of Trade
and brought before the Committee in the form of
a Provisional Order, has no reference to the word
“tolls,” and it is never used in the section at all.
It is the rates and charges which are to be settled,
namely, the second-class of provisions which I
have referred to, in all the Acts of Parliament
which relate not to the user of the line by a
third party but to the charges made by the rail-
way companies as carriers on their own line, and
covering the whole charges which they have to
make as carriers of goods. That was the decision
of the Board of Trade.
Now, just look what inconvenience would follow
if your Lordships were to listen to Mr. Marshall
Stevens’ criticism. If we adopt his suggestion,
just consider what we should have to do when we
come to the maximum rate clauses, instead of
proceeding upon the scheme of the Board of
Trade of fixing maximum rates according to the
various classes. Of course it may be open to
discussion as to whether the Board of Trade are
right in including one article or another in a class,
of in fixing a certain maximum for the convey-
ance of that class ; that is a different matter. But
what I am saying is that instead of proceeding
upon the scheme in the Provisional Order either
the Committee must undertake this duty them-
selves or the whole thing must be remitted back
to the Board of Trade in order that they may
undertake the duty of splitting up every one of
these maximum rates into four divisions, and
instead of one column in the rate column giving
the maximum rate for a class, you would have
four columns dividing every one of these rates
into the particular maximum affecting each of
these four particular items.
Now the question is whether the Board of
Trade have not exercised at all events so dis-
creet a discretion that this Committee will not
undertake the duty of overruling the entire
scheme upon which they proceeded; because
if they do, either the Committee or the Board
of Trade will have to lay out a new scheme, and
make the schedule of rates of course just four
times as long as it is now. Supposing you were
dividing the rate for conveyance of a particular
class of commodity into these different items,
just exactly as in many cases the question of
the average relation to the rate must have
entered into the mind of the Board of Trade in
fixing the maximum, every particular article
must vary in its relation to the particular rate
in respect of every one of those sub-divisions;
and while it may be perfectly reasonable to lump
a number of commodities together in a class and
say the maximum rate shall be a certain rate,
when you say you are to distinguish in respect
of each article how much of that rate is for toll,
how much for haulage, and how much for truck
rate, it of course depends upon the article ; it
may vary; it may be one thing with regard to
one article and another thing with regard to
another. It may be fair enough to average it,
but to split up each rate is almost impracticable
and impossible. All that was urged before the
Board of Trade, and they have exercised their
discretion about it. -
Now I call your Grace's attention to this,
that although Mr. Marshall Stevens is the
mouthpiece, I was going to say the dominant
spirit, of the Lancashire and Cheshire Confer-
ence, there is no independent trader who comes
and says, I want this thing ; nobody says it will
be any good to him ; nobody comes and says, I
want to use the railway and therefore I want to
know how much I am to pay.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think my
learned friend ought to say that. I have called
Mr. Marshall Stevens as the mouthpiece, but if
it is necessary I can bring dozens of people. I
have a great number of witnesses.
Mr. Pope.] I daresay you have ; and then
your L, ºrdships will find, as you found yesterday,
that dozens of other traders who are not repre-
sented by the Lancashire and Cheshire Confer-
ence would require to be heard who would tell
the Committee as they were told yesterday. We
in the south prefer the Board of Trade scheme,
to the scheme of the Lancashire Conference. It
really comes to this : Will your Lordships pro-
ceed up in the lines which the Board of Trade
have carefully worked out, or will you follow the
suggestion of the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
(81.) -
Q ference,
122
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEIE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
ference, and strike out the whole provisions of
the Bills before you and frame another scheme
altogether.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not going to reply
to my learned friend, but I merely want to read
a section from the Act of 1873, which shows that
a railway eompany may be bound to split up its
conveyance rate into all these things at the
instance of any trader, and I do not suppose that
that provision would have been introduced into
the Bill unless it had been of some use.
Section 14 of the Act of 1873 : “ The Commis-
sioners may from time to time, on the application
of any person interested, make orders with re-
spect to any particular description of traffic,
requiring a railway company or canal company
to distinguish in such book how much of each
rate is for the conveyance of the traffic on the
railway or canal, including therein tolls for the
use of the railway or canal, for the use of carri-
ages or vessels, or for locomotive power.” That
is the same three things that we are dealing with
here.
Mr. Pope.] It says, “including therein,” not
“ distinguishing.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg my learned
friend's pardon, it is to distinguish them. Would
you let me finish the sentence, “andho w much
is for other expenses, specifying the nature and
detail of such other expenses.”
Chairman.] How often has that been put into
operation ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know how
many times, but several times. There have been
about ten or twelve applications I should think
under that section to the Railway Commissioners
since 1873.
Mr. Pope.] Such an order as my learned friend
is asking has never been made by the Railway
Commissioners. There are abundant applications
as to distinguishing between conveyance and ter-
minals. But the words of the section are plain :
the Order is to distinguish between “conveyance”
and “other expenses, ’’ but in “ conveyance”
they are not to “distinguish” but to “include "
locomotive expenses, and tolls for the use of the
road ; and compliance with the Order has uni-
versally been to distinguish so much for convey-
ance and so much for the other expenses which
we have christened by the name of terminals.
Mr. Hunter.] That is quite so.
many cases of that kind.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There have been dozens
of cases, and I happen to have in my hand one
Act of Parliament in which the distinction is
made. It says the company may determine in
the toll for the use of the railway so much, and
then allow for trucks so much, distinguishing
them in that way; and that, as I say, is what we
are to be deprived of now. And then again
below, engines and locomotives are dealt with in
another clause of the same Act.
The Committee consult together.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert No. 1, namely, the charges for the use
There are
of the line of railway, together with the cost of
maintenance and signalling. They have decided
not to introduce the next, No. 2, namely, “The
This is
charges for the use of locomotive power and
brake vans and equipment, and for marshalling
and shunting.” They reserve their decision upon
No. 3 until they see how it is proposed to deal
with the question at the end of §. B. of
Clause 2.
Mr. Pope.] That is the question as to the
arbitration rebate 2
Chairman.] We reserve our decision upon
that point.
Mr. Pope.] Do I understand that the Com-
mittee decline to remove Sub-section B., which
has also been suggested by Mr. Marshall
Stevens P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I understand is
reserved, as it depends upon the same question.
Chairman.] We were told the other day that
arbitration by the Board of Trade was unfair to
the traders. We have since heard a somewhat
different idea promulgated. However, upon that
occasion certain words were promised to be
brought up, and if they satisfied us possibly we
should have to go back to arbitration. You pro-
mised Mr. Balfour Browne might accept them,
but if not, we bring up a clause as a substitute.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Chairman.] Before we go on perhaps you
would let us have it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am afraid it is not
quite ready, your Grace.
Earl of Camperdown.] It was promised us two
days ago.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I know it was, my Lord,
and you may perhaps wonder how much there is
to be done each day after this Committee rises.
I will bring it up to-morrow morning, if your
Lordship will allow me.
Chairman.] Are you still of opinion that that
would be very advisable.
Mr. Balfour Browne. I believe, my Lord,
that you would find that it was more expedient
to set out the truck-rate as we propose now.
Chairman.] I want to hear what you propose
to do upon Clause 2, Sub-section B, as to
arbitration.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I believe a clause is
drafted, but I have not read it myself yet. I
think it would be more expedient that I should
first read it, and then bring it up at a later stage.
It is drafted, and I have no doubt it is accurate,
because my junior is exceedingly accurate, but I
have not seen it myself.
Mr. Pope.] To-day they have got arbitration
without regard to station terminals.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is an entirely
different point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I hope your Grace will
give me just a little latitude in that respect. I
have not read the clause yet, and if you will
allow me to look at it before to-morrow morning
I will bring it up then.
Mr. Pope.] I hope you will let us have a copy
of it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Earl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
123
16 April 1891.
*** * * * * *
Earl of Camperdown.] Learned counsel on
both sides said they would consider it together
outside this room, because they might possibly
agree outside, and we might not be troubled
again upon the matter. That was what
happened.
Mr. Pope.] I daresay that was said, but we
have not seen the clause yet.
|Earl of Camperdown.] That was said on your
side as well as on the other. Very likely you
were not in the room ; but if you did not say it,
Mr. Pember did.
Mr. Pope.] Very likely, my Lord. It would
be a very reasonable thing to say, whoever said
it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Would your Grace
allow me to intervene for a moment. As I said
yesterday, the Board of Trade are most anxious
not to intervene when they are not called upon ;
but your Grace will admit, I hope, that per-
sonally I have had some small experience of
Private Bill Legislation. May I be allowed to
point out that there is an essential difference
between the procedure in which this Committee
is engaged and the ordinary procedure on a
Private Bill. In this case there are an extra-
ordinary number of opponents who are not
represented by any association or conference,
however large, and what suits one opponent may
not suit another; and therefore the ordinary pro-
cedure of getting the promoters and the oppo-
ments to consult together is, if I may venture to
say so, with the utmost respect to the Committe,
not quite so applicable in this case as it is in
others. All through our inquiry we had to con-
tend with the same difficulty, that while we could
get the railway companies’ mind, through their
association, which so admirably represents the
railway companies, we have not been able, and
nobody else has been able, to put the case of the
traders into the hands of one body of represen-
tatives.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] What is
the next amendment you propose to take
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose to
press the next amendment, which was to insert
the word “actual * before the word “use.” I
think “ use ’’ means actual use, and therefore I
will pass from that. Then the next amendment
is in Clause 3, the terminal clause, and I pro-
pose to put a few questions to Mr. Marshall
Stevens.
Chairman.] I think you had better let us hear
your speech first, and then you may examine Mr.
Stevens afterwards.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If your Grace pleases.
In paragraph 3 we propose to omit from the
word “provided " to the end of the section. It
reads in this way: “the maximum station ter-
minal is the maximum charge which the com-
pany may make to a trader for the use of the
accommodation,” and then go on with our clause
“ at a station at which merchandise is loaded or
unloaded at the request of the trader.” The
effect of that is to take out from the clause the
duties undertaken at that station. Those are
words which practically are in our sense objec-
tionable ; because our idea is that the station
propose a
received.
terminal ought to cover the providing of the
place, that the service terminal when you deal
with it deals with all the duties that are under-
taken by the company at the place, and therefore
we propose this, and, of course, we also
very serious modification, that
where they undertake the load-
ing or unloading at the request of the
trader. You will see in the section dealing with
service terminals there is a provision whereby a
trader may be allowed to load or unload the
goods himself after having given a written noti-
fication of his desire to do so to the railway
company ; but this turns it round the other way,
and says that it shall only be a terminal station
at which the merchandise is loaded or unloaded
at the request of the trader. A great deal of
traffic in this country is entirely loaded and un-
loaded by the trader himself. Take, for instance,
animals, I believe they are scarcely ever touched
by the railway companies. And, in the case of
all agricultural material like hay, straw, and
those things, the railway company sometimes
intervenes to assist, but very seldom ; most of it
is loaded and unloaded by the trader himself.
Under these circumstances we think that those
words, “services undertaken,” should be taken
out of the section, and that the section should
read as I propose. That I think is all I need
say in opening the case, and I will now ask Mr.
Marshall Stevens just one question upon that.
it is only
Chairman.] What evidence do you want to
call P. It is a matter for argument, is it not P
Mr. Balfour Browne.} Your Grace will find
it is really a question of proof.
Mr. Pope.] What more is it capable of than
that, if you had your way, you would reduce the
station terminals P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will tell your Grace
what we desire to show. A great deal of the
money that the railway companies have expended
in providing station accommodation, and other
accommodation, has been provided, not for the
benefit of the traders at all, but in ruinous com-
petition between the railway companies them-
selves. For instance, the Midland Railway
Company at Liverpool had a station which was
a long way out of the town. In order to com-
pete effectively with other railway companies
who had stations in the town, they cart and have
receiving houses in the town where traffic is
They unload it there and load it on
to their own carts, and take it from the receiving
house down to the station, I do not know how
many miles away, and it is loaded again, all for
exactly the same rates that the other companies
are charging. That we say is an altogether un-
fair thing to put upon the traders. If you are
to fix a maximum station terminal it should be
for the service of providing the station, which is
a benefit to the traders. It is no benefit to the
traders to have all this done by the same rate,
and it is a clear expense to the railway com-
panies. . The rates between Liverpool and any
place where the traffic is carried must necessarily
be higher in consequence of all this extra service;
but the two companies having agreed rates to
cover this enormous traffic, from the receiving
houses down to the Brunswick station, all that
(81.)
Q 2 COIIl CS
124
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
comes out of the trader's pocket. We want to
eliminate that, if we can, by altering the defini-
tion of station terminals; and I would like to
prove one or two facts which are within Mr.
Marshall Stevens's knowledge, and not within
Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS,
Mr. Balfour Browne.
287. LET me ask you, is a large proportion of
the terminal cost, which was proved before the
Board of Trade by the railway companies,
incurred for warehousing and other matters, pro-
vided at the docks 2–Yes, in the case of some of
the stations for which particulars were put in,
notably the Liverpool stations. The amount of
warehousing (by which I mean not shedding at
all, but absolute warehousing) provided by the
railway companies amounted to more than half
the whole cost.
Earl of Camperdown.] Which the schedule
does not entitle them to charge for 2–We read
it so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They can charge for
warehouses altogether outside the schedule; but
what we complain of is that these warehouses
were put in to show the cost of the station.
Mr. Pope.] That is as regards the average
amount of the terminal.
Mr. Balfour Browne (to the Witness).
288. Is it a fact that an amount of 67,000 l.
was put in as showing the cost of terminal
accommodation in Liverpool? — That is the
amount for warehouses at one station.
289. Was that put in as showing the cost
of station accommodation in Liverpool 2–Ab-
solutely. g
290. You have the schedule to show that if
necessary 2–Yes. The railway companies abso-
lutely claim to charge in respect of that as part
of the station terminal, though the traders may
not use it, and the whole of the outward traffic
from Liverpool does not use it at all.
291. Why do you in this particular clause
propose to leave out the words “services under-
taken º’ ”—Because the leading condition of the
whole of the amendments—
Chairman.] What warehouses are you talking
of P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The warehouses at the
central station in Liverpool.
Chairman.] How would they come within the
purview of this Bill if those warehouses are out-
side the station. -
Witness. They are in the station.
Earl of Camperdown.] They do not come
within the definition of “terminal accommoda-
tion * contained in the schedule.
Mr. Balfour B, owne. They ought to have
been struck out of the schedule.
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend may question
the inclusion of any of those warehouses in the
average cost of the station when he comes to
my own, as regardc all the expenses undertaken .
by the railway companies to enable them to
continue their competition instead of being ex-
pended to facilitate the traders’ trade. The
evidence will be very short I think, your Grace.
is re-called ; and further Examined.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued. .
discuss the average amount of the terminals to
be allocated to each class. -
Earl of Camperdown.] It clearly does not
come within the scope of this clause. -
Witness.] If I may say so, the railway com-
panies contend— -
Chairman.] Never mind that.
Mr. Pope.] You may leave me to contend
that myself. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Why do you object to
the words “ services undertaken " ? -
Witness.] Because it is the contention of the
railway companies. *
Mr. Pope.] I should think I am the best ex-
ponent of that.
Witness.] Because it is the contention of the
railway companies that these duties of ware- .
housing are included in the station terminal, and
the clause as it is proposed would put upon a
trader, as we think, charges for duties that he
does not require and has no intention of taking
advantage of. The leading condition of the
whole of the proposals of the amendment before
your Lordships is that no charges are to be made .
except in return for accommodation provided or
services rendered at the request of the trader;
that is the thing we want to define.
. Mr. Balfour Browne.
292. To make this perfectly clear, no other
provision is made in the schedule for ware-
housing 7–No, none, I think.
293. Is the warehousing duty undertaken very
often at terminal stations 2–Yes, in the whole of
the returns put in by the railway companies you
will find that continually occurring.
Mr. Pope..] Mr. Marshall Stevens knows per-
fectly well that there is a distinction made in the
charge ; it may be wrong, of course, and he is
entitled to say so by-and-bye; but he knows
there was a distinction made between the ware-
houses, which were provided at a terminal
station for the purpose of enabling them to per-
form their duty as carriers, and warehouses
which were provided for the purpose of ware-
housing the traffic. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That may be so; but
no warehouse charge is provided by this sche-
dule. *
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend is wrong
there. If you look at the 4th sub-division of
the 5th clause you will see the words, “The use
or occupation of any accommodation, before or
after conveyance, beyond such period as shall
be
- ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
125
* 16 April 1891.]
Mr. STEVENS.
[Continued.
be reasonably necessary for enabling the com-
pany to deal with merchandise as carriers.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is a detention of
trucks; that is demurrage. -
Chairman.] “Or their use or occupation.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.
294. That is a demurrage charge, not ware-
housing. “The detention of trucks, or the use
or occupation of any accommodation before or
after conveyance, beyond such period as shall be
reasonably necessary.” It is in the nature of
demurrage clearly. (To the Witness) Only one
more question. Do you think it is reasonable
that you should have that proviso at a station at
which merchandise is loaded and unloaded at the
request of a trader?—Yes.
295. Why do you say that ?-- Because the con-
ference have never objected from the first to
station terminals being charged or service ter-
minals either, so long as those accommodations
were used at the request of the trader, and unless
you so define it, it seems to the conference that
the station terminals will be paid by the traders
when they do not use them.
, 296. For instance, all that which I mentioned,
which I believe is the fact, that the providing of
these collecting houses and cartage done at the
Brunswick Dock, is not at the request of the
trader, but done as by the railway companies
themselves 2–Quite so; I can show by a small
diagram the component parts of the various
services, not as given by us, but as given by Mr.
Findlay, the General Manager of the London
and North Western Company, in the year 1881,
before the Railway Commission. -
297. He told you the amount he was charging
for conveyance, for station terminal and for ser-
vice terminal, and for other matters?—Yes.
298. And you have shown them in colours? –
Yes (exhibiting a diagram). I may explain the
column upon the left is the total conveyance
rate collected and delivered then charged be-
tween Manchester and Liverpool at 9 s. 2 d. per
ton; out of that Mr. Findlay stated that service
terminals at Liverpool cost .1 s. 7# d.; that the
station terminal at Liverpool cost 7% d. a ton;
the service terminal at Manchester 1 s. 8; d. ;
the station terminal at Manchester 7% d, and the
cartage in Manchester 2 s. 6 d. a ton, leaving
only 1 s. 10 d. per ton for the conveyance be-
tween Manchester and Liverpool. Now that
rate of 9 s. 2d. has come down to 6 s. 10 d.
Chairman.
299. This is all a question of rates ?—The
station terminals are separately shown.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
300. I thought that diagram showed the sta-
tion terminals 2–Yes it does. *
Chairman.] But it goes into the whole ques-
tion of the rates. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
301. But I understand since that evidence
was given the company have so reduced the
total amount charged that there will be nothing
charged for conveyance at all now, so that it
would be all in terminals?—Yes; absolutely.
Chairman.] That is all a question of rates.
Mr. Pope.] It may be much to the disadvantage
of the trader, but I do not know.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is not a question of
the principle of the charge for terminals, but of
the amount.
Mr. Balfour Browne] I think that is so, my
Lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
302. I think you have forgotten your amend-
ment. I should like to know if anything is to be
said on behalf of that. Let us read it: “To
amend Clause 3, from the word ‘provided ' to
the end of the clause, and to insert, instead of the
words “duties undertaken for which no other
provision is made in this schedule by the com-
pany at the terminal station for or in dealing
with the merchandise as carriers thereof before
or after conveyance,’ leave all that out and in-
sert “at a station at which merchandise is loaded
or unloaded at the request of the trader’”?—Yes,
that is it.
303. That is, no station terminal at all, unless
the trader requests the use of the terminal sta-
tion.—Absolutely.
304. Supposing it is necessary for the convey-
ance of his goods that they should run into a
terminal station, is nothing to be charged for the
use of it 2–I cannot imagine such a thing pos-
sible.
305. Cannot you ? Supposing a trader chooses
to say, I do not want to use your station ?—Then
you would not let him use it.
306. What would become of his goods; where
are they to go?—If the trader brings the goods
to your station, of course then you would be able
to charge for the loading.
307. But it is not whether he brings them
there ; suppose they are brought there, notwith-
standing he says they are not to go there 7–Then
I submit he should not be charged.
308. Exactly 2 – And that is really what is
taking place.
309. What you mean is, to raise the question
whether a trader is to go into our station and to
do the work for himself; that is what you mean
by this amendment, is it not ?–No ; because we
deal with it separately afterwards. If you will
let me follow out the instance you have given,
there is a great deal of traffic passing from the
Liverpool Docks simply to the Liverpool station.
Mr. Findlay absolutely claimed before the Board
of Trade that that should be charged
310. Excuse me, I do not care what Mr.
Findlay claimed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But it is possible that it
might be charged.
Mr. Pope.
311. How can it be charged if it is to be for
duties to be undertaken at the terminal station.
I want you to bring your legal mind to bear upon
it. Take the section in your hand and tell me
(81.)
Q 3 what
126
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.]
Mr. Pope—continued.
what is meant by the phrase, “undertaken at the
terminal station.” Does that mean that it is
through a terminal station, or at a terminal
station ?—I believe that it is loosely drawn ; here
charges would be made for duties other than
those for duties undertaken at the station.
312. Where is the looseness of the drafting 2
Will you kindly tell me what significance you
attach to the words “duties undertaken at a
terminal station”?—Because the railway company
undertake duties which the traders do not require.
313. You are running away from the point.
You gave an illustration just now of traffic
carried through a station, and you are afraid that
terminals would be charged. I want to know
what significance you attach to the words
“duties undertaken at a terminal station **—I
take it that those would be the duties.
Chairman.
314. What would be duties?—Simply passing
through the station.
Mr. Pope.] Then I will not ask you another
question.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
315. Supposing your amendment were inserted
and a trader were sending goods or receiving
goods, and he said to the railway company “I do
not want you to unload them ; they must be un-
loaded in the station I know, but I am prepared
to come and unload them myself if you will let
me, therefore I am not going to request you to
unload them ’’; the effect of your amendment
would be that he would pay nothing; would that
not be so 2–The effect of that would be that it
might be so.
Chairman.] Is there any doubt about it 2
Mr. Bidder.] Would that not be so if a trader
said, “I am quite prepared to come in and un-
load the van myself in the goods shed.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think my learned
friend is mixing up the station terminal with the
service terminal; this is for the accommodation
provided.
Chairman.] No, because your amendment
says: “At the end of the clause insert, “at a
station at which merchandise is loaded or un-
loaded at the request of the trader’.” If the
trader says, “I do not want you to touch my
goods while they are in the station,” might he
unload the goods and say to the railway company
“I have not asked you to do anything, therefore
I must decline to pay,” that would be the effect
of those words.
Mr. Bidder.
316. Is not that so P−If that is the effect of
them it is not intended to be so.
Chairman.
317. Is it or is it not the effect of these words?
—I think it might be.
Mr. Bidder.] Therefore it involves the very
question the Board of Trade refer to in their
report as to the right of a trader to come to any
station and do his own work.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was not intended to
do that, because we propose to deal with that
separately upon another section.
Chairman.] If that be so, then according to
Mr. STEVENS.
[Continued.
Chairman —continued.
your own showing, and out of the mouth of your
own witness, these word sought not to be added.
Mr. Balfour Browne." Iam afraid that is so, but
I have still another question to ask the witness.
Chairman.] No, we have disposed of that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The main contention
was that the words “duties undertaken º’ should
be struck out.
Chairman.] We must go regularly. . It is not
what we choose ; we are dealing with this
amendment; this amendment is to strike out
from the word “provided,” in line 25, to the end
of the clause, and to insert certain words. Then
your witness tells us that if these words are
inserted, under certain circumstances the trader
would pay nothing. That being the result, I
think the Committee are of opinion that those
words should not be there inserted.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I entirely agree, your
Grace ; that is quite right; but still we desire
to get rid of the words “undertaken,” and so on.
Chairman.] Now we must go to the next
amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I want, with
your Grace's permission, to bring up another
amendment.
Chairman.] That is another point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Is one to be precluded
from bringing up other amendments because one
has been rejected P
Chairman.] You must not shoot with too many
barrels to your gun; you must deal with the
amendments which are before us. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you keep me to that
I am, strictly speaking, gone; but it is always, I
submit, held competent to a petitioner to propose
another amendment. The evil we had to guard
against was dealing with those words “not other-
wise provided.” Mr. Marshall Stevens gave you
the concrete case of traffic carried through a
station, but not dealt with in it.
Chairman.] The amendmdnt has been fully
argued; we have not checked you in any way.
Mr. Miarshall Stevens has given you his views,
and at the end he says his view is that the result
of this amendment might be to put the trader in
the position of not having to pay anything. We
do not think that is a position in which the trader
ought to be put, and therefore we decline to put
in these words.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We can guard against
that at some other time.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think that there are any
other amendments to Clause 3, and we can, no
doubt, start fresh on Clause 4.
Chairman, There is nothing more on Clause 3.
The question is, that Clause 3, as amended,
stand part of the Bill.
The same is agreed to.
Chairman.] We postpone Clause 2, because
Mr. Balfour Browne is going to bring up a
clause. Now Clause 4.
Mr. Pope.] The railway companies have given
notice of a small verbal amendment; but we do
not propose to move it.
Mr. Shaw.] The first amendment upon
Clause 4
on RAILway RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 127
16 April 1891.
| Continued,
Clause 4, I think, your Grace, is by the South
Wales and Monmouthshire coal owners. It is
the same amendment as I submitted. I beg
now to withdraw it. I wished to get it put in
the station terminal clause, and your Grace did
not see fit to put it in ; therefore, I do not press it
in this case,
Mr. Woodfall.] I must ask leave to withdraw
our amendment on behalf of the Marquis of
Bute,
Chairman.] What is the next amendment?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The railway companies
have withdrawn theirs. The next amendmeut I
find upon the list is that of Messrs. J. and J.
Colman. Upon looking over that I find it is
covered in all respects, except the last clause, by
the Mansion House amendment.
Chairman.] There is the amendment of the
Mansion House United Association; what is
that ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not seen the
amendment at all. * .
Mr. Pope.] The Mansion House United As-
sociation amendment refers to the proviso, which
I fancy is printed on page 8, and therefore will
come in more conveniently on page 8. It seeks
to raise the whole question of entering into a
station by a trader to do the work for himself.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In yesterday's collation
Messrs. Colman were first; to day the Mansion
House Association is first.
I leave Messrs. Colman's over because the
Mansion House Association amendment, except
in one unimportant particular covers the whole
ground that Messrs. Colman's amendment takes
up; therefore I will deal with the Mansion House
amendment. If you have before you to-day’s
amendments, on page 8 (or on page 7 of yester-
day’s amendments) you will find not only what the
Mansion House Association propose, but what
the Board of Trade suggested, both printed
together the Board of Trade suggestions being
printed in ordinary type and the proposals of the
Mansion House in italics; and, as my learned
friend says, this raises the whole question of the
right of the trader to go upon the station of a
company and do the services for himself. That
is, as you see, to a certain extent conceded by
the Board of Trade, but not as the traders think
in a sufficient way, and the proposal is as fol-
lows
Chairman.] You pass by Messrs. Colman's
amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, because it is
covered by the Mansion House amendment; the
Mansion House amendment is fuller than Messrs.
Colman's. It carries out the same thing, and if
one was inserted the other could not be.
Chairman.] Then am I to understand that
none of the amendments which stood in the name
of Messrs. J. and J. Colman are to be proposed;
that you abandon the whole of them.
Mr. Balfour Browne, I certainly abandon
Nos. 1 and 2, because they are covered ; the 3rd
I am afraid is not quite covered by the Mansion
House amendment.
Chairman.] I have here an amendment pro-
posed by Messrs. J. and J. Colman, No. 1.
Mr. Balfour, Browne.] That is withdrawn,
and No. 2 I withdraw, because it is covered by
the Mansion House amendment.
Chairman.] Then the third amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I do not withdraw.
“Provided further that the company shall not
charge service terminals in respect of services
rendered elsewhere than of a terminal station ”;
but as that comes as a proviso, you must hear the
Mansion House Clause first. Now, the Mansion
House clause reads as follows: “I first read the
clause; the proposals are on page 8 of the reprint
of to-day, and page 7 of those issued yesterday.
Mr. Poyser.] There is one amendment by the
Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Association,
No. 7; that is withdrawn; that question you have
already determined ; you have already decided it
is not properly drawn there ; it does not convey
the true meaning it was intended to convey,
Mr. Woodfall.] I think there is some mis-
apprehension about this. I withdrew the first
amendment to Clause 4 upon the paper,
but I should proceed with the second amend-
ment; it is the second amendment on page 7, and
it is an amendment to Clause 4 ; it is upon line 34.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But our amendment is
as to line 30 or 31, therefore I am first.
Chairman.] How do you come in 2
Mr. Balfour Browne..] On the first page you
will find “Mansion House United Association,
page 3, clause 4, line 30, after the word “may’
insert ‘subject to the proviso hereinafter con-
tained.’” My learned friend told you that owing
to a mistake that had been taken away from the
list, but the rest of it appears all on page 8.
Earl of Belmore.] That is a misprint; it should
be line 34.
Mr. IIambury.] Does it come in line 34 or
30 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] These words, “subject
to the proviso hereinafter contained,” would come
in on line 30 P
Chair man.] Look at the Bill and look at line
30 in the Bill; it is this: “The Company may
make to a trader for the following services.”
Earl of Camperdown.] It must be line 34.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The first word of line
30 is “Company,” and the second is “may.”
Then come the words “subject to the proviso
hereinafter contained.” We insert those words
there, and then the proviso itself is added after
the word “sheets,” on line 34 : I do not know
where it would come in under those circum-
stances, but the top part will be no use, and we
cannot discuss it without the proviso. I will
read the clause as we propose it should read :
“The maximum service terminals are the maxi-
mum charges which the company may (subject to
the proviso hereinafter contained) make to a trader
for the following services, that is to say, loading,
unloading, covering and uncovering merchandise,
which charges shall, in respect of each service,
be deemed to include all charges for the provision
by the company of labour, machinery, plant,
stores and sheets.” Now our proviso begins :
“Provided always, that any trader shall, at his
option, be entitled to perform the said services,
(81.)
Q 4 Ol'
128
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
16 April 1891.
or any one or more of them respectively, or any
part thereof, by himself, or his agents, and for
that purpose shall have access to the company's
stations, subject as hereinafter provided, and shall
receive a rebate equal to the amount authorised
by this schedule to be charged by the company
in respect of such service or services when the
whole of such service or services are performed
by the trader, and a reasonable proportion
of such amount when such service or services
are in part only performed by the trader.” That
is really the enacting part, the rest is protective,
I think, but I will read it. “The company may
make, and may, from time to time, revise bye-
laws regulating the access to stations generally,
and also (if they think fit) other bye-laws appli-
cable to particular stations when such access is
required by traders for any of the purpºses
aforesaid, but such bye-laws shall not take effect
until approved by the Board of Trade as reason-
able and necessary, having regard to the circum-
stance of each case; and subject to, or in the
absence of, such bye-laws, the company shall
afford to any trader, or his agents, every reason-
able convenience and facility in the premises;
and shall not, in the amount of charge made or
rebate allowed, or in the time or manner of per-
forming the services aforesaid, or any one or
more of them give any undue preference, priority,
or advantage to one trader over another, whether
such trader is acting for himself, or through his
agents, or through the company: The Board of
Trade shall, before sanctioning the said bye-laws
originally, or upon any subsequent revision
thereof, as hereinbefore provided, hear any per-
sons interested in respect of the same.” I do
not know that it is necessary to read this ; it is
all machinery; the really important part is
what I have read. Now the fact is that at
the present time an immense amount of terminal
service is performed by the trader himself.
At a great number of roadside stations the
railway companies have no men to do the load-
ing or unloading or the covering or uncovering;
that is not denied ; it is admitted that we should
be enabled to perform certain services ourselves.
But the railway company said before the Board
of Trade, and they will say it again here, there
are certain stations to which it is impossible to
admit traders. At some of the London stations
they say that it is so. I am not prepared to
argue that a great, amount of the work even in
London is done by the traders themselves. I am
not prepared to say that that is not true that at
certain stations of the companies the traders are
not allowed and cannot be allow ed at the present
time. But take the master builders, they satisfied
the Board of Trade, and will probably satisfy
your Lordships that the whole of the building
trade is performed at the London stations by the
builders themselves. Then with regard to the
cattle trade, it was established to the satisfaction of
the Board of Trade that the cattle are entirely
loaded and unloaded and handled at the station by
the traders. Under these circumstances what they
are seeking to do here is to put on a service ter-
minal, and the tendency of a railway company
if it can get a service terminal would be to
block the traders and refuse them permission
to go upon their station. They might say you
have no right to come upon our station; Parlia-
ment has not given you the right to come here
and we will stop you. Then they could charge
a service terminal. In order to get the right to
go upon a station we must have some provision,
but we do not want to exercise that unreasonably,
therefore we only propose that we should have
the right to go upon a station under certain bye-
laws. We do not propose that we should have
the right to go upon stations at unreasonable
hours, say at midnight, when the station is shut
up. Certain stations might be closed altogether to
traders, but that would not be by the railway
companies, it would be by the Board of Trade
after hearing the particular circumstance of the
case ; and I ask your Lordships, supposing that
we do the work (they may admit us to the
station and we do it), is it reasonable that they
should still charge us a service terminal 2 Cer-
tainly not ; if they charge it to others we ought
to have a rebate out of the rate. Supposing Sne
loads and unloads for himself and the other does
not, there is no provision in the Bill that the first
should have any rebateif he does the work. Under
these circumstances I ask your Lordships to say,
first, that under reasonable conditions we should
have access to the station. It is, I believe, if I read
the Order of the Board of Trade, a right conceded
to some extent in principle but with limitations.
The clause says, “Where merchandise conveyed
in a separate truck ’’-there begins a limitation at
once—" is loaded or unloaded elsewhere than in
a shed; there is another limitation : they might
load everything in the shed, and so bar our right.
“ or building of the company, the company may
not charge to a trader any service terminal for
the performance by the company of any of the
said terminal services if the trader has requested
the company to allow him to perform the service
for himself, and the company have unreasonabl
refused to allow him to do so.” That is the very
case. Surely that matter might be determined
once for all, so that I can go to a company and
say : You have refused to let me load that hay;
do not charge it me. The question whether thé
refusal was reasonable in a particular case then
arises, and that is to be determined by an arbi-
trator to be appointed by the Board of Trade :
but surely that is a roundabout way of getting
at the same thing. Could not the Board ºf
Trade first of all say, Between the hours of ten
and five, or any other hours, the traders shall
have access to the station; there is lots of room:
you have only one porter and a boy, as we have
proved in one particuiar station, and he has to
look after the passenger traffic as well as to look
after the goods : you have no facility for loading
yourselves, saying in effect, that when the traffic
is loaded by traders they shall have access to the
station at reasonable hours, and that when they
load their own traffic they shall have a rebaté.
Is not that better than merely putting the provi-
sion that if it has been unreasonably refused in
any case they may go to the Board of Trade 2
Then what is our remedy ? Only that upon that
particular consignment it is not to be charged :
that would lead to interminable litigation. ºf do
not think I have anything more to say.
Chairman.] I should like to ask Lord Balfour
of Burleigh upon this. (To Mr. Balfour Browne.)
First of all, do I understand you to say that iſ
cattle are loaded by the consignors?
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
129
16 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, practically every
beast that is put into a truck is loaded by the con-
signor. -
Chairman.] In all England, throughout the
country
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Yes; generally through-
out England; it is not the absolutely universal
practice, but I believe it is almost universal at
every station. I refer to the evidence of Mr.
Holden.
Mr. Pope.] I hear vehement denials behind me.
Chairman.] You mean cattle P -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Cattle and sheep. Mr.
Holden proved before the Board of Trade (I do
not know whether he is in the room now) with
regard to sheep, the dogs and men of the traders.
in almost every case loaded; sometimes, he said,
there was some assistance rendered by the porters.
Chairman.] I have no doubt the dogs do assist
in getting the sheep in ; but how about horses 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know anything
about horses.
Chairman.] I do.
|Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have no doubt your
Grace does. Before you leave the horses, I
should like to say that in every case I should
think the grooms assist in loading the horses :
but horses go by passenger trains too.
Chairman.] But it is not a question of the
class of train.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, it is, your Grace ;
you are making rates not for horses by pas-
senger trains in this schedule.
Chairman.] It is a service rendered to the
owner of the horse.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But before you ask
Lord Balfour of Burleigh upon this point, I want
to be allowed to add this: You will see the
principle is one with reference to a general rebate;
there is no such provision as we put in our
schedule for a reasonable proportion of such
amount, when such services are rendered only
in part ; that is a most important thing, because
if, for instance, a man does one such service,
surely he is entitled to have some portion of the
service terminal rebated in that case, but there is
no such provision in the schedule, that must have
been an oversight, I think ; you ought to make
that clear.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).] Will
you tell us what occurred to you and to Mr.
Boyle when you drew up this clause about
inserting all these things.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Mr. Courtenay
Boyle will reply to your Grace.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It is unquestionably
true that in many instances a trader does per-
form the services of loading and unloading, and
perhaps rather less frequently of covering and
uncovering, but the clause provides that the
charges are only to be made when the services
are rendered to or for a trader, and cannot be
made when they are not rendered by the com-
pany to or for a trader. Then comes the ques-
tion what right should a trader have to perform
-**
the services himself. That was a matter which
gave Lord Balfour of Burleigh and myself a very
grave amount of labour and a very serious
amount of consideration. It is not reasonable
that every trader should have access to the in-
ternal stations of the railway companies, nor is it
right that in every instance a trader should have
the power of doing his loading or unloading
without any control. It is impossible to provide
that a trader who wants to send a consignment
say of the article which you heard about the
day before yesterday, namely oreosote, should
come in and say: “It does not matter to me
that the next consignment is a consignment of
silk, I am going to put my creosote in that por-
tion of the waggon "; or in the case of a man
sending lucifer matches, that he should say, “It
does not matter to me that the next consignment
is a consignment of cotton ; I am going to put
my lucifer matches next to the cotton ’’; nor
that a trader should go into any station he
pleased and insist upon his goods being loaded
without regard to other traders equally anxious
to send a consignment of merchandise. We have
said in our Report “If every trader were allowed
access on his own behalf and were allowed of his
own free-will to load or unload his own merchandise
in trucks containing other merchandise, it would be
impossible for the companies to take reasonable
precautions for either safety or the convenience
of their customers ”; and then one of the in-
stances I have laid before the Committee is set
out. The learned counsel proposes an amend-
ment to deal with that difficulty by enacting that
the companies are to make bye-laws for the
stations. Now I will ask the Committee to re-
member that there are many thousands of sta-
tions, and that before those bye-laws could be
made every board of guardians, every burial
board, every school board, every highway board,
every county council, every association of traders
or freighters would have to be heard, not only
with reference to the facts of the stations, but
with reference to the conditions of the traffic and
every single consignment that might by any
conceivable circumstances be received or de-
livered at that station. I am not exaggerating
when I say it would take five or ten years to
make a comprehensive code of bye-laws as pro-
posed, such as would be satisfactory. The Board
of Trade carefully considered whether anything
of the sort could be done, and came to the con-
clusion that it would be impossible to give
more facilities to the traders in the direction
indicated than the facilities which are given
in the clause as it stands; that is to say, that
as regards all traffic which is not shed traffic
the trader may say: “I wish to perform the
duties of loading or unloading, covering, or un-
covering, myself. In the case of yard traffic, the
trader should be allowed to say: ‘I wish to load
this consignment of animals, or I wish to load
this consignment of iron, or, I wish to load or un-
load a consignment of coal,” or whatever it might
be ‘’; then the railway companies are bound to
allow him to do that, unless they have reason-
able for refusing, and the unreasonableness of the
grounds for refusing (which, we venture to think
would not frequently be put forward), would
R have
(81.)
130
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 April 1891.
have to be determined by the arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade. There is
nothing whatever to bar the companies from
allowing at their own discretion a trader to come
into their sheds to do the loading or unloading
for himself, there is nothing to insist that they
shall do so whether they like it or not. If the
trader does his loading or unloading there is no
power whatever to the company to charge, and
as regards the yard traffic he may insist on doing
it whether the company like it or not, subject to
an appeal to the arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade. With every desire to give
effect to the wishes of the traders, we do not see
our way to give effect to their wishes further
than that. &
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
13I.
Die Peneris, 17 Apriſis, 1891.
|PRESENT :
The DUKE, of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMoR.E. -
Earl of CAMPERDown.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HoughtTON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. Wod EHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My Lord, might I
mention this matter. On that amendment which
I proposed yesterday I want to call some evi-
dence. - -
Chairman.] Which one 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The one relating to the
access to a station, and the rebate if we do the
work of loading and unloading, and other
matters. -
clause. There is no question of evidence.
Mr. Balfour Browne | I had terminated what
I meant to say in opening; but I wanted to call
evidence to prove exactly what the traders do,
and how they regard the matter. There are
some restrictions in the Board of Trade clause
which they object to. I do not really think you
can understand it without evidence.
Chairman.] But we gave you a decision
Aupon it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; you were going to
hear my learned friend Mr. Pope.
Chairman.] Which clause are you speaking
of 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am speaking of the
Mansion House Clause printed on page 7.
Chairman.] I thought you were alluding to
the amendment in Clause 2 that you were to be
prepared with.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am prepared with
that; but I thought it better that I should take
up the other matter first, but before calling the
evidence, I have an application to make.
Chairman.] What is your application ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I appear, with my
learned friends Mr. Clifford and Mr. Darlington,
for the South Lancashire and Cheshire Coal As-
sociation, and also for certain traders trading at
Garston. I think that is the right description.
Since the matter has been before your Grace
negotiations have gone on between the London
and North Western Company, which is the com-
pany we are interested in; and the traders; and
Chairman.] But you undertook to bring up a
I may say that I am glad to be able to inform
you—— -
Chairman.] What we had before us yesterday
was the amendment of the Mansion House Asso-
ciation.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will come back to
that. I will tell your Grace why I refer to this
matter now. An agreement has been come to ;
but that agreement, although it is signed, re-
quires to be confirmed by Parliament; that is to
Say, an agreement about the rates which are to
be charged to the coalowners in that district by
the London and North Western Company. It
is preserving to some extent a clause in an Act of
Parliament, which was passed a good number of
years ago, which guaranteed certain rates
between a certain district in South Lancashire
and the Port of Garston. That is entirely satis-
factory to the traders, and I believe it is entirely
satisfactory to the London and North Western
Railway Company; but, your Grace, that I say
requires the confirmation of Parliament, and
what I thought was fair, both to the other oppo-
nents and to everybody, was to put in that agree-
ment now. But the difficulty of our position is
this: if that agreement is confirmed, we are per-
fectly satisfied; but if that agreement should not
be confirmed, then it seems to me that we would
be barred from proposing any amendment upon
the schedule. Therefore I do not know exactly
what I should do. We are passing over the
schedule. If Parliament confirms that agreement,
I am perfectly satisfied, and so is the company;
but if for instance Parliament should say, “This
is not such an agreement as we can confirm,” not
that I anticipate that for a moment, but I just
suggest there is a possibility, then I should be
practically deprived of my right of suggesting
amendments upon the schedule.
Chairman.] You are seeking now to introduce
an entirely different matter into the amendment,
which we had not decided upon ; you are appear-
ing now for the Mansion House Association, are
you not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If the Committee pre-
(81.)
R 2 w fer
132
MINUTES OF Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
fer to go to that, I will go to that at once ; but I
thought it convenient to mention, this at this
period of the day, it being entirely apart from
that amendment.
Earl of Camperdown.] What have we to do
with this agreement?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It will have to be con-
firmed by the Committee; therefore I thought
it fair that you should have it before you at
once, and therefore I propose to hand it in now ;
because supposing the Committee should say
“This is not such an agreement as we can con-
firm,” then I would submit that you must modify
the schedule to meet the views of a large number
of coal traders in South Lancashire, and there-
fore I propose merely to lay it before your Grace
and not to discuss it at all now.
Mr. Pope.] May I say for the London and
North Western Railway Company that I do
know such an agreement has been come to ; that
is all I do know. What may be its effect upon
my learned friend's future course, I cannot say ;
but it is entirely upon the same ground as other
matters which relate to particular classes of
traders. I cannot object to my learned friend
disclosing the points of the agreement; it is in
no sense a secret agreement. I daresáy it may
involve some modification of the maximum coal
rates, and that will come on when we come to
discuss the maximum coal rates.
Chairman.] I think we had better not deal with
that until we have got this other matter settled.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then if your Grace
will allow me to mention it again I will leave it.
I will call a witness to give you our view upon
our clause. I have closed what I intended to say.
but I wish to call cvidence. • ** • ,
MR. WALTER WHEELER BERRY, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is
Examined.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3.18. I believe you are a farmer, at Selling,
near Faversham P−Yes.
Chairman.
319. In Kent 2–Yes,
Mr. Balfour Browne.
320. And you represent the interests of the
Kentish hop growers and the Kentish farmers ?
—Yes.
321. You are a member of the executive com-
mittee of the Mansion House Association ?—
Yes.
322. Are you well acquainted with many
country stations both on the line of the London,
Chatham, and Dover Company and the South-
Eastern Company ?—Yes.
323. Would you tell the Committee whether,
in many cases, that work is done entirely by the
traders, or whether it is done entirely by the
railway company, or whether there is assistance
rendered by the railway company ; is it not the
fact that at the purely country stations that work
is almost entirely done by the agriculturists?—
Yes.
Chairman.
324. Almost entirely 2– Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
325. What part of the business is done by the
railway companies’ officials; do they check?—
They check the quantities.
326. That is with a view, I suppose, of making
a charge ; unless they took a check they would
not know what to charge 7–They would not
know whether they got what they were signing
for.
327. Do you think the Board of Trade clause
which is in the Schedule, is sufficient to protect
the traders ?–-I do not think it is.
328. I believe at one time you yourself had to
bring an application against a railway company
before the Railway Commissioners?—Yes, I
had.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
329. And did the Commissioners find in that
case that at the selling station, that is, the station
in which you are principally interested, “the
company’s staff of officials is small, that there
is only one porter there, and that he cannot do
more than assist the consignor's men to load "; is
that what they found ; is that in their judgment 7
—Yes.
330. Does that state of things continue up to .
the present day ?–Yes. • .
331. Has that porter to attend to more than
the business of loading 2–He is relief signal-
man five hours a day. -
332. Then out of his, I do not know how
many hours he works — ?—Bleven hours, I
think. -
333. Out of his 11 hours he has only six to
devote to his other duties as porter ?—That
IS SO.
334. As a matter of fact, you send a large
amount of fruit and hops away from the Selling
station ?—Yes.
335. Do you there, by your servants and
others, do the work of loading yourself?—We do
nearly the whole of it.
336. Hops, I think, are loaded inside a shed of
the company ?—Generally outside.
337. Are they sometimes loaded inside?—
Sometimes. -
338. Do you see any reason why there should
be no rebate allowed, as the Board of Trade
propose, if you do the service inside the shed 2–
I see no reason.
339. Your men do work inside the shed upon
occasions, do they not ?—Very frequently.
340. Does it depend upon the state of the
weather ?–If the trucks which have either to be
loaded or unloaded happen to be in the shed, it is
absolutely necessary for them to go into the
shed to do the work, as there is no one else
there to do it. *
341. Is it, do you think, to the advantage both
of the railway company and the traders that you
should assist in loading the hops?—It must be to
the company’s advantage.
342. Would
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CEIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
133
17 April 1891.]
Mr. Balfour. Browne—continued.
342. Would they require a much larger staff
at that station if they undertook the whole of
that duty 2–They would require three times the
staff. -
343. So you save them that ?—Yes, we do.
344. If you save them that, do you think that
you are entitled, out of the rate they charge for
service terminals, to have a rebate 2–Surely.
345. Would the Board of Trade exclude all
that right of claim to rebate under certain circum-
stances; first, that it must be loaded not in a
shed 2–Yes. -
346. That is one of the things you object to
because you do load in a shed 2–Yes, very often.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] You are
leading the witness, you know ; you are putting
nearly every word in his mouth, and he says,
Yes. We really are not trying whether some
particular station has the right number of porters
Or not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I assure you this
station is a typical station.
Mr. Pope.] What I Selling is a typical station ?
It is a mere roadside agricultural station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You can see that the
Board of Trade have found that all these road-
side stations -
Mr. Pope.] We can see what the Board of
Trade have found in their Report.
Chairman.] We can understand that, if there
were any very large amount of traffic at the
station they would keep a larger number of
porters; but, if you wish to get what this
gentleman has to tell us, you had better get it
out of his own mouth. It is a very easy thing
to put it to him and for him to assent.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
347. (To the Witness.) Now I will ask you as
to your London stations: does a large amount of
your fruit come to town 3–Yes.
348. What London stations does the fruit
come to ?—The fruit out of Kent comes almost
entirely by the London, Chatham, and Dover
and the South Eastern Railways ; it is brought
to Blackfriars Station by the London, Chatham,
and Dover, and to the Bricklayers' Arms Station
by the South Eastern Railway.
349. What is the practice of the companies
with reference to adtmitting you to the stations
in London ?—We are not allowed inside the
station with our vans until after seven o’clock in
the morning, and under some circumstances not
until eight o'clock in the morning. The trouble
which meets us in this particular is just this,
that the rates for fruit insisted up by the
two companies mentioned are made delivery
rates, and not purely station to station rates; so
that the companies convey the fruit from the
country station to London and into the market
at an inclusive charge. That inclusive charge
is a very serious amount over and above the
station to station rate. If we were enabled to
collect our own goods in London we should
often save an amount of money almost, or in
some cases quite, equal to the entire conveyance
rate. The company demand their own terms for
cartage by excluding our waggons until after
the hours of the day when the market is over.
Mr. BERRY.
[Continued,
Chairman.
350. When you say “our waggons,” what do
you mean?–Either the traders' waggons or the
fruit salesmen's waggons, or rather waggons
which would be hired by the London carrying
companies to carry for either party.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
351. So that the railway companies, therefore,
get a monopoly of the carrying trade 2–Entirely,
in that one particular case. -
352. Simply by excluding the growers' wag-
gons up to that hour 2–Yes.
353. If there were reasonable bye-laws allowed
by the Board of Trade, do you think that might
be remedied?—Yes, certainly. *
354. The Board of Trade proposal would allo
you to get a rebate only where you loaden in a
separate truck. ... Do you often send, or do you
send occasionally, a consignment filling more
than one truck?—One and-a-half, and two and-
a-half, very frequently ; very frequently two or
three growers will load a truck for one con-
Signee. º
355. Supposing two or three growers have
one full truck between them, do you see any
reason why they should not have a rebate for the
loading 2—I think they should.
356. Would it, in your view, be possible or
practicable to request the company to allow you
to load the trucks upon every occasion ?–It
would be very inconvenient to have to make an
application with respect to every individual
truck.
357. Under these circumstances, is it your
desire to have general rules made, with the
approval, of course, of the public department,
which would enable you at reasonable hours to
load or unload your own traffic 2–That is what
we wish.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
358. As a member of the executive committee
of the Mansion House Association, you, no doubt,
were present during the two or three days when
we had this matter thoroughly discussed with all
classes of traders before the Commission of the
Board of Trade 2–I was there.
359. Then you heard the traders from the
north of England, did you not, from Liverpool
and Manchester, distinctly state that in their
interests it would not be desirable that the public
should have common access to the station ?—
Yes, I heard that, but only in connection with
the large stations where the traffic was almost
entirely collected by the companies' waggons,
over the large towns. .
360. Have you heard that the north of England
traders repudiate any desire to have the power
of compulsory access, to the large stations, at all
events?—Yes; I think the majority do not care
much about it.
361. Did you not hear them say that it would
be to their disadvantage 2–I did not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Nor did I.
Mr. Pope.] Am I to cross-examine my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne? -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend is
doing something irregular.
(81.)
R 3 Chairman.]
134
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT conſ MITTEE
17 April 1891.]
Mr, BERRY.
[Continued.
º
Chairman.] I am afraid you are doing some-
thing irregular, too.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend has
no right to suggest that in that case certain evi-
dence was given, without showing that that
evidence was given, that is not the way to prove
it. * -
362. Mr. Pope (to the Witness).}. At all events,
you did not hear that said 2—I did not.
363. Now will you tell me, do you agree with
the Board of Trade that in any condition which
to apply to all the companies alike, it would be
perfectly impossible to insert conditions which
would be perfectly satisfactory or sufficiently to
specify the proper uses of roadside stations of the
southern companies 2–The stations at which it
would be practicable I maintain are very much
in excess of the number at which it would not be
practicable. -
364. Possibly ; because of the fact that there
are many more roadside stations than there are
big ones. Now let us take your own charges.
I remember your Selling case. You sought to
obtain a distinction between the conveyance rates
and the terminal rates against the London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, did you
not ?—Yes. -
365. We had all that fought before the Com-
mission. Now, I think your ordinary course of
business is that, although occasionally a truck
may be in a shed into which your pocket of hops
is put, your ordinary practice is to load them
outside the station in the yard 2–If the trucks
are in that position, we do.
366. Is it the ordinary practice to load them in
the yard 2–Yes, the larger number are loaded
outside.
367. In fact the circumstance that a truck
happens to be in the shed is exceptional 2–Not
quite that.
368. Is it unusual 7–It is not so frequent as
finding it outside. w
369. I do not want to occupy time with verbal
distinctions; your proposition is that, although
for convenience, a trader is loading some other
class of traffic on to the trucks in the shed, you
ought to be allowed to go into the shed and
interfere with the management, and load your
pocket of hops?—It would be no interference
with the management.
370. Not at Selling, but taking it as a general
rule 2–It might.
37 l. You say your fruit might be loaded in
two trucks or two and-a-half trucks?—Yes.
372. Taking it at two, and-a-half trucks, how
would it suit you that some other trader should
have the right to go into the shed and insist upon.
loading the other half of the truck, which was
already half loaded with strawberries, with
creosote 7–That is a matter which has never
arisen; I have never known a truck which was
half loaded with strawberries completed with
CreoSOte.
373. But you could not get access to the shed
without other traders having the same right,
whatever the class of goods might be?—That
is so.
374. I want to know how you, as a fruit
Mr. Pope—continued.
grower, would like another trader to have access
to the station, and be entitled to put into the
half truck along with your fruit something
which might damage your fruit; how would
you like that ?—I think it would be a matter
which would never occur. -
375. But assuming it did 7–Assuming it did,
then it would be detrimental to my interests.
376. Now will you kindly take in your hand
the provision which the Board of Trade have
inserted in the Provisional Order, with a view to
make the best compromise in this provision they
can. Now, just follow it through, and you
shall tell me whether you think that is deficient.
in protecting your interests: “ The maximum
service terminals are the maximum charges
which the company may make to a trader for
the following services, when rendered to, or for a
trader’”; does that include any charge when the
services are not rendered to or for a trader 2–I
think not, so far. º
377. You think that, if the power is given to
charge when the services are rendered to the
trader, that includes a power to charge when they
are not rendered to the trader ?—It would be
nominally rendered ; but in our experience in
the past it never is actually rendered, -
378. Stop a moment. One of your points is
that, if you do not get the service, they should
not get the terminal 2–Yes.
379. Now look at the end of the section :
“Any dispute between a trader and the com-
pany in reference to any service terminal charged
to a trader who is not allowed by the company to
perform for himself the terminal service, shall
be determined by the Board of Trade **—It
would be inconvenient to have to run to the
Board of Trade every day in the week.
380. But you would have to run to the Board
of Trade for your bye-laws, you know 2–Hav-
ing once got these bye-laws we should be out
of any trouble, I think. -
381. No, the circumstances might change.
Selling might become a large centre, you know P
—It is now, for this particular class of goods.
382. But do not you see that you must con-
stantly, according to your own showing, be
running to the Board of Trade to get your bye–
laws either altered or amended. \
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Pope).] Do the words
that you have read apply to a fruit truck which
is only half loaded ?
Mr. Pope.] No, I do not think they do.
Mr. Hanbury.] I think you rather implied
that.
Mr. Pope.] I am afraid I did. Let us see
what are the words: “ The maximum service
terminals are the maximum charges which the
company may make to a trader for the following
services when rendered to or for a trader ; that is
to say, loading, unloading, covering or uncover-
ing merchandise, which charges shall, in respect
of each service, be deemed to include all charges
for the provision by the company of labour,
machinery, plant, stores, and sheets. Provided
that where merchandise conveyed in a separate
truck is loaded or unloaded elsewhere than in a
shed or building of the company, the company
may not charge to a trader any service terminal
for the performance by the company of any of
- the
A-
ON RAILW A Y RATES
BILLS. 135
AND C FIARGES PROVISION AL ORDER
17 April 1891.]
Mr. BERRY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
the said terminal services, if the trader has re-
quested the company to allow him to perform
the service for himself, and the company have
unreasonably refused to allow him to do so.”
(to the Witness.) So that as regards the whole
of your outside traffic you would have the option
of performing it for yourself.
384. That very difficulty of course arises; if
you do not load a full truck load, your neighbour
would have the right to use the remaining space
in the truck for any traffic he chooses 2–It is the
custom in our business for two or three growers
to fill a truck for one consignee. This would
debar us us from any rebate, because two or
three of us do the work instead of one. *
385. But suppose two or three do not desire
to do the work for themselves 2—We always
have to do it. -
386. Then if you have to do it why could you
not get a termminal allowed ?–Upon the half
truck you could not.
387. About what amount of hops or fruit do
you send from Selling station ?--It is difficult to
say what quantity at any given time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Do you mean in a
year?
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne | You can answer that.
JWitness.] It would be from 200 to 300 tons of
fruit, up to 500 tons.
Mr. Pope.
388. Take 500 tons ? — It could not be so
much as that in an ordinary year.
389. Take it at 500 tons, and how many tons of
hops?—From 20 to 50 tons probably.
390. Does that appear to you to be a large
enough traffic to derange a general clause which
is applicable to all companies north and south,
large and small alike 2–You are speaking now
of an individual person’s traffic. If you put
together all the traffic that is sent to the various
stations which are affected by this traffic, it is a
very different matter. -
391. When the traffic arrives at Bricklayers'
Arms Station, being carted and delivered traffic,
the company keep their own waggons to cart
the goods to Spitalfields Market in the early
morning; they will not allow the salesmen to
send their waggons into the company's yard to
interfere with them 2–They are carriers’
waggons; they are not company’s waggons.
342. The horses may not belong to the
company probably, but it is part of the transaction
of the company ; the company hire them, and
that is what you complain of 2–Yes, we want to
hire them instead. *.
343. I happen to have been interested recently
in this question of the Spitalfields Market; a
good deal of your fruit would go to the
Spitalfields Market, would it not ?—Yes, the
fruit.
344. Is not that the very difficulty of the
market, the necessity of there being a control,
such as is exercised by the companies in order to
get the fruit delivered to the salesmen?–-I do
not see that the control would be any different
whether we paid the carmen or whether the
railway company paid the Carmen.
—s
Mr. Pope—continued.
345. Do not you think the control would be
better in one hand than in fifty ; if the carter had
had to get your goods in, amongst those fifty
others he would be struggling to get in your
goods 2—It would be the same in either case I
think.
396. Then it is not that you want to be allowed
to do the work, but you want yourself to engage
the carmen and deliver, although the company
would have to engage a carmen of their own, and
the company of course have their own teams ?—
That is so ; because as matters now stand, we
could get the work done for 2 s. 6d., whereas the
company are now charging us 20 s.
397. Now with reference to the question of
carting and delivering, do not you know that by
the next section we shall have to discuss, the
rates must be station to station rates, unless the
traders require their goods to be delivered 2–We
have not got so far as that yet.
398. But do not you know that the scheme of
the Board of Trade is, all station to station rates
unless the traders desire delivery 2—We have not
got so far as that yet. g
399. Perhaps you have not read the Order?—
I have read it, but not so carefully as you are
making me read it now.
Chairman.
400. It is part of the whole scheme of the
Board of Trade, you do not pick out one clause
and deal with it, disconnecting it from the other
part 2—I have no wish to do that.
401. You cannot come to a right or fair con-
clusion upon any clause unless you see what
hangs upon it. (Witness.) Quite so, your Grace,
this difficulty would be partially obviated by the
section Mr. Pope has called my attenticn to.
Lord Belper.
402. I thought I understood that your
point was this : That the railway companies
would not allow you to go into their stations
before 8 o’clock, and that therefore if you wanted
your goods before 8 o’clock you could not get
them at the time you wanted them yourself, and
that therefore further you would be obliged to
request the railway company to do it for you,
for which reason you would not come under
Clause 5?—That is so, we should be excluded up
to that time in the day. -
403. Therefore you would be forced, being
excluded up to that time of the day to get the
company to do it for you, and have to submit to.
their terms ?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
404. And, as a matter of fact, you are forced
to ask the railway companies to do it for you,
and you have to pay 20 s. in some cases for what
you could do yourselves for 2 s. 6 d. 2–It is as
much as that sometimes.
405. You are here representing the whole of
the growers in Kent 7–I am here representing the
whole of the growers in England in the fruit
industry, and some in hops.
406. They all concur in the view you have
put before the Committee ?—They do.
407. My learned friend says, why do you try
to put in here provisions which are to apply to
(81.)
R 4 all
136 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 Ap, il 1891.]
Mr. BERRY.
| Continued.
all the companies alike. If the companies differ
that would be considered in framing the bye-
laws 2—Of course.
408. Is the shed at the Selling station a very
large and commodious building?—No.
409. So that all the traffic could not be loaded
in the shed 2–No, only two trucks at a time,
and there is no locomotive to work the trucks in
and out.
410. Now my learned friend has suggested the
possibility of putting creosote in the same truck
with strawberries. Do you know that the rail-
way companies have expressly got the power to
refuse to supply waggons for the carriage of
creosote at all ?—I do not know that.
Mr. Pope.] I used creosote as illustrating an
offensive article; it might be that we could refuse
to supply waggons for creosote.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
411. And with regard to lucifer matches,
which were suggested, you could not put them
beside silk, because they are an explosive article,
and you could not put them by the side of an in-
flammable material. (To the Witness ) Now is it
you who determine what truck you shall put the
strawberries into, or do the railway companies
tell you where you shall put them 2–If we are
fortunate enough to find a man to give us a truck
we do, but if we cannot find him we have to do
it for ourselves.
412. My learned friend read a bit of this sec-
tion to you, and I will ask you upon that and
then I will read a bit. He did not read “Where
merchandise conveyed in a separate truck——-”
Mr. Pope.] I read that.
Mr. ©
him anything upon it. (To the Witness.) Is that
one of the restrictions you object to in the
schedule?—Yes.
413. “Is loaded or unloaded elsewhere than in
a shed or building ”; is that another thing you
object to ?—Yes.
414. Would it be possible for the company to
turn a great portion of its sidings into a shed by
merely putting a covering over them —They
might do that of course.
415. “If the trader has requested the company
to allow him to perform the service for himself
and the company have unreasonably refused to
allow him to do so.” Could that be done in
every one individual case, that is to say, would
you have to get the consent of the company, or
go to somebody to prove that it had been un-
reasonably, withheld 2 — That depends upon
whether the stationmaster has the power of
giving the consent, or whether the application
has to be made to the secretary of the com-
pany. 1
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is nothing here
which says the stationmaster shall give consent;
it says the application shall be made to the com-
pany.
Chairman.] What are the powers of the station-
master 2––
Mr. Balfour Browne.
416, I do not know ; very small, I expect.
Balfour Browne.] But you did not ask'
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
It depends entirely upon what amount of power
the company choose to delegate to his authority;
it may be large or it may be small. (To the
Witness.) Upon the whole, do you think this
would operate detrimentally to the traders?—I
think it would, inasmuch as the fruit is carried
for the most part in very small lots; two or
three growers combine in a truck, and that
clause, as drawn, would debar them from getting
a rebate.
Earl of Belmore.
417. Will you explain a little more fully the
answer you have just given to Mr. Balfour
Browne, that you could do for 2 s. 6 d. what the
companies charge you 20 s. for doing?—The
railway companies compel us to allow them to
do all the London carting when done before
8 o'olock in the morning ; they charge us, we
do not know what it is, but an inclusive rate.
If we take the actual carriage rate, and deduct
it from the total rate, it runs in some cases into
over 1 l. a ton for the London cartage; the usual
charge of the carrier for London cartage of that
description is 2 s. 6d. a ton.
418. But what do you pay for the traffic from
your station to the London market, including the
carting charge, because l l is a very large amount
to deduct out of the total rate P—The total
charge in that instance, would be 2 l, or more.
419. And out of that the company charge you
l l. for delivery 2—Yes, that is so.
420. Then practically if you did your own
carting you could bring the charge down to
22s, 6 d. 2–Yes, approximately. When I speak
of the 2 s. 6 d. as compared with the 1 /., that
relates to small packages, because they charge us
at the rate of so much per package, but in some
very important cases it comes to as much as from
15 S. to 20 s. a ton, which we are anxious to save,
and we see no reason why we should not be
allowed to save it.
Mr. Pope.] Perhaps you will ask Mr. Berry
to give the particular instance to which he refers,
because I, from looking at the evidence he gave
before the Commission, he gave the difference as
between 1 l, and 3 s. 4 d. Now, I want to know
what is the actual rate charged 2
Witness.] I know there is one item of differ
ence, as much as 1 l. 9s. 9 d.
421. Let us have it 2-—I am not prepared with
the exact spot.
422. We want the rate which is charged 2 -
This matter referred to by Mr. Pope is apples,
what I was referring to just now was straw-
berries ; but the apples are a far better argu
ment from my point of view, inasmuch as it is
apples which are not perishable as compared
with strawberries which are. “The rate for
apples from Rainham to London is 7 s. 6 d. a
ton, station to station, but the total rate, which
includes delivery into the market in London, is
1 l. 0 s. 10 d., the difference is 13 s. 4d., repre-
senting the cartage charge,” that is to say they
charge 13 s. 4d. in addition to the conveyance
rate for carting the goods a mile and a quarter.
I am anxious to have the opportunity of de-
livering these gºods myself before 8 o’clock in
the morning, if I wish to do so.
423. You
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
137
17 April 1891.]
Earl of Belmore---continued.
423. You stated, if I understand you correctly,
that the reason of the difference was that the
company broke up your goods into small parcels,
whereas you wished to deliver all in bulk. How
do they break up the apples as distinguished
from carrying them in buil, ?—This 1 & 0 s. 10 d.
a ton is made up of a charge per basket, counting
50 baskets to the ton, and that at per basket
brings it to 1 l. () s. 10 d. per ton.
424. Supposing that you carried it yourself,
or that the same carrier carried it for you, could
you get him to carry it without breaking it up
into baskets, that is to say at the ton rate 2–
The baskets are handed out one by one out of
the truck. -
425. But if you were going to pay the carter
yourself would you pay him for so many baskets,
or would you pay him a lump sum upon the
supposition that he was handling them at so
much per ton 2–He would be paid for so many
baskets, but he would be paid upon the sup-
position of 50 baskets to the ton. I do this
business myself sometimes; I can save this 13 s.
4 d. if I like by delivering the goods after 8
o'clock in the morning for the following day :
but when I want them into the market for that
day’s consumption they cannot be got there in
time unless I pay this exorbitant rate of 13 s.
4 d.
Earl of Belmore.
426. You said you could do it yourself
for 2 s. 6 d. Do you think that you
could get a ton of fruit in baskets or packages
through the streets of London loaded, carried, and
delivered for 2 s. 6d. 2–As a matter of fact that
is all that is paid to day. I do not say that I
can do it for one single ton; that is to say that
I should expect to have a single ton carried for
2 s. 6 d. ; but to the other I give a carman my
work; he will do it from one end of the season
for 2 s. 6 d. a ton. As a matter of fact giving a
contract as the companies do to their agents
according to the evidence (which I have here)
they do not pay 2 s. 6 d.
Chairman.
427. That would apply to perishable articles
when you desire to get them before a certain
hour in the morning?—Yes, and hard fruit as
well.
428. Is there any advantage in getting in a
lot of apples before 8 o’clock on any particular
morning 2—Yes, because the principal market
days in London are three days a week. If I can
get my fruit in on Tuesday morning, market
day, I can get 100 people to buy it, whereas if I
send it off on Tuesday, and it is only offered on
Wednesday morning perhaps there are no more
than two or three people to buy it.
429. You do not mean to say that an apple
which is good on a Monday is not fit to eat on a
Tuesday ?—I do not say that, but we are anxious
to get as good a market as we can.
430. Do you mean to say that an hour or two
make much difference 2—Yes, because the whole-
sale market is practically over at eight o'clock in
the morning.
Earl of Belmore.] Do I understand that the
Mr. BERRY.
[Continued.
fruit is delivered in the market and not at the
houses of individual buyers ?–Yes, not to indivi-
dual houses, unless it be to the manufacture is of
jam. -
Mr. Pope.] But I think your Lordship will
find that a load may be split up into a number of
different deliveries to different salesmen in the
market P
Witness.] Yes, that is so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] I should like to ask the Board of
Trade a question upon this point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have one or two more
witnesses to call before the Committee.
Chairman.] I want to ask Lord Balfour this
question. I see that in this Clause 4, line 35,
“where merchandise conveyed in a separate
truck is loaded or unloaded ” we want to know
what was in the mind of the Board of Trade
when they fixed it at a “separate truck,” and not
say half a truck, as we have heard mentioned by
the witness.
ſlord Balfour of Burleigh.] The idea is that
two traders should not have the absolute right
simultaneously to load into the same truck. The
merchandise packed by a trader may be a com-
plete truck load or it it may not, but his mer-
chandise must be in a separate truck, not along
with the merchandise of another trader.
Earl of Camperdown.] But then you limit the
appeal solely to merchandise which “is conveyed
in a separate truck.” What is your reason for
limiting the appeal to a case in which merchan-
dise is conveyed in a separate truck ; if that
appeal is good, what is your reason for not
extending it to the case where merchandise is
not conveyed in a separate truck 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We do not con-
template giving the right of appeal unless a
separate truck is used by the traders, but it need
not be a whole truck.
Earl of Camperdown.] But what is your reason
for limiting the appeal to a separate truck 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courte-
may Boyle consulted together.
Chairman.] You will give us your answer
presently. Then the other point is “where
merchandise conveyed in a separate truck is
loaded and unloaded elsewhere than in a shed or
building of the company.” Why is that confined
to a shed or building; why does not that include
the yard 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think that was
dealt with in Mr. Courtenay Boyle's answer
which he gave to the Committee just before we
adjourned yesterday.
Chairman.] Perhaps when you give an answer
to the first question he might repeat what he said
as to that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] If you please.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will now call Mr.
Wilson,
(81. )
S
Y 38
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
MR. WILLIAM EDWARD W1DSON, is called in ; and having been sworn,
is Examined :
Mr. Clifford.
431–2. YoU are the Manager, I believe, of the
New Union Four Mills, at Birmingham 2–I
all) .
433. And you are also Chairman of the Mid-
land Agriculturists and Traders’ Freight Associa-
tion ?—I am.
434. Do you attend here representing that
body of traders ?—I do.
435. Will you give the Committee your opinion
as to the proviso to the clause in the schedule
relating to service terminals. Do you think that
that sufficiently protects the interests of the
agriculturist you represent?—I cannot say that
I do. I think we should have very great diffi-
culty afterwards in ascertaining where we were
charged service terminals and where we were
not ; there is such a conflict between the man-
agers of the London and North Western Company
and the Great Western Company as given
upon that subject as given before the Board of
Trade, that I consider myself justified in saying
that the traders are in very great doubt indeed
as to how they would be able to secure the rebate
due to them for the services they perform at the
county stations or at any stations, but chiefly at
the county stations.
436. You have had very considerable expe-
rience from your position of what goes on at the
country stations with reference to loading and
unloading 2—I have.
437. How do you think that this separate truck
provision would apply 2–I think it might be a
hardship where two farmers are delivering grain
at one station to come to one town. According
to this, they would be precluded, it seems to me,
from using the one truck for the two consign-
ments, whereas it would be a convenience if
the truck could be filled up with grain, seeing
that the consignee paying the carriage would
have the benefit in many many cases of the
four-ton minimum instead of having to pay
higher rates upon the two-ton minimum.
Chairman.
438. Why could not two farmers fill a truck
with grain 2–We doubt whether, according to
the wording of this clause, we could.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They could load it, but
they could not get the rebate.
Chairman.] What words do you say would
prevent them doing it 2
Witness.] “Where merchandise conveyed in
a separate truck is loaded or unloaded,” that
would seem to me to imply that each consignor
must have a separate truck.
Chairman.] I do not see that.
Mr. Pope.] I think Lord Balfour of Burleigh
just now stated that that was not the intention
of the Board of Trade in using those words;
that each trader need not have a separate truck,
but that each truck load must be separate to
entitle him to get the rebate.
Mr, Clifford.
439. Does it seem to you that if two traders
use the same truck for one consignment neither .
would be entitled to the rebate 2–It might be so;
I think that neither party would be entitled to
get it or would get it.
440. Do you think, at any rate, that the
clause would ead to dispute 2—I think it would
lead to a great number of disputes. *
Mr. Pope.] We are not upon an amendment
to the words of the clause which might meet this
łifficulty ; we are upon the specific proposition
of unrestricted access to a station.
Earl of Camperdown.] There are two things,
“shall have access” and “shall fix the rebate;”
the amendment covers the two propositions.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The access is not un-
restricted, but subject to bye-laws.
Mr. Pope.] I see the point.
Mr. Clifford.
441. Now, as to the consent of the company
for the traders to use the station, does it seem to
you that that clause is defective in not providing
as to who shall give the consent 2—I think it
should be more clearly specified as to how the
consent is to be obtained. .
442. Whether from the station-master or direct
from the company ?—I think it should be in the
power of any person in charge of the station to
give consent without any difficulty.
Chairmam.
443, How do you know it is not so 7–We do
not think it is made clear that it is so.
444. But is it not so in practice? Do you
say that the station-master cannot give the con-
sent which is necessary for dealing with the
trucks and other matters at the station ?—-He
might withhold his consent. I have frequently
heard farmers complain of the detention of their
waggons at the station owing to their inability to
get a waggon into which they could put their
goods. Not that there were not plenty of
waggons there, but that they could not get direc-
tions to into which waggon they were to load.
The farmers do not claim to load any waggon
which comes before them, but that they must be
directed which waggon to use.
445. Then practically those people at the
station have the power to give or refuse a
waggon. Do you think that those people would
use this power if they did not possess it 2
Mr. Pope ) Of course whatever the station-
master does would be the act of the company.
Mr. Clifford.
446. Is it your experience that at country
stations partial assistance is given by the traders?
—Very rarely ; I have known cases of partial
assistance, but very rarely.
447. By
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR D E R BILLS.
139
17 April 1891.]
Mr. WILSON.
[Continued.
Chairmam.
447. By traders? --By the company.
448. But the question is “by the traders”?—
At the country stations the traders practically
do all the work.
Mr. Clifford.
449. Sometimes they lend a hand, do they not ;
they give partial assistance 2——
Chairman.] You are rather following the ex-
ample of your learned leader and putting leading
questions.
Witness.] My experience is that at country
stations the farmers and millers do all the loading
and unloading with scarcely any exception at all.
At the town stations it is different, but at the
country stations the work is done by the traders
themselves, because there is no one else to do it.
Mr. Clifford.
450. But in cases where the company's servants
do lend a hand there would be no provision,
would there, in the schedule at present for re-
bate 2—No ; I see none.
451. Because the traders would not have per-
formed the whole service 2–I think a dispute
would arise in such a case undoubtedly; that the
company would claim to have done the service.
452. You have spoken so far of country
stations; but you have considerable experience,
have you not, of the larger stations in your dis-
trict 2—I have.
453. What goes on, for instance, with regard
to loading and unloading in the Birmingham
stations 2–The loading of goods outward from
Birmingham in my trade, that is, the grain and
flour trade, is nearly always effected by the
senders, the millers, and corn merchants and
malsters; but the unloading of inward grain is
nearly always effected by the railway companies,
partly, I believe, to relieve the station of trucks,
very often because they want the trucks for their
immediate use ; but, as a rule, we find that most
of our grain is already unloaded when we get to
the station. -
Earl of Belmore.
454. What is your unloading station ?—Bir-
mingham, and various stations besides.
455. And your loading stations are the
country stations 2–Yes; so that in that case the
traders that I represent, that is to say, the
farmers, would be performing the services at the
one end, and the railway company would be per-
forming the services, for the most part, at the
other end.
Mr. Clifford.
456. Do the millers and corn merchants at
the Birmingham station perform a good deal of
those services?—Of the loading they perform
nearly the whole.
457. Does any difficulty arise in the access
they have to the stations?—Not in the access.
I cannot complain of being deprived of access to
the stations.
458, Does any difficulty arise to the company
under the present condition ?—None whatever
that I am aware of; we know the hours that we
can get our goods into the station, and we do not
go after the hours.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
459. Do you think that any difficulty would
arise with the companies if you had this access
secured to you by an Act 2—I do not think it
would.
460. Are you here to support the clause pro-
posed by the Mansion House Association of
Traders securing to traders that access 2–I
8. II).
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
461. I gather that you draw an important
distinction between town stations and country
stations?—I do.
462. Therefore, of course you would agree
that in your view, a provision which would be
fair and equitable as regards a town station
would be inequitable as regards a trade which
you say is carried on at country stations. In
other words, you think that a trader might have
greater facilities secured to him at country sta-
tions than it would be possible equitably or
properly to secure to him at large town stations?
—Do you mean as regards access or labour *
463. I mean both. It would be no use their
giving you access unless they could give the
service 2–We do not complain of their not giving
the service. -
464. I was asking whether it was not your
view that there must be a different provision for
the town stations, both as regards access and
loading, from that which you think they ought
to provide at country stations?—I do not think
SO.
465. Because the circumstances are not dif-
ferent ; do you say that?—If we have a rebate
for doing the work, we shall not complain ; but
we shall complain if we do the work, and get no
rebate for it.
466. We are dealing with the access and the
service terminals. You heard my question as to
the difference as regards this question between
town and country stations. What would be the
use of your having access to the stations except
for the purpose of doing the loading and un-
loading 2—It would be no use at all.
467. Then do not let us talk about access
without a purpose; stick to the loading and
unloading; what provision do you think should
be introduced to protect your rights at country
stations?—Provided we get the rebate for the
work done by us I shall be satisfied with the
state of things at the country stations.
468. I only want to make out what you mean.
You mean that you ought to have a rebate pro-
portionate to the contribution you make to the
loading and unloading 2—That is so.
469. Now I understand it. In other words,
it is to be a perpetual question as to what is the
value of the assistance you render, and that that
should be deducted from the terminal charge ; is
that your view 2–No, it is not my view. If I
had my way, I would have the charges for load-
ing and unloading, and for the various terminal
services posted up in the stations in the same
way as the table of tolls is posted up now, so
that when we went to the station we should
know exactly what we were entitled to receive
in respect of each individual service we per-
(8.1.)
S 2 formed,
140
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.]
*=--—
Mr. Clifford—continued.
formed, and if we did not perform it, we should
mot expect to receive it.
470. But you told me just now that if you
did part of the service you should get a rebate
of a proportion of the terminal; that was your
whole case; is not that so?—I said the instances
were exceedingly rare of the services being per-
formed by the company’s men as well as by the
farmers.
471. When you contribute to the labour do
not you claim to have an allowance from the
terminal in proportion to the value of the service
you do?— We do. *
472. That is what I thought, therefore it is to
be a perpetual question how much is the value of
the service you do in any particular consignment,
and that ought to come off the terminal?—I do
not agree with you as to its being a perpetual
question ; I say it can be settled by this Com-
mittee.
473. Can it ; just let us see. Supposing you
are loading 30 or 40 sacks of flour, you send one.
porter and the company send two on one day ;
then you say you ought to be allowed for the
value of the service of your one man 2–The
instances in which that work is divided are so
exceedingly rare.
474. I do not know how rare they are, but
that is what you tell me you want to get. You
want to get a provision inserted for very rare
cases; that is all I can say ?–No ; I say we do
all the loading of the flour that goes out of
Birmingham.
475. If you do the whole service, then I can
understand you want a rebate for the service
done ; you want a contribution for the service
performed ?
Mr. Hambury.] When you talk of the “whole
service,” do you mean when it is loaded at one
station and put off at another ? I understand
the witness to object to paying if he does the
work of loading himself, although it is unloaded
by the company at the other end.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think it is that; I take it
that there are distinct charges at each end at
present.
Earl of Camperdown.
476. You have said that you would have put
up in the stations (that was the term you used)
a regular fixed table of charges for loading or
unloading ; therefore, in the case which has just
been put, if you loaded at the forwarding station,
but if the company unloaded for you at the
station of delivery you would be quite content
with their not paying you for what you had done
at the station of loading 2—That is my point.
477. You would be quite content if you were
entitled to be free in respect to the portion of
work which you yourself had dome 2–That is all
we ask.
Mr. Pope.
478. Then let me ask you this ; You would
expect, of course, that the railway companies
must always be prepared to do the work if you
want it dome 2—Not at the country stations.
479. Now we come to a distinction (because it
is no use “expecting ”) between country stations
Mr. WILSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
and town stations; you told us there was none P
—I beg your pardon; I said distintly there was
a distinction.
480. Take town stations. Do you expect the
company to maintain there a staff of porters to
do the work if you require it done 7–No, if I
send my waggon to the station for the grain and
the grain is still in the truck I expect to be
allowed to unload it into my waggon myself and
to be allowed for doing so.
481. But you expect the company to be ready
to do the work for the trade ; although you indi-
vidually may desire to do that service, they must
be ready to do it for everybody ?—They do
it already of their own accord, they do a great
deal of it.
482. You will agree, I think, that a railway
company must maintain its staff even although
Some of its traders do not want them to do the
work 2–I presume they must.
483. Then do you think it fair that the amount
which is given to them for the maintenance of
that staff being ready and willing to do that work
should all of it be allowed to you because you
do not choose to let them do it?—If the company
will undertake the whole of the work, and will
do it and will let us know what they want us to
pay for it, and the charge is reasonable, I do not
know that we should object, but what we do
object to is that we are continually paying rates
which include the service which we ourselves
have performed.
484. I perfectly follow you, but I want to
know how we are to amend it in this particular
matter?—My answer to that would be that the
traffic is so intermittent that it is not a question
for the traders to regulate the number of ser–
vants the company may have at a station; it is
the company’s own business to do that.
485. Forgive me. You claim to have the
whole maximum terminal allowed to you, although
that is the remuneration which the company are to
get for providing the staff which you will not
employ ; they are bound to provide the staff but
you will not employ them 2–My experience is
rather the other way, that we very often cannot
get the staff to do what we want.
486. That is at the country stations 2–No, at
the town stations too, the detention of the wag-
gons on account of the inadequate staff of the
railways companies is a part of the grievance of
the traders.
487. That is not the grievance you are dealing
with now 2–It is part of the terminal griev-
all C6.
488. Then you were talking cf having the
service terminals posted up as you would have the
table of rates ?—Yes.
489. Which service terminal would you have
posted up 2–All of them. -
480. How are you to distinguish them ; the
terminal varies for each article in the classifica-
tion and the degree of assistance required for
loading and unloading particular articles vary 2
On grain alone. - -
491. I agree, grain alone is a very simple
matter?—It is a very heavy matter.
492. But it is a very simple one, is it not ?—
We have reason to believe that the amount of
English-
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
141
17 April 1891.
Mr. WILSON.
ſ Com???ºned.
Mr. Pope—continued.
English grown
4,000,000 and 5,000,000 tons per annum, and we
think that is a sufficient amount to have a loading
and unloading rate quoted for grain.
493. That may be, but how would you amend
this general section so as to provide that we
should post up a loading and unloading rate not
for grain alone, but applicable to all classifica-
tions and all goods alike. How would you pro-
propose to proceed so as to secure that your grain
rate shauld be posted up 2–I say that looking to
the very large amount of grain that is carried,
there can be no difficulty in putting down a
specific charge for the loading and unloading of
grain; being carried in sacks it is an article which
it is possible to estimate the cost of handling as
nearly if not more nearly than that of any other
alticle of classification.
494. You propose to exempt your particular
trade, grain, from the operation of the section
which is to apply to all trades alike 2–To a cer-
tain extent it must be so.
495. Now I will call your attention to one
other matter which struck me on looking at this.
I had forgotten you spoke of a rebate. In the
suggestion you make for the Mansion House
Association as to any rebate, you say the
rebate is to be equal to the maximum autho-
rised by the schedule. Now supposing the
total through rate by reason of competition
say from Cardiff to Birmingham, or from Car-
diff to Liverpool, is below the maximum both as
regards the service terminal, the station ter-
minal and the rate, do you propose that if you
dispense with either the station terminal or the
service terminal, you are to have the maximum
deduction from the total rate which is altogether
below the maximum, or the proportion which is
due to that particular service P-My impression
about some of these very low rates is that the
diminution should come out of the mileage rate,
and that the terminal service (it is the argument
that the companies themselves continually use to
us) is the same whether the traffic is carried five
miles or 200 miles, and therefore I think that
there ought to be a specific amount put down for
each of the service terminals. It matters
nothing to us where it is going, or what the
distance may be, if the companies for their own
convenience choose to lower their rates, let that
be done out of the mileage rate, but not out of
the station terminals.
496. You would like a specified fixed ter-
minal 2–Yes, I want a specified fixed terminal.
497. To be charged in all cases 2–To be not
charged if not performed.
498. To be charged in all cases in which the
terminals are due 2–Yes.
499. How is the amount to be fixed in regard
to each description of traffic in each station ?—
On an average is it not, as the Board of Trade
have done it; by averaging it. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think we are a good
way from the proposal before this Committee.
Chairman.] The “shall
receive a rebate.”
Lord Belper.
500. Do you mean service terminals or station
terminals?
amendment says,
grain in transit is between
Lord Belper—continued.
Mr. Pope.] I mean the service terminals.
Witness.] I am not at present contesting the
figures the Board of Trade have thought fit to
put in for service terminals.
501. Then you would have a fixed amount for
service terminals in all cases in order to make
that deduction. How is that fixed terminal
which is to apply to all cases to be arrived at
excepting by averaging the value of the services
performed at all the stations 2—I presume that
is what the Board of Trade may have done.
5002. How are you to average such a terminal
without inaking it necessarily work unfavourably
at one station as compared with another where all
the work is done 2 How are you to average it
upon any other principle 2–I am not fond of
averages as a rule but, but I do not see how it
tan be arrived at otherwise.
503. In fact if you are to have this average
fixed terminal it must in some country stations
involve a payment for services not rendered,
unless there is the character or value of the ser-
vices rendered in the other stations to raise the
average 2–If we get a rebate we are not so par-
ticular as to the precise amount of the terminal.
504. Very good, so far, only that terminal is
to be chargeable you know with reference to
country stations and town stations alike (except-
ing for certain articles specified), for all articles?
—Of the same class.
Chairman.
505. I should just like to ask you one thing ;
you consign a quantity of flour to Birmingham,
do you not ?—A moderate quantity.
506. When you put it on the railway you
have nothing more to do with it?—We consign
it to somebody at the other end.
507. You put it on the trucks?—Yes.
508. You have nothing to do with what takes
place at the other end ?–We may sometimes
consign to our own order, and then may effect
the delivery ourselves in another station."
509. In the station where you partly do the
work and where the company do the rest,
because in the large stations, I suppose, you get
the advantage of the assistance of the servants
of the company ?–To a small extent we do.
510. How would you, in that case, calculate
how much work the railway servants have done,
and how much work your servants have done
—It is a most rare thing for the railway servants
to assist our men to load the truck, they will
either load it entirely, or not at all.
511. Surely they assist in putting in the
sacks?–No, they check it, but we have to put
the flour or grain, or whatever it may be into
the truck ourselves.
512. But suppose there were cases where it
was not so in which the company’s servants did
assist?—There are such cases, but they are very
rare; I do not think there need be any difficulty
in such a case as that in dividing the terminal.
513. How would you do it?–If the terminal
were posted up in each station in the same way
as the table of rates are expected to be posted
up, and the services were jointly performed by
the traders and by the railway company, say the
charge was 2d. a ton, I do not see any difficulty
(81.)
S 3 your
142
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.]
Mr. WILSON.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
your Grace in dividing the charge as between
the two.
514. That is exactly what I want to know,
how would you divide it?—If the services were
equally divided, I would divide the payment
equally, and in these very small charges I do
not apprehend that there would be any difficulty
in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement with
the company upon that point.
Earl of Camperdown.
515. How would you settle how much you
had done and how much the company had done ;
what would be the practical way in which you
would settle that ?—If there were two men it
would be fair to assume that you divided the
work equally. -
516. Supposing there were three ?–If each
one took his third of the whole it might be a
question of two-thirds; but it is such an ex-
ceedingly rare case, I can assure your Lord-
ships.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that we
have at the present time a right to get con-
sideration even for assistance, and in that case of
Mr. Berry's before the Railway Commissioners
that was referred to, the Railway Commissioners
said this: “At the selling station we will allow
9 d. a score” (that is a measure of hops, I be:
lieve) “ where the company do all the work, and
half that sum where the porter merely assists in
the work of loading in the manner described in
the evidence.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Then if that is so, what
is the object of you asking to be allowed the
rebate 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Because at the present
time the Commissioners have this power. If we
do not have this in, it will be a fixed terminal,
and the Commissionels will have no power to
consider it.
Mr. Pope.] It is made a fixed terminal by
practice; it is not the traders, we are perfectly
willing that it should be an open question.
Earl of Camperdown.] But that is not the
the form in which it come before us; it comes
before us as a Bill promoted by the Board of
Trade.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
517. You heard yesterday that the Committee
put in a clause by which the companies were
to charge for station terminals a reasonable
amount within the maximum, and that
that reasonable amount was to be determined
by an arbitrator. Would there be any difficulty
in determining a reasonable amount to be charged
for the loading and unloading of grain —None.
518. You speak of grain specially because it
is your own trade ?—It is my own trade.
#19. Practically, as I understand, although
there might be difficulties occurring when part of
the work was done in one case by one party and
part by another ; when you do not do all the
work, you do not want to be charged for it, and
when you do it you want a rehate 2–Yes, that
is so.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
520. Now, it is put to you that the railway
company is bound to be prepared for dealing
with all traffic at all stations.—Yes.
521. Are they as a matter of fact prepared to
deal with grain 2–No, they are not.
522. And where they are not, and you have to
do it, you want an allowance to be made to you ?
—That is so, and that is what we ask.
Mr. Hanbury.
523. In a station where the company have not
a staff, you would ask to do the work under this
clause 7–That is so.
Mr. Hunter.
524. In this case the access to the station
and loading into particular trucks and so on are
questions of facilities, are they not ?—Yes.
525. Why do you wish to alter the provisions
of the general Act of 1854 with reference to
these facilities? Are you satisfied to have all
these questions governed by the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act of 1854 P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are all questions
of facilities, no doubt; but at the same time, if
the charge is made, it can be exacted from us as
a maximum charge whether we have the facilities
Or not.
Mr. Hunter. But this proviso is so far a re-
peal of the limitation of the Act of 1854. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is, and I think the
Board of Trade amendment is too.
Mr. Hunter.] Would you be satisfied to leave
the matter as it stands, omitting the proviso of
the Board of Trade and omitting your own pro-
viso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would be a totally
different matter. If I could go before the Railway
Commissioners and say, I think this is a facility
and I want you to fix a rebate on the rate, I
should be satisfied; but I object to be barred
from that ; and I understood that the policy was
to fix the terminal at such as they think they
might have ; then they must fix a terminal, but
they must allow me a rebate It was to meet
that that I suggested my amendment.
Mr. Hunter.] I do not see why we should be
called upon to deal with the law of 1854. We
are dealing ouly with maximum rates.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you leave me with
all my facilities, and not deal with them, I think
I should be satisfied.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Poyser.] I think it would be convenient,
if before this amendmant is decided, your Grace
will hear the next amendment, on line 34, it may
be a solution of the difficulty now raised. It is a
proviso exactly and precisely the same as that
which was granted by the Committee yesterday,
and it will get rid of the difficulty of saying what
will be charged at one station and what at
another. I do not want to go into it now, but I
think it may be a solution of this difficulty.
Mr. Yates.] There are two other amendments
before your Grace; one on behalf of the Lancashire
and
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
17 April 1891.
and Cheshire Conference, and one by my learned
friend"Mr. Lush Wilson, on behalf of the Brighton
Corporation, which I think your Grace would
like to have read now, because they may help
the Committee to decide upon the amendment,
the principle is exactly the same. The
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference's amend-
ment is this, it is on their special paper, “The
company shall at all reasonable times give the
trader access to the railway for the purpose of
performing any of the services hereinfore men-
tioned, subject to such reasonable requirements
and regulations for the more convenient working
of the railway as shall from time to time be
determined by the Board of Trade.” That seems
to meet a great many of the difficulties that have
been raised before the Committee; and it meets
the objection that was raised by Mr. Courtenay
Boyle on behalf of the Board of Trade, namely,
that it would take from 10 to 12 years to frame
bye-laws, because these are subject to regulations
to be made by the Board of Trade. And it also
does away with all the difficulties, I think, which
have been raised by my learned friend Mr. Pope
as to keeping up a staff at a station to perform
that they might not be called upon to perform.
The Board of Trade would in cases of that des-
cription make some regulation with regard to
that.
Earl of Camperdown | That amendment does
not ask for rebate; it simply limits itself to the
question of access.
Mr. Yates | Yes; but I ought to tell the Com-
mittee that we are going to bring up a clause at
the time when the question of the rates is dealt
with, to say that when the railway companies
perform the service of loading and unloading
they shall have a profit of ten per cent. upon the
actual cost of the work done over and above the
work done.
Chairman.] That would be rather a difficult
calculation, would it not *
Mr. Yates.] The actual cost of working, plus
ten per cent. ; so that if they do the work they
get the profit.
Mr. Pope.] I do not follow what my learned
friend is doing now.
Mr. Yates.] I am just calling his Grace's and
the Committee’s attention to two amendments
that really are mixed up in the present amend-
ment before the Committee.
Mr. Pope.j But the amendment that I have
before me is identical in point of principle with
that before the Committee, namely, that the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Conference claim to have at
all reasonable times access to the station for the
purpose. That is on the question to be decided.
Mr. Yates.] Yes; and when the Committee
decide the question that is raised by my learned
friend, Mr. Balfour Browne, they will decide
this, and we shall not waste time by moving the
amendment afterwards. I thought that if I
moved it now, then the arguments would be in
the recollection of the Committe, and it would
save my making a much longer speech afterwards
by making a short one at the present time.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh)]. We
will now hear what the Board of Trade have to
Say. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Your Grace, the
Committee were good enough to ask the Board
of Trade two questions, and we asked for a
moment to consult. Your Grace, the reason for
our asking for time was not from the slightest
unwillingness to answer the questions, or doubt
as to what the answer would be ; but the Com-
mittee will observe that in a matter of this kind
we are placed in a somewhat difficult and delicate
position; and I will explain to your Grace in a
moment why. So long as the questions are
confined purely to questions as regards the
interpretation of the Order, as to what is our
intention, we shall be able to answer at once, I
hope ; but when questions are put, such as has
been the case in this discussion, in which ques-
tions of fact are involved, we are placed, as I
have said, in rather a difficult position; because,
if we make any statement as to facts, although
I venture to say we have a knowledge of the
contentions on both sides, we might. possibly be
betrayed into making a statement upon a ques-
tion of fact that might not be confirmed by the
experience of the traders on the one side, or of
the railway companies upon the other side.
Therefore I was anxious not to take up any
position that could possibly be interpreted into
giving evidence upon a matter of fact. That
was the reason of our hesitation for the moment.
The two questions that were asked us were as
to the use of the word “separate,” and why it
had been put it. Now what was in our minds
upon that matter is this : We cannot contem-
plate, and we cannot see the propriety of con-
templating, two traders tising the same truck
and loading their goods as they see fit in the one
truck. -
Mr. Hunter.] But were you under the im-
pression that under the existing law a trader
can go and load his goods in any truck he
pleases 7
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No, certainly not;
but the question is the reason for the insertion
of the word “separate,” that was the precise
question put. It is for this reason. First let
me say what it is not. We do do not intend to
infer that a trader, who wishes to load his goods,
must load a full truck; what we say is, that if
he is to load his own goods he must, in fairness
to other traders, load them in a separate truck
of his own. I will tell you why. We want to
avoid conflict between two traders who are com-
peting for the best part of the truck. Let me
give you one instance. Take the case of fruit.
If there are two layers, it is obvious that the
layer of fruit upon the top of the other will have
the best chance, the fruit below will be crushed.
If there are two traders both wishing to load
half a truck of fruit, one will wait outside till
the other man has gone in so as to get the best
part of the truck. We think that that is only
once instance, out of many, where there will be
a great deal of difficulty in that matter. There
was a great deal of evidence given to us on this
point ; and that is only one of the instance that.
occurs to me to give to the Committee.
Then the next question asked us was
(81.)
Earl
S 4 -
144 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are you going to leave
that first point %
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes.
Earl of Campernown.] Then might I ask you
this question. Putting this truck of the question
outside, supposing that a trader requests the
company to permit him to do the loading service
for himself, and the company unreasonably re-
fuses to allow him to do so, do you think that
there is any reason for excluding the trader from
deducting the service terminal, if it is a case in
which he may fairly ask to do the loading him-
self, and for which the company’s staff is in-
sufficient, as it is at some of these small stations P
I am now taking the article of fruit, because that
was the article mentioned in evidence here, and
which you have just alluded to.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] But is not that
contention which your Lordship has put exactly
the provision in the schedule?
Earl of Camperdown.] No, because it might be
merchandise which was not conveyed in a
separate truck, and also it might not be loaded
“ elsewhere than in a shed or building of the
company.” -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That is the point
I was just going to deal with : why we have
given facilities for what we have always called
the yard traffic, and not shed traffic. That is
the question that his Grace in the chair asked,
and which I was going to deal with. The reason
for that also, I am bound to soy, touches matters
of fact; it was hugely cross-examined to, and
contested before us at Westminster Town Hall,
and if what I am now going to say is to be not
accepted, I venture to say that I should not
as a matter of fact be called upon to elaborate
it at length, but that the railway managers who
are now in the room, and who can be cross-
examined, should speak to it.
Mr. Pope, Certainly.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. What was in our
minds is this: that in sheds there is often much
more limited space than in a yard, compared
with the work to be done, and there would be a
great struggle for priority (supposing a train of
trucks to be shunted into a shed), who is to go
in first to load the truck, if the trucks are to be
loaded. Secondly, in a shed, valuable goods
belonging to other traders are lying about in
small quantities ; and if it were a case that a
great number of servants of traders over whose
characters the company cannot exercise the same
control as over their own servants, and who
therefore are not under the same control as their
own servants, might be about, that would be
putting an undue risk upon the company that
everybody's servants should be admitted into their
sheds without their having very complete
control over them. And then there is a
great deal to be said again, as to the method
of loading ; questions of public safety come in
in too as to what goods should be put next each
other in trucks, and many other things where
careful loading is required. If the company
know that all the goods are to be sent in one
truck, they can take care to put the heavy goods
at the bottom and the lighter ones at the top ; if
the traders are to come in in any order they
choose, in the order of chance, or in any other
order in which they happen to come in, the
trucks may not be so well loaded ; so much
weight of goods may not be put into the trucks,
and the companies may be prejudiced by that.
Your Grace, I have answered the question
because it was put ; but I repeat again that if
these grounds, which I have endeavoured to put
before the Committe, seem to touch upon ques-
tions of fact, and if anything that I have said is
not admitted by those upon one side or the other,
I should venture to suggest that those who can
be cross-examined on questions of fact should be
placed before you.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I put a case to
you? Supposing that a trader brings a lot of
fruit to a small station belonging to the South
Eastern Company, where the company has not a
sufficient staff to load that fruit, and it is pro-
posed to load that fruit in a shed, and the com-
pany say that that loading is to be done by the
consignor's servants, is there any reason, in your
opinion, why a deduction should not be allowed
to the consignor for the service done, simply be-
cause that loading was done in a shed P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. But if the service
is not rendered the charge cannot be made under
the main part of the clause.
Earl of Camperdown.] Under the main part of
what clause P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I will read the
words to you ; it is Clause 4: “The maximum
service terminals are the maximum charges which
the company may make to a trader for the fol-
lowing services when rendered to or for a
trader.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But you must read that
in connection with the proviso.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is qualified by the
proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is cut down by the
proviso. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think not.
—Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect to
my Lord Balfour, I think so.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I am a layman; I
have not got a wig and gown, but if the conten-
tion is so, I venture to say that that should be
argued by learned counsel rather than by us;
that is our intention. And further, I believe I
may say, that those who have helped in framing
Acts of Parliament are not always the best evi-
dence in interpreting them. If we have gone
wrong, let the Committee say what they wish us
to do, and we will endeavour to do it. Onr con-
tention is that in such a case as Lord Camper-
down has put, the service, if it is not done by the
company, cannot be chargeable.
Mr. Pope.] I will expound that when it comes
to my turn.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If it is not in a shed or
separate truck, it is clearly not covered. I sup-
pose my Lord Balfour has overlooked those
words. <
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Surely the only case
in which a charge can be made is when the ser-
vice is rendered P
Mr.
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
145
17 April 1891.
*--—
Mr. Pope.] That is so. *
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I will undertake to say
that the intention of the clause is, that that shall
be absolute, that the oniy possible circumstance
under which the charge can be made is when the
service is rendered. If the learned counsel says
that that is not the effect of the clause, and the
Committee will suggest how it can be altered, it
shall be altered. -
Mr. Pope.] It is as clear as daylight.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that in the
Board of Trade's own Report that is not made so
clear as it can be. May I read it? I am only
reading what the Board of Trade said.
Chairman.] But we have got the Board of
Trade here in person. - 4
Mr. Balfour Browne. It seems to me that the
Report takes an entirely different view.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Will your Grace, before
deciding this, allow me to move the next amend-
ment but one ; it is upon the same principlé; it
is dealing with animals and will help to throw
light upon the amendment already before the
Committee.
Chairman.] We have got light enough on the
subject I think. -
Lord Belper.] Before we go on I should like
to ask Lord Balfour one question. The provi-
sion is “ where merchandise conveyed in a
separate truck.” What strikes me is that those
words are very much wider than you intended.
All merchandise is conveyed in a separate truck,
unless it is a thing that requires two trucks
to convey it, like a large girder, or something
of that sort. What is méant here is where the
merchandise of an individual trader is conveyed
in a separate truck, is it not ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, my Lord, two lots
of merchandise could be convey in the same
truck; but that is not “conveyed in a separate
truck,” because there is other merchandise in it.
Lord Belper.] But it is merchandise of one
trader 2
Mr. Courtney Boyle..] Yes.
Lord Belper.] But you have not made that
clear. The merchandise of two traders, con-
veyed in a separate truck, could be included.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The charge for which
we are making provision is the merchandise of
one trader.
Lord Belper.] But you do not say so.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It runs through the
whole proviso. -
Lord Houghton (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
You were speaking of conflicts that would be
likely to take place between different traders
loading similar goods in one truck. Would it
not often happen that there might be a friendly
agreement between two traders to load similar
goods in one truck :
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No doubt that
might happen ; but unfortunately in providing
conditions of this kind, we have not thought that
we had to take so much care of the cases in
which there is to be agreement as of the cases
where there is not to be an agreement. If we
section, before a decision is given.
point out that in the Brighton and Tooting Act;
other merchandise; in
had only to legislate for reasonable people, we
should have had a much easier task; whereas
we have had to provide against the extremity of
unreasonableness on the part of the most un-
reasonable person we can conceive to be in
existence. - -
Mr. Balfour Browne] That is the railway
Company. - +
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I should just like
to say further, that the substantive part of
Clause 4 applies, and is intended to apply, to
all the Classes A., B., C., 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; the
proviso applies only to the traffic in Classes A.,
B., and C. practically ; that is to the yard traffic,
and is intended to be a dispensation in favour of
the trader from the rigours of the main part of
the clause. '
Mr. Pope.j Has the case on the part of the
traders been closed ? Because when it has, I
will ask leave to say what I have to say on the
subject. At present, your Grace knows, I have
said nothing. . .
Chairman.] There were two or three learned
gentlemen who made applications.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I ventured to submit, your
Grace, that it is important to hear the amend-
ment proposed by the Corporation of Brighton,
with regard to animals being excluded from the
May I just
that is to say, in a private Act of the Brighton
Railway Company, upon which Hall's case was
decided, which allowed terminals, there is a clear
and expressed distinction between animals and
other words, station
terminals and service terminals, are to be allowed
in respect of goods, as distinguished from
aminals, but not in respect of animals. This
particular section includes, by the definition of
merchandise, animals.
Chairman.] We must deal with your amend-
ment after this one. I think this would confuse
it very much. .
Mr. Lush PWilson.] It is on exactly the same
principle. My point is simply this : I wish that
provision with regard to trucks struck out, and
for this reason : that animals belonging to dif-
ferent traders are often caried in the same truck,
and that no more serviceis done in respect to any
of those animals than if they were all the pro-
perty of one trader. I have evidence that I can
call to prove, if necessary, that it is the
general custom throughout the country to
class animals in the same trucks; different
traders being animals to the company, put them
in the truck, and remove them themselves;
there is no service dome by the company in
respect of them.
Mr. Ram.] I do not know whether your Grace
will take the amendment that I have to move ;
it is in the nature of a proviso precisely similar
to that which passed the Committee yesterday,
and it would settle, if passed, many of the points
that are now raised.
Chairman.] No, I think it would be better to
deal first with the question we have before us,
otherwise we shall get very much confused.
(81.)
T Mr.
j46
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE, JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
Mr. Ram.] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] Now then, Mr. Pope.
Mr. Pope..] Your Grace, I am very much
afraid that we are getting into a state of con-
fusion by discussing different matters as though
they were practically the same. The main ques-
tion that we have to discuss is the question which
is raised in the Mansion House Association's
Amendment ; namely, the right of a practically
unrestricted access, excepting where it is regu-
lated by bye-laws to be approved by the Board
of Trade, in respect of every station, of the
traders with the company. That is substantially
the question of the Mansion House Association’s
Amendment. But before I deal with that
specifically, just let me call your attention to the
proposed section of the Provisional Order. I
venture to think that it is as clear as daylight
what the intention of it is, be that intention right
or wrong. Let us read the words that are pro-
posed by the Board of Trade and see what
they mean. “The maximum service terminals
are the maximum charges which the company
may make to a trader for the following services,
when rendered to or for the trader; that is to say,
loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering
merchandise, which charges shall, in respect of
each service, be deemed to include all charges for
the provision by the company of labour,
machinery, plant, stores, and sheets.” That en-
actment is the only power which the company
will have to charge a service terminal at all ; and
the subsequent provisoes are limitations of the
power of the company in favour of the trader
(I will deal with what they are in one moment),
but it is absolutely unarguable that the power to
charge, and the only power to charge, being con-
tained in the first six lines of the section, there is
any power to charge, excepting when the service
is rendered ; because it says so in absolute terms.
Now, may I venture further to point out, that I
find myself in the very agreeable position of
being very much in accord with the honourable
Member for Aberdeenshire as regards the legal
obligation in this matter.
access to stations, all these questions of allowing
to perform services, and so on, are questions
within the existing law ; they are questions as to
what are facilities to be provided by the railway
companies under the Traffic Act of 1854. And,
in truth, what strikes me is this : That if the
traders are to have their own way they will ask
your Grace (and I am not sure that even this
proviso does not sin in this respect) in an inquiry
which is to settle Inaximum rates, to alter the
incidence of the general law of giving the traders
certain facilities under the Act of 1854. They
do not want any power to get access to stations;
they have got it iſ it is a reasonable facility;
that has been decided over and over again, but
in one case especially in very terms, in the
case of Garton and another v. the Bristol and
Exeter Railway Company.
was raised whether the company, for their own
purposes, denying access to the public to their
station, were refusing, in regard to that traffic, a
facility which they were bound to give under the
Act of 1854; and inasmuch as the Act of 1854
says that if they avail themselves of any facility
trader.
All this question of
There the question
for their own purposes, and are bound to afford it
to all, it becomes a question of undue preference
or undue treatment and disadvantage, which the
companies can be brought to account for before
the Railway Commissioners, and a trader can
get what he wants. So that in truth you do not
want a proviso; you do not want anything to pro-
vide for access, because the general law gives it
subject to the exigencies of the law of 1854. Of
course the stations are the property of the company,
and the company are entitled to manage their own
property as they like. The only extent to which
legislation has intervened and said that the use
of the company’s property shall not be absolute
is where they use it to the advantage of one
trader and prefer that trader to another ;
it must be used equally for the advantage of all.
Nor are they at liberty to refuse to the traffic
of a trader, facilities which they avail themselves
of for their own traffic. And in truth, this very
question Mr. Berry himself brought as against
the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Com-
pany before the Railway Commissioners; we had
it all out about Blackfriars station; we had it all
out about excluding the waggons of customers to
catch the market ; and the question was settled
by the Railway Commissioners; I forgetin what
particular way; I think it was more or less of a
compromise between the two. But at all events
the question that was raised was whether or not
the refusal by the southern companies to allow
the waggons of the traders who wanted to seek
the market, and to use the station as their own,
was aye or no, the refusal of a facility which
they ought reasonably to have granted to the
What more can they possibly want?
Now, if your Grace will look at the section
further you will see that the proviso is a limita-
tion of the power of the company, not an exten-
sion; and, speaking for the companies, I do not want
the proviso ; the Board of Trade put it in in the
interests of the traders, not in the interest of the
companies. It is this: that wherever you do the
service you may make a charge within the maxi-
mum provided in the schedule; that is the
substantive enactment, provided that in certain
classes of traffic a trader shall have the option of
saying whether they shall do the service or not.
They cannot charge, in any case, unless they do
the service; but if the service is dome at all, ex-
cept in those particular cases where the company
must do it, if they do it, then the question what
is to be charged is settled, not by an absolute de-
termination of what the particular value of the
particular service is, but by a determination of
a general average, which is to the advantage, no
doubt, of the companies in some cases and of the
traders in others ; and it is to my mind manifestly
inequitable that any legislation should be made
which will enable a trader to determine that he
will do the service at those stations or with those
goods where it is an advantage to the companies
for it to be done by them, and that he will leave
them with the unprofitable work, and compel
them to do only the unprofitable work, and only
avail themselves of the average maximum. That
is a manifest injustice which the Board of Trade
have not contemplated.
Now, the general enactment is that the com-
pany
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROV JSIONAL ORDER BILLS.
147
17 April 1891.
pany may do the service, and if they do the service,
may charge for it according to the maximum ; but
in cases where merchandise conveyed in a sepa-
rate truck is loaded or unloaded in a yard, that
is, elsewhere than a shed or building of the com-
pany, then the company may not charge to a
trader any service terminal for the performance
by the company of any of the said terminal
services, if the trader has requested the company
to let him do it. The question, and the only
question remaining, is not whether there must be
any provision for access to stations, but whether
that limitation is judicious, or whether it ought
to be extended in every direction. That is thf
question. Now just let us see. I shall ask your
Grace to allow me to call before the Committee,
the evidence of those who know most about it ;
namely, the goods managers of the various com-
panies, who will tell you how impossible it
would be to conduct the traffic of the company
if every trader was to have the option of sending
his waggons and men into the station to do the
loading and unloading for himself; you would
get no dispatch. That is exactly what the
traders of Liverpool, the traders of Manchester,
and the traders of Birmingham (excepting one
special trade, the grain trade, which is a very
particular one) would have told you if they had
been here. You have not had a trader, except
a trader in fruit from the southern counties,
and a trader in grain from Birmingham. It will
be in the recollection of my learned friend, as
it was in Mr. Berry's recollection, that we
we had the northern gentleman saying that that
would not do, that it would not be in the
interests of the traders. Because, the trader
wants the impartial attention of the company,
not to get his particular traffic off first, but sub-
ject to the liability that the company is not to
prefer anybody else's traffic to his, that is under
the law of 1854. The trader does not want a
rival trader to have the opportunity of rushing
in and taking a truck, and loading it for him-
self. That would inconvenience the station
accommodation to such an extent that the traffic
of the companies could not be conducted. That
I shall ask you to allow me to call specific
evidence about. Now let us look and see what
this special proviso does. The question is,
what has the Board of Trade said that the
trader's right should be 2
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not think that the
other side would deny that if a trader was to
demand the right to load his waggon in your yard
or your station, your refusal to allow him to do
so would be considered a reasonable refusal.
Mr. Hanbury.] It strikes me that all the facts
quoted by Lord Balfour and Mr. Pope, would
constitute a reasonable refusal on the part of the
company.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Mr. Pope.] Just look at the section again.
The construction which I have given to it is as
clear as daylight, the only construction of which
the section is capable ; namely, power to charge a
service terminal only when the service is ren-
dered, that is all. Then there is no necessity to
enact, and I think myself that the limitation
of the Board of Trade is unnecessary, because
access to the station is a reasonable facility which
—º
the trader can get under the Act of 1854; and,
if you strike out that proviso, then the effect of
striking it out would simply be this, that there
would be the power to charge this service ter-
minal when the service is rendered, that is all,
and that would leave the position of the trader
exactly as it is now ; nor need he claim access,
under the penalty of the refusal of a reasonable
facility, to enable him to load or unload himself.
But this proviso, of course, gives a specific right
to the trader, more than the mere general right
which the Act of 1854 gives. Now what does it
give 2. It gives him the right, the absolute right,
to claim access to do the service in the yard of
the company; that is to say, iu the case of traffic
which is represented in the classes which Lord
Balfour mentioned, Classes A., B., and C., which
are loaded in yards as a rule. And of course no
law can be so precise as to meet every possible
exceptional instance ; but the traffic in Classes
A., B., and C. is traffic which is loaded in a yard,
and it is meant, therefore, that if traffic is loaded
in a yard, the trader shall have the right to
claim admission to the yard, and the right
to do the service for himself. The question of
what shall be allowed, if he does the service, is a
question of rebate, and that is a separate question
from the limitation of his right to demand it.
The limitation is “ loading or unloading elsewhere
than in a shed or building of the company,” and
“in a separate truck. Now, you have heard
what the evidence has been with regard to a
separate truck, and you shall have that from the
managers. But can anybody doubt that if there
were given to the trader the right to go and claim
to load less than a truck load that is less than a
sufficient quantity to be carried in a separate
truck, there would be constant dissension
and difficulty between two traders each of
whom would claim privity of right to the
most favourable circumstances of loading. What
cannot be. And further, look at the liability of
the railway company. The railway company are
insurers of these goods. If anything happens in
consequence of the misloading of goods, if they
are in the hands of the railway company, they
must make them good. What a hardship it would
be to hold that a railway company must be respon-
sible for goods not loaded by themselves for damage
done to them in course of transit. It seems to
me that there would be interminable difficulty in
giving a trader the right to load goods and still
maintaining the responsibility of the companies
for the conveyance of such goods. Whereas of
course, where it is in the yards, and it may be
that the staff of the company is not sufficient, or
it is not convenient, as at roadside stations, for
the company to do the whole work, then in that
case where the goods are ſoaded in a yard or at a
siding and not the shed or station, or any building,
then the work is to be done by the company, if
it is to be charged at all. If the exception of a
separate truck, or yard loading is to be made,
that is to the advantage of the trader, although
there can be no doubt that the refusal of such
facilities to him might be the withholding of such
facility under the Act of 1854, even though you
strike the proviso entirely out of this Bill.
Now comes this question. The section goes
on : “Where merchandise conveyed in a sepa-
rate truck is loaded or unloaded elsewhere than
(81.)
T 2 in
148 MINUTES OF
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
_º
in a shed or building of the company, the com-
pany may not charge to a trader any service
terminal for the performance by the company of
any of the said terminal services, if the trader
has requested the company to allow him to
perform the service for himself, and the company
have unreasonably refused to allow him to do
so.” I am not at the present moment discussing
whether the provision of unreasonable refusal
might be referred in every case even to the Rail-
way Commissioners to decide; that is not the
proposition of the Mansion House Association ;
the proposition of the Mansion House Asso-
ciation is, that he is to have an absolute right of
access to the station subject to bye-laws to be
made and approved by the Board of Trade in
every instance. That is a totally different
matter; and I may say at once, on the part of
the railway companies, that I do not want it; I
cannot shake myself free from the obligations of
the Act of 1854; it seems to me, speaking with
great respect, that an alteration in the law of
I854 is beyond the province of this Committee,
You are not here to alter the responsibility of
the railway companies under the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act. Therefore, whatever you do
we should be liable to that ; and, therefore, it can-
not make any very great amount of difference to
me whether, in every case, the refusal to allow to
load or unload is declared to be a matter which
the railway companies may decide upon as rea-
sonable or unreasonable ; there is no need for
an enactment of that kind, it exists ; and the
proviso in that respect is not necessary at all.
And I, speaking for the railway companies, can
tell you the reason. If the question of a refusal
to load or unload at any particular station were
to be questioned by the traders, and the Railway
Commissioners were to have power to decide
whether the refusal was reasonable or unreason-
able under the Act of 1854; I am perfectly in-
different as to how that may be, because that is
the liability under which I am ; that is a lia-
bility that you would not remove, increase, or
interfere with ; you may limit it by some of
these provisions, but you cannot increase it.
And I should venture to suggest, as a matter of
good legislation, that what this Committee
should be careful to do, is not to introduce a
proviso limiting the general liability that the
general law has cast upon me.
Earl of Camperdown.] You would advise us to
strike the proviso out.
Mr. Pope.] If you ask me for the railway com-
panies, I say, yes. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I should like to answer
that question more fully before it is decided.
Mr. Pope.] I say yes; if you exact the section
without the proviso, you simply exact the power
to charge when the service is rendered ; and a
refusal to allow a trader access to a station to do
the work himself would come under the Act of
1854 as a reasonable facility. -
Earl of Belmore.] But nothing more would
come, would it; it would not give them a right
under the Act of 1854 to go and load for them-
selves and claim a rebate :
Mr. Pope.] No, it would not.
17 April 1891.
Chairman.] I think it would be convenient if
Mr. Courtenay Boyle would tell us whhat the
Board of Trade had in view when they put in this
proviso; because you see it is proposed now to
strike it out, whether any other part of the Bill
hangs upon it. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, your Grace; no
part of the Bill hangs upon it whatever. That
is a proviso put in in the interests of the trader
entirely, I believe, as Lord Balfour said ; it is a
limitation in the interests of the trader. In the
enactment, in the main portion of the section, the
intention was that no charge should be made
where no service is rendered. Then comes the
question, how is the trader to get power to do the
work himself? We say that as regards yard
traffic he is to be entitled to ask the company to
be allowed to perform the service himself, and
the company are not to unreasonably refuse him
power to do the work himself. We did not see
our way to extend it to non-yard traffic ; that is
to say, to building traffic, for the reasons
which Lord Balfour first and Mr. Pope
afterwards pointed out ; nor did we see that
it would be reasonable to enable a trader
to ask a railway company to be allowed
to load merchandise in a truck in which there
was or was to be some other merchandise. The
trader might say, “I do not care for the other
gentleman's merchandise, I am going to have the
best place in the truck”; or he might say, “I
must have the truck placed at my disposal at
such an hour of the day; it does not matter
whether it is inconvenient to somebody else.”
We do not think that that privilege should be
given ; and we intended to confine it to cases
where merchants’ goods, and merchants’ goods
only, were in a particular truck ; they need not
take the whole truck, but they must alone be
in the truck. Cattle, for instance, are nearly
always put into a truck by one consignor, and I
should think, after the evidence we have heard
to-day, if from no other cause grain is nearly
always put into a truck by one merchant only.
Anyhow, whether that is so or not, the object of
the clause is, to limit the power of the trader to
a request to perform the duties himself, to cases
where the merchandise is put in a separate truck,
and to yard traffic, and not building traffic. But
if the proviso is struck out, no other portion of
the schedule will be affected; and the only effect
will be, that an enactment which we believe to
be in the interests of the traders will be removed
from the schedule.
Mr. Wodehouse.] You are familiar, of course,
with the rights and powers given to the traders
by the general Act of 1854 which has been
referred to ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I am not so familiar
with it as many of the learned counsel here are ;
but I know something about it.
Mr. Wodehouse..] In your judgment, are the
rights and powers of traders with regard to yard
traffic enlarged by this proviso to a degree
beyond what they possess under the General
Act of 1884 °
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We thought they were.
We thought that this was giving them additional
facilities
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PRONISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
149
16 April 1891.
facilities, which they would not have under the
Act of 1884. That was our belief; I do not say
it is so. Many members of the Committee are
better able to answer it. t
Mr. Pope.] I think that is so.
this proviso gives the trader a right to demand,
without any question of whether it is reasonable
or unreasonable, in regard to that traffic, the
right to go into the yard. Under the general
Act, it would depend upon the question of
whether the refusal in any case was reasonable
or not. But in this case it extends the right of
the trader by giving him, in regard to that class
of traffic, an absolute right.
Earl of Camperdown.] Not absolute, because
there is the word “unreasonable.”
Mr. Pope.] An absolute right to demand that
he shall go in ; and, if acquiescence in that
demand is unreasonably refused, an absolute
exemption from any payment for the service
done, that is what it is.
Mr. Pember.] I do not think it makes any
difference between this Act and the Act of 1854.
Mr. Pope..] However, it is intended to do so,
there is no doubt; it is intended to give the
trader a greater facility of obtaining his wish to
load or unload this description of traffic, than it
is assumed he would have under the Act of 1854.
It is evidently arguable that it does not extend it.
But for that purpose the railway companies have
acquiesced in that proviso.
Now your Grace, the substantial question,
which I confess is the amount of the rebate, if
any, I would rather discuss as a separate matter.
It seems to me to be a totally distinct and
separate thing. -
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] The Mansion House Association’s
clause proposes that which I venture to think is
an absolute injustice; namely, that the maximum
authorised is to be deducted as the value of the
service which the trader does, although it may
not be charged in the particular rate which is
charged him. But if the Committee are pleased
to allow me to found an argument upon that
question, I would rather confine my present
argument to the question of the access to stations;
and with that view, I will call first of all one of
the great companies’ manager, and then I will
call the South Eastern managers, who is affected
by this question of Mr. Berry, and who will tell
you what the inconvenience would be that would
arise if the modification suggested were granted.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] I do not think we need call upon
you to produce evidence ; we are prepared to
insert those words. The words we are not pre-
pared to insert are, “Provided always,” on page 7,
submitted by the Mansion House United Asso-
ciation down to the end at the word “ trader.” I
think that is the first thing ; the others all hang
upon it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are all consequen-
tial.
Chairman.] Then we are not prepared to
accept that amendment.
I think that
... Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I ask your Grace
if you would under those circumstances keep the
proviso, or strike it out; because the railway
companies have asked to have it struck out.
Chairman.] We have not touched that. What
we have now decided is not to insert the amend-
ment that you have proposed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I follow.
Chairman.] We shall then have to consider
Clause 4.
Mr. Balfour Browne] But there is the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Conferences Amendment;
you have not decided upon that.
Chairman.] What I understood was that those
other amendments were practically the same as
yours. - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are, practically.
Chairman.] That is so, is it? -
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace, I cannot
assent to that.
Chairman.] But that was the object you had
in rising and asking us to take it just now
Mr. Woodſall.] No, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then we will hear you.
Mr. J.ush Wilson.] That is what I said, your
Grace.
Chairman.] That by not accepting Mr. Bal-
four Browne's amendment, we practically do
not accept yours ?
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Yes, quite so; but I did
not know that my learned friend Mr. Pope had
sat down. I should have liked to point out to
you that an exactly opposite contention was
taken by Sir Henry James.
Chairman.] Never mind Sir Henry James;
he is an excellent man in his place, but he is not
here. (To Mr. Woodfall.) What have you to say?
Mr. Woodfall.] I have not been heard yet,
your Grace, for the Marquis of Bute.
Chairman.]. Is your amendment practically
the same as Mr. Balfour Browne's 2
Mr. Woodfall.] No, I rose upon that point;
but I am sorry I did not say so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.} Before you pass from
this, your Grace, I do not know, of course, what
has influenced the Committee; I am perfectly
willing to abide by your Grace’s decision if
nothing that my learned friend Mr. Pope said
has affected you; but you have not heard
me upon what Mr. Pope said, and I think
that several of his remarks may have influenced
your mind, if it is merely upon our own case.
Chairman.] Oh, yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Very well, your Grace;
but he has really given you a view of the
general law that we do not assent to. Under
the Act of 1854, it is not the case that the rail-
way companies -
Chairman.] No, no. Now, Mr. Woodfall. -
Mr. Woodſall.] Now, your Grace, on behalf
of the Marquis of Bute, I have to bring up the
amendment which is that following after the
(81.)
T 3 words,
MINUTES OF EVITYENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
words, “Stores and Sheets,” at the end of the
first paragraph of the clause, to insert “pro-
vided that the actual sum chargeable in respect
of each of such services shall be such reasonable
sum within the maximum, as shall in case of
dispute be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade,” and I
will ask that my amendment be allowed to end
there.
Now I will make, I believe, only three obser-
vations in support of that. Well, your Grace,
I say in the first place that this amendment is
almost a logical sequence to the proviso which
was given by the Committee in respect of Clause
3 yesterday, and the arguments that I shall
adduce before the Committee are the arguments
which applied with equal force to Clause 3, which
was discussed yesterday. Your Grace, the
charges inserted in the schedule as terminal
services are lumped together under one charge,
and, as in the case of the station terminals, the
trader is not informed in any way as to how
these charges are made up. I say that it would
be possible to do that, and that it is not suffi-
ciently done by saying as it is said, at the con-
clusion of paragraph 1 of Clause 4, that the
“loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering”
shall “be deemed to include all charges for the
provision by the company of labour, machinery,
plant, stores, and sheets.” Of course, your
Grace, there are many other articles which may
come under the head of plant, which must
obviously come within the charge imposed with
respect to the terminal services. There are
ropes, for instance ; and I would suggest that
this point arising between the companies and
traders is not met, that the clause does not suffi-
ciently meet the point, where the labour is
divided. That point has been already very fully
discussed, and I do not propose to do more than
give your Grace this concrete instance of it.
Take a consignment of grain ; it arrives at the
docks; it is loaded by the trader; it then is
taken charge of by the company who cover it,
and in some cases (of course, not of grain, but
in cases of traffic requiring that service) rope it.
Now then, the Committee have seen, and have
said that this section protects the trader, if he
requests to be allowed himself to perform those
services. Your Grace, that is very well in
theory ; it is impossible in practice; it is im-
possible for the trader himself to cover his goods,
because he could not be possessed of the sheets;
if the sheets were sent up the country with the
goods, it would be impossible that they should
be returned to him. And the same ap-
plies to ropes, and that is only one in-
stance. And so I submit to the Committee
that although theorectically the trader is pro-
tected if he requires to do himself his own
terminal services, practically in some respects it
is not possible, and that therefore he ought to be
informed of what it is that the railway com-
panies include in this charge, which they have
denominated terminal service, and where the
labour is divided between the trader and the
company.
Then, your Grace, what is it that we ask to
protect the trader in this respect? I submit
that it is nothing which the railway companies
can possibly object to. All we ask in respect of
Clause 4 is what we asked in respect of Clause 3.
That where a trader thinks that he is being used
unjustly and unreasonably, then he may have an
appeal from the maximum ; that he may go to
the Board of Trade, and so may have an inves-
tigation into the component parts of the charge
under which he is labouring.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have an amendment
of exactly the same nature for Messrs. J. and J.
Colman, and, so far as I understand your Grace,
this would follow the other. We say that we
have never been heard on the amounts that have
been fixed for the service terminals; that to us
they seem exorbitant; it is most difficult of
course to test them, but we say that as your
Grace has given us power to go before an arbi-
trator to discuss what is reasonable in individual
cases, as we have that power just now, as the
Railway Commissioners have determined in
certain cases how much was to be paid, you will
not take away that right without giving some-
thing equivalent. In this Berry case, which was
not, as my learned friend said, about access to a
station (it was only as to charges to be made to
Berry) the Railway Commissioners determined
what were reasonable sums to be given. We
have that right at the present time. Unless you
put in something like what my learned friend
has proposed (and my clause is almost identically
the same) we will be deprived of that right.
We say that with the best intentions in the
world the Board of Trade have no material
before them to enable them to judge of what will
be a reasonable sum for the loading, unloading
covering, collection, and delivery. I do not want
to say another word. I believe it is a conse-
quential amendment upon the one you inserted
yesterday ; that if you give us an opportunity
of going on station terminals, I think you ought
also to give us an opportunity of going on service
terminals to the Board of Trade. *
Earl of Camperdown.] And this amendment
leaves the law exactly as it stands now,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is as I understand
and believe, my Lord. «
Mr. Ram.] On behalf of the coal owners of
South Wales and Monmouthshire, I have an
amendment, your Grace, precisely similar to that
which was moved by my learned friend Mr.
Woodfall, just now, on behalf of Lord Bute ;
indeed it was likely to be identical, because the
amendment was drafted by my learned friend
Mr. Shaw, and myself and adopted by my
learned friend Mr. Woodfall, I desire to add this
to what has been said by him. May I point out
that what we ask is not to have, as I understand
him to ask, the terminals split up ; not to have
any indication of how much is loading, unload-
ing, covering, uncovering, and so on ; I think
there may well be (as my learned friend Mr.
Pope has pointed out) very great difficulties in
doing that; difficulties applying to different
stations. But we ask your Grace to give us the
same proviso exactly as you passed yesterday
with regard to Section 3 of the Provisional Order;
so that, in the event of any portion of these services
not being rendered, the trader umay be at liberty
to go to the Board of Trade to show that those
services have not been rendered, and that there-
fore he ought to be exempt from a certain
almOunt
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
17 April 1891.
amount of the charge made. It is not the fact
that the trader is amply protected by the words
“The following services when rendered to or for
a trader”; for this reason, that those services are
specified, namely, “ loading, unloading, covering,
and uncovering, merchandise.” Then the section
goes on to say: “which charges shall in respect
of each service be deemed to include all charges
for the provision by the company of labour,
machinery, plant, stores, and sheets,” and, there-
fore what the traders are afraid of, the real peril
they are in, is this: Your Grace sees that this
section does not apply only to stations, it applies to
private sidings as well (that covers the whole
case), and, if on the private siding of a trader a
portion only of these services is done, then, unless
the proviso that we ask for is inserted, the com-
panies may say: “Inasmuch as we provided for
you, and did do a part of these services (perhaps
loading), therefore you must pay the maximum.”
It may be that it would in such a case as that,
that they would not have been provided with
machinery, plant, stores, or sheets; but if there is
no proviso, then it is plain, and I think will not
be denied, that if the company do any part of
these services in the absence of a proviso, they
can charge as if they had done all the services.
That is what the traders are afraid of. If the
proviso is granted, there will be no trouble in
splitting up how much is for loading, unloading,
covering, and uncovering. It will then be open
to the traders (as the Committee granted to the
traders that it should be open yesterday) to go if.
they desire it, to the Board of Trade, and point
out that perhaps on their own particular siding
the only thing done by the company was to
load, there was no machinery, no plant,
no stores, no sheets; that inasmuch as they
loaded only, therefore the whole of the maximum
charge should not be chargeable in respect of
those services so rendered, because not all were
rendered, but part only of the services were
rendered. That is the point. I venture to
think that the Committee will feel that, if the
proviso is inserted, it will only put us in the
same position as we were put in yesterday: but
that, on the other hand, in the absence of the
proviso, the trader will have to pay in all cases,
as if all the services were done, although, in fact,
only a very small portion of the services were
rendered.
Chairman.] Do I rightly understand you to
contend that, before the trader can get his
rebate, the whole of these services must be
performed ; that he would not be entitled to a
rebate, if only part of them were done?
Mr. Ram.] That if only a part were done, he
ought to have a rebate in proportion to the part
not done, I do not ask, your Grace, that it
should be specified in the Bill, or specified by
the company, but that there should be the power
of going to an arbitrator in the case of there
being only a small portion of these services done,
and to say, “the maximum rate is so much ;
for that maximum rate, I was entitled to have
all this work done ; I have not had it all done;
the circumstances of the case made it impossible
that it should all be done ; therefore, I ask you
to relieve me from paying for more than that
proportion of the maximum rate which repre-
sents the services actually rendered.” Your
Grace sees that, it there is no such proviso, and
no such power, it may be that there would be
many cases where the trader would have to pay
twice over for that which is done, he would have
to pay his own men who did the loading and un-
loading at the private siding ; and inasmuch as
the company may have done something in the
way of loading or unloading at the private
siding, he will have to pay them as though
they had done everything ; he will have to
pay his own men and yet pay the company as
though they had done it.
I think, your Grace, those are the points I
have to bring before you.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I think, it is only fair,
your Grace, that the Committee should know that
large bodies of traders do not agree with the
principle of the amendment proposed; that the
traders whom I represent will have to argue
by-and-bye upon these service terminals that the
amount fixed for them is very much too high;
and we apprehend that we shall be met by the
railway companies, when we come to argue that
they are too high, by the statement, that if they
are too high we can go to this Commission and
get them reduced. What we want is to have
them fixed at a moderate amount, and absolutely
fixed ; and we think that in the interest of our
trade, and of the traders generally, that will be
very much better than having the power of refer-
ence to arbitration.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just add one
word to what Sir Alfred Hickman says 2 I do
agree with him that if you can fix absolute sums,
I think it would be better for the traders; but I
do not think you can ; and that is why I ask you
to give us this appeal.
Chairman..] You begged us not to do it yester-
day.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I told your Grace
yesterday that even with regard to station ter-
minals I agreed with Sir Alfred Hickman.
Chairman.] What we understood yesterday,
when we dealt with that objection, was that the
station terminal was fixed at an average sum
because there was no appeal ; and we gave you
an appeal. Now when we come to discuss other
points later on it will be for us then to consider
whether that maximum rate is a proper rate con-
sidering the appeal, when it was fixed by the
Board ºf Trade without an appeal.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And if your Grace
chooses to reserve this until you come to the
question of quantum.
Earl of Camperdown.] We must reserve it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I think that is the
best plan certainly.
Chairman. But in answer to what Sir Alfred
Hickman said, I gathered from what he said,
that the traders whom he represents who he says,
are a very large body, are in favour of having a
fixed charge, and not having a charge that may
be fluctuating, because they would have to go to
the Board of Trade in many cases.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] That is so, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then I say that when we come to
(81.)
T 4 that
152
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
that part of the Bill, where we have to fix the
maximum rate, it will have to be taken into con-
sideration, that whereas the Board of Trade, in
fixing a rate without appeal, fixed what they
considered to be a moderate rate, it may then be
argued, when we come to deal with the question,
that now that there is an appeal the maximum
rate ought to be higher, that will have to be
argued. - -
Mr. Pope.] And your Grace will remember
that Mr. Wilson said, “I do not care about a
maximum rate if I have got the appeal.”
Chairman.] Have any other gentlemen got
anything to say upon the amendments 2
Mr. Pope. Does your Grace propose to hear
me against them P - - -
Chairman.] Certainly, we are desirous of
hearing you. -
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace, first of all, as regards
theverbal criticism upon the proposed amendment,
if you compare it with the amendment you car-
ried yesterday with regard to the station
terminals, you will find that it is not all,
either in expression or effect, the same amend-
ment, for this reason : that the effect of this
amendment as drawn (I do not think it is in-
tended to have that effect) would be, simply if
carried to remit back to the Board of Trade
any maximum rates that you might agree upon to
be revised from end to end at the instance of any
class of traders; it does not provide, as in the
station terminals, a right to ask the intervention
of the Board of Trade in regard to the amount
charged in respect of any particular consign-
ment. The words of the amendment that you
passed yesterday with regard to station terminals,
and your Grace has exactly hit what must
be the ultimate outcome of that—namely, that
we shall ask you to reconsider the question
whether the maximum rate, in the view of an
appeal, as compared with a maximum rate fixed
upon an average, is a fair and reasonable one ;
but the words of the amendment yesterday were,
as it passed you, “Provided that the actual sum
chargeable as station terminal in respect of each
consignment shall be such reasonable sum within
the maximum,” and so on. But if you look at
the words suggested (I do do not know that it is
intended), it would not be “with regard to each
consignment,” but it would be remitting to the
Roard of Trade the question in the lump, What
is to be the service terminal in regard to any
traffic in any classification ? That is not the
purport of the amendment of yesterday. That
was to enable the trader who might be aggrieved
by reason of any particular charge made to him,
to ask the Board of Trade to consider whether,
under the circumstances of his case, and the
specific traffic dealt with in that case, the station
terminal was or was not excessive.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That was no part of our
intention at all.
Mr. Ram.] It is my amendment, and I cer-
tainly, your Grace, desired to make it identical.
I believe I have by inserting the words, “ In re-
spect of each of such services.” If my learned
friend wishes to have “consignment,” I consent.
Mr. Pope.] I understood that my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne was opposed at the
end to arbitration, making the terminal a variable
terminal. , Sir Alfred Hickman all along has
consistently maintained that it is to the interests
of the traders that the maximum should be a
fixed maximum, and then he can argue that that
maximum, being a fixed maximum, must be .
reduced to such a reasonable amount as will
cover fairly the interests of the traders in all
average cases. That is the contention, and Sir
Alfred Hickman represents very vast interests
of the Staffordshire iron trade, and largely the
general trade of the Midland counties. So that
your Grace sees one of the difficulties now which
the Board of Trade have had to contend with.
They have had to hold the scales as well as they
can between the two classes of traders; those
who do want this sort of alteration, and those
who do not. Now the question really is, whether
you think it is necessary to insert this arbitration
in this instance. There is another great distinc-
tion between service terminal and station termi-
mal, a difference which exactly answers my
learned friend Mr. Ram. If you look at the
schedule of rates you will see that in regard to
service terminals they are split up into three
maxima. Now it will be impossible to split them
further. Any trader no doubt who has not the
service of loading or unloading performed for
him, may say, that not having had it, the amount
to be deducted is the amount charged for it
within the maximum. But supposing that the
service is partly rendered, that there is a certain
amount of loading in one case, and unloading in
another, it would be impossible to say that the
value of the unloading in one case was to be
measured by one scale, and in another by another
scale; if any unloading is to be performed, the
maximum applies, and so on. In fact, it is split
up; there are three maxima for each of the ser-
vices specified in the section. That makes it
quite different from the station terminal, the
station terminal being in a lump sum, not split
up at all, and therefore applicable to all classes
alike, whether service performed or not.
Earl of Camperdown.] Mr. Ram said that he
would give up that splitting up ; he said that he
was perfectly prepared so to amend his amend-
ment.
Mr. Pope.] I did not understand that ; but if
your Lordship understands it I am quite
COntent.
But let me now say this at once: The real
question, the substantial question, the true
trading interest question, and the true railway
question, is between Sir Alfred Hickman and
ourselves. We would be glad to return to, and
to have the existing state of the law; we would
be glad to be limited 10 such reasonable amount
as might be decided by an arbitration, or by a
tribunal. That is the law now. If, then, you
think it is desirable not to interfere with the law,
that is the position that the railway companies
would desire On the contrary, the traders,
who know their own business, are represented
by Sir Alfred Hickman, who says, “No, do not
leave me open at all to the uncertainty of an
arbitration tribunal ; let me have a fixed maxi-
mum schedule, and I know where I am with
regard
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
153
17 April 1891.
regard to my terminals.” That is really the sub-
stantial question between us and the traders.
The traders do not want the uncertainty. I may
say for the railway companies that we should be
exceedingly glad not to interfere with the ex-
isting state of the law; we are quite willing to
be put to justify any charge we may make by
reference to the tribunal in question; but the
traders do not want it. Therefore it seems to
me that by listening to the representation of a
certain section of the traders, you are running
the risk of introducing a difficulty which
hereafter may arise, by introducing provisions.
body of traders do not
which the whole
want. Of course, in my view the vice
of the section and the vice of the arbitration,
which has been dealt with is found in the words
“within the maximum ”; that is the vice in the
Railway Bill, that you have an arbitration only
within the maximum ; that is to say, that you
fix the average and then give them an arbi-
tration to enable the trader to get discharged from
any portion of it. But, your Grace having said
and being alive to the fact, that of course our con-
tention will be. If we are to have an arbitration
within the maximum, alter the maximum fairly
and it will not make much difference to us; or,
according to Mr. Wilson, do not have the maxi-
mum at all, but leave it all to be settled at a
reasonable sum, that does not alter the law. As
it is now with either of those we should be con-
tent, but if you accept the proposition of my
learned friends you only satisfy a certain section
of the traders, and you do that which a certain
other section do not desire to be done.
Mr. Ram.] My learned friend Mr. Pope has
of course dwelt upon Sir Alfred Hickman's re-
presentation of certain traders. May I point out
on behalf of the coalowners of Monmouthshire
and South Wales that we represent 22,000,000
tons of coal a year, and it is to be supposed that
those traders doing that trade know what they
want; but it is not only a question of what they
want, but I would point out to the Com-
mittee——
Mr. Pope.] That 22,000,000 tons of coal has no
service rendered to it, and has no service terminal
at all.
Mr. Ram.] We are afraid that under this
clause they will have power to charge the full
service terminals, for pitwood for instance, which
is carried to a very large amount on behalf of the
coalowners. If there is no appeal, then if the
company have provided labour, machinery, plant,
stores, and sheets, in respect of which they are
entitled to a maximum charge, and then the
coalowners have their pitwood carried up, then
for the only service that is done, perhaps loading
or perhaps unloading, no labour employed other
than that, and no machinery, plant, stores, and
sheets provided, they are to be charged for it all,
unless they are entitled to go to an arbitrator
appointed by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] No, no.
Mr. Ram.] My learned friend says no ; but it
is the fact that they can be charged for all
unless they can go to an arbitrator appointed by
the Board of Trade and say, “So much only was
done for us; for that by all means let us pay;
but let us pay only such sum within the maxi-
mum (we quite stick to that maximum) as repre-
sents the services actually rendered to us.”
Earl of Camperdown.] You will have to re-
draft the amendment.
Mr. Ram.] I am quite content to do that.
Mr. Pope.] I think that if my learned friend
Mr. Ram is under any misapprehension if he will
do me the favour to read the schedule he will
find it answered. I find that the service terminal
applicable to coal is 0 l. 0 s. 0d.
Mr. Ram.] It is not coal only ; it is pitwood and
other articles. With regard to what my Lord
Camperdown has said, if my learned friend Mr.
Pope desires to have the words “in respect of
each consignment’’ inserted, that will make the
proviso identical.
Mr. Woodfall.] Will your Grace allow me to
say two words in reply on behalf of the Marquis
of Bute 2 First of all, dealing with the objections
advanced by Sir Alfred Hickman, it was amus-
ing to see my learned friend Mr. Pope patting
Sir Alfred Hickman on the back as it
were in the hope of seeing one set of traders
opposing the wishes of others. Of course it
has been deplored before that it is quite impos-
sible for the traders of the kingdom to present
a united front; but Sir Alfred Hickman repre-
sents his set of traders; I represent a different
set of traders. I understood that his objection
went entirely to quantum, and what does my
learned friend Mr. Pope mean by encouraging
him now ! Sir Alfred Hickman says: “When
we come to fix the maximum my contention will
be that the maximum is too high, and I want it
lowered.”. Is my learned friend Mr. Pope
really holding out to him a lure, that when he
does arrive at that stage of the discussion the
railway companies will lower the maximum ?
Mr. Pope.] No, we want it raised.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Mr. Hoodfall.] Your Grace sees that under
the section it says that “ the terminal services
shall be deemed to include labour.” That is a
very wide term ; and even this might arise: that
the railway companies who, as I have already
told the Committee, are the only people who
possess ropes; to rope the traffic that requires
that service, might say, “the loading was not
completed by you because we roped it after-
wards.” And in the case of colliery timber, that
actually would arise with the colliery timber,
which is unloaded entirely by colliery labour,
unloaded save the unroping, that might be done
by the railway company, and then they might
say, “We brought ourselves within this defi-
nition of labour, and so have earned our right to
exact this terminal service.” And even, I am
reminded now, so small a service as putting in a
wedge, to put up the timber in a truck, would
come under the definition of labour; and, if the
clause stands as it does without any redress to
the trader, then the railway company might
exact a service terminal for simply having
rendered so small a portion of the labour as that.
I have one more observation to make. My
learned friend, Mr. Pope seemed to be appre-
hensive of the dangers of arbitration.
(81.)
U - Mr.
154
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
Mr. Pope.] If you will give it to me entirely,
I will take it.
Mr. Woodfall.] But traders trade for profit,
and no trader in his senses, with sense enough to
see, as traders do see at once, whether the
charges under which they are labouring are
reasonable or unreasonable, no trader in his
senses would have recourse to the costly process
of arbitration unless he had some reasonable
grounds for doing so. Arbitrations are most
disastrous as compared with judicial process ;
they cost more and decide no principle, and no
trader in his senses would willingly avail himself
of this proviso, which we ask the Committee to
insert, unless he knew that justice entitled him
to have that redress.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] You told us I
think just now that you were arguing against the
insertion of this amendment, and you told us that
although we had agreed yesterday to the proviso,
with reference to the arbitration by the Board of
Trade, the station terminals and the service
terminals differed, and that although it might
have been advisable (though you would not admit
that), to put in the proviso yesterday, yet that
this was a totally different case, and that there-
fore you urged us not to accept this amendment.
now. Will you point out what difference you
had in view.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace would kindly look
at the station terminal, there is no sub-division of
it into different services done. Take any sche-
dule your Grace places ; take the london and
North Western Company’s Order, at page 11.
There you have “ maximum rates and charges,
Part I., goods and minerals, continued.”
not matter what you take it from, the last group
of columns you see is called maximum terminals;
on page 11 your Grace will find it. Take the
first item—“Station terminals, at each end 6 d.”
There is no service, terminal in that case at all.
Then I go further down the list, “ For any
distance not exceeding 20 miles,” you will find
in the last column as in the first, there is a
class, that was Class B. Now let us take the
next class, which is C. There is a lump sum
of 1 s. at each end allowed as the maximum for
the station terminal, but the service terminal is
not lumped, it is split up, it is divided, there is
3 d. for loading, 3 d. for unloading, a penny for
covering, and a penny for uncovering; so that
there are four different services rendered, each of
which has its maximum allocated to it. So that
in truth the service terminal is already split up
in the schedule itself and is not lumped as the
station terminal is.
Earl of Camperdown.] That objection of yours
applied to the mode in which the amendment
was originally drawn, because I used the word,
“ services *; but now that we have made the
amendment identical with that which was passed
yesterday by striking out “services” and sub-
stituting “ consignment,” that particular objection
disappears,
Mr. Pope.] My objection was upon the phrase-
ology. That as the proviso was originally drawn
it would not have been available to the trade
upon each individual consignment; that was the
It does
first objection. The next was that the arbitration
was not so applicable to the service terminal as to
the station terminal, because the maximum was
already split up in the schedule itself, that so
much should be allocated to loading, so much to
unloading, so much to covering, and so much to
uncovering, without the intervention of any
arbitrator at all; in fact the difficulty of the
arbitrator in this case will be that you cannot
further subdivide the terminals, supposing that
one service only was rendered because you could
not say “partially loaded ” or “partially un-
loaded,” but, of course, if other services were
not rendered, the arbitrator would have it decided
for him by the Schedule itself.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We say that each of
these sums may possibly be unreasonable, just as
the whole sum for the station terminal is.
Chairman.] Now, before we conclude this
matter, I think somebody has to reply.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not want to reply,
your Grace. -
Mr. Pope..] Mr. Woodfall has replied.
Mr. Woodfall.] If you look at some of the
terminal charges you will see that they become
a very serious thing. I see in Clause 5, 1 s. 8 d.
a ton for loading, 1 s. 8 d. a ton for unloading,
1 s. 4 d. for covering, so that it is a very heavy
thing. -
Chairman. The Committee are not prepared
to accept the amendment. We are now upon
Clause 4. Mr. Pope, I think, has suggested that
he would be very glad to see the proviso struck.
out ; what have the traders to say upon that?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think I must object to
that. My learned friend Mr. Pope entirely
changed front, I think upon a suggestion from
one of the honourable Members of the Com-
mittee, that the Railway and Canal Traffic
Act gave the trade as “ due and reasonable
facilities '' all that they require. Now with
great respect to my learned friend, that is really
not the case. The object of that proviso was,
as Lord Balfour of Burleigh told the Committee,
to give a limited right of access at the stations
to the traders, and it was also, as I told the
Committee, a right, limited in the way the
proviso sets forth, to load their truck, and if they
did load it or unload it to have a rebate. With
great respect to what was said by the honourable
Member for Aberdeenshire, I do not think that
under the Act of 1854 a trader has any right to
load and unload as a “reasonable facility.” It
is very doubtful, really, whether a trader has the
right to go upon a station at all. The railway
companies the whole way through the argument
before the Board of Trade said, This station is
our own property, and Railway and Canal
Traffic Act, notwithstanding, we can prevent
your coming upon it. The traders said, As a
fact we do come upon it, and we cannot get
access under the Act of 1854. My learned
friend quoted other cases, for instance, Garton v.
The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company,
which had nothing to do with the facilities at all.
It was a question of undue preference, and the
hours of shutting the station, and I may say
this, that, as my Lord Balfour of Burleigh said,
he felt it to be a legal point, he asked Sir
Henry
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
155
17 April 1891.
Henry James on behalf of the railway com-
panies, and myself on behalf of the traders to
address ourselves to that point, and I had to
admit then that I did not think the trader has,
unless you give it him, a right to demand the
privilege of loading and unloading in a station
yard. These are the words of Sir Henry James,
not as an advocate, but in answer to Lord
Balfour of Burleigh who desired to be advised
upon the legal point, and it was adhered to all
through until to-day, when the railway com-
panies changed front: “My Lord, speaking, I
hope, with not undue confidence, may I say
most positively in the presence of some of my
learned friends who are better able to judge of
questions of law than myself, that there is no
such right in any trader in this country. You
are asked to confer it; it is nothing more than
the ordinary principles of law involved. The
station of a railway company belongs to that
company as a closed wood, as a field or a house,
or any other tenement that is the property of the
company. They as common carriers say, we
will receive your goods, but they have the right
to receive them upon the threshold of their
station, and not in its centre ; and at this
moment if the railway companies choose to say
to persons bringing goods, “ There is the boun-
dary between the highway and our station here;
our servants receive those goods upon that boun-
dary, they will be acting strictly in accordance
with their right, and no person would have a
legal right to insist upon coming upon that sta-
tion, or to any portion of that station,” and so
on. Now, my Lord, it was with the object of
conferring the right upon the trader that this
was inserted limiting in this way. Now my
learned friend says, “I am quite content with
the Act of 1854.” The honourable member for
Aberdeenshire said it was a facility question.
With great respect, I think it is not. That it is
limited by the schedule, and that we must have
the right conferred upon us for the other matters,
otherwise the railway company will say, We
will not let you into the station. Therefore, my
Lords, even in this form, which we do not
like, I prefer to have this proviso remain.
Mr. Pope.] I do not propose to say anything.
I do not propose it as an amendment, I simply
intimated that, in my judgment, it would confer
no further facility upon the traders; if you
think it would, I would not say a word
against it.
Mr. H. C. Richards.] As appearing for the
Corporation of the City of London, we have
petitioned that no alteration shall be made in the
schedules provided by the Board of Trade,
therefore I have most respectfully to urge that
this proviso should remain in the Bill for the
protection of the traders, for the reasons given
by Lord Balfour of Burleigh ; and as we have
petitioned in favour of the provisions of the
Board of Trade, this amendment would be
directly running counter to them, and the very
fact that my learned friend Mr. Pope says that
the proviso is in the interests of the traders is a
direct argument that it should be admitted.
The Committee retire to consult together.
Upon their return,
Chairman.] Are there any further amend-
ments upon Clause 4?
Mr. Lush Wilson.] There is another one; I
do not know whether there may not be more than
ÖI) e.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not one at this
stage; the next I have is on page 10.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] At page 9 of this printed
list of amendments there is an amendment by the
Corporation of Brighton. Your Grace sees that
the amendment is to include in Clause 4, line 36,
after the word “merchandise ’’ ‘‘ other than
animals,” and on line 40, after the words “to do
so,” to insert “And the company may not
charge to a trader any service terminal for load-
ing or unloading animals, whether conveyed in a
separate truck or not, or whether loaded or
unloaded in a shed or building of the company or
not if the trader has requested the company to
allow him to perform the service for himself,
and the company have unreasonably refused to
allow him to do so.” This amendment, your
Grace, is framed to meet this case,
Mr. Saunders.] With regard to this amend-
ment, I am for the London and Brighton
Company ; I believe it is only on the London
and Brighton Company’s petition that the
application is made, and I would ask whether
my learned friend is now proposing this with
reference to all the companies, or with reference
to the Brighton Company only, because, of
course, the procedure would be different.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] My answer to that is this:
I am only concerned, of course, in the Brighton
Company’s Bill; I am not concerned with the
other railways, but it was arranged and agreed
by the Committee that all amendments to this
clause should be brought on in their order.
Chairman.] But what we decided was that we
should deal with the subjects first which applied
to all the nine railway companies.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I take it that this does.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, it does apply to
all the nine companies.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I do not see why it should
In Ot.
Chairman.] It must do one of two things, it
either applies to all the companies or it does not.
If it applies to all the companies then you will
be in order if it is merely an exceptional case
applying to the Brighton Company, then I
should say you would not be in order.
Mr. Dush Wilson j I should say that it should
apply to all the companies.
Mr. Saunders.] If that is so, then I propose
not to interfere here. My learned friend, Mr.
Pope, is conducting the case for the railway
companies generally, and I propose not to inter-
fere in that way. I propose to leave the case
very much in the hands of my learned friend,
Mr. Pope, otherwise I should submit that it
ought to be postponed.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] The object of submitting
this amendment to the Committee is to meet this
case. I can prove, if necessary, for the traders,
(81.)
U 2 but
156
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
17 April 1891.
fº-
but I take it that it will be admitted that it is a
very general custom throughout the country for
different traders having one or two beasts to be
conveyed from one station to another, to drive
those beasts into a yard adjoining the siding, fold-
yard, or whatever they call it, of the railway
company, and for those beasts to be loaded
together in one truck, and loaded by the drovers
who drive the separate beasts into the yard ;
and in the same way, for them to be unloaded by
the consignees’ drovers; the door is let down by
one of them, and the beasts, once in the yard,
each drover sorts out his own particular beasts,
and they are driven out of the yard by the men
with their dogs. The object of inserting this pro-
yiso is to prevent the operation of that “separate
truck ’’ in this sub-section applying to enable the
company to charge terminal services in the case I
put. I submit that this proviso should be inserted
so as to get rid of the effect of the words “sepa-
rate trust” as regards animals, and so throw
upon the consignor or consignee the burden of
the service terminals in the case I put. May I
just point out that the private Act of the Brigh-
ton Railway Railway Company, upon which
Hall’s case was decided, and which decision was
to the effect that terminals in addition to the
rates must be allowed, expressly excepts from
the terminal service the carriage of animals,
and therefore before this Act referring the con-
sideration and settling of maximum rates to the
Commission of the Board of Trade, subject to
your Committee, was passed, the companies
whose private Acts were in the same terms as
the Brighton Act, had no power to charge
service or station terminals in respect of animals
carried. Therefore, if the Committee should
accept this proposal, it is perfectly clear that no
hardship or injustice can be done to the com-
panies, because they would be in exactly the
same position as regards service terminals with
respect to animals as they were before this Act
was passed.
Chairman.] Let me ask you this. What is
your contention ; that animals in future should
not be charged service terminals P
Mr. J.ush Wilson.] No, your Grace, my con-
tention, as appearing upon this amended proviso
is, that if animals belonging to different owners
are loaded in the same truck, and not a “sepa-
rate truck,” and if the services in respect
of loading and unloading are rendered by the
consignors and consignees, as distinguished from
the railway servants, and if those services may
reasonably be so rendered, then no service ter-
minal should be allowed in respect of those
animals, although not carried in a separate truck.
Your Grace understands that unless I can get
this proviso inserted I have to pay the service
terminals, because of the words inserted in the
first line of the proviso in Section 4 : “Mer-
chandise conveyed in a separate truck.” By
inserting this proviso I get rid, so far as regards
the carriage of animals, in respect of which no
service is rendered by the company, of the effect
of the words “separate truck ’’ as obliging me
in the case I put to pay service terminals, even
although I do not ship in a separate truck.
Mr. Pope.] Do the Corporation of Brighton
ship many animals?
Mr. Lush Wilson.] They represent a great
many traders who do, and some members of the
corporation do. I think that question would
only affect the question of the locus standi. I
do not know whether my learned friend wishes
to dispute it.
Chairman.] Do you wish to call a witness 2
Mr. Dush Wilson.j I do. I propose to call Mr.
Holden. *
Mr. Pope.] He is not here, and he is not a
member of the corporation of Brighton.
Chairman.] What do you propose to prove 2
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I simply wish to prove,
what will probably be admitted to you, that in a
great many cases animals belonging to different
owners are carried in the same truck, and that
they are loaded and unloaded by the consignor
and consignee respectively.
Mr. Pope.] Is my learned friend aware that
Mr. Holden is not appearing upon the petition
in his own name, but that he is a cattle dealer in
the north of England 2
Mr. Lush Wilson.] It is not the same Mr.
Holden, there are more Mr. Holden's than one.
Chairman.] If he is to be called to prove that
cattle not belonging to the same owner some-
times go in the same truck, I take it all will
admit that.
Mr. J.ush Wilson.j Then I will not call any
evidence as to that.
Earl of Camperdown.] Until anyone denies it.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I submit this proviso is
reasonable upon the face of it, for this reason,
that the services in question are performed in
every case I put by the consignor or consignee,
not by the company.
Chairman.] In every case ?
In saying that I
think you go a little too far.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] It is at any rate a very
general custom. -
Chairman.] That is quite a different thing ;
“every case” and “general custom " are quite
too different things.
Mr. J.ush Wilson.] This proviso before Your
Grace will only give exemption from the payment
of terminal charges to particular cases in which
it is reasonable that the servants of these traders
should do the loading and unloading. If, there-
fore, owing to the circumstances in any particular
case either in the charactor of the station or the
crowd of animals, or any other circumstances, it
would be unreasonable to allow anybody but the
servants of the company to do the loading and
unloading, that would not fall within this proviso,
and therefore the consignor would be liable to
pay the station terminals.
Mr. Pope.] On behalf of the railway com-
panies generally I feel a little embarrassed, for
although I represent a great number of them, and
I suppose there are horses and cattle in the north,
there is no other petition except that of the
Corporation of Brighton which seeks to exempt
animals from the general operation of the clause
which the Committee has sanctioned. Therefore
there must be some special reason applying to the
Brighton line. -
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
157
17 April 1891.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I may say that a great
numbers of traders are interested in cattle, but
the original amendment which I submitted to
you for the Mansion House Association would
have covered cattle.
Chairman.] You cannot go back to that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend must
not discount the opposition because the petition
only related to one company.
Chairman.] You are not opposing this amend-
ment. You have been heard for your own
amendment, which has been rejected, and we do
not want to hear anything more about it. Now,
the Brighton Corporation found out this difficulty.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] There is this difficulty,
or additional reason, which I ought to state, that
under the present law as it stands, the Brighton
tarders are not liable to station terminals in res-
pect to the carriage of cattle, even though the
services are performed by the company ; there-
fore is it unreasonable for me to ask the Com-
mittee to engraft on this sub-section which deals
with a “separate truck,” an amendment exempting
them from terminals in cases only where it is
reasonable for the owners of the cattle to perform
the services of loading or unloading 2 -
Mr. Saunders.] I am not aware that the ser-
vices in respect to cattle are different in the
north of England from what they are in the
south. I am perfectly willing to meet the
challenge of my learned friend Mr. Pope in this
matter, although it seems to me to have been
more properly addressed to my learned friend
Mr. Lush Wilson, that it was incumbent upon us
to show that there was a great difference between
Brighton and the rest of the country.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I think I stated that I did
not rely upon any peculiarity as to Brighton
at all.
Mr. Saunders.] Now, I think, I can show
your Grace that to propose any clause specially
applying to Brighton not applicable to the
country generally, would be to emasculate the
clause which has been alread passed, because
merchandise— .
Chairman.] I do not think we need trouble
you. What is the next amendment 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So far as I can see, I
do not think there is any other amendment upon
the clause ; there are additions to be made to
the clause. My learned friend Mr. Carver
appears for the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, but he has put his “after Clause 4.”
Chairman.] Lord Belper has some verbal
amendments to suggest, which would make the
clause more clear.
Lord Belper.] They are merely verbal amend-
ments rather in consonance with the questions I
asked Lord Balfour ; I understand Lord Balfour
and Mr. Courtenay Boyle rather think it
would make it a little clearer in line 32, to put
‘‘ his * before “merchandise : ” in line 35 to in-
sert “a trader’s ” before “merchandise,” reading
“ where a trader's merchandise.” In line 37, to
alter “ to a trader’ to “ him,” and in line 38, to
omit “the trader ’’ and insert “he,” but they are
merely drafting amendments.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. It has been
pointed out to us in the course of this discussion
that we used the term “terminal services” in
this clause twice, and in every other case the
word is simply “services” without “terminal ’’;
it would be perhaps more accurate and save some
misunderstanding if the word “ terminal" in
line 38 before “services,” and the last word of
line 42 were deleted. -
Chairman.] Very good. What is the next
amendment 2 -
Mr. Carver.] The next amendment on the
paper is really a proposal for a new clause, not
for an amendment of, but for a proviso to Clause 4.
Chairman.] Then we cannot touch it until we
have finished Clause 4.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then Sarah Tomlinson
has something to say.
Chairman.] Anything like an amendment to
the clause or a proviso we could take.
Mr. Pember. They are provisos some of them,
the last two on page 10a, “The company may not
charge ’’ and so on, are obviously provisoes, and
equally obviously part of the clause.
Mr. Woodfall.] Then, your Grace, shall I go
on with proviso; it is on page 10a.
Mr. Darlington.] There is an amendment for
for the traders of the Nantlle Valley, and I beg
to withdraw that amendment.
Mr. Woodfall.] On page 10a I have to bring
up a proviso on behalf of the South Wales and
Manmouthshire Traders. I do not understand
that your Grace is going to take the proviso
now. Your Grace said it was really an
amendment. Now as to the first proviso, that I
beg to withdraw on behalf of the Monmouthshire
traders, but the proviso I bring up on their
behalf is as follows: “And provided that the
company may not charge a service terminal at
the end of a railway where such railway or
any part thereof joins a dock line, and the
company's dock and shipping charges are appli-
cable, or at any point on the company’s railway
where such railway, or any part thereof, joins a
siding not belonging to the company.” Now I
have just one or two observations upon that.
The first is this : that terminal services must be
services relating to a terminal station. Your
Grace will bear in mind that, when the station
terminals were under discussion, when the Com-
mittee were referred to the definition given of
what was a terminal station, it expressly excluded
dock sidings. Now the body of freighters for
whom I appear, of course, are obviously most
interested in the matter concerning the charges
levied in the dock sidings. Now, your Grace,
when you come to deal with service terminals,
there is no locus assigned where those charges
can be exacted, and there is no definition of
such a locus as will protect any dock sidings.
Mr. Pope..] If you have the work done, you
ought to pay for it wherever it is done.
Mr. Woodfall.] If my learned friend will
kindly not interrupt me, I will state my case
shortly. There is no definition given which will
protect dock sidings; there is nothing in the
section to prevent the company fixing any part
of the lineas the part which they shall exact the
(81.)
U 3 service
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
service terminal in respect of, although on the
face of it, that service terminal could only be ex-
acted upon that part of the line which would come
under the heading of “terminal station ”; and
what seems to me as important is——
Chairman.] How do you read it; do you mean
to say, under the term “terminal station,” they
may call any part of their line a terminal station.
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace, when they
were defining what station terminals they might
exact, which were those that they might exact
at the terminal station, they then gave a defi-
nition which covered all the things that we are
now afraid of. But when they come to talk of
service terminals they give no definition of any
place where those shall be imposed.
Chairman.] I should say service terminal would
have effect at the terminus.
Mr. Woodfall.] If that is the true reading of
the clause it certainly has not been so read by
the body of traders whom I represent.
Chairman.] Is it possible for a service ter-
minal to be put into operation except at a
terminus P. It would not be a service terminal
otherwise.
Mr. Woodfall.] If that is so, I say that when
we are passing an Act of Parliament which will be
the law for the railway companies
Mr. Pope.] It is payment for services done ;
there is no payment unless the services are done;
and wherever the services are done they ought
to be paid for at the usual amount.
Chairman (to Mr. Woodfall).] Will you go on.
Mr. Woodfall.] Surely, your Grace, that shows
that our apprehensions are not entirely without
foundation. My learned friend says, “Wherever
these are done you ought to pay for them ;”
that is to say, that wherever they are done the
companies are entitled to say, “Here is our
terminus, and here we may exact a service
terminal.”
Mr. Pember.] Why not 2
Earl of Camperdown.] The clause says that
the service is only to be paid for when it is
rendered.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown. Do you contend that
there may be cases in which, when a terminal
service is rendered to you, you ought not to pay
for it ; is that your contention ? -
Mr. Woodfall.] No, my Lord, not if it is a ter-
minal service ; but we say that on parts of the
line there are many services which the company
has to render, which are not terminal services at
all, which they may exact.
Lord Houghton.] But terminal services are
specially mentioned in the schedule, are they not?
They are of four kinds.
Mr. Woodfall.] The terminal services are load-
ing and uploading, covering and uncovering.
Lord Houghton.] And they cannot take place
during conveyance.
Mr. Woodfal/.] No ; but they are called ter-
mimal services; and what I say is that under this
clause as it stands, the companies may exact them
upon the dock sidings to which the dock and
shipping charges are applicable ; so that the com-
panies may get them twice over.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, because it is ser-
vice terminals ; the only charges they can make
are service terminals.
Mr. Hanbury.] They cannot charge except at
the two ends.
Mr. Pember.] No, we can only charge once.
Earl of Camperdown.] Service terminals can
only be charged at the terminal stations, and for
Services when rendered. -
Mr. Woodfall.] But they have not said that
they can charge these service terminals at the
terminal stations; and the clause as it stands does
include dock sidings, to which the dock and
shipping charges are applicable, one of which
charges is actually loading and unloading, cover-
ing and uncovering, what they may charge over
again as a terminal service.
Mr. Balfour Browne. J May I say that I want
to oppose this because in the first place
Mr. Woodfall. Then I ought to finish. I have
not finished.
... Mr. Balfour Browne.j I beg your pardon, I
thought you had.
Mr. Woodfall.] Well, your Grace, I say that
this clause is open to more than the construction
put upon it by the Board of Trade; and it is a
very reasonable thing, and especially in regard
to dock and shipping charges, to prevent the
companies having the chance of taking them,
even by mistake twice over ; and that it is a
protection that I ask for in this proviso.
Chairman.] I am sorry to say that the Com-
mittee think it is not a reasonable protection.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] So do I.
Chairman.] Now I think we have got so far
that there are no other objections to Clause 4, and
no proviso to be added, therefore we will now take
the amendments to Clause 2. ' -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will you not have the
additions to Clause 4 first 2
Chairman.] Just so. I forgot that.
Mr. Carver.] Then, your Grace, as I say, this
is a new clause which we propose to bring up.
Chairman.] Where is it?
Mr. Carver.] It was printed in the railway
companies collated amendments at the bottom of
page 9. After that print had been handed in
the clause was put in a somewhat different shape
to effect the same purpose, the same object, and
the railway companies have had the prints of it
in this other shape. It was found that it did
not quite cover the ground as printed in your
Lordships' Paper and therefore it was somewhat
altered.
Chairman.] Then have we got it in the altered
shape P
Mr. Carver.] Yes.
Chairman.] Whereabouts?
Mr. Carver.] They have been handed in to
your Lordships.
Lord Belper.] Separately 7
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL,
159
17 April 1891.
Mr. Carver.] Yes. The proposed clause, your
Grace, is “Where merchandise is received or
delivered by the company at a junction of the
railway with a siding or branch railway not
belonging to the company the amount charged
for the trader.” -
Chairman J Then you have not given us the
right one.
Earl of Camperdown.] We have nothing of the
sort. -
Mr. Carver.] I understood that they were
delivered yesterday. -
Mr. Pope.] We have not heard anything of it.
I daresay you have been amending your amend-
ment. -
Earl of Camperdown.] “Where the rate for
merchandise carried includes the use of station
terminal station ” and so on, is what I have got.
Mr. Carver.] This other print has been in
existence since yesterday.
Chairman.] Will you just send up your print
that we may see what it looks like.
(The print is handed up to the Chairman.)
Mr. Carver.] I understand that it was handed
to the Committee Clerk yesterday.
Mr. Pope.] Yesterday ! that is too late.
Mr. Carver.] It is only the same point put up
in a different shape. - &
Mr. Pope.] Ah
Chairman.] But we must have it put in the
shape in which we are to deal with it.
Mr. Pope.] I think you must allow that you
have amended your amendment.
Mr. Carver.] The object, your Grace, is to
cover exactly the same point; the object of
the amendment has not been altered in any
way. -
Chairman.] But what we want to do is to have
the amendment before us. *
Mr. Carper.] Your Grace, I cannot understand
why you have not.
Mr. Pope.] I have never seen it.
Mr. Pember.] I thought they were to have all
their amendments put in. .
Mr. Pope..] It is a re-adjustment of it.
Chairman.] Is that it (handing a paper to
Mr. Carver).
Mr. Carver.] No, your Grace.
Chairman.] We cannot make bricks without
straw ; we had better take the next amend-
ment. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend can
move it if the principle is the same.
Chairman.] I should like to have the exact
clause before us that you propose to insert, other-
wise we shall not know where we are.
Mr. Carver.] They have been handed in.
Chairman.] Very likely ; but unfortunately
they have not been handed out, and we cannot
get hold of them.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I have a copy
which has just been handed to me at this moment,
and I will give it to the Committee (handing in
the same). Might I make a suggestion to the
Committee. When this was first printed, it was
printed as a proviso, and therefore, of course, it
would be discussed and considered as a
proviso to the clause. I understand
that the form of it is now chagned
to be a new clause. If the Committee
are going to take up new classes at any moment
I think you will get into a difficulty, and I ven-
ture to suggest whether, if it is a new clause, it
should not wait until all the clauses already in the
schedule have been adjusted.
Chairman.] I think that is a good and fair argu-
ment. p
Mr. Carver.] With great deference to my
Lord Balfour, it has always been put in as a new
clause, to come in after Clause 4.
Chairman.] I think that is a very good sug-
gestion of Lord Balfour's, especially as we have
none of us got it. The usual course is to bring
up new clauses at the end of a Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so, and I have
one for Mr. Tomlinson, or rather Mrs. Tomlinson,
which will follow the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board; and for them I think it would be much
more convenient to take it in that form.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] Have you heard the
amendments proposed by Lord Belper to this
clause 2 -
Mr. Pope.] I did not hear what they are, but I -
think my Lord Belper said that they were only
verbal. &
Chairman.] They are more than that rather.
Lord Belper.] They are really following upon
&l question that I asked Lord Balfour.
Mr. Pope..] Would your Lordship forgive rºle.
for asking ; is it in line 39?
Lord Belper.] In line 35.
Earl of Belmore.] I have altered my Bill, if you
like to look, you will see how it runs (handing a
copy of the Bill to Mr. Pope). -
Lord Belper.] I understood Mr. Courtenay
Boyle, after I suggested it, to agree that it would
make it clearer.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, my Lord, it
makes it clearer in that section. The only
difficulty is, that the words “A trader’s ” mer-
chandise are not put in any other section ; and
it is just conceivable that some distinction might
be drawn between the sections where those
words are included, and the sections where they
are not.
Mr. Hanbury.] And there might be persons
who send merchandise who are not traders; the
Duke of Richmond for instance.
Chairman.] I do send a good deal.
Lord Belper.] Everybody who sends mer-
chandise is a trader. º
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] The term “trader”
is defined. -
Lord Belper (after consultation with Lord
Balfour of Burleigh).] I do not care to press the
amendments if the Board of Trade do not want
them.
The Committee deliberate.
(81.)
U 4 Cnairman.]
160
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
17 April 1891.
*—
Chairman.] I will put the question,...That
Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The same is agreed to.
Chairman.] Now, Mr. Balfour Browne at
last we will hear you.
On Clause 2 (resumed).
Mr.
the proposed amendment before you?
Chairman.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] Whose is this 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Clause 2, my Lord.
The matter was argued upon the 14th of April,
and after the Committee had considered the
question the Chairman said, “The Committee
prefer the principle of a fixed sum, if a clause
can be brought up to satisfy them upon that
point.” That was the only indication we had :
and what we propose to put in is this: “Where
for the conveyance of merchandise other than mer-
chandise specified in Sub-section A of this section,
the company do not provide trucks, the charge for
conveyance shall be reduced by the sums follow-
ing.” Then in the “following” we have not put in
any sums because in the meantime those sums
have not been considered. There are sums pro-
posed, as you will see in Sub-section 6 of the
Order for those distances; and the scheme of
distances seems to us correct; there seems to be
no objection to the scheme of distances. But
as I understood there are objections as to the
amounts and charges to be allowed to the rail-
way companies. And, therefore, we thought it
inexpedient in this place to put any amount,
because that would lead to a discussion of the
amount here, instead of upon the Board of
Trade's proposal in Clause 6. I should propose
whenever Clause 6 is settled, to put in precisely
the same amounts opposite these mileage dis-
tances as you settle in Clause 6. If threepence
is the sum you start with for 25 miles, I would
put threepence for 25 miles; but, as I under-
stand some people, the railway companies, for
instance, say that threepence is not a sufficient
sum for the trucks, and, as I understand, they
are going to try and show that that sum is not
adequate. I believe also I am right in saying
that some traders support the railway companies
in that contention. A large number of trucks
and waggons are owned by traders in this
country, and they say that threepence, is not
enough, agreeing in that respect with the rail-
way companies. I am not at all discussing
whether threepence or sixpence is the right
sum now ; but until that has been discussed on
Clause 6, 1 do not think you will be in a position
Balfour Browne.] Has your Grace got
to put in any sum here; because it seems to me
that the same sum should be allowed to us
for providing the trucks, as to the railway com-
panies for providing them. Therefore, I submit
to your Grace that this would meet the view of
the Committee, and that the amounts can be
filled in when you have settled the amounts to
be put into Clause 6.
Mr. Bidder.] With respect to this proposal,
your Grace, it leaves us exactly where we were
the other day ; and, on behalf of the railway
companies, I have to say, as regards the form of
the clause, the whole question is, what is to fill
those blanks, and that is the whole point, before
a satisfactory clause can be made. My learned
friend says truly that it is a question of figures,
and that it interlaces with other figures in the
schedule. For example, 1ſ the first blanks were
to be filled up with sixpence, it would have to
come off a rate, the aggregate of which in a
short distance does not amount to sixpence. I
only say that by way of illustration. Therefore,
until we have the blanks filled up, we cannot
criticise it at all; it is simply putting in a printed
form your Grace's decision of the other day.
Lord Houghton (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
You are really asking to have the consideration
of this postponed till we get to Clause 6.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you like I can pro-
visionally fill in the figures here ; but that would
'anticipate another discussion only.
Lord Belper.] You mean to adopt the figures
in Clause 6. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so ; but if the
figures in Clause 6 are altered, I adopt the
altered figures.
Chairman.] I think it would be better to take
one discussion upon it. If the Clause 6 figures
are to be inserted here, we had better have a
speech upon them at one time.
Mr. Bidder.] I think so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so too. But I
am glad to hear that there is no objection to the
form.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend must not
assume that we assent to the principle.
Chairman.] No, all you have to do now, is to
assent to the postponement.
Mr. Bidder.] That is all I propose to do. . I
do not want my learned friend, in saying I did
not object to the form of the clause to imagine
that I was assenting to his principle of deducting
the maximum.
(ſhai man.] Then it is no use beginning another
clause to-day.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday next, Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
161
Die Martis, 21" Apriſis, 1891.
PIRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICMMOND AND GoRDON,
EARL of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord Hough TON.
Sir Jose PH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODE HOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
ON CLAUSE 5. -
Chairman.] Is there any objection to Clause 5?
Mr. Cripps.] The first amendment to Clause 5
is to insert the words “accommodation and.”
Earl of Belmore.] Whose amendment is it; is
it Mr. Colman’s 2
Mr. Cripps.] No ; it is the railway company’s.
I must call your Grace's attention to the terms
of the proposed Clause 5 in which we propose to
introduce this amendment, before I deal actually
with the words themselves, because I cannot
explain it without showing what the clause itself
proposes. The clause proposes as it stands :
“The company may charge for the services here-
under mentioned, when provided for or rendered
to a trader at his request or for his convenience,
such reasonable sums, by way of addition to the
tonnage rate, as shall, in case of difference
between the company and the person liable to
pay the charge, be determined by an arbitrator
to be appointed by the Board of Trade.” There-
fore, your Grace sees that we can make no charge
under this proposed Clause 5 as it now stands
except in respect to services provided for or
rendered to a trader at his request or for his
convenience. We propose to insert the word
“accommodation ” before the word “services,”
but I am anxious to point out in reference to the
various matters which I see are raised on sub-
sequent amendments, that neither as regards
accommodation nor as regards services, could we
under this clause make any charge except when
such accommodation or services had been “pro-
vided for or rendered to a trader at his request
or for his convenience.” Now, your Grace,
when the report was made by Lord Balfour of
Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle, and pre-
sented to Parliament, at page 26 the words were,
“The company may charge for the accommoda-
tion and services hereunder mentioned.” This
was in the report of the Board of Trade. There-
fore, when that report was made by Lord Balfour
of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle the
word “accommodation ” was inserted which we
propose to insert now, and I think, your
Grace, there will be no doubt when I point
out of the nature of the accommodation for which
we seek to make this charge that the charge itself
is a proper one, as applying to accommodation
when the accommodation has been provided for
or rendered to a trader at his request or for his
convenience. •.
Now the point arises in this way. Under the
general Act, the Act of 1845, where it can be
done without public injury or without disadvan-
tage to the public traffic, a neighbouring land-
owner or a trader can ask for a siding and can
have a siding put in in order to make a connec-
tion between his works and land and the line of
the company. Now in some cases that has been
put in at the expense of the trader, and in some
cases at the expense of the railway company;
more particularly, I believe, in the case of the
Midland Company it has been done at the ex-
pense of the railway company, and therefore in
order to put the two traders really on a fair basis
as between a trader who has provided this accom-
inodation at his own expense and a trader who
has had it provided at the expense of the railway
company, it ought fairly to be a charge to be
settled as provided in this clause, as against the
trader who has had the accommodation provided
for him. Your Grace sees that it is only where the
“accommodation has been provided for a trader,
either at his request or for his convenience,” and
but for this provision the trader who had actually
provided the whole of his siding accommodation,
and had incurred the whole expense, could be
charged upon the same basis and in the same
ratio as the trader who had done neither,
but had had the accommodation provided
for him by the railway company. Now, your
Grace, I think I could explain to you shortly
why the words “accommodation and * were left
out, and then I propose to call evidence just to
show what the practice of railways companies
has been, I am instructed that when this clause
(81.)
X Wºls
162
MINUTEs of E.W.IIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
was brought to the notice of the Attorney
General, he pointed out that the power with
which the Board of Trade had to deal under the
Railways and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, did not
give them power to deal with questions of rent,
and that the accommodation, at any rate in many
cases, provided by the railway companies as
regards sidings, was a question of rent as between
the railway company and the trader. Well, now,
in certain cases an arrangement has been made
on that basis, and where an arrangement has
been made on that basis, the existing rights of
the two parties are saved under Section 19, I
need not refer to that now, a subsequent part of
these proposals reserving rights under existing
agreements. But there are a large number of
cases where there is nothing in the nature of
an agreement, and º in the nature of rent
in the ordinary sense at all, but the railway com-
pany has provided the accommodation, and in
respect to the accommodation provided, they ask
for a reasonable charge, such charge to be fixed
as stated in this clause by arbitration if not agreed
between the two parties. I apprehend, your
Grace, that when these words were left out, it
was really under a misapprension of all the
facts. It is perfectly true that in many cases
this matter is dealt with as a matter of rent;
that is to say, an agreed rent, as your Lordships
see by Clause 19 in the Bill, but in many cases
it is not so. No question of rent arises as
between the two parties. It is merely for the
accommodation supplied, with reference to which
there is no special agreement but which is
stipplied at the request of the trader or for his
convenience; and more particularly in the case
of the Midland Company a very large sum has
been expended by them merely for the benefit
of traders, because instead of traders being put
to the expense of providing these sidings, they
have provided them out of the company’s funds
on the understanding that for the provision of
such accommodation they should have a fair
return, And this being avery important matter
as regards accommodation, we propose, in order
to explain this matter to your Grace and the
Committee, to call Mr. Noble, who will explain
exactly how this matter stands in relation to the
Midland Railway Company.
Mr. Pember.] Your Grace sees these words,
“ by way of addition to the tonnage rate,”
which words were not put in, I believe,
at the time when the Attorney General
considered carefully the matter ; they were
put in at our solicitation to negative a motion
which was apparently in the Attorney General’s
mind, that they were matters of rent. If you
look at the clause now as it stands you will see,
“The company may charge for the services
hereunder mentioned, when provided for,
or rendered, to a trader at his request or
for his convenience, such reasonable sums by
way of addition to the tonnage rate ’’; that
is how the clause stands now. There is also one
matter which I ought to mention, as I see an
honourable Member of the other House called
your attention to Clause 19. The honourable
Member evidently had it in his mind; that would
only refer to future matters, and would not pro-
vide at all for past accommodation, that is to say
if you look at the section, it is to the effect that
“nothing herein contained shall prevent the
company from making and receiving, in addition
to the charges specified in this schedule, charges
and payments by way of rent or otherwise, for
providing sidings or other structural accommoda-
tion.” I think you will find the effect of that is
future, not past, and that is by agreement. It is
all very well to say we will not provide sidings.
except on certain terms by agreement; but when
the Siding is there we cannot compel them to
pay. Just let me ask your Grace to consider
the case of the sidings which now exist under an
agreement which at present does not provide for
payment. It would be perfectly impossible for
us to force that agreement in writing upon the
trader by which we could make any special
charge, either by way of rent or otherwise.
People would say, No ; here I am and here I
stay.
Chairman.] We had better not go to Clause
19, .
Mr. Pember.] No ; I should not have referred
to it unless Clause 19 had been referred to, as E
understood it was, and rather in answer to what
was said by my learned friend. I say distinctly
that Clause 19 would be insufficient, among other
things, to deal with the question which is
involved in Clause 5, and that is the way we had
better leave it; we say it is no use postponing
the matter until we come to Clause 19, because
Clause 19 does not deal with it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I should like to
say that if Clause 19 has not a retrospective
effect it certainly was intended to have.
Mr. Pember.] It would be coupled with an
agreement, even if it were intended to be retro-
spective in terms it could not be retrospective in
action.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That is a matter
which, when you come to Clause 19, you will
argue, but I thought it better to intervene at
this moment in order that there might not be a
contention as to what the intentions of the Board
of Trade were ; the intention of the Board of
Trade was that the provisions of Clause 19 should
be retrospective. ,
Mr. Pember.] And enforceable.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Certainly.
Mr. Pember.]. Certainly that is a fair explana-
tion, but it would simplify matters very much if
the Board of Trade tell us that they intended to
provide that, if the accommodation is provided
we should be paid for it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Most certainly that
was to be provided under Clause 19.
Chairman.] Then we come to this point, that
Clause 19 must be amended when we come to it,
so as to make it retrospective.
Mr. Pember.] It is very advantageous to have
got that at last.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PIROVISION AL ORD ER BII.L.S.
163
21 April 1891.
MR, JOHN NOBLE, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined.
Mr. Pember.
526. YoU are general manager of the Midland
Railway ?—Yes.
527. Is this question of a termitial charge for
the accommodat on provided, as well as for
services rendered by the railway companies at
large, in connection with traders' sidings, an im-
portant one, speaking for your own company
first?–It is a very important one indeed for the
Midland Railway Company, for whom alone I
can speak at the moment, because the Midland
Company have expended, I do not want to put
it too high, but, I might say, hundreds of thou-
sands of pounds on their railway in providing
this accommodation upon their line in connection
with private sidings.
528. Of course we know, under the Railway
Clauses Act, all the cost of a siding in connection
with the main line must be borne by the person
desiring it, but your practice has been, you say,
to make this outlay. I think you have borne the
outlay yourselves?—Yes, we have, in the large
majority of cases.
529. That outlay has included the provision of
additional land, as well as sidings for working the
traffic as expeditiously and conveniently as pos-
sible 2–Yes; we have very often had to buy the
land to construct the necessary sidings at a
junction with private lines, and then, in addition
to the sidings, there are all the expenses of
signalling, which are very heavy in many
"Căl SCS.
530. You have in innumerable cases had to
buy land for the purpose 2–Yes.
531. So that it has not been merely a question
of laying out land of your own for the purpose 7
—No ; wherever the land in possession of the
company has been insufficient for the purpose we
have bought additional land.
532. I think you could, if it were necessary,
produce some specimen plans showing cases of
that kind 2–Yes; I have some plans here
showing the provision of siding accommodation
by the Midland Company, in addition to what
the colliery companies themselves and the iron
companies themselves have provided.
Mr. Pember.] I do not know whether I need,
unless the matter is further challenged, produce
them at present; at any rate they are here
available for the service of the Committee.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think you should
show the Committee a specimen; I do not think
that they can thoroughly understand the case
unless you do.
Mr. Pember.
533. (To the Witness). Would you show one
plan 2–Here is one showing the accommodation
which has been provided in connection with the
Grassmoor Colliery ; all those sidings coloured
green have been provided at the expense of the
railway company, and you will observe that by
far the largest portion of the accommodation
there is at that point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might we see the agree-
ment under which that has been provided.
Witness.] I might add that the cost of these
sidings, including the land which we bought, has
been 6,000 l.
Mr. Pember.
534. Was that land that you had to buy 2–
Some of it. -
535. And some of the land there you already
had 2–Yes; of course we had to buy all the land,
but the land that you refer to was specially bought
for this purpose. -
Earl of Belmore.
536. I do not quite understand the plan. You
say the “sidings coloured green "; but the main
line appears to be coloured green.—These are
sidings at the end of the branch which leads up
from the Grassmoor Colliery to the main line of
the Midland. All you see there is siding ; there
is not any main line there at all.
Earl of Camperdown.
537. Does the colliery make any syecial pay-
ment to the company for the sidings?—We do not
charge a separate sum for the accommodation
which we provide; it is all included in the rate.
538. In round figures, what tolls do you take
from the colliery in the year, 100,000 l. 2–No;
not 100,000 l. -
539. £. 50,000 2–I have not got before me my
papers, so that I cannot tell you. Then, in addi-
tion to the sidings, there are also signal
boxes provided by the railway company which
which cost us about 600 l. a year. Mr. Barnes,
who knows all about it, tells me that he pays
100,000 l. a year, but that that does not all go into
the pocket of the Midland Railway. I can show
your Lordships another one ; here is another
plan showing the sidings of the Butcher Wood
and Silver Hall Collieries. The Midland Com-
pany have provided all the sidings which are
there coloured grey. (The Witness evhibits the
plans.)
Mr. Pember.
540. I suppose we may take it, may we not,
that all these sidings and accommodation in
respect of sidings, of which these two instances
are a type, have been provided under agree-
ment 2–Yes, under an agreement of this kind :
that they shall have these sidings, but in some
instances there has been a small sum paid for the
maintenance, and in some cases, a small sum
paid towards the signalling expenses; but the prac-
tice is not uniform; in many cases we get nothing,
except what we get in the rate.
541. As you say, no express provision is made
in these agreements for the payment of any par-
ticular terminal charge in connection with any
sidings, because your total toll has always in-
cluded that charge P-That is so.
542. Just in the same way as the terminal
charge is, at all events, always included in the
rates quoted for coal which is not going into
sidings of that kind 7–That is so.
(81.)
X 2 543. NOW
164
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
343. Now your maximum conveyance rates as
we know are to be reduced ?––Yes.
544. I ask you whether it is or is not essential
for you in order to maintain your revenue that
some fair siding charge should be authorised ?--
. It is, because in the future our conveyance rates
must be maintained, otherwise in the future the
maximum conveyance rates may have to be
charged, in order to maintain the revenue if there
be no charge allowed for terminal accommodation.
545. In your judgment would it be possible to
make an average charge for accommodation of
that character which would be fair in most
cases 2—The accommodation varies very much
indeed, and there would be some difficulty in
arriving at an average figure which would be
fair all round; but so far as the railway company
land 2–To cover the cost of the accommodation.
is concerned, I think we are indifferent whether
it is to be left to arbitration in the event of any
difference between us and the traders, or whether
an average sum should be fixed, so long as the
average sum is sufficient to cover, as it ought
to do, the largest expenditure. which has been
made. - - - -
546. But if there be a difficulty in fixing such
an average amount, then the only alternative
would seem to be that, which the draft scheduls
of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle provided, namely, a sum to be settled in
case of difference by arbitration ?–Yes.
547. Now, knowing all you do of your relations
with the traders, would there be any difficulty
in arriving at an agreement with your traders,
providing such a clause leaving the matter to
arbitration in case of disagreement 2–No, I do
not anticipate any difficulty whatever as regards
the charge to be made.
548. So that if the clause were altered by the
Board of Trade under the impression that having
the word “accommodation ”.. as well as
“ services '' included in it, it was dealing with a
matter of rent; in your judgment that is a mis-
apprehension, because you have never charged
rent for such accommodation ?—We have never
charged rent. • , .
Mr. Pember.] I think, subject to what your
Grace has said about Clause 19, that I need not
ask the witness any further question.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
549. Every owner of land alongside the Mid-
land line has the right under the Railways
Clauses Act to have a siding in connection with
the main line, has he not ?–He has a right to have
a connection with the main line.
550. Except at certain excepted places, such
as a station, or where it would be dangerous to
the traffic 2–The Act of 1845 speaks for itself.
551. When that is done the trader, of course,
has the whole expense of making that connec-
tion ?—Yes, according to the Act. .
552. In certain cases where a trader has such
sidings, for instance in the Grassmoor Colliery
case ?--In certain cases some accommodation at
the sidings beyond the mere junction has been
found necessary, has it not ?—Yes:
Chairman.] Would you amplify that a little,
and let us know what that is. -
Mr. Noble.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
553. In that particular case sidings, or a junc-
tion upon lands which you either owned or
acquired for the purpose, had to be put in 7–
Yes. -
554. That was for the storage, I suppose, of
the colliery trucks or waggons?—That was for
the reception of the trucks which come loaded
from the colliery with coal, or for the use of
empty trucks when they are sent to the colliery
to be re-filled. . . . -
555. Was that done at the request of the
colliery company ?—Yes, it was done at the re-
quest of the colliery company. -
556. In that particular case you say the rates
charged were so low that between the actual rate
charged , and the maximum rate, there was
margin sufficient to cover the value of the
557. Let me take a case where you have been
charging, we will say, up to your maximum. A
trader comes and says, “Put in for my accom-
modation all these sidings,” costing in this case.
6,000 !. ; in that case, beyond the rate, of course
there must be some consideration for providing
that 6,000 l. worth of sidings 7–That is a hypo-
thetical case entirely, so far as the Midland
Company is concerned, because I do not know
an instance in which we have provided the ac-
commodation where we are charging our maximum
rates. -
558. Take the very case you yourself put
to my learned friend Mr. Pember. You said the
rates were being reduced, and the time might
come when you would have to charge up to the
maximum rate 2–Yes, in the future.
559. Suppose you charge up to your maximum
rate, and a trader comes and says, “I want this
accommodation beyond that,” you must have
some consideration for provididg 6,000 l. of
sidings?—Yes. * - -
560. Will not Clause 19 give you what you
want P
Mr. Pember.] I thought we were not to discuss
that ? - --
- Mr. Balfour Browne.
561. I am asking Mr. Noble without going
into the working of the clause. It is provided
in this Clause 19; “Nothing herein contained
shall prevent the company from making and
receiving, in addition to the charges specified-
in this schedule, charges and payments, by way of
rent or otherwise, for providing sidings or other
structural accommodation for the private use of
traders, and not required by the company for
dealing with the traffic for the purposes of carriage,
provided that the amount of such charges or
payments is fixed by an agreement in writing,
signed by the trader, or by some person duly
authorised on his behalf.” Why would not that
give you all you want?--It would necessitate our
going to every trader who has sidings upon the
Midland Railway and endeavouring to procure an
agreement.
562. In the case of existing sidings you mean :
—Yes, in the case of existing sidings. -
563. Let us see if that is so ; at the present
time these sidings have been made under agree-
ment 3–Yes, with no provision for payment.
564. In no case for payment 2–No ; except-
$ ing
ON RAILwax RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
165
21 April 1891.]
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne–continued.
ing what I mentioned just now to be strictly
accurate; that in some cases there is a small
sum paid towards the maintenance of the sidings,
or something paid towards the signalling.
Chairman.] Are these agreements in the room 3
could we see one Ž -
Mr. Balfour Browne (to Mr. Pember).] Do
you mind letting us look at one of the agree-
ments, the Butcher Wood or Silver Hall, or
the Grassmore, or any other you have got.
- Mr. Pember.] Certainly, there is no objec-
tion to produce them at all.
Witness.] I have not one by me.
Mr. Pember.] I think if your Grace would not
mind asking us, or bidding us to produce one or
two, otherwise a trader might object.
Chairman.] We do not want to do anything
that would hurt anybody, but if there is any-
thing anybody is bound to do I think we should
see what it is.
Mr. Pember.] Certainly.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
566. (To the Witness.) now let me ask you
upon Clause 5; you remember the words “the
company may charge for the services hereunder
mentioned, when provided or rendered to a trader
at his request or for his convenience.” Who is
to be the judge as to whether you have provided
it for his convenience 2–I should think the facts
would speak for themselves in every case.
Mr. Pember.] Are we not going into another
matter now Ż - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
567. No, we are upon this clause, this is upon
the accommodation, and, as I say, one of the most
serious objections to the word “accommodation ”
being introduced is that it will leave the railway
company to be the judge as to whether it has pro-
vided the accommodation for the convenience of
the trader or not.—(To the Witness.) Who
is to be the judge; by the clause it is not
left to the arbitrator, it is only the amount
that we have to pay which is left to the ar-
bitrator?—I can hardly contemplate such a
thing as a difference of opinion upon the question
whether the accommodation has been provided
for the convenience of a trader or not. •.
568. 1 will give you a case. You are joint
owners of the Cheshire Lines, are you not ?—
Yes.
569. I am not quite sure that the diagram,
which I am drawing, will make it clear to you,
but I think it will ; you know the position of
Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company’s siding
in connection with the Cheshire Lines 2–Yes, I
have been on the ground once, and that is about
all I know of it. -
Mr. Pember.]I think we may shorten this. If
there is a doubt, and I confess I am rather in-
clined to think there might be, as the clause is
worded, as to whether the arbitrator would have
the power to consider not only the question of
the amount but also the question as to whether
the accommodation were provided or services
rendered or done to a trader at his request or
for his convenience. I should be quite willing
to assent that the clause should be altered so as
to make that perfectly clear.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
570. So far I am satisfied, but not sufficiently
satisfied. (To the Witness.) Now this is Messrs.
Brunner, Mond, and Company's works (pointing
to the diagram); there is a single line running
from your main line of the Cheshire lines, about
a mile or a mile and-a-half in length, from the
junction to Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Com-
pany’s works, about a mile-and-a-half away from
Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company’s works
you have put in an extensive system of sidings
on your own land 2– -
Chairman.
571. Do you agree to that ?–-I do not know
it of my own knowledge, but I will take it from
Mr. Balfour Browne.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
572. We will prove the facts. I asked the
witness to take that for granted, for the purpose
of my argument. (To the Witness.) Do you
propose to charge for the putting in of those
sidings under that section ?—I should say not.
573. Do you know, as a fact, that the Cheshire
Lines claim to do that ?—I do not. -
574. Do you know that these sidings here are
put in and are necessary only because this line is
a single line, and that they would not be necessary
if the line from your main line to Messrs.
Brunner, Mond, and Company's works were a
double one 2–I am not sufficiently acquainted
with the locus in quo to be able to answer the
question. -
575. Do you think that it would be at all a
fair thing that a trader should have to pay for
sidings at a distance from himself merely because
you have not put in a double line P--I cannot
imagine that that was the only reason why the
sidings were put in. A double line would not do
the work that the sidings would do ; but the sid-
ings I am speaking of are sidings which connect
the works of Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Com-
pany with the private line of the firm. -
Mr. Pember.] If you look at the sub-section
following that on which this point arises, you will
see that it is made as clear as daylight. The
services are defined, they are to be “rendered by
the company at or in connection with sidings not
belonging to the company.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I know that.
Witness.] These sidings are not sidings belong-
ing to the railway company ; they belong to a
company a mile and a half away, and it is “at or
in connection with ”; and I say that the claim of
the company is to charge for sidings at a distance
from their line because they are used in connec-
tion with the traffic of Messrs. Brunner, Mond,
and Company. -
Mr. Pember.] It is not “in connection with the
traffic,” it is “in connection with the sidings.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you look at it you
will see that it is not so; it is “services in respect
of the delivery and reception" of traffic.
- (81.)
X 3 Chairman.
166
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. NOBLE.
[(Jomtinued.
Chairman.] You had better go on.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
576. (To the Witness.) “By way of addition
to the tonnage rate * has been put in. I under-
stand that the whole intention of putting termi-
mals and fixed charges in was to eliminate from
the tonnage rate things which do not run by
mile 2–From the “conveyance rate.”
577. What is the tonnage rate ; is not that
intended by “conveyance rate ’2–I take it that
“ tonnage rate ’’ and “conveyance ’’ rate are sup-
posed to be synonymous terms.
578. Then your correction was not necessary
if that is so?—But if I am wrong in my inter-
pretation of the word “ tonnage,” you must allow
me to withdraw that answer, because the convey-
ance rate might be the tonnage rate plus the
terminal rate.
579. Is that the intention ?–In addition to
anything else which we might be entitled to
charge. Aft
580. Then in addition to the rate which in-
cludes the terminal rate you want to have some
charge besides?—As the clause stands there would
be no fixed terminal at the junction with the
company’s sidings; it is to provide for that that
we ask for these words to be put in.
581. Therefore tonnage rate does not mean con-
veyance rate 2–There might be a terminal rate
to O. -
582. Does the tonnage rate mean the tonnage
rate and the terminal rate too or not. I think
you were right at first that tonnage rate means
conveyance rate 2–I must leave that discussion
to the learned gentlemen who wear wigs and
gowns, because I cannot say ; I cannot tell what
tonnage rate means in the way you are putting
it What we ask is, that in addition to any
other charges authorized by the Bill, we shall be
allowed to charge something in addition to the
tonnage for the accommodation and services
which we provided at these particular points.
582%. But those services will be different at
each particular station ; how are you to add that
to the tonnage rate 2–If you arrive at an
average rate it will be easy to do that,
583. But my learned friend Mr. Pember has
suggested that he is willing to make it clear that
the amount and the reasonableness shall both be
determined by arbitration ; that does not mean
average 2–No, those are the two alternatives.
584. You might, I suppose, for your own
convenience have sidings at a junction with a
templating.
585. I dare say not, but it is possible that you
might have them 2–It might be possible.
586. Some of your collery sidings, for instance,
join at stations 2–Yes.
587. Who is to distinguish between what is
for your convenience and the traders ?– The
arbitrator, if it is left to arbitration, as Mr. Pem-
ber has suggested. -
588. You would suggest also the alteration of
the clause to that extent 2–Clea 'y ; we only
want what is fair and reasonable.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] Do you
say “to alter the clause "?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes; my learned
friend, Mr. Pember, says if it is not clear, and
he agrees with me that there is some little doubt
about its clearness, that he would have the clause
altered to make it clear that it should be referred
to an arbitrator to determine whether the ac-
commodation was provided at the request of a
trader and for his convenience.
25
Chairman.] “Or’”; the word is “ or " not
** and.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes; the unfortunate
thing is that the word is “ or ’’; if it had been
“and” it would have been much better for the
traders; but it is “ or convenience.” If it stood
as it stands here we would have no remedy; we
would have to pay ; and the arbitrator would
only tell us how much we had to pay. He
would not be able to say whether it was for our
convenience or not, and my learned friend Mr.
Pennber very fairly said he would alter that.
Chairman.] Do you think you might have
this charge made upon you, whether you like it
or not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Yes, that is our con-
tention.
Chairman.] The Committee would like to
hear the Board of Trade upon that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Only upon that
point, your Grace. I would rather not speak
upon the general point just now ; but upon that
point which your Grace raises now, surely the
proviso on the top of page 4 settles whether a
man can have it imposed upon him or not.
Chairman.] Yes: “Provided that where
before any service is provided for or rendered to
a trader he has given notice in writing to the
Company that he does not require it, the service
shall not be deemed to have been provided or
rendered at the trader's request, or for his con-
venience.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is quite true with
regard to the services your Grace has read, but
it cannot be done with regard to accommodation ;
accommodation is provided once for all.
Chairman.] But the word “accommodation ”
is not in the clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But the railway com-
panies want to put it in.
Mr. Pember.] We do not want to put the
word “accommodation ” into the priviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But you propose to put
it in above.
Mr. Pember.] The proviso would not affect the
accommodation.
Chairman.] The proviso does no apply to
accommodation, because accommodation is not
mentioned in the earlier part at all. I apprehend
I may be wrong, but if the word “accomoda-
tion * is inserted in the early part of the clause
it will require to be inserted also in the proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It would, but you
could not make the proviso apply to it.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
I 67
April 1891.] .
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ram.
589. Are you acquainted with the South
Wales coal trade at all ?–Not very much.
590. Do you know something about the way
in which coal is brought down to the docks from
the South Wales valleys 2–Generally, I know
something about it; but I do not know the trade
intimately.
591. Have you, on your system, got any dock
into which such traffic is carried ?—No.
592. You are not aware of any agreements
which might be made in respect of sidings pro-
vided by a company just outside a dock, for in-
stance 2—No.
593. You cannot speak to that?—No, we have
nothing of the kind on the Midland Railway.
Mr. Pember.] I think it would be more con-
venient for you, Mr. Ram, if I were to call Mr.
Lambert on that point.
Mr. Ram.
594. I am much obliged to you. (To the
Witness.) You told my learned friend, Mr.
Balfour Browne, that a trader has, under the
present law, to make all sidings?–Yes, under
the Act of 1845.
595. He has also to maintain all the signalling 2
—Yes. -
596. And all other matters necessary for the
working of his private siding 2–Yes.
597. He has also permanently to maintain all
those works 2–Yes.
598. Is it not the fact that if the trader has
provided all those necessary works the company
has the right to refuse to serve that trader unless
the works are such as to pass to the satisfaction
of the company’s engineer 2–Yes, if you will
read the clause that will settle the question at
once. I do not carry all these things in my
head.
Mr. Pember.] Will you let me read it; it is
Section 76 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845,
the marginal note to which is “Branch Railways.”
Leaving out the introductory words, it runs :
“The company shall, if required, at the expense
of such owners and occupiers and other persons,
and subject also to the provisions of the said last-
mentioned Act,” that is a particular Act which
is mentioned, which is unimportant, “ make
openings in the rails, and such additional lines of
rails as may be necessary for effecting such com-
munication, in places where the communication
can be made with safety to the public, and with-
out injury to the railway, and without incon-
venience to the traffic thereon ; and the company
shall not take any rate or toll or other monies for
the passing of any passengers, goods, or other
things along any branch so to be made by any
such owner or occupier or other person.” The
second restriction is: “ The persons making or
using such branch railways shall be subject to all
bye-laws and regulations of the company from
time to time made with respect to passing upon
or crossing the railway, and otherwise ; and the
persons making or using such branch railways
shall be bound to construct, and from time to
time, as need may require, to renew the offset
plates and switches according to the most ap-
proved plan adopted by the company, and under
the direction of their engineer.”
Mr. Ram.] I am much obliged to my learned
friend. That being the provision of the Act of
1845, by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of
J888, the company may now bring any private
trader, may they not, before the Railway Commis-
sion and make a complaint as to any sidings
being inconvenient, or not complying with the
requirements of the Act of 1845.
Witness.] Will you be good enough to refer
me to the clause. That is, I think, Clause 9 of
the Act of 1888 P -
Chairman.] Of what Act 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Railway and Canal
Traffic Act of 1888.
Mr. Ram.
599. Section 9 of the Act of 1888 is :--
“Where any Act contains provisions relating
to private branch railways or private sidings,
the Commissioners shall have the like jurisdiction
to hear and determine a complaint of a contra-
vention of the enactment, as the Commissioners
have to hear and determine a complaint of a con-
travention of Section 2 of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act, 1854, as amended by subse-
quent Act ’’’—But you have not read the whole
clause.
600. I have read all the words which relate to
this 7–I dare not argue it with you as a lawyer,
but the commencing words of the section are :
“Where any enactment in a special Act con-
tains provisions relating to traffic facilities, undue
preference, or other matters mentioned in Sec-
tion 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act,
1864, or requires a company to which this part
of this Act applies to provide any station, road,
or other similar work for public accommodation,
or otherwise imposes on a company to which this
part of this Act applies, any obligation in favour
of the public or any individual, or where any Act
contains provisions relating to private branch
railways or private sidings, the Commissioners
shall have the like jurisdiction to hear and deter-
mine a complaint of a contravention of the enact-
ment as the Commissioners have to hear and
determine a complaint of a contravention of
Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic
Act, 1854, as amended by subsequent Acts.”
601. That is the part which I read ; the other
portions do not affect the point that we are on
now, but the words I have read to you do give
to the Commissioners the power to hear from the
company any complaint of contravention as to
private sidings or private railways, and they have
repeatedly acted upon that, have they not ?–I
cannot answer that question, because it is purely
a question of the legal construction of this
Act.
602. That being the legal obligation laid upon
the trader, is it not the fact that there is no obli-
gation upon the company to provide such sidings
as you have put before my Lords, nor any sidings
at all ?—There is nothing, so far as I know, to
compel the railway company to provide such
sidings.
603. If they do provide such sidings they have
power to make a specific agreement with regard
to them 2–Yes, that is perfectly true.
(81.)
X 4 604. They
168
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN IBEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Ram—continued.
604. They have even now power to make such
agreements 2–They have.
605. Now, will you tell me this: if, under
Section 19, which has been referred to, you have
the power, in the future, to charge for any sidings
which you may make, and, if the Committee
choose to make it so, you have the power to
charge for any sidings you have made ; are you
content 2–No ; because it means that we shall
have to go to the traders to get from them an
agreement with regard to the hundreds of
sidings which have been constructed for many
years past.
606. But you have agreements now 2–Not
agreements which entitle us to make the charge
we are seeking to be allowed to make under the
amendments in this clause.
607. Then, if that were so, under Clause 19
you will be in a better position as regards sidings
in the future than you would have been in the
past 2— So far as future sidings are concerned,
yes.
608. If it were made retrospective, you would
be in a better position with regard to sidings in
the future ?—I do not know how the agreements
are to be obtained with reference to sidings which
have been made in the past and upon which the
money has been spent. -
609. What is to prevent your going to a trader
and saying, If you do not make an agreement
you shall not use the siding any more ?–Do you
think that would be a proper position for the rail-
way company to take towards its traders to say,
If you do not pay us or make an agreement we
will stop your business?
610. Is it not certain that if the trader has
this siding accommodation and requires to use it
he would be somewhat under the necessity of
paying a proper and fair amount for it 2—I do
not see that; but I think there would be no diffi-
culty in doing it some such way as has been
suggested, either by leaving this point to the
arbitrator to settle or by getting at an average
price for the accommodation.
Chairman.
611. Let me ask you this. I do not know
whether it is so. I am not a lawyer. If it were
possible to make Clause 19 retrospective then
your objection would cease?—I see great difficulty
in doing it with regard to the existing sidings;
there they are ; the money has been spent.
612. But if it were possible to make it apply
to them 7–I do not see how it is possible to
make it compulsory upon a trader to make an
agreement with us with regard to sidings already
existing. So far as future sidings are concerned
it is clear that we should decline to put them
down ; but in this case we could not decline to
put them down, they are there already.
Mr. Hambury.
613. You have made these sidings and you are
afraid, if Clause 19 is made retrospective, that a
trader might say, I will not have the sidings at
all; is that so?—No, I do not fear that.
614. He might refuse to come to an agree-
ment 2–There is nothing to compe. him to enter
into an agreement.
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Chairman.
615. I should like to ask you this. These agree-
ments which you have with the traders, are they
terminable at any time 2—Some of them are ;
they were terminable at three months' notice;
but may I just direct your Grace's mind to this.
What would be the condition of the railway
company and its traders if, when a man said, I
will not enter into an agreement at all, we
simply gave him three months' notice to take out
the siding, so that he could not get on to the
main line at all ?
Earl of Camperdown.
616. Would he be able to get his traffic on to
your main line at all ?—No.
617. Should you be content to take out the
points and do without the traffic 7–No, we
should not like to take that course.
618. Taking the case of Grassmoor, should
you be content to take out the points there and
do without the traffic 2–No ; but supposing we
could not get the traders of a district to enter
into an agreement we might think it reasonable
to do so, because Grassmoor might govern a
hundred other places.
Mr. Dickson.
619. But in making an agreement with Grass-
moor why did you not make an agreement in
terms as to the conditions of using the siding.
You say you spent 6,000 l on a siding, why
did you not make your terms then 2–It was not
necessary we should do so, because the rates we
were charging to the Grassmoor colliery were to
include the accommodation we were providing.
620. So that in the Grassmoor case you are
recompensed for the expenditure of 6,000 l. in
the rates you charge 2––That is so.
621. Have you other colliery companies who
make their own sidings, and whose rates would
be lower where they maintain their own sidings?
—There are some collieries which provide and
maintain their own siding accommodatlon, but
that has not often been taken much into account
in the past, because, as I say, the rate is an
inclusive rate; but when, as may be the case in
the future, our maximum rates of charge for con-
Veyance are reduced, as they will be in many of
these cases, we should not be recompensed for
the expenditure we have made.
Lord Belper.
622. But do I understand you do charge the
same rate to the collieries who have made their
own sidings, as you do to collieries for whose
sidings you have paid a large sum of money?—
There are scarcely two collieries to which the
same rate is charged.
623. I quite understand that ; but do you
raise the rate when you have spent a large sum
of money on making sidings —No, we have not
done so in the past.
Earl of Belmore.
624. Do you take into account rather what the
traffic will bear than what you have expended ?–
I do not quite follow your Lordship's question.
Wo
ON RAILWAY RATES AN ID CHA RG ES PROVISION AL () R D E R B I L L S.
J 69
21 April 1891.] .
Earl of Belmore—continued.
We do not charge what the traffic will bear in
every case or anything like it. -
625. I will put it this way: When you are
quoting a rate do you consider what in the case
of that particular colliery you have expended upon.
the sidings, or do you consider what the traffic, of
that colliery will bear 2–The rate is made fair
with the rates charged to other collieries generally,
either equidistant or nearer to or further from
the point of consumption, without much refer-
ence to the amount of money expended.
Mr. Ram.
626. You told the noble Chairman you did not
think Clause 19 would be sufficient, even if made
retrospective. Now let me ask you this. What
would you get by the insertion of the word
“accommodation,” which you would not get by
Clause 19 being made retrospective 2–It, sim-
plifies the matter so much ; if accommodation is
recognised as a thing for which a railway company
may charge, then the only question left after that
is how shall that amount be fixed, whether by
agreement or by arbitration.
627. That does not quite answer the ques-
tion ?—I really cannot answer that question other-
wise.
628. As you have said, you would be satisfied
with Clause 19 if made retrospective, but you
thought it would be inconvenient and cumber-
SO11) 6.
Chairman.] It went further than that ; not
that it would be cumbersome, but that he could
not carry it out.
Mr. Ram.
629. Now, I want to know how you could
carry out the accommodation if you had it;
would you not have that left to arbitration ?—
No, because then the Act would give us power
to charge for accommodation, whereas otherwise
we could not charge without we got an agree-
ment.
630. If you had the power to charge without
the agreement, then would you fix it by arbi-
tration 7–Yes, or have an average.
631. Do you consider that that would not be
more cumbersome than agreement 2–No, the
arbitration would be more cumbersome, because
I do not apprehend any difficulty in making an
agreement with the traders.
Chairman | I understand the object of getting
the word “accommodation ” inserted in Clause 5
is, that the bargain is settled when the accom-
modation is asked for by the trader and agreed
to by the companies.
Mr. Itam.] As I understand, your Grace, it
will be if the sidings were laid down by agree-
ment the trader will have to come and have the
sidings made, and if the sidings are made, then
the agreement will be made between the trader
and the company.
Chairman.] That would be before the sidings
were put down 2
Mr. Ram.] Yes.
Chairman.] A trader would come and ask for
a siding, and then the railway company would
say you must sign an agreement.
Mr. NOBLE.
| Continued.
Mr. Ram.] And also if a trader, in the case of
an existing siding, said he did not wish to have
if, then the parties must agree.
Chairman.] As I understand, the traders and
the company must agree before they accept the
proposal to give them accommodation.
Chairman.
Mr. Ram.] That is so, no doubt.
632. (To the Witness) Is that so? –
Płºtness.] As regards the future, that is so.
As regards the past, I say it is much simpler that
the company should have power to charge for
the accommodation without having the necessity
to go to each one for an agreement.
Lord Belper.
633. As I understand, as regards the past, you
make no charge to the trader for whom you had
put down sidings?— We make no specific charge;
the rate is inclusive.
634. But a trader for whom you have not put
down the sidings has to pay the same, therefore
you make no charge whatever ?—We have never
had occasion to split up the rate in that way, and
to say so much is for conveyance and so much is
for accommodation, but in future, under this
Bill, we shall not be able to charge for accommo-
dation unless we have provided it.
635. As regards the past, I understand your
practice is that when you think it worth your
while to spend a good deal of money because you
are going to get a lot of traffic upon your line,
you do it, and when you do not expect that you
do not do it?—We are guided by various
motives.
636. But, putting it broadly, that is the
general result, is it not ?—Yes.
637. I understand you to say, having spent
the money, you would under present circum-
stances be able to charge a higher rate in
consequence; therefore you think it would be
only fair that you should be compensated ſor the
money you have spent if you wish to be com-
pensated for it !—That is so.
Mr. Pember.] Taking what your Lordship has
been good enough to say in connection with this
matter, our power and methods of charging
having hitherto been what they were, we could
afford to take the line your Lordship suggested,
but our power and method of charging being for
the future what they will be, namely, compulsory,
we could no longer afford to give the accommoda-
tion.
Lord Belper.] Therefore you think you ought
to have a special power to recover for that accom-
modation.
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Mr. Ram.
638. (To the Witness.) Is it not the fact that
if you get the word “accommodation " inserted
you will be able under those words to throw upon
the traders an obligation to pay for that which at
present the law does not oblige them to pay for *
—I do not see that at all.
(81.)
Y 639. In
170
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.l
Mr. Ram—continued.
639. In that case, if the accommodation be
provided for his convenience (it is not said who is
to decide that), you could then call upon him to
pay for it 2–It has been suggested by Mr. Pember
that if there is any doubt as to whether the
accommodation has been provided for the con-
venience of a trade or not, the arbitrator shall
have the power to determine that point.
640. If the accommodation is provided for the
convenience of the trader in the future, he would
be compelled to pay for more than he is compelled
to pay for at the present time 2—I do not think
SO.
641. Has not a trader at present got the
obligation to put in every thing —Yes, under
the Act of 1845.
642. If, therefore, anything more is put in he
is not under an obligation at present to pay for
that 2–13ut suppose he has put in nothing, if the
law had been as it is proposed to be in the future
we should not have laid down that siding.
643. ISut you have got agreements, you told
us, in many cases binding the trader to pay for
the use of the sidings 7–In very few.
644. You have agreements in some cases from
the traders to pay for what you have done for
them 2–I say, in some cases there is something
paid towards the maintenance of the sidings and
something for the signalling expenses, but there
is nothing paid for the putting in of the accom-
modation. Supposing we have spent 6,000 l. at
a colliery upon sidings, we get no interest upon
the money, and all the trader does, in an extreme
case, is to pay something towards the yearly
maintenance of those sidings, but not a single
penny piece upon the interest of the railway
company's outlay.
645. Could you tell me whether or not in these
cases there is a competing railway to the colliery P
—No, there is not a competing railway to Grass-
l]) OOl'.
646. You contemplate that the output would
be such that you would be able to recoup your-
self for the expenditure you have so made in the
provision of sidings 2–Yes, so long as we have
the power to include it in the rate, but in the
future we shall not be allowed to charge in the
rate for this accommodation, except by a special
clause ; we shall only be allowed to charge for
the conveyance.
Earl of Camperdown.
647. You are assuming in fact that you would
in all cases be compelled to charge the maximum
rate 2–We shall not in every case, I hope, but
we shall in some cases.
648. Then if there are cases in which you are
not of necessity compelled to charge the maximum
rate, why should you not make the charge in res-
pect, to these sidings by charging up to the
Thaxln\ll 1n l'atC.
Mr. Pember.] That would imply undue pre-
ference.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, not if sidings were
provided.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Am I right in supposing
that a series of sidings would be at terminal
Station 7 *
Mr. Pember.] No, that is the whole point.
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poyser.
649. In addition to the sidings you have pro-
vided, there are many sidings which the traders
provide for themselves upon the line?—Yes, in
SOII] G C8,SGS.
650. And this word “accommodation " that
you want to put in would cover the connection
between those sidings and your main line 2–No;
the accommodation would be for the actual
sidings themselves.
651. And for a connection with the main line P
—That is a very small thing indeed.
652. But it is one of the things which are
intended to be covered, is it not? This is work
at the sidings, and in connection with sidings —
If you refer to the cost of signalliag at the junc-
tion, yes, that is included in the word “ accom-
modation.”
653. In the past you have made agreements
with the trader by which he lays out his money
upon sidings, and you provide all the connecting
accommodation and all the signalling?—The
agreements varies very much.
654. That is a very frequent form of agree-
ment, is it not ?–1n some cases.
655. There are some agreements where this
trader has expended money upon his sidings
according to the terms of his agreement. Now
what you want by inserting these words here and
not in Clause 19, is not to enforce the existing
agreements, but to do away with the existing
agreements, and to enable yourselves to tend a
charge on 3–The existing agreements so far as
they provide for any charge to the traders would
cease to be enforceable, and the whole charge
which the railway companies could make would
be such a charge as the Bill will give them.
656. I understood you to say that one of your
complaints was that the agreements did not pro-
vide for that charge being paid by the traders ?
—That is so.
657. Therefore what you want is to cancel or
modify those agreements already in existence —
Yes; those agreements would all go.
Earl of Belmore.
658. How so?—Wherever there is a provision
in existence that a portion of the maintenance or
a portion of the signalling charges shall be paid
by the trader, we should no longer be able to
enforce that agreement, because the one charge
which we should be entitled to make for the
accommodation would cover everything.
Mr. Poyser.
659. But where the agreements provide that
they shall pay nothing, what you want to do is
to make under this word “accommodation " a
charge for what you are bound to do for nothing?
—Where the agreement does not provide a
charge. •
660. You want to get rid of the agreement 2–
We want to get rid of these specific agreements
and let everything come under the operation of
the clause.
661. Although, on the faith of these specific
agreements, the traders may have expended large
sums of money in providing special siding accom-
modation ?–We cannot charge for anything the
trade has done, and we do not propose to
do so.
662. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
17 I
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Poyser—continued.
662. But when he expended this money he
did so on the understanding that you would pay
for the signalling. You now propose to make
him pay for it?–No, that is not so; he pays for
it in some form or other.
663. That is in the rate 2-—Yes.
664. But are not your rates upon these traders
fixed by competition ?—Yes, certain rates are
fixed by competition, undoubtedly. * * * >
665. And the rates applicable to those sidings?
—No ; in a great many cases not so.
666. In a great many cases, yes, and in a great
many cases not; is that not so?—You know
how the rates are made ; you know that where
there is competition you are very often obliged
to reduce the rate below what you think you
ought to receive as your reasonable charge.
667. You are charging, in many cases in which
I am interested, above your maximum rate, are
you not ?—What is that, would you name the
article 7
668. Chemical manure ; do you never charge
that upon your system above the maximum rate 2
—I cannot remember all the rates that are being
charged.
Chairman.] He does not admit that.
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to charging over
his maximum rate, I daresay he will not admit
it; but I will give instances by-and-bye.
Cross examined by Mr. Woodfall.
669. I want to ask you one or two questions
before we see Mr. Lambert.
commodation” do you include storage sidings?
I hardly know what you mean by storage
sidings.
670. Small sidings at docks where the railway
companies sometimes put traffic entirely for their
own convenience –We have no such things
upon the Midland Railway. I could not answer
such a question.
671. You are only speaking for the Midland
traffic P−That is so.
672. I understand you to say that you are
apprehensive that this Act would put an end to
specific agreements existing now if the clause
passes as it is 2–No, on the contrary, I said if
the clause be amended in the way the railway
company suggested, by the introduction of the
word “accommodation,” then any existing agree-
ment that fixes upon a trader any payment of
any kind would cease ipso facto.
673. What would you suggest should apply
to the case where an iron works had given up,
say, three or four miles of their own line to
form part of the company's main line. In con-
sideration of the work performed by the trader
would the company give them back their portion
of the line when the agreement came to an end?
—I should like io deal with the case in a con-
crete form if I have to deal with it at all. It
would be a very special and a very peculiar
CàS6.
674. I think you must be aware that such cases
do exist, and I think it only right to put it to you
in a hypothetical form. -
Chairman.] You had better put the question
to the witness distinctly.
(81.)
Mr. NOBLE.
In the word “ac-
[Continued.
Mr. Woodfall.] There is the case of the Dow-
lais Iron Works, where there are between three
and four miles of line.
Mr. Pember.] Which line are you on ?
Mr. Woodfall.] The Great Western.
Chairman.] There may be special circum-
stances which would operate in that case. This
gentleman speaks for the Midland Company.
Mr. Woodfall.] What was in my mind was this,
although we are going to get Great Western evi-
dence, yet what Mr. Noble has said to-day is to
govern the general principle, and the question I
was asking was as a matter of general principle ;
what would he suggest in that case ?
Witness.] I really can suggest nothing, I do.
not know enough about the case.
Mr. Balfour Browne (to Mr. Pember).] Do you
want to say anything further ?
Mr. Pember.] I had proposed to call Mr. Lam-
bert.
Mr. Barnes, M. P.] I agree in the main with
everything Mr. Noble has said with reference to
the Grassmore Colliery, of which I am the chief
owner and chairman, with the exception that we
put in all the earthwork ; that would come to
another 6,000 l. These sidings are laid out
and put in for a traffic of 600,000 tons a year of
coal and 1,000 tons of coke ; that is a question of
concentration; there is not perhaps another colliery
in the midland counties where there is that con-
centration of collieries, it is a station almost.
There are four pits working close together
within 100 yards of each other, consequently
Grassmoor is scarcely typical of all the other
collieries in the midland district, there being
more concentration in it.
Chairman.] Are you going to give us evidence
as a witness P
Mr. Barnes, M. P.] I was making a few re-
marks upon Mr. Noble's evidence.
Chairman.] You must be either a counsel or
a Witness.
Mr. Barnes, M.P.] Then I will be a witness.
Mr. Wodehouse.
675. (Witness) Assuming that the word “ac-
commodation * is not inserted in the Provisional
Order, Would you be debarred in the future from
continuing your existing charges for the main
maintenance of signals?—I think we should be
relegated to the 19th clause, and that everything
WG charge in future must be under agreement
made with the traders; that is as I understand
it.
Mr. Pember.]. If an agreement as to the past
Were not substituted, we should be bound by
this. Your Grace, here is a specimen agree.
ment. I am told that it is a very fair ordinary
Specimen ; it is common form, but your Grace
will understand that they are not all alike
(handing in the same).
..Mr. Hunter. Have you an agreement made
within the last 20 years, without the power to
terminate the agreement in a short time 2
Chairman (To Mr. Barnes, M.P.).] Would the
Y 2 evidence
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
.**
evidence you propose to give us be in favour of
the amendment or against it.
Mr. Barnes, M.P..] It would be in support of
Mr. Noble's views.
Chairman.] Then, now would be the time to
hear you.
Witness.] I could answer the honourable
Member's question which he put just now, by
saying that we have made many agreements
within the last twenty years without the power
of determination; there are some, but not a
great number.
Mr. Hunter.
What is your difficulty with reference to these
agreements? In the great majority you can
terminate them and compel the trader to enter
into a new agreement?—Yes, we can do that,
but I think the trader would very much prefer,
if he could, to come to an agreement rather than
have himself and his business put to that condi-
tion of difficulty which I mentioned, that we
should be obliged to come in and take out the
points. I think the traders would prefer the
word “accommodation ” being in the Bill; that
is my notion so far as we are concerned.
Mr. Ram.] With regard to the last question
as to what the powers of the company would be if
the word “accommodation * were put in, it is not
fair to say that the companies would be relegated
to Section 19, because the Act of 1845 is still
unrepealed, and the section my learned friend
Mr. Pember read would still remain law.
Earl of Camperdown.] Upon the case you
have put to us (and your argument is apparently
all on the part of the traders), why do not the
traders appear for themselves upon that? Can
you give me no idea º
Witness.] I do not know whether any of the
traders are coming or not, but we have had
conferences with the traders and know their
minds. * *
677. Are there no grounds in favour of this
proposed amendment on account of the railway
companies 2–Certainly, what we want is to be
enabled to make this charge. ,
Lord Houghton.
677*. I understand you to argue that
it would put you in an odious position to be
obliged to threaten the traders in the manner you
have suggested —We should have to go to
some hundreds of them.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Are you going to re-examine, Mr.
Pember 2 y
Mr. Pember.] I do not think I have anything to
ask Mr. Noble. All I should ask him would be
matter of argument, and I prefer to put it in that
form. I think the next thing I had better do is
to tender Mr. Lambert's evidence.
Chairman." But there is Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, your Grace. I think per-
haps that the best thing I can do before I called
Mr. Lambert, and I think it would be more
orderly, is to put into the box Mr. Barnes, of the
Grassmoor Colliery, who is a colliery manager
on the Midland system, for which Mr. Noble
spoke.
Chairman.] I think so.
MR. ALFRED BARNES (a Member of the House of Commons), having been sworn, is
Examined.
Mr. I’ember.
678. YoU are Member of Parliament for
the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire 7–I am.
679. I believe you are the chairman of the Coal
Owners' Association of Derbyshire, Leicester-
shire, and Nottinghamshire 2–I am, those three
counties.
680. Those are three important counties, as we
know?—Yes.
some years.
681. With regard to the agreement between
yourself, and the Midland Railway Company,
which Mr. Noble has put in, in order that we may
have it clear before the Committee, I think there is
some statement you would like to make now that
you are in the box, in which you wish to qualify
what Mr. Noble said 2–The only statement I
have to make is this: the earthwork of the sid-
ing we put in, and that the work done by the
Midland Company was putting the rails down
and the ballast in ; the mass of the work was
done by the Grassmoor Colliery Company.
Lord Belper.
682. On whose land was that ?--It was done
on our own land, a good deal of it.
g ...]
Y
I have been the chairman for
Mr. Pember.
683. Idare say it did not escape your notice that
al) Mr. Noble claimed for the Midland Company
was that he had spent 6,500l. 2—Yes. *
684. He did not say that he had spent all the
money in connection with making the sidings and
accommodation, but only that he had spent
6,000l. 2 – Yes.
685.-You know exactly what the railway
company asked for in the insertion of the words
“ accommodation and ” before the word “services P’’
—Yes.
686. Speaking for your association, for those
three counties, are you in favour of the insertion
of those words or not?—I think myself that it is
only fair that they should be inserted, taking into
view the arrangements that they have made with
us with regard to ths general rates.
687. And I may go further, may I not, and say
that there would not be the slightest difficulty so
far as you concerned, because you have already
agreed in fact as to what would be a fair charge
to be made under the circumstances?—We have
agreed on the tolls to be charged on the main
lines. .
688. outside
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
173
Mr. BARNES, M.P.
[Continued.
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
688. Outside the schedules altogether ?–Yes.
I may say I have had 45 years connection with the
Midland Railroad. I have been for many years
chairman of the association, and hitherto we have
always been able to arrive at an agreement on all
points, perhaps not always in our own favour, but
we have always arrived at a fair agreement with
them.
Ilord Belper.
689. Did you say that you had agreed on the
tolls to be charged 2–We have agreed upon the
tolls to be charged.
690. For all time
practically for all time.
Mr. Dickson.
681. We understand that your petition then is
withdrawn as against the railway companies in
this matter?—Yes, just so; we have come to an
arrangement with them, and one with which we
are all satisfied, and I think the Midland Railway
Company is satisfied.
Mr. Pember.] That agreement, I may say:
goes to schedule the maximum tolls with regard
to this traffic, which we shall in time ask the
Committee to insert in lieu of those inserted in
this schedule ; and so far as this gentleman's
association goes there will be no opposition to that.
Lord Belper.
692. Does that nean maximum rates ?—(Wit-
ness.) Yes.
do you mean 2–Yes,
Lord Belper.] Not using tolls, in the technical
sense ?
Mr. Pember.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.
693. Does it include the use of these sidings in
question ?—(Witness.) Yes, everything; it puts it
in a nutshell.
Mr. Dickson.
694. Supposing that other colliery owners are
not equally fortunate in coming to an agreement
with the railway companies, what do you think of
these words being added ?–I am certain that all
the colliery owners of Derbyshire, Nottingham-
shire, and Leicestershire will do so; and that in
fact they include the Midland coalfield. Other
than that, there is the coal they would receive
from the South Yorkshire field, which we have
nothing to do with.
Mr. Pember.
695. I am not quite sure that we are right
now. The agreement goes a little ſurther than
that. The agreement is not only as to what
would be a right and proper schedule of maximum
Mr. Pember—continued.
rates to suggest to the Committee for adoption,
but also as to what the charges should be over
and above any rate charged for the use of such
sidings as we are now talking of; is not that
so 2–Yes, terminal charges. g
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might we see the agree-
ment 2
Mr. Pember, The moment it is in writing you
shall. You did not hear what I said, I think.
What I said was that there would be no difficulty,
So far as this gentleman and his association are
concerned in carrying out Clause 5, as left by
our alteration, because we have already settled
with them as to what would be fair maximum
rates for this sort of traffic to be submitted to the
Committee when the time comes, plus the amount,
it is right to charge for the use of such sidings as
these. But there is nothing reduced to writing;
it is merely what we call a settlement.
Earl of Camperdown.] Can you tell us what
this agreement is in principle ; is it within the
maximum rate P
Mr. Balfour Browne j May I say, your Grace,
that I am appearing for a large number of other
traders on the Midland system, and it is most
material that we should know what that agree-
ment is.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is the very ques-
tion I am asking.
Mr. Pember.] I think I can satisfy you. It is
exactly what I have told you. We have agreed
as to what the schedule of maximum rates should
be, and what, as a matter of fact, would be a fair
amount to be charged for the use of such sidirgs
as are in question.
Earl of Camperdown.] As to what you call the
schedule of maximum rates that you have agreed
upon, is that within the maximum rates laid down
by the Provisional Order ?
Mr. Pember.] I should say it was an increase
upon it; partly one, and partly the other.
Mr. Hanbury.] The two together are an addi-
tion to the rate charged by the Bill.
Mr. Pember.] It is of course, Sir, the first I
have heard of it. Mr. Beale will tell you what
it is in a moment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I cannot cross-
examine Mr. Beale, and I can cross-examine the
witness.
Mr. Pember.] But you shall have an oppor-
tunity of doing that. Will your Grace kindly
let Mr. Beale tell you what the arrangement is 2
Chairman.] Then he must be sworn.
MR. JAMES SAMUEL BEALE, is called in ; and, having been swown, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Pember.
696. YOU are Solicitor to the Midland Rail-
way Company ?—I am.
697. Will, you describe to his Grace and the
Committee the nature of the agreement that \lr.
Barnes has mentioned to us?—The arrangement
Mr. Pember—continued.
that has been made with the colliery owners is
for a graduated terminal, in proportion to the
distance, for the accommodation terminal pro-
vided under Clause 5, to be twopence for dis-
tances up to 50 miles, 1 d. for distances
(81.)
Y 3 from
174
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
from 50 miles up to 100 miles, and nothing
to be charged beyond "100 miles; and that is
satisfactory to both parties.
698. One sees the reason for that: that if you
get to 100 miles and beyond, you get such a
gross amount out of the maximum rate that it
makes no difference to you what it is ?—The
rates beyond 100 miles are all governed by
competition.
On Mr. Balfour Browne rising to cross-
examine Mr. Beale.
Chairman.] We must be more regular ; there
is Mr. Barnes still in the box.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j As my learned friend
interposed Mr. Beale, I thought I had better
finish with Mr. Beale.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
699. Then, in the case of coal carried beyond
100 miles, there is no terminal whatever?—No,
accommodation terminal at the colliery end.
Mr. Pember.] At the colliery end.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
700. Is there to be at the other end ?—There
may be, or may not be ; the agreement does not
go to that ; it will be governed by the schedule.
701. And from 50 miles up to 100 miles, at
the colliery end, there is to be a charge of one
penny ?–Yes.
702. Is that to be at one individual colliery,
or at a series of collieries 2—That is to be for all
collieries where the railway company have pro-
vided the accommodation.
703. For all collieries 2–Yes. -
704. But I understood that the reason for
leaving it indefinite in this very schedule was,
that the amount of accommodation and services
differed so much that you could not fix it?—We
have not got the agreement in writing; but it is
not intended to prevent any colliery owner, who
thinks that it is too high a charge, from applying
to an arbitrator ; that is only a charge to be
agreed as an average charge so long as the
colliery owners choose, without going to arbi-
tration.
705. But at one colliery you have provided
sidings to the extent of 6,000 l. —Yes.
706. I3ut at another you may have provided
nothing 2–Yes.
707. Yet they are to be charged one penny in
the one case if it is over 50 miles and under
l()0 miles, and two pence in the other, although
no accommodation is provided ?–No. We have
not got the agreement in writing yet ; but it is
not the intention that any colliery ownershould pay
for accommodation which has not been provided.
708. Let me ask you this. The whole prin-
ciple I thought of fixing the terminal was, to
distinguish it and keep it entirely separate from
the mileage rate P--Certainly.
709. Let me put a case to you that was put in
the Court of Queen's Bench
Chairman.
710. What collieries is this agreement intended
to apply to other than what are represented by
Mr. Barnes?—It is intended to apply to all
Mr. BEALE.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
collieries on the Midland Railway who are willing
to accept that settlement; but no colliery owner
who does not like it is to be bound to accept it;
it is only to be voluntary on the part of the
colliery owners. If it is beneficial for them, as
being a simple way of carrying on the trade as
at present, they will adopt it; but they are not
legally bound to adopt it.
Earl of Camperdown.
711. Has it been made pnblic 2–It has only
been two days in agreement.
712. But with whom is it made 7–The Coal
Owners' Association, represented by Mr. Barnes.
713. That one association only 2—With that
one association, which covers the whole of the
coal district served by the Midland Railway by
its own line.
Mr. Hanbury.
714. Does it cover Staffordshire, for instance 2
—No.
715. But the Midland Company run to Staf-
fordshire 2–Yes, they do run to Staffordshire,
716. It does not cover that ?—It does not
necessarily cover it; nor does it cover any dis-
senting colliery within this association.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
717. One honourable Member has handed me
a petition ; does it cover this, the petition of the
Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire
Colliery Owners’ Association ?–It does; but it
, 3 not to be binding upon anyone who sees that
he is not getting a consideration for his ter-
minal.
718. Do you not serve the South Yorkshire
coalfield?—Not by an independent line, at least
to the extent of one or two collieries only.
719. But your main line runs up from Sheffield
to eleven collieries, as we heard in another room
yesterday, that are on your main line in that dis-
trict 2–Then to that extent it does, of course.
720. With regard to this accommodation, it
does not differ, it is the same, for every ton of
coals, whether it goes one mile or a hundred
miles?—Whether it goes one mile or fifty miles.
721. Or a hundred miles, the accommodation
is the same 2–Clearly.
722. That is why terminals are to be fixed,
because the amount of terminal accommodation
does not differ with the number of miles run; is
not that so?—That is quite so. - **,
723. And the whole principle of taking ter-
minals out of the rate and putting them separate,
is because they are a constant charge and do not
differ with the number of miles?—Quite so.
724. Then you have departed from the whole
principle of the Provisional Order by putting a
graduated terminal on ?–I do not think you
can say that we have departed from the principle ;
we have made a compromise arrangement for the
convenience of both parties.
725. Let me ask you how much are the rates
raised by this agreement. You say it is a raising
of the rates as proposed and fixed by the Board
of Trade. How much are they raised?
Earl of Camperdown.] In some cases raised.
726. In
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
175
*~~~~
21 April 1891.]
Mr. BEALE.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
726. In some cases raised ?—You have to take
every case from one mile to a hundred miles.
727. You know whether you have won or lost
by this arrangement of course; have you, on the
whole, raised the rates that the Board of Trade
proposed to allow you?—I cannot say, on the
whole. The Midland Company have petitioned
against those rates as being insufficient.
728. I understood that ?—And we have
endeavoured to see where the real sources of
difference between the traders who are interested
on the one side, and the railway companies on
the other side, were, and we have discussed that
with a view to see whether we could agree upon
a schedule that would be fair to both parties. .
729. But that schedule must either raise or
lower the rates, or allow them to be the same.
Have you got more money out of this agreement
than you would have if this Provisional Order
had been confirmed ?—You must take the
distances; the schedule of the Board of Trade
proposes one rate up to 20 miles, another to 50
miles, and then from 50 to 75 it proposes the
same rate to continue. Up to 50 miles we pro-
pose to take the same rate as the Board of Trade
propose, but to graduate differently, so as to get
(as the colliery owners mainly desire) a different
rate for each different mile, or two miles, as the
case may be.
730. As you say, you have graduated it in a
different way ?—I will undertake to give you
the fullest information upon it as soon as we have
it on paper. I hoped to have it to-day.
Chairman.] We had better wait, I think, until
that is the case.
Mr. Ram.] I propose to ask Mr. Beale two or
three general questions if your Grace will allow
II) (2.
Chairman.] I do not think he is in the box for
that purpose.
Mr. Ram.] Very well, your Grace. As long
as the agreement is seen and remarked upon
before the Committee comes to a conclusion upon
this point, I am content.
Mr. Beale is directed to withdraw.
The evamination of Mr. BARNES is continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ram.
731. Do I understand that this agreement that
has been made with you hy the Midland Rail-
way Company regulates the whole matter with
regard to these Grassmore sidings 2–Yes, it does.
732. Therefore, with regard to the Grassmore
Colliery that was put forward as a hard case just
now, it does not matter two straws whether the
word “accommodation ” is in the Bill or not?—
I do not think it was put forward just now as a
hard case.
733. Never mind that ?—There are four co-
lieries practically in it ; there are four drawing
pits within a short distance. Usually those
collieries would be a mile or two apart; they are
all together there.
734. It does not matter now that you have
come to this agreement whether the word “ac-
commodation * is in the Bill or not, that is what
I ask you?—I do not think it does.
*
Mr. Ram—continued.
735. Until you had the agreement that has
been come to with the Midland Company, this
new-born agreement, you were opposing the
insertion of the word “accommodation”?—No,
I do not think I would. It was not the general
provision in the Provisional Order. But we did
not oppose, it was general. x-
736. It was only after you got your agree-
ment that you withdrew your opposition ?--Of
course, because we were satisfied; we did not
want anything more. The agreement was not
made for the Grassmore Colliery, it was made in
the interests of the coalowners, representing
fourteen millions of tons.
737. Are you aware that the Monmouthshire
Coal Association represent 22 millions of tons ?
—I daresay it does. .
738. And they are not agreed with at present 2
—Very probably not.
Chairman.
739. But the Midland Company have nothing
to do with the South Wales companies have
they 2–Nothing.
Mr. Ram.] Very little ; they do come in, but
we are left out in the cold, and this gentleman
comes here after these gentlemen have been
settled with.
Cross-examined by Mr. Woodfall.
740. In making this agreement did the Mid-
land Company approach you or did you approach
the Midland 2–I think it was both.
741. You met on a crossing in the street, I
suppose P
Mr. Dickson.
742. You objected to the Provisional Order as
framed by the Board of Trade, and lodged a
petition ?–Yes. One particular main thing
was that it did away with our geographical posi-
tion.
743. Then I understand that you have come
to terms with the Midland Company, and they
have modified the rate 2—Yes, they have modi-
fied it entirely.
744. Might I ask what is the output of the
Grassmore Colliery –The output at present is
400,000 tons, it will be very shortly 400,000 tons
a year, and 1,000 tons of coke per week; it will
very shortly rise up to 600,000 tons.
745. Where does the bulk of that output go
to 2–All down south.
746. To London 2–And the eastern counties,
and all down below London.
747. What is the distance
colliery to London 2–144 miles.
748. What rate are you paying at the present
time per mile to London?—It is about 50 d. I
think, as near as may be ; it may be 49 d.
749. What is the rate as arranged now, as
modified by the Midland Company?–It will be
much the same thing.
750. What is the maximnm rate under the
Provisional Order 2—The maximum rate would
be more than that. I could not tell you off hand,
but the diagram will be produced and the agree-
ment will be produced, and it will all be seen by
the Committee.
from your
(81.)
Mr.
Y 4
176
MJH iſ TES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
Mr. BARNES.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace
mind asking Mr. Barnes what proportion of his
coal would be free from all terminal P He says
that the general run is about 144 miles, which
would relieve it possibly altogether of the ter-
minal at the colliery end. - {
Witness.] It would be relieved ; yes, undoubt-
edly so far as the Grassmore Colliary of three-
fourths of it. Our average toll sometime ago
when l had it taken out was 7 s. per ton.
T.ord Belper.
751. So far as the word “accommoda-
tion ” is concerned, you having an agreement,
if you keep to that agreement, with the Midland
Company ; it will make no possible difference to
Mr. HENRY LAMBERT, having
Mr. Moom.
752. l WANT to ask you this preliminary ques-
tion. As regards the agreement we have heard
of lately between the Midland Railway Company
and the Midland Coal-owners Association, you
have nothing to do with that ?–Nothing what-
ever; we know nothing more of it than the
Committee know.
753. I want you to tell the Committee, if you
please, what is the practice on your system
as regards who pays for the accommodation which
is provided for the convenience of traders at the
side —Our practice for many years past has
been to require the freighters to pay for the
accommodation which has been provided for
private sidings.
754. That is the practice, just the opposite of
the practice on the Midland line 2–Yes.
755. In your case, the freighter always pays
the cost of construction, generally I mean, your
general practice is, that the freighter pays the
cost of construction, whether upon your land or
upon his, if it is made for his convenience 2–
That is the principle we have gone upon for many
years past, as I say.
756. But there are cases I suppose, on your
system, where you have provided an accommoda-
tion which the trader uses 2–Yes, there are
some sidings which were provided by the com
pany in years gone by, without any agreement.
757. And l suppose some cases in which you
have partly provided the accommodation, and the
trader has partly provided the accommodation ?—
That is so, and where we have found land partly
and the trader has found land partly.
758. Do you consider it equitable that the
trader, who has himself provided the accommoda-
tion, should pay the same as a trader for whom
you have provided the accommodation ?–No,
there manifestly a difference ought to be made.
759. In the case of coal which goes to a station,
a charge is made in addition to the cost of convey-
ance for the accommodation which is provided for
that coal at the station ?—The provision of the
terminal accommodation is included in the rate
that is quoted.
760. In the future, you know, where the coal
goes to a station, in addition to the charge for
conveyance, there is to be a terminal charge for
accommodation provided at the station ?—Yes.
you whether the word “accommodation ” is in or
out?–It would not make the slightest difference.
Mr. Poyser.] Would your Grace kindly ask
Mr. Beale whether there is any agreement of
this kind with any other trade besides the coal
trade? -
Chairman.] It would be rather inconvenient
interposing that now. We have done with Mr.
Beale. We should like now to hear what the
Board of Trade have to say.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, we have another
witness to call, Mr. Lamberi.
Chairman | Then you had better call your
witness.
been re-called, is further Examined.
Mr. Moon —continued.
761. Does it seem to you that the same prin-
ciple ought to apply where the accommodation,
although not to the same extent or amount, is
provided, not at the station, but at the trader's
siding if it is provided by the railway company ?
—It seems to be the same principle ; it is only a
question of degree.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ram.
762. Would not this desire of yours to protect
the trader who has done all the work on the
siding, as against the trader who has only done
part, be met by section 19?—We think not.
763. Why?—In the first place it is not retro-
spective, and we think that there is accommoda-
tion covered by that term, which we sometimes
have to provide, which we ought to be in a
position to get a charge for. -
764. With regard to your first answer, if section
19 were made retrospective, your objection will
be gone so far as that is concerned ?—I think
so in that respect. . .
765. With regard to the rest of your answer, I
want to know what you think will be provided
for then under the term “accommodation,” that
would not be equally well the subject of an
agreement under Clause 19?–By “accommoda-
tion ” we understand the provision of land, and
sidings, and signals, and other conveniences for
carrying on the traders’ traffic 2–Yes.
766. That is your definition of “accommoda-
tion ”?—Yes.
767. At present the trader is under legal
compulsion to provide those things, and to main-
tain them before you need serve him at all, is he
not ?—Although he may be under the obligation.
768. I will take it first that he is ?––Still we
have under some circumstances to provide that
accommodation, and we think we are entitled to
a payment therefor. -
769. And on those occasions when you have
to provide it, it will be covered by agreement
under Section 19, will it not? —It will be covered
by agreement, certainly.
770. And if you proceed under Section 19 by
agreement as therein indicated 2–I am advised
that Clause 19 is not sufficient for our purposes
771. Do I rightly understand that you want to
have power to force the trader to pay more than
the law now forces him to pay ?—We have no
desire
*a.
* ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
177
21 April 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[ Continued.
Mr. Ram—continued.
desire to force the trader at all. These sidings
are usually the result of applications from the
traders.
772. And if so they would be met by Section
19?–To a large extent, no doubt.
773. To what extent would they not be so
met?—We think that there are items in the word
“accommodation ” that are perhaps mot altogether
covered by that clause.
774. Will you give me what those items are 7
—The circumstances at the various works and
collieries vary so much that it is impossible to
give you a specific definition.
775. Then do I rightly understand that you
are asking the Committee to give you a sort of
roving commission because you, with all your
experience as a general manager, cannot specify
the items, so that it is still to be open to you to
say to a trader, “ you must pay me extra for
that ”?—ſ have indicated them.
776. I should have said “defined ’2–The cir-
cumstances at the collieries vary so much ; one
man wants one thing and another another, that it
is impossible to lay down a hard and fast line.
And bear in mind that the accommodation is only
to be provided at the request of the trader.
777. Therefore it is that you desire to have it
left vague and undefined 2–If we were to attempt
to make a charge which is not bomá fide or justi-
fied by the circumstances, the arbitrator will
settle that between us and the trader.
778. So I understand it depends upon arbitra-
tion ; but you are anxious; I think it is plain to
have the power to make a charge, which charge
is over and above the charges now laid upon the
trader by law, which you are unable or unwilling
now to define, and which will be the object of
something other than agreement under Clause
19?—I do not understand that we are seeking to
make any charge beyond any lawful charge.
779. But you are seeking to have increased
power to make a charge over and above that
which is now lawful ?—I do not follow that.
780. I think that is so. Is it not the fact that
in the South Wales district the traders, I may say
universally, find everything connected with pri-
vate sidings?—The rule, is, as I have said under
our arrangements with the traders, to require
them to find the accommodation.
781. Certainly, everything? — But it often
arises that sidings have to be provided on the
company's lands.
782. Does that apply to South Wales?–Yes,
certainly.
783. In such cases as that is not rent charged
by the company for land upon which the com-
pany allow the trader to put his sidings 2–-We
charge an easement. -
784. It being your land you charge an ease-
ment, and then the trader does the work on the
land 2–-Or we do it and charge him.
785. And the trader maintains it 2—And the
trader maintains it. Of course there are varia-
tions, as I say, from that ; but that is the general
rule.
786. And in such a case there is an agreement
with the trader ?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
787. Did you follow the arrangement ex-
plained by Mr. Beale 2–I heard what he said,
and I understand it, I think.
788. And you understand that in cases where
the coal traffic goes a distance of over 100
miles no terminal charge is to be made at the
colliery end ?—I understood him to say so.
789. Are you prepared, on the part of the
Great Western Company with regard to your
coal traffic, to adopt the same principle 7–No, I
could not say that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Woodfall.
790. I just want to ask you one or two ques-
tions. Take a case like the Bute Docks at
Cardiff. The Bute Docks, I believe, have some-
thing like 33 or 60 miles of sidings of their own 2
—They have very extensive sidings,
791. Although that is so, you have several
storage sidings there 2–We have.
792. Would you explain to the Committee
what is meant by storage sidings?—Sidings are
provided to hold coal as it arrives from the
collieries, for which there are no ships ready to
take it. The Bute Docks provide storage sidings,
and the railway companies who run to Cardiff
also provide storage sidings. The coal is loaded
at the colliery, comes down to Cardiff, and if
there is no specific consignment for it, no ship in
a position to take it, either the Bute Company,
or the railway company, hold the trucks in their
sidings; and the sidings that are provided for
that purpose are called storage sidings.
793. Now, the storage sidings belonging to
the company are used by the company entirely
for their own advantage; it is to their advantage
in handling the traffic there that they should put
it on to the storage sidings if there is no ship
ready to take it ; is not that so 2-—I could not
admit that. It is a convenience given to the
freighter; otherwise the freighter must keep the
coal back at his colliery.
794. Is it not fair to say that you could not
work the traffic unless you did have storage
sidings?–As a matter of practice, we do provide
the sidings for the convenience of the working
of the traffic ; but the convenience is for the
freighter. There is no obligation upon the rail-
way company to take the traffic till the ship is
ready to take it.
795. Except that it is always the desire of a
railway manager to truck the traffic on to his
line as soon as he can, so as to get it on to that
day’s sheets ; is not that so?—I could not say
that. As a rule, at the majority of collieries the
siding room is limited. The colliery, necessarily,
has to cºntinue working ; they work from Mon-
day morning to Saturday night. In many cases
the coal is not even sold, but as soon as it is put
into trucks it has to be got away; and it is a
distinct convenience to the trader that the rail-
way company provide storage sidings until the
coal can be shipped or otherwise disposed of.
Earl of Camperdown.
796. Does the railway company make any
charge for the storage sidings to the trader now?
-—We do not.
(81.)
Z 797. That
178
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Woodfall.
797. That is just what I was coming to, my
Lord. (To the Witness.) Although you say
that it is for the advantage of the freighters that
the company should have their storage sidings,
it is also very greatly to the advantage of the
company ?—I cannot admit that after I have
endeavoured to explain to you under what cir-
cumstances the storage sidings are provided and
used, I cannot admit but what it is for the con-
venience of the trader. We make no charge at
the present time for their use ; but it is a con-
venience for the trader.
798. But it is so much advantage to the com-
pany, that up to now you have made no charge
for the use of those sidings?
Chairman.] I do not think you must put the
question in that way, because you are putting
into the witness's mouth that which he does not
admit. You say it is to the advantage of the
company; he says that it is not to the advantage
of the company, but to the advantage of the
freighter ?
Witness.] Precisely. 4.
Chairman.] You say it is so far an advantage
to the company that you have made no change
hitherto ; but Mr. Lambert does not admit that
it is an advantage to the company.
Mr. Woodfall.
799. (To the Witness) Well, I will put it as
strongly to you as this ; that it would be
absolutely impossible for you to work the large
traffic going to the Bute docks if you had not
these storage sidings 2–It all depends. A state
of things has arisen under which the Cardiff
docks have said to us “We are blocked with coal,
and we cannot take any more from Colliery A.B.,
as the case may be.” We also have had our
sidings full of the same colliery traffic, and we
have therefore been obliged to telegraph back to
the colliery not to send out any more. In the
case of winds prevailings, or rough weather, so
that ships do not arrive with regularity, then
there arises a glut, everybody is pressed ; but in
the interval the coal has accumulated, the
collieries work, as I have said, day by day, and
every siding is occupied, and we have been
obliged to stop it back at the collieries. We
do not take that course if we can possibly avoid
it. .
800. You know you have gone to Parliament
more than once for powers to make these storage
sidings?—When we have wanted land for the
purpose we have had to get Parliamentary powers
to acquire it.
801. Do you include in this term “accom-
modation ” these storage sidings 2–In the event
of having to make a charge for it, I should think
it would be covered by the clause which gives
us power to charge siding rent. Sub-section 4
of Clause 5, I think, would meet that case.
802. Then you think that under Sub-section 4
of Clause 5, if this clause is passed by the Com-
mittee, you could make a charge for your
storage sidings 2—I think so, if the necessity
should arise.
803. Now, then, one more question. If the
Committee decide to insert the word “accom-
modation” as asked for, do you not think that it
Mr. Woodfall—continued.
would be necessary to make consequent amend-
ments in the proviso. The proviso now runs
(you have, no doubt, read it, I see you have it
before you), “Provided that where before any
service is provided for or rendered to a trader he
has given notice in writing to the company that
he does not require it, the service shall not be
deemed to have been provided or rendered at the
trader’s request or for his convenience.” But if
you get the word “accommodation * inserted in
the clause, do not you think it would be a con-
sequent amendment that it should be provided
for in the proviso and brought within the pro-
visions 2–I must leave that to the solicitors who
advise upon the matter.
804. But if it was not provided for there, or if
it was, I take it either way, what sort of a
notice has been in your mind as necessary to be
given by the trader, and what oppertunity would
he have to give a notice. Would a general notice
be sufficient 2–No, I do not think so; I think we
should have a specific notice upon a given set of
circumstances. g
805. On each occasion ?—On each occasion if
it were of a different character. If it were a
continuous set of circumstances I do not think
you would find us unreasonable in dealing with a
notice of that kind. -
806. Let us take a case. Mr. Noble, I think,
said that he could say who was to be the judge as
to whether it was for the convenience of the trader
or not. Take a case where a railway company
said that a service was for the convenience of a
trader and performed it before the trader could
be communicated with. Such a case might arise,
might it not *—It might be possible. Then the
arbitrator would decide after all. -
807. That is after it is all done. But what
opportunity in such a case would the trader have
of giving notice under such a proviso P
Chairman.] What circumstances are
© you con-
emplating 7 -
Mr. Woodfall.] I put a case, your Grace, where
the railway company handled the traffic, where
they make themselves the judges of what accom-
modation is for the convenience of the trader, and
render him that accommodation; and then I put
it to Mr. Lambert that in that case the trader
would have no opportunity of giving any notice
whatever whether he required it or not.
Chairman.] You said “service,” do you mean
“ accommodation,” or “ service,” or both 2
Mr. Woodfall.] Only “accommodation; ” I
have put it to Mr. Lambert that if they get the
word “accommodation” in the clause, then it ought
to be in the proviso that it would be a consequent
amendment.
Chairman.] But we are scarcely upon that.
Mr. Pember.] I should not object to that, your
Grace, as a matter of fact.
Chairman.] It seems to me that it would
follow that if you have it in one part of the
clause, you must have it in the proviso.
Mr. Woodfall.
808. (To the Witness.) Now, under your Act
of 1867, the Great Western Railway (Various
Powers) Act of 1867, you made an agreement,
did
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL Oſ: DER BILLS.
179
21 April 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Woodfall—continued.
did you not, with the Dowlais Ironworks?—
There were agreements with them.
809. Was the effect of one of them (I have not
got it before me) that they gave up certain por-
tions, some three or four miles of their own line,
to form part of your main line 2–Yes. There
was an agreement under which a line, known as
the Taff Bargoed line, was constructed from a
station at Llancachon, our line, up to Dowlais,
and that line was made in concert with the
Dowlais Company. In order to make the line
complete, we had to absorb certain of the private
lines belonging to the Dowlais Company, and an
agreement was made, under which the railway
was constructed, absorbing certain private lines
in order to make a direct eommunication up to
Dowlais. -
810. That was made under an agreeinent with
the Dowlais Company ?—Yes, and schedule to
the Act too. -
811. Now if Mr. Noble's construction of the
clause as you wish to have it with the word
“accommodation ” inserted, if the effect of that
is to put an end to these agreements, what would
the railway company do with regard to Dowlais;
would they give them back the line which they
have given up 7–Speaking for the Great Western
Railway Company, I can only say that we have
no desire to disturb that agreement in any way.
812. Have you approached the Dowlais Com-
pany, have you been to them to make any
agreement 2–There is no agreement made. We
do not propose to override the Parliamentary
obligation.
Mr. Pember.] Whom do you appear for 2
Mr. Woodfall.] For the traders of South Wales
and Monmouthshire, and the Marquess of Bute.
- Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
813. In reference to my learned friend Mr.
Ram's questions, he first of all put to you that in
the case of South Wales, in a large number of
instances, the traders provide their own siding
accommodation ?—They do.
814. Wherever they do that, this clause with
the word “accommodation” in it will not affect
them at all ?—We only propose to charge for
accommodation provided by the company.
815. That is true. Then taking the case, as
he has put it, where the traders provide their own
siding accommodation, this clause will not affect
them at all 2–No.
Earl of Camperdown.] It will not affect the
company ? e .
Mr. Cripps.] No.
Lord Belper.] Might I ask, apropos of that,
whether it would affect the connection made
between the company and the private sidings 2
Mr. Cripps.] No.
Lord Belper.] Will you get that from the
witness 2
Mr. Cripps.
816. (To the Witness.) Will you answer his
Lordship's question ?—I did not quite follow the
question.
d Mr. Cripps—continued.
817. Whether it would affect, as I under-
stand, the arrangement made between the private
siding and the company —— .
Lord Belper.] No, the connecting line made
by the company, in order to connect their line
with the siding.
Witness.] That, under our present practice, is
paid for by the freighter at the present time.
818. But if this amendment were passed, it
would come under this clause, would it not ?—If
it is accommodation provided for the freighter,
naturally we should expect him to pay for it.
819. But in a case where no agreement has
been made as to payment, in your case you say
the freighter does pay, but in other cases where
he does not, would it not then be brought under
this clause, although he would not have to pay if
those words were not put in 2–I assume that if
there were no agreement this clause would cover
the provision of that connection.
820. The word “accommodation ”
Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] It would be so. Where there is
no agreement, but the accommodation is actually
provided by the railway company; of course it
would cover it. -
would 2–
Lord Belper.] Although he does not pay for
it now. -
Mr. Cripps.] He might.
Lord Belper.] Although he might or might
not.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
821. (To the Witness.) Just one point with
regard to this Clause 19 to which my learned
friend Mr. Ram drew your attention; the
proviso to that clause is in these words: “Pro-
vided that the amount of such charges or pay-
ments is fixed by an agreement in writing,
signed by the trader or by some person duly
authorised on his behalf.” I understand that you
have provided accommodation for the trader in
some cases, although there has been no agree-
ment and no writing signed by the trader or by
Some person duly authorised on his behalf?—We
have cases of that kind.
822. And it is to cover those cases where
there has been no agreement that you want the
word “accommodation ” inserted 2–Yes.
823. Of course where there is an agreement,
then this Clause 19 will apply 2–Yes.
824. But with no agreement, where you have
provided accommodation, you want to have the
right to make a fair charge 2–We do.
825. You were asked by my learned friend
Mr. Woodfall, on behalf of Lord Bute, about
the storage sidings. Are all your storage
sidings in connection with private sidings or not?
—No ; the storage sidings are in connection with
our own sidings.
826. And in conneetion with your own line
and your own work 2–Yes, and in connection
with the dock sidings ; there is a connection with
the dock sidings; but mainly they are by the
side of our own lines and worked in connection
with our own lines.
(81.)
Z 2 827. But
180
MINUTEs OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.]
Mr. Cripps—continued.
827. But not in connection with what we are
now dealing with, the private sidings?—No ; the
private sidings are at the collieries and the storage
sidings at the port. -
828. And, as you have stated, at the present
time you make no separate charge under the head
of storage sidings?—We do not.
829. It is one of the charges that you make to
the trader as a whole for dealing with his traffic?
—Yes ; the rate we charge covers the use of
those storage sidings. -
830. But what you want here, to put the
trader on the same footing, is to make a reason-
Mr. LAMBERT.
-ms
[Contin wed.
Mr. Cripps —continued.
able charge in the case of a trader for whom you
have actually provided accounnodation, although
you have made no agreement 7–Yes. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Now I should like to know what
the Board of Trade have to say. ,
Mr. Pember.] Would you not like to hear what
Mr. Oakley would say?
Chairman.] Oh yes, you have another witness.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
831. You are the general manager of the
Great Northern Railway ?—Yes.
832. I would almost rather put it to you in
this way: You have heard what has been said
on this topic, and you know the topic that is under
discussion ?—Yes.
833. I suppose the matter is by no means a
new one to the Great Northern Company ?—No,
I am very familiar with it.
834. You have no doubt a great number of
traders for whom you have provided accommoda-
tion, either on or off your own land?—Yes.
335. That is to say traders, the terminus of
whose traffic does not come within any part of
your line which would fall within the definition
of a terminal station ?--That is so.
836. First of all I will ask you this. You also
ask for the insertion of these words, “accommo-
dation and ”?—Yes. I say that they are
necessary to enable us to protect fairly and
reasonably the interests of the company in those
cases where there is no agreement with the
colliery owner or works owner.
837. It has been suggested that at present you
have done this without making any charge for it;
what have you to say upon that subject 7–That
is so to a certain extent. At every colliery that
has a connection with us we have incurred a
certain expense, because we always at our own
cost put down the connection between the colliery
sidings and the railway. I hese are questions of
danger and facility, and working connected with
this, and we keep this absolutely in our own
hands. We do not make the connection unless
we are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect
of business to justify the outlay.
838. Yes 2–We charge all alike. In the
future, as I under this, we shall not be able to
make any charge in connection with a private
siding by way of terminal, although we may
have spent money, more or less large, for the
accommodation of that particular colliery or
work. We do not think that is fair. We do
not think that there should be a distinction
between the payment for our outlay at those
places and the payment for our outlay at the
station. In the one case, the latter, it is for the ad-
vantage of the public; in the former, it is for the
special advantage of an individual trader, and no
one can benefit by it, and it cannot be used for
any other purposes but for his trade.
Chairman.
839. I should like to ask you one question
Are you speaking of the future or the past 2–
Of the past, your Grace.
Mr. Pember.
840. Hitherto you have made one composite
charge which has covered this sort of accommo-
dation which we call terminal accommodation and
the conveyance rate properly so-called ?–Yes.
841. Just as you have made one charge which
covers the terminal accommodation and convey-
ance rate for the trader whose traffic is carried on
at one of your terminal stations 2—Quite so.
843. And you will now, with regard to the
traders whose trade is carried on at your terminal
station, charge one composite rate for the future ;
but, as you understand it, you will not be able
to charge such a composite rate to the trader
whose traffic is carried on "at one of his own
sidings, as you would charge a trader whose
traffic is carried on at your terminal station ?—
That is, I fear I am sorry to say, distinctly so,
that if the traffic is put on to a trader's private
siding we cannot make any terminal charge; but
to get to that private siding, or to bring the
traffic out of that private siding, I have made a
more or less large expenditure, sometimes 3,000 l.
or 4,000 l. ; and I think it is only fair that,
having provided that which was necessary for
his accommodation, and his accommodation only,
I should be entitled to some reasonable payment
for it. And if I understand this clause, if I
attempt anything unreasonable he can take me
to arbitration.
843. And further, is not this the fact that the
question of undue preference would arise if you
attempted in your conveyance rate really to
recoup yourself for the expenditure in question ?
I am afraid so, but I should not like to venture
into or wander into the depths of undue prefer-
ence; I leave that to the lawyers. -
844. At all events the trader will be entitled
to go out of this room and say, “I am not
bould to pay anything for the quasi accommo-
dation at my siding; all that you may legally
charge me is a conveyance rate, and that con-
veyance rate must not be larger than you charge
anybody else under the same circumstances " ?–
That is so, and I fear must remain so unless the
word “accommodation” is added.
Chairman.
ON RAILWAY RATES
181
AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
m--
21 April 1891.]
Chairman.
845. Then what do you include in the word
“ accommodation”; what do you understand by
that?–Payment for any expenditure, the ºom-
pany may have incurred for the special use of the
individual colliery or works, and not applicable
to public benefit, for the public use.
Mr. Hanbury.
846. The company could force the trader, as
I understand, to come to terms by taking up the
rails they have themselves laid down –They
might do that, but that is not a position we want
to be in with our traders; it is suggesting the
thing we are always trying to avoid, that is,
quarrelling with our customers. º
847. Do you not provide for that in some of
your agreements?—Yes, but there are a great
many arrangements up and down the country
which have been made in the last 20 years in
which there is no written agreement.
Mr. Pember.] I think there is nothing more l
need ask the witness. -
Earl of Camperdown.
848. Then you do not limit “accommodation"
at all to sidings, in that answer you have given
to his Grace; there may be a great many other
things included in it?—Certainly, for coal tips,
for instance, or take banks for loading stone.
Chairmam.
849. Coal tips are specially excluded ?–Yes;
but there might be large banks for loading stone.
I have in my mind one on our line, in Yorkshire,
where there is a large loading bank to enable a
quarry proprietor to load stone close to his
quarry ; that is applicable to him, and usable by
him alone, and it cost us several hundred pounds.
If he is not to pay a terminal, he should pay for
that accommodation, which he must otherwise
have provided for himself.
Mr. Pember.] Perhaps you will allow me to
call your Grace's attention, in connection with
this matter, to the definition of a terminal station
on page 7, which shows, of course, that whatever
they did at sidings of this kind, they could get no
terminal in the technical sense of the term.
“The term ‘terminal station means a station or
place upon the railway at which a consignment
of merchandise is loaded or unioaded before or
after conveyance on the railway, but does not
include any station or junction at which the
merchandise in respect of which any terminal is
charged has been exchanged with, handed over
to, or received from any other railway company,
or a junction between the railway and a siding
not belonging to the company, or any station
with which such siding may be connected.”
Lord Belper.
850. (To the Witness.) Would not “struc-
tural accommodation for the private use of
traders” cover the bank for loading stones that
you spoke of 2–I daresay it would in that parti-
cular case; but that was only an example. But
where is that.
851. It is in Clause 19?–But that is for the
future, my Lord.
852. But supposing that clause was made
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Iord Belper—continued.
retrospective, that would cover it 2—I would
rather that the lawyers settled what the words
would cover.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
853. All your agreements are, are they not,
terminable agreements?— Those agreements,
where we have agreements, are terminable; but
as I have explained to his Grace and the Com-
mittee, there are imany instances where we have
no written agreements at all.
854. But take first the terminable agreements
there would be; no difficulty there, would there,
on the part of the railway company saying to a
trader, “Our agreement terminates at a given
period, and we must come to terms with regard
to your accommodation ”?—There would be no
difficulty in saying that ; the difficulty will be
in getting the trader to agree to it.
855. But you have it in your power to say
that to a trader ?—That is to say, that we must
quarrel with our traders if we are to say, “If
you do not come under an agreement that you
dislike, we will interfere with your business.”
856. But are you not going to quarrel with
the traders under the clause ; the clause takes
power to refer to arbitration ?–That is for the
future. -
857. Now with regard to the cases in which
no agreement exists, the same power would be in
the company, would it mot, to compel the trader
to come to terms, to some reasonable arrange-
ment 7–I think not, but I should be very sorry
to say what is our legal power in such a case. I
know that it would be a very disagreeable thing
to have to exercise it.
858. It seems to me surely that the railway
company would have the power of saying to the
trader : “We decline to carry on this arrange-
ment further unless you agree to reasonable
terms?—We have the power of saying so, but
the traders are not always reasonable or agree-
able.
859. Nor are railway companies, I suppose ?—
Well, generally.
860. I understood you to say just now that
this accommodation had been provided; you said
So fairly enough, having regard to the prospects
of traffic at a particular siding 2—Certainly.
861. Then your consideration was the prospect
of traffic which you expected to get?– Yes; and
the payment for it at the then rate.
862. That was the consideration you had in
your own mind for the expenditure you were lay-
ing out?—Certainly; because I knew that, having
a high maximum, I could always ensure a reason-
able payment for any money I spent if there was
any trade.
863. But is there anything which leads you to
believe that you will not have a similar considera-
tion now with regard to the maximum which will
be fixed 2–The prospect does not allure me in
that direction.
864. Probably not; but assuming that you
have a fair maximum allowed you, will it not be
the fact that yon will be getting paid twice over
for the same service P-No, certainly it cannot be.
865. Would not you get a terminal, and get it
(81.)
Z 3 also
182
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE .
21 April 1891.
Mr. Clifford—continued,
also in the actual rate as at present?—If I have
the margin you suggest that the rate will be
lower and the terminal added, I shall be obliged
to add a charge for special accommodation in
order to put the two traders in a fair relative
position. In the future I must charge a trader
for whom I provide accommodation something
more than I charge a trader for whom I do not.
866. But the actual rate at present covers the
terminal?—Yes, it includes the terminal; it
includes all services, whatever they may be.
867. Then if you get this power to charge for
accommodation under the clause, does not it fol-
low that you will be getting paid twice over for the
same service 2–No. You drive me to charge
for this additional accommodation, because you
are here to reduce my rates, so that I shall have
no margin. - *
868. You have not come to the question of
rates, that remains to be seen. You. heard of
the graduated scale of terminal charge which has
been settled by the Midland Railway Company
with its coalowners ?—
Earl of Camperdown.] With a coalowner.
Mr. Clifford.] With a certain association. I
think Mr. Beale said that it also applied to all
the colliery owners on the Midland system.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might apply.
Mr. Clifford. *
869. (To the Witness.) Have you considered
on the part of the Great Northern any similar
proposal or any similar scale "—No.
870. Does the scheme as explained by Mr.
Beale commend itself to your consideration ?—I
should rather like to have time to look at it. If
it is a scheme for increasing the rates in the
schedule it probably would receive my favour-
able consideration.
871. I want to know whether the scheme has
been, or will be, considered by the companies
generally with a view to its general adoption ?—
I cannot tell you that until I know more about
it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ram.
872. Do I understand that you asked to have
accommodation put in in order that the trader,
who now has provided everything, shall be in a
slightly better position than the trader who has
provided not everything, but something?—Cer-
tainly ; I am afraid you will compel us to do
that,
873. So far as your argument goes it is in the
trader's interest that you advocate the word 2–
It is in the trader's interest, no doubt, but also
in the company’s interest.
874. Will you explain, how it is in the com-
pany’s interest also Do I understand you to
say that you wish to charge for that ; that is to
say, that with regard to any private siding, if the
counpany has done anything that is not required
for dealing with the general traffic, but only for
the purpose of that particular siding, whether it
is an increased siding or structural accommoda-
tion, you wish for power to charge for that?—
Certainly; wherever I have done anything for
the special business of any particular trader that
Mr. OAKLEY.
-—º
[Continued.
Mr. Ram-continued. . .
I have not done for every other trader on the
line.
875. Just listen while I, read half a dozen
words in Section 19. It gives power “for pro-
viding sidings or other structural accommodation
for the private use of traders, and not required
by the company for dealing with the traffic " ?—
Yes; it gives them the power to do that in
future; but I have got some sidings existing
DOW. r
876, But you have heard, I think, that by
universal consent it is proposed that that section
shall be made retrospective ; if that is so, will not
that meet your views 2—No,...it will not. g
877. Then will you explain, please, what you
want more ?—Because I think I shall be com-
pelled to have an agreement with the traders,
and as I have none now, many of them might
refuse to enter into any agreement; and I cannot
compel them to do so. 4 r
878. But the trader could not get his coal out
of his pit unless you carried it?—Yes. But as I
put it just now——— - º
879. Could he 7–No ; that is to say, if we
pulled up his siding or the connection with his
line, he could not get his coal out. But your
Suggestion amounts to this. You have been
carrying on on good terms with your trader for a
certain number of years, and because he will not
now enter into an agreement with you, you are
to stop his trade. That is not the position we
want to be in. -
880. Is not that what Mr. Beale has done with
his association ?—ſ do not know what he has
done. Knowing Mr. Beale I should think not.
881. Is that your only objection. Is that what
you think you can get by the word “accommoda-
tion * being put in 2–Yes; I think it gives me the
right to say to a trader, “I have spent some
thousands in making these works in connection
with your line, and you must pay me a penny or
twopence per ton more for the interest and main-
tenance of that work.”
882. Just explain to the Committee how you
will be in a better position to say that to the
2
trader by getting the word “accommodation " in
Clause 5 than by the words put in in Clause
19 —I think I am clearly in a better position.
883. Perhaps you will explain that ?—Because
the word “accommodation ” in Clause 5 would
entitle me to make a charge, whether I had an
agreement or not. By adding it to Clause 19
I can only get it by forcing them into agree-
10101115S. * * -
884. I agree that the word “accommodation "
might entitle you to make a charge in respect of
matters other than those included in Section 19 °
—Yes, -
885. Is that what you want to do 2–I should
not like to answer that. tº
Mr. Pember.] He does not say so.
886. I am asking whether that rightly repre-
sents what you want to do?—I should hesitate to
answer, because I want to be accurate. I do not
know whether all these words in Clause 19 would
cover expenditure in every class that has been
incurred in previous years, wº
& 887. And
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
183
21 April 1891.j
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. J.aw—continued.
887. And you think “accommodation ” would 2
—Yes, I think “accommodation ” would.
888. And therefore you wish to get “accommo-
dation ” in 2–Yes; and the trader is protected,
because if I am asking something that is not
reasonable he can take me to arbitration.
Re-examined by Mr. Pember.
889. After all it comes to this : that if Clause
19 were made, as we have called it, retrospective,
you would still be at the mercy of the trader as to
whether or not he would make an agreement with
you?—Yes.
890. He might choose not to do so 2–Yes, it
would be at his discretion, &
891. You might tear up the line, or destroy
the accommodation you have made, we will say:
we will even say you might do that. The trader
would know if you did that, that, although you
damaged him, you damaged yourself also very
much 2–Certainly.
892. And he might therefore laugh and say,
“I know they will not do that, and therefore I
will not agree **--Ome must be in desperate
straits before I should be justified in asking
authority to pull up works, pull up a siding that
enables a trade to be carried on. -
893. If there were not a terminable agree-
ment it is quite clear that you could not pull up
the sidings at all; so that the threat is quite a
brutum fulmen 2–I do not like to suppose that
that would occur at all. -
894. Supposing that Clause 19 were so
amended as to force him in default of agree-
ment to go to arbitration, would it not be far
more simple to put those words “accommodation
and ’’ before “service ’’ in Clause 5, and take
him to arbitration under Clause 5?—We thought
so, and we were justified in coming to that con-
clusion, because, in their Report, the Board of
Trade did suggest that “accommodation ” should
be included. -
895. With regard to the question that one of
my learned friends asked you as to the preference
of your word “accommodation” for, I forget
What the words are in Section 19, “providing
sidings or other structural accommodation,” are
there in your judgment classes of accommodation
that would not be covered by those words?—
There might be.
896. But which have cost you money;-Yes;
which have cost us money. --
897. And far better than bringing about any
such deadlock as would be brought about, even
if Clause 19 were retrospective, by endeavouring
to force the trader to agreement ; far better than
that would it not be to go to arbitration at once.
Arbitration, at all events, under Clause 5, would
never stop the trade ; it would go on, leaving the
adjustment between you and the trader to be
settled according to the award 2–Yes, exactly.
898. And no stoppage of trade in the mean-
time –That is our object; and I think it is a
very fair and reasonable proposal.
Mr. Pember.] I think, your Grace, that is all
the evidence I need bring before you.
The Witness is directed to withdraw
the course of this long
Chairman.] Are you going to call witnesses
on the other side 2
Mr. Clifford.] No, your Grace.
Mr. Ram.] No, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then now we will hear what the
Board of Trade have to say.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Your Grace, if the
Committee desire any information or assistance
that the Board of Trade can give, we desire, of
course, to meet them in that desire in every pos-
sible way. We recognise accommodation as a
thing to be paid for ; but we think, and the point
I shall put before you if I speak, is that it is
rather to be paid for under Section 19 than under
this section.
Chairman.] That applies for the future. They
are all agreed, so far as I could gather from what
the witnesses said, that Clause 19 would apply
to the future; but the difficulty they seem to be
in is, that all these arrangements that have been
entered into in the past would not be covered,
and that they would be driven, if they had agree.
ments, to the extreme action of taking up the
lines and ruining their own trade.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Well, your Grace,
it is rather, difficult to answer upon a question
a matter which is of real technical importance.
I thought that we had made it clear that if
Section 19 would uot meet the case, and if it
would not be retrospective, when we come to
Section 19 it should be so altered. But if I am
desired by the Committee to explain the view of
the Board of Trade, perhaps I might be allowed
to do so in a few words, having regard to what
has taken place ; and I think I could do it in a
few words; and if I might do so, I would prefer
to do that rather than answer questions, because,
perhaps, I might get rid of the necessity of
answering questions in what I say. If not,
perhaps the Committee will ask me some ques-
tions on what I have said.
Chairman.] That is what we should like.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Then, your Grace,
of course, speaking at this stage, I am to a cer.
tain extent in a difficult position, because Counsel
on both sides may have the right of reply, and
then they will speak afterwards. We do not, of
course, in the smallest degree object to that, for
two reasons : First, because we desire to give
the Committee the best information we can at
any stage they may be good enough to ask for
it ; and secondly, because we have all through
and difficult enquiry,
both Mr. Courtenay Boyle and myself, been
treated with such uniform kindness and courtesy
by all those who have been engaged in the case,
that I am quite sure we may safely say what we
have to say and leave ourselves, as to comment
upon it, in his hands. -
Well, the point involved in it is that the rail-
way companies for payment for “accommoda-
tion,” and we have provided in the clause pay-
ment for “services.”. You have had put before
you the state of the law as to the provision of
sidings, and you have also had put before you,
and not seriously contested, that there has been
(81.)
Z 4 {l
184
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFoRE THE Joint committee
\
21 April 1891.
a difference of practice on the part of some rail-
way companies from others as to providing the
accommodation. Where everything has been
done by the traders, and there is only to be pay-
ment for the services for the reception and
delivery of traffic, there does not seem, at this
stage, at any rate, to be any serious controversy
that that is properly provided for by the method
in which the Board of Trade have provided for
it. When we come to the question of “accom-
modation” which may be provided, in whole or
in part, by one of the parties or the other, then
there has been this morning a very considerable
amount of controversy. I wish to state and
make it most distinct, that where the accommo-
dation has been provided by the railway company,
then that accommodation should be paid ; but
where it has been provided by the trader, then,
of course, it should not be paid for again by him.
The controversy is really not as to whether the
railway company is to receive payment and the
trader to make payment for accommodation re-
ceived, but the manner and the claim under
which that payment is to be made.
Now, the point we wish to lay stress upon is
that this payment for aecommodation is either a
payment in the nature of rent, or it is not. We
urge, on the part of the Board of Trade, that
where it is payment for services it may be
properly a subject of arbitration under this
clause; but where it is payment for accommoda-
tion, that is, payment for rent, it ought not to be
made by way of any addition to the tonnage rate.
Now, in the course of the discussion this morning,
the expression the “tonnage rate ’’ came up for
discussion, and some little doubt seemed to be ex-
pressed as to what the expression “tonnage rate ’’
really means. Now, the tonnage rate is the pay-
ment per ton for dealing with the merchandise;
it may be that the tonnage rate only includes the
conveyance rate if there is only a conveyance
charge for that particular ton ; but, on the other
hand, the tonnage rate will also include a ter-
minal, either at one or at both ends, if that
particular ton of merchandise is subject to a ter-
minal charge, and the expression “tonnage rate ’’
is used in other parts of the schedule, and is, I
think, thoroughly well understood. The expres-
sion “tonnage rate ’’ is used, amongst other
places, in the calculation as to how the pay-
ment for small packages, what are called
“ smalls” is to be calculatcd. Our point about
this is, that the tonnage rate is a rate
which varies per ton, The accommodation does
not, or at least in our opinion, ought not to vary as
between one ton of merchandise and another,
which is subject to the same conditions.
have heard to-day of this agreement, which we
have not yet seen, that that tonnage rate is to be
varied in a manner which I am bound to say, if
if it is correctly put before us, is one which is
wholly new. The accommodation in our view is
recognised as a thing for which the railway com-
panies may charge ; but it should not be charged,
as I have said, by an addition to the tonnage
rate. Now we have never been able to get from
the railway companies (and I do not think the
Committe have got it to day) any distinct ex-
planation of what it is that they really want to
charge under this section, which is not in the
nature of accommodation; and we do press most
We
earnestly upon the Committee that, if it is in the
nature of accommodation, that, as rent, it ought
not to be put upon the trader by way of addition
to the tonnage rate, but ought to be by the pro-
visions of Section 19. Mr. Oakley, when he was
in the witness box just now, said that they had
sometimes to deal with unreasonable people. My
point about that is this : that if in the future the
persons with whom he has to deal are reasonable,
things will go on very much in future as they
have in the past. If those with whom he has
to deal are unreasonable, then I do myself not see
any reason (and I think I speak for the Board
of Trade), we do not see any reason why the ex-
treme course that has been spoken of might be
had recourse to, of pulling up the rail and so
forcing an arrangement. Now it has been said
by the counsel for the railway companies, and
by the witnesses for the railway companies, that
at present this charge is in the tonnage rate.
That I suppose arises from the fact that the con-
veyance rate, certainly on those parts of the
Midland Railway, with which we have been
more especially dealing to-day, the maximum
conveyance rate which they may charge is very
much in excess of what they do charge for con-
veyance pure and simple. I can only conclude
that if the charge for accommodation disappears
in the long distances, as has been suggested to us
in connection with that agreement, the convey-
ance rate for , the long distances which they
propose, must be large enough to admit of the
same practice in the future going on as has been
the case in the past. But I do most earnestly
press upon the Committee that no agreement
which we have seen at any rate, and which, if we
had seen it, would only deal with a limited num-
ber of persons on one railway, should be held to
justify or induce the Committee to make an
alteration in the general conditions which are
applicable to all railway companies; and that
one agreement of that kind cannot, if it stands
alone, make it safe for the Committee to insert
words altering the general conditions.
I do not know if there is any other point I
have not touched upon. I desire to make it as
short as I can. - - .
Chairman.] I should like to ask you one
question, and that is this: I understand you to
say that the expenditure of the railway com-
panies in the past and for which they have been
paid, should in the future be considered as rent
(I mean speaking of the past), and that that rent
should be included in the conveyance rate.
Lord Balfour of J3ur(eigh.] No, your Grace;
we think it has been rent in the past and that it
ought to be rent in the future, and ought not to
be added to the tonnage rate. *
Chairman.] Then I understand you to say
that the maximum rent was so large, that they
would be enabled, by charging a larger sum than .
they do now, to recoup themselves for what they
laid out.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, your Grace;
what I said was, that the conveyance rate which
they are entitled to charge under their present
Acts is so large that they can charge within
that maximum quite sufficient to cover any out-
lay they have made, even upon their most
extravagant sidings, and that, therefore, they
have
‘()N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs. ; ' '
185
*
a-
have made the agreement with their traders to
charge a sum per ton, which is well within their
maximum conveyance rate, which sum per ton is
higher than that trader would pay for the simple
conveyance, but which, though higher than he
would pay for the simple conveyance, is not so
much higher than that simple conveyance rate as
to bring it above the maximum, which is within
their. Act of Parliament for the conveyance rate,
and the conveyance rate alone.
Chairman.] That is just what I thought, that
the one conveyance rate which they will charge
in the future, would cover the conveyance rate
and the money which they have laid out.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, that is the
point of difficulty.
Chairman.] Then I do not understand. You
say that their rates are so much higher than.what
they absolutely charge, that they could in future
charge in that rate so as to recoup themselves for
what they have laid out. t º
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No; their point is
just the opposite : that we have cut down their
maximum conveyance rate to such an extent that:
they will not be able to put that into the con-
veyance rate in future, and that they must have
some other way of getting it. We reply that the
way they ought to get it is under Section 19, where
it is distinctly as rent, and not in the tonnage .
rate.
Earl of Belmore.] Then what do you mean by
“ or otherwise,” “by way of rent or otherwise.”
Would not that include tonnage 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] It might be interest,
calculated on the expenditure.
that the Midland Company have put in that they
have spent 6,000 l. on the Grassmoor sidings why
should they not get an agreed rate of interest on
that expenditure, rather than that the thousands
of tons they have put out of their siding
Lord Belper.] Do you see any difficulty about
having the clause without making it retrospective
with respect to these accommodations that have
been put up in the past?
Mr. Balfour browne.]
be retrospective.
Lord Belper.] I am in the recollection of most
of these gentlemen that is not retrospective,
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, It is very difficult
for me, and I do not think I ought to be asked to
say that a thing is possible which three or four
railway managers of the highest experience have
said, is not possible, but I am not yet convinced,
I am bound to say, of the insuperable impossi-
bility of putting words into Section 19, which will
make it quite clear that in some way or the other
that payment can be got in future, and we desire
to most strongly press upon the Committee that
it is a payment which, in fairness to everybody,
ought to be got in that way if that can possibly
be done, and not by a tonnage rate.
Chairman.] You are speaking of the future,
but what about the past, that is the difficulty.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I understood Lord
Belper's question to refer to the past. He put
to me the railway companies’ contention that it
was impossible in the nature of things, as they
have had no written agreements, to make Section
19 properly retrospective: I answered to that,
I think it is admitted to
Take the case
21 April 1891.
that I am still not convinced that the ingenuity of
drafting is exhausted, if I might say the resources
of civilisation in the way of drafting are exhausted,
and that a way of meeting the case cannot be
found if we have falled to do it. t
Mr. Ram: On behalf, your Grace, of the
traders of South Wales and Monmouthshire .
coal-owners, our case, as I think the Committee
will have found from the cross-examination
addressed to witnesses who have been called, is
shortly this : that we are afraid, and have been
afraid throughout, in discussing the provisions of
this Provisional Order, of anything being am-
biguous, and of any charge being in the future
levied on the trader, which he is unable to detect
and grapple with, within the four corners of the
Provisional Order. -
The case of the railway companies, as I under-
stand it, and as it has now been explained by my
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, is this ; that they
have done certain works with regard to private
idings, works that have been done in the past
with regard to sidings that have been so placed
there. The traders whom I represent have no.
objection whatever to pay for such works so done,
if they have been done in respect of their own
sidings. The only question is, how are they to
be bound to pay for it? The traders say that
they are quite content with the provisions of
Section 19 ; that they are applicable to the past
as well as to the future, and if they are not
applicable to the past, let them be made applica-
ble to the past. The railway companies say two
things as I understand; first, that it is not
retrospective; our answer is, let it be made so.
But they also go further, and say, that if it is made.
retrospective, it will put them in a very invidious
position with regard to sidings now in existence.
May J say two things with regard to that ? The
first is this: Their contention, as I understand it
is this, that they are content with Section 19 as
regards all such agreements in the future, what-
ever private sidings exist or that they may make
in the future, they are content with Section 19,
but they ask to have accommodation, the words
“ accommodation and ” added to Section 5 to
protect those now in existence. If that be so
there will be two states of affairs, and that would
be very inconvenient I should think; there will
be a payment for accommodation chargeable in
respect of sidings now in existence which have
been made partly by the railway company and
partly by the trader, or wholly by the railway
company. Now they go further than that, and
Mr. Lambert was perſectly candid about it. He
said in answer to questions that I addressed to
him, that with regard to that which is past, they
wanted to get not only what they admit they will
get in future with regard to such future sidings
as they made, but, under cover of the word “ac-
commodation,” something more; and when I
pressed him and Mr. Oakley upon that, and when
(which is much more important) your Grace
pressed them for a definition of what they would
get, both those gentlemen were obliged to admit
that it was vague, indefinite, and incapable of
being defined before this Committee, even by
gentlemen of such vast experience as themselves.
That has been their contention throughout,
A. A
Now
186
MINUTES OF Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
Now the contention per contra of the traders
is this:
us at the mercy of those who can impose upon
us something which we are not subject to by law
at this moment, and something of so vague a
character that these gentlemen with their vast
experience cannot now indicate to the Committee
what these charges are to be. If the section is
not wide enough, what more can they want?
Section 19 for the future, and, if made retro-
spective for the past, gives them the power of
charging for sidings provided for dealing with
the É. for the purposes of carriage. I submit
that that is retrospective now, I venture to sub-
mit that it is. . But supposing that it is not, it
can be made so. There the traders know that
they are subject in the future, and with regard
to sidings now existing they will be subject in
future to certain definite charges; they have no
objection to that. What they fear is that there
must be something of the utmost importance,
known to the railway companies but not revealed
to the Committee, which the railway companies
think they can get in addition to those specific
charges lurking in the word “accommodation.”
That is what the traders are afraid of, and that
is what they ask to be protected from. With
regard to the limitation in Section 19, I am
reminded that the words are more limited than
I read even in this section. It is with respect to
sidings “for the private use of traders, and not
required by the company for dealing with the
traffic for the purposes of carriage.” Therefore,
it is that the companies will be entitled to charge
under that section something over and above
what they would charge as mere carriers, some-
thing they are entitled to charge, as they admit,
because in that event they will have dome some-
thing other than as carriers for the special behoof
of the person for whom they are to be charged.
But if we are to be left to the vague term “ac-
commodation ” we know not what it is we may
be charged for in respect of such matters.
Now, there is only one other objection, I
think, that the witnesses made with regard to
the application of Section 19. They'said in the
first place that it would be very difficult because
they would have to go to one trader after another,
and make agreements. Surely it is not often
that the evidence of such witnesses is refuted
within 10 minutes by the fact that up comes an
agreement covering already a huge number of
traders, and open, as my learned friend admits,
to all the traders in a district, who may come and
avail themselves of it. Surely if that agreement
can be now made available for such a large body
of men, because they may all come in and sign
it if they are so minded, that objection is gone ;
surely there is no objection in going to traders
and getting arrangements with them in regard to
sidings which are now in existence. They made
one other objection, that it would put them in
an invidious position, and that they will have
no power. Surely that cannot be urged. If the
Committee will consider, this is what would
happen: There is a large colliery, take Grass-
moor, if that cannot be covered by agreement,
take such a one as is uncovered by the agree-
ment we have heard of to-day ; if any such
collieries exist, is it possible for the owners of the
colliery to work it, except by assistance of sidings
We ask the Committee not to leave
—º
z
provided by the company, and henceforth rightly .
to be charged for by the company? Is it con-
ceivable that the railway, companies are not in
the strongest possible position ? Is it not certain
that they could take up those lines and deprive
the traders of the right of using them? Is it
conceivable that any colliery owner by that
threat could venture to fight the railway com-
panies on such a point as that ? Is it not essen-
tial, both to the well-being of the trader and the
company, that those sidings must be worked as
they have always been 2 And if the legislation
is, as it will be, if the Committee passes. Sec-
tion 19, that because the rate is to be cut down,
therefore it is fair that a charge is to be made
upon such matters; is there a single colliery
owner who could not recognise that and feel that
he would have every law court against him, and
the force of public opinion against him, that if
the railway, companies pulled up the sidings
public opinion would endorse that obligation?
I submit that it is impossible that such con-
tention can be a serious one, and can really exist.
The railway companies say that the traders
would be protected if the word “arbitration ” is
put in by the arbitration provided in Clause. 5 ;
that comes oddly from the mouths of the rail-
way companies to-day, because only on Friday
last when the traders were asking to have arbi-
tration put into Clause 4, the one cry of all the
railway companies was that that was the very
solution of the matter to which they were op-
posed. Then they hated arbitration and dreaded
it ; to-day they say arbitration will give the full
protection which the traders desire if the word
“ accommodation ” is put in. It is, I submit, for
the railway companies to show cause why the
words “accommodation * should be put in. I
say they have shown no cause at all for it, that
there has been no reason disclosed by them why
Clause 19 should not give them all that they
require; but there are other reasons; it is this
very thing the traders are afraid of, they are
afraid of being left to these undisclosed
charges.
There is one other point I ought to mention
with reference to the future, and it will arise
more properly when the rates are discussed. I
simply desire to reserve my right to point out
that should the word “accommodation ” be in-
Serted here, should the Committee see fit to
adopt the view which the railway companies are
urging upon them, it ought to be open to them
when they come to consider the quantum of
rates, to consider what that amount should be
when they consider that the word should be in-
serted, but I submit, as the essence of my con-
tention, that the word “accommodation * should
not be inserted.
Chairman.] What are the words in Clause 19
which, you say, make it retrospective 2
Mr. Ram.] “Nothing herein contained shall
prevent the company from making and receiving.”
º: does not say hereafter making and receiving,
but the moment it becomes law the company may
now make and receive, “in addition to the
charges in this schedule, charges and payments
by way of rent or otherwise for providing
sidings,”
Chairman.] But “providing ” means future.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHA RGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
187
21 April 1891.
Mr. Ram.] If it means future, let it be altered
to make that clear; but I certainly think “pro-
viding ” does not relate only to the future ; it
may mean “as from this day shall provide the
sidings.” The future is only with regard to the
coming into law of the schedule not with regard
to the creation of sidings.
Earl of Belmore.] Does not the proviso at the
end limit it to cases where there are agreements,
whether actual or prospective 2
Mr. Ram.] I think the words
“such charges”
mean fixed by agreement.
Earl of Camperdown.] Mr. Balfour Browne
said that if it was not clear that those words are
not retrospective, they were quite willing to make
it clear.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so, and so did my
learned friend Mr. Pember say on behalf of the
railway companies.
Mr. Pember.] You know what I mean by
retrospective ; of course, that is to say applicable
to existing sidings P
Chairman.] Quite so.
Mr. Clifford.] I think the insertion of these
words will meet the case : “ for providing sidings
or other structural accommodation.”
Mr. Pember.] That is Clause 19.
Mr. Clifford..] I wish to say two or three words
only in support of the contention of my learned
friend. The railway companies, by Mr. Oakley
and Mr. Lambert——
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend Mr.
Clifford was going to reply for me because I was
out of the room for a short time ; but after all I
have listened to what my learned friend Mr. Ram
has said, and I have suggested to my learned
friend Mr. Clifford, and he agrees with me, that it
is not necessary to reply, so we will leave it upon
my learned friend Mr. Ram’s argument.
Mr. Pember.] I hope you will give me a word
or two in reply. In the first place you asked
from the noble Lord representing the Board of
Trade what their view was. In the next place,
when Mr. Noble was in the box I said I should
not re-examine Mr. Noble because the question
would be more of an argumentative nature, and
I would reserve it. Now, I think the dis-
cussion has
certainly made this per-
fectly clear that the railway companies do
not desire to be paid for anything which they
have not specially provided, that is the first thing.
Now, the question is, ought they not to be paid
for whatever they have specially provided ? Some
of my learned friends have talked about the
traders being henceforth made liable to charges
which the general law would not make them
liable tº. We do not ask that they should be
made liable to anything which they would not be
liable to under the general Act of 1845; but all
we say is with reference to something which they
have done, not as to functions under the Act of
1845, or necessary connecting lines to bring a
colliery to a junction, but that, with reference to
matters which are outside the Act of 1845, and
which the traders themselves would have had to
do for their own convenience, but which we have
done at their request, we should get a fair re-
m uneration. The Committee can judge with
reference to a great deal of the traffic of the
United Kingdom the position that many railway
companies would be in if they were not done.
There is a great deal of important coal traffic
arising upon sidings which are private to the
traders, and they send it again upon sidings which
are private either to one trader or another. There
are many sidings from collieries or iron manufac-
tories, and that traffic may really be traffic arising
at some spot which was not a terminal station, but,
on the contrary, which was expressly exempted
from the definition of a terminal station which
might be traffic for, or respecting which, the
railway company might have provided the ac-
commodation on the one hand, and performed the
services on the other, at each end, but there not
being a terminal station at either end the railway
company in regard to its effect upon their power
of charging a terminal for that accommodation.
Your Grace would not wish to bring about that
state of things, it would not be fair, and it must,
therefore, be provided somehow. Now, the
suggestion is that it should not be provided in
what I venture to think would be by far the sim-
plest way of doing it. But before I go to that
method just let me say one thing more, and that
is that it is undoubted that whatever accommo-
dation has been provided these services have
been performed, and it is perfectly true in a
great number of cases that the railway companies
have not made any specific charge either for the
accommodation or the services. Notably, that
seems to have been the cases with the Midland,
but no doubt to a very considerable extent it is
the case with the other companies, as, for ex-
ample, the Great Western, which has a peculiar
method of dealing with these cases, It all comes
round to the same thing, that either in meal or
malt the railway companies have compensation
for these services. It is perfectly true that it
has not been charged specifically in any case.
I will argue it at any rate upon that assumption,
but then the condition of maximum rates was
such, the condition of the law, that is to say, the
want of compulsion for splitting up rates even
when below the maximum rate was such that the
railway companies have in effect been able to
make the charge for all these things by putting
a composite rate at such a point as gave them a
fair remuneration for the work done by them as
conveyors, and also to cover their expenses and
give a fair remuneration for what they might do
as carriers ; that is to say, in the way of pur-
veyors, of this accommodation, whether structural
or otherwise, and for the services they performed
at these different terminal points.
That has been the state of their powers of
charge. But now what is going to happen P Let
me put this case to you, the case of a colliery, say,
if you will, the Grassmoor Colliery, which is in
suitable locality and sends its coals habitually,
we will say, to a certain market. Let us
suppose that there is another colliery which is
prectically at the same distance from the same
market, but whose traffic is banded at the ter-
minal station. Now this is perfectly clear that
if the railway company attempted to make the
same total charge to the Grassinoor Colliery,
whose traffic does not arise at a terminal station,
(81.) -
A A 2 àS
188
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
...a sº-T
as it made to a company or companies whose
traffic did arise at a terminal station, there would
be immediately a claim, and I cannot help think-
ing a very proper claim, of undue preference,
because they would say, with very considerable
force, to the railway commissions, Here is traffic
corried for one company, say company A, in
respect of which the railway company are
entitled to charge, and we must suppose that they
do charge something for services or for the ter-
minal accommodation it would be in the way of
coal, for the station terminal involved in the work
they do. Here are we, we are not at the termi-
mal station, and there being no such amplification
of Clause 5, as we propose for whose traffic they
cannot make any such charge. It is not perfectly
clear that if they charge us the same as
they charge Company A, they must be
charging us for our conveyance rates alone
(for that is the only thing they could charge for)
the same rate as they would be charging to com-
pany A., plus any terminal rate they are entitled
to charge. It is perfectly clear it must be so.
The noble Earl, if he will forgive me for advert-
ing to something he said, he is charged at the
maximum. Very well; the answer is, We can-
not raise our conveyance rate for Colliery B. to
the maximum unless we raise it to the maximum
against Colliery A., and all the other collieries on
the line; if we did we should be working at an
undue preference.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j, I say that a change of
circumstances justifies a difference of rate.
Mr. Pember.] Not in the conveyance rate; the
only thing you can charge to Company B, is the
conveyance rate, and nothing more. If I raise
them up to the maximum I can only charge the
same amount in money to Company A., with
regard to whom I am entitled to charge a termi-
mal, and with regard to whom it must be supposed
that I do charge some terminal ; it is perfectly
clear B. would say at once my conveyance rate
cannot be the same as you are charging to Com-
pany A., from the nature of things. , You are
then brought back to this; if I raised his convey-
ance rate to the maximum, I must raise the con-
veyance rate of all the others, and that I cannot
do in consequence of competition.
Now as to the method, surely it is better to do
it in the way we propose by Section 5, that being
by far the simplest thing. If we do it by Section
5 what will occur ! A failure to agree upon
the proper amount to be charged for what I call
quasi. Colliery accommodation to Grassmoor or
any other colliery whose traffic may be handled
at a siding, and for whom we may have provided
accommodation. A failure to agree. In the
meantime we have provided this arbitration ;
therefore there is no stoppage of trade ; one
cannot imagine either side keeping the other at
arm's length for ever. Therefore if they cannot
manage to agree, both parties will at once consent
to arbitration, and, as I say, in the meantime no
harm will have occurred ; but the whole thing
will be a matter of account as soon as the
arbitrator has made his award.
Now what is the alternative 2 The alternative
is that you should deal with the matter under
Clause 19. What does Clause 19 do P Clause
19 being more retrospective in the sense which
2
we mean by “retrospective ’’ as compared to
“future” namely, as applying to existing sidings;
Clause 19 simply leaves it be fixed by agreement;
there is no ultimate arbitration; therefore it is to be
a case of pull devil, pull baker, we taking up the
rails and bringing the matter to a dead lock
as our ultimate Sanction, that is our only sanction,
otherwise they would never come to an agree-
ment; with the great possibility, as I put it to
one of the witnesses, that the trader may after
all laugh in his sleeve at any such threat as that,
because he may well say, if you pull up these
rails it is true you will stop my traffic, but it is
also true you will involve a very great loss to
yourselves, greater than the total loss to be
suffered if you do not take this terminal charge
from me at all, as I know you would rather
suffer further injustice than be subject to a greater
loss. Your Grace, I ask, can your dare to bring
about such a state of things? There is no sanc-
tion if the clause is made retrospective unless you
put in words to the effect that if they do not
agree, they shall be sent to arbitration under
Clause 19. If you do that where are you ? You
will be in exactly the same position as if you
accept on amendment to Clause 5.
Mr. Wodehouse.] Not exactly, because if you
deal with it by Section 19, it would be by way of
Tent.
Mr. Pember.] I am much obliged to you, Sir ;
I will deal with that; you would be exactly
where would beif we had our amendment to Clause
5, only that you would have a desperate quarrel
in the meantime. Surely that is not the best
way of dealing with it. The best way of dealing
with it is to have the same arbitrator who settles
the question of services to settle this matter in
the event of disagreement. Now the honourable
Member has referred to rent. I must be forgiven
for saying that I cannot help thinking that the
alteration (because I must not forget there has
been an alteration) in Clause 5 from its form as
originally brought forward by Lord Balfour of
Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in their
Report to Parliament, must have been made
under a misdirection. I cannot help thinking
that the Attorney General, whose memory has a
great deal to bear, charged himself with more
than he was able to bear, and that he jumped at
the conclusion that the payment for this accom-
modation, not services, to the railway company
mnder the various agreements had been by way
of rent. I cannot help thinking that he must
have thought so. It is a mistake; it has not
been by way of rent ; on the contrary, the evi-
dence to-day is clear that in 999 cases out of
1,000 the payment has been made by so fixing
the total charge as to cover any legitimate
expense or interest, or anything else which the
company might be supposed to have been put
under. That being so, as it is not a matter of
rent, it is not a matter of mere interest of money,
for there are other things to be considered
besides the mere structural accommodation, as
it is not a matter of rent, as a matter of
fact——
Mr. Hanbury.] But Surely storage sidings
would be a matter of rent 2
Mr. Pember.] Storage sidings I have said
nothing
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
189
21 April 1891.
nothing about, because storage sidings, with the
greatest possible respect, , are not the sort of
sidings we are considering here. Storage sidings
are very peculiar things. Storage sidings are
sidings which a railway company makes upon
its own land, and although it may be said that it
is for the convenience of trade generally it is
also for the convenience of handling the traffic
themselves. Now let me take, for instance, one
of the most famous instances of storage sidings.
I speak in the presence of my learned friend Mr.
Pope, but I think I am correctly representing
the facts, the most famous storage sidings known
are those which have been erected in connection
with the South Wales coal trade, erected by the
Taff Vale, at Crockherbtown, near Cardiff. Those
storage sidings were erected on a very large scale
not for the convenience of any particular trader,
and not made at the request of any particular
trader, but they are made for the general con-
venience of the coal trade of South Wales, and
by the railway company also for their own con-
venience. They were made upon so large a
scale that they were made the subject of special
legislation, and they were made for the purpose
of having a large depôt to which the coal which
came down from the Rhondda and Aberdare
valleys could be brought and stored ready for
shipment, so that it could be drawn out from
those sidings from time to time and taken down
to the docks at Cardiff for the purpose of ship-
ment.
which are put up for the convenience of a trader;
they have nothing to do with individual traders;
they are storage sidings which, in view of its
business, the Taff Vale Company have thought
it well to erect for the purpose of carrying on its
business, being a totally different thing from the
colliery sidings, such as we have been talking
about. Some suggestion was made about storage
sidings upon the land of the company about a
mile and a-half away from a colliery or colliery
junction. We must deal with these things
when they arise. If any sane man brought
before the arbitrator the question of
whether storage sidings were sidings made at
the request of and for the convenience of a trader
we could dispose of that argument, I think, in two
minutes. I will not say that in some cases a cer-
tain difficulty might not arise, but the arbitrator
could decide whether they were or were not
sidings made for the convenience of traders. But
I do not rest it there. If they were sidings in the
nature of a general storage, such as the Crock-
herbtown sidings, then, if one trader were charged
for their use, of course every trader in South
Wales must be charged for them. But that is
totally outside the matter of this clause. We
want to be paid for anything special that we do.
Wherever we construct sidings of this kind they
are matters akin to terminal accommodation and
terminal services. Here is a man who is solely in
this different position with regard to his fellow-
traders that, instead of having that accommoda-
tion provided for him and these services performed
for him at a common building at a common spot
by common servants in common with the rest of
his competitors and colleagues in the trade, he is
standing alone, and the accommodation and the
services are performed for him alone. There-
fore it must be fair that he should make
Those storage sidings are not sidings
Some sort of payment, and it may be
Somewhat more difficult to decide what he
should pay because he is in a special position, and
as you cannot do it as it could be done for the
whole of the trade and say station accommoda-
tion so much, service or terminal service so much,
because in his case he is standing alone, you then
leave it in case of disagreement to an arbitrator.
What could be more simple for his protection?
What could be more effectual P That, it seems
to me, is the very proper way of doing it, and
not to relegate it to Clause 19, where as I say
you must have an initial quarrel probably to the
death before you can settle the matter.
The Committee retired to consider and on
returning.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the proposed words. We consider that
Clause 19 should be made retrospective, aud that
in it there should be a reference to arhitration
wbere the charges or payments cannot he fixed
by agreement.
Mr. Clifford.] Then, your Grace, the next
amendment is a verbal amendment. On behalf
of the Mansion House Association, I do not
think we will persist in it, in line 44, after
“mentioned” insert “if and.”
Chairman.] What is the object of that ?—
Mr. Clifford.] We do not press that, your
Grace.
Mr. Ram.] The next amendment is in line 45,
your Grace, the words “ or for his convenience.”
I move to strike those words out, because it
appears to the traders whom I represent, that it
only opens the door to further ambiguity. If the
services may be rendered to the trader at his
request, surely to add the words “ or for his con-
venience” can only open the door to dispute. I
do not desire to press it strongly, but I point out
that I think those words redundant and possibly
ambiguous.
Chairmau.] I should like to hear if the Board
of Trade have auything to say with regard to
that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We do not think that
those words should go out, and for this reason,
that if they go out it will be necessary to prove
actually a positive request in each case.
Chairman.] Then I think we will leave them,
the words will remain.
Mr. Ram.] I withdraw the next amendment,
your Grace, in the next line to omit “by way of
addition to the tonnage rate,” and to insert ill-
stead “over and above the rate for carriage
and conveyance.” After what has passed this
morning, I am quite content to withdraw that.
Chairman.] Very well.
Mr. Clifford.] We also do not press the
amendment in line 46, to strike out “tonnage”
and insert “ conveyance.”
Ičarl of Belmore.] Or the next, in line 2, page
4, after “by” to insert “the Board of Trade or.”
Mr. Clifford.] No, nor the next.
Mr. Pember Does anybody press the amend-
mend for Messrs. Colman to strike out “an arbi-
(81.)
A A 3 trator
190
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
trator to be appointed by the Board of Trade,
and insert “Railway Commissioners”?
Chairman.] Who represents Messrs. Colman Ż
—No one answers.
Mr. Pember.] I suppose that amendment goes
out 7 •
Chairman.] That amendment has not been
moved. d -
Mr. Ram.] Now, your Grace, on page 4,
Clause 5, line after the words “ Board of Trade ’’
to insert the words “at the instance of either
party.”
words I take it that they will be applicable to
wherever the Board of Trade is brought in.
The reason I propose this is, that I believe that
I am justified in saying that the Board of Trade
think that those words should be in, in order to
revent any doubt as to how the Board of Trade
is to be put into operation to appoint the arbi-
trator.
Mr. Pember.] We do uot object to that on
the part of the railway companies.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are the Board of
Trade agreed as to that ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh, We are agreed.
Mr. Pope.] It will read “to be appointed by
the Board of Trade at the instance of either
party.”
Chairman.] Then the Committee will accept
that amendment, Now, with regard to line 3 *
Mr. Ram.] Your Grace sees that I move to
strike out the words “provided for or,” and those
words also occur in the second line of this sec-
tion, which we have passed through; a clerical
omission we have omitted to make an objection
to the words where they appear in the second line,
therefore l make an objection to them where they
appear in the third line, on page 3 and through-
out this clause. The ground of the objection
that I take is this: that the Committee have
now declined to insert the words “accommodation
and,” and I venture to submit that the words
“provided for” were really a survival of the period
when “accommodation ” was originally in at the
instance of the Board of Trade, and that the
words “provided for ” are quite redundant and
useless. As the section now stands, your Grace
sees that it relates only to services “provided for
or rendered to.” A question might arise as to
what the difference was between services “pro-
vided for ” or “rendered to,” and certainly
“rendered to ” is the correct description of
services.
If the Committee see fit to pass those
Mr. Pember.] We have nothing to say to that,
your Grace. -
Chairman.] It seems to me that if you strike
it out from the end of the clause, it must go out
altogether. What have the Board of Trade to
say to that? -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I think it should go out
at all three places; I do not think it is wanted,
the services are “rendered to.”
Chairman.] If it is unnecessary in one part of
the clause, it is unnecessary in the whole.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, your Grace.
Mr. Ram.] I withdraw the next amendment
in line 6, to omit the words “ or for his con-
venience,” after what has just fallen from the
Committee. -
Chairman.] Now comes the Corporation of
Leicester. -
Mr. Murison.] May I ask your Grace to recur
to the amendment on behalf of Messrs. J. & J.
Colman, at the bottom of page 11 ? I am sorry
that I was engaged in another room at the
moment it was reached. At page 4, line 2 (is
the point), to strike out “an arbitrator to be ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade,” and insert
“ Railway Commissioners.”
Chairman.] We have passed that. We called
on that clause, and we are now at the fifth line.
Mr. Murison.] Your Grace, I was engaged in
another room at the time.
Chairman.] That we cannot help; and we
should not have inserted it even if you had moved
it. Does anybody appear for the West York-
shire Coalowners’ Association ?
Mr. Rhodes.] Our counsel, your Grace, is Mr.
Balfour Browne ; but he is not here, I see, at
the present moment.
Chairman.] Have you got no junior
Mr. Rhodes.] We have not ; I was prepared
to give some evidence upon it, and, with your
Grace's permission, I will do so.
Chairman.] What evidence are you prepared
to give 2
Mr. Rhodes.] I came here to give evidence on
behalf of the association. I am also the solicitor
whose name is on the petition.
Chairman.] You can tell us what it is you
propose if you are for them. -
Mr. Rhodes.] If it is necessary to do so.
Chairman.] You must be sworn, and then you
can make your statement. -
MR. FREDERICK PARKER RHODES, is called in; and, having been sworn,
States as follows:
Mr. Rhodes.] I REPRESENT, your Grace, the
"West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire Coal-
owners’ Associations, who are acting jointly in
this matter. The total tonnage of the district
which is represented by those associations, is
about 23 million tons of annual output; and we
propose to insert after the word “convenience,”
the following proviso : “provided further that the
company shall not be entitled to make any charge
on coal, cannel, culm, coke or cinders in respect of
the service and matters mentioned in Sub-sections
1, 2, or 5 of this section ; nor shall the company
in respect of such articles be entitled to make
any charge for the detention of truck or the use
or occupation of any accommodation under sub-
section 4 of this section, except in respect of any
period beyond four working days, after written
notice of the company of the arrival of such
- articles
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
191
21 April 1891.]
Mr. RHODEs.
[Continued.
articles at the place to which they are consigned
at which such trucks may be detained or accom-
modation used or occupied.”. The view of the
members of the associations, is that with regard
to the first portion of that proviso, it is necessary
in order to make plain the meaning of sub-section
1 of that clause. They consider that the ser–
vices that are rendered by a railway company for
coal traffic, I speak now of coal traffic only,
are such that they are not entitled to pay-
ment in respect of them, because they are
services that must of necessity be rendered
in order to deal with the traffic, and tha
those services as a matter of fact are of necessity
limited to the hooking on to the train and
taking it out, or the necessary shunting in
order to get the train in and out over and
above the ordinary provisions for signalling and
the like. With regard to , the next part of the
proviso, that deals with Sub-section 2, the asso-
ciations submit that the collection or delivery of
the merchandise and the charge in respect of
that really does not apply to coal traffic at all,
and that it ought to be made plain, if it is not
plain, that a charge is not intended to be autho-
rised with regard to coal traffic under that head,
inasmuch as coal traffic always, as a rule, is
dealt with by the persons to whom it is con-
signed. With regard to the next paragraph,
Sub-section 5, there they submit that there should
not be any charge so far as coal traffic is con-
cerned, for loading or unloading. Of course
covering or uncovering, the following word, will
be left out of the question ; they could not under
any circumstances apply to coal; but there
should not be any charge for loading or unload-
Ing. -
Earl of Belmore.
899. That is with regard to coal 2–I am speak-
ing solely of coal, and nothing else. Then with
regard to the next point, with regard to the
detention of trucks, the associations think that
there should be some reasonable limit specified
which should elapse before the charge for deten-
tion should begin to run.
Earl of Camperdown.
900. What is the time at present 7–The time
at present varies, I believe ; but at present four
days is considered a reasonable period, and four
days is the time that is specified in the Act of
1877, the London and North Western (General
Powers) Act; there is a section inserted in that
Act, Section 23, I think it is, as a compromise
between the traders who then opposed the Lon-
don and North Western Company, by which four
days was fixed as the minimum period. That
has also been adopted in one or more of the
subsequent Acts, the Lancashire and Yorkshire
Act in the following year, 1878, and I think also
in another Act in the same year.
Earl of Belmore.
901. Will this Order repeal by inference that
section of the London and North Western Act 2
—I think so.
Chairman.
902. Why do you want to alter that which has
been agreed upon by all these parties?—Because
Chairman—continued.
our view is that, when this Bill becomes law it
will override previous legislation on the subject,
and that in the pages of this Bill we shall have
to find out what is to guide us as to our rights
and remedies. - -
Earl of Camperdown.
903. What makes you consider it reasonable
that the company shall have no power for charg—
ing for loading or unloading if they do it. What
is your reason for thinking that reasonable 2
For this reason, that coal traffic goes, as a rule,
in waggons which are provided either with end
doors or bottom doors, and there is really no
service of unloading provided by the railway
company which we know of that would justify
such a charge.
... Chairman.]. Then they would not charge it
if they do nothing. -
Earl of Camperdown.] You might argue that.
Mr. Pope.] It can only be charged if the
service is rendered. If there is no service;it can-
not be charged. -
Chairman.] We had better let Mr. Rhodes
finish his statement. -
Mr. Rhodes.] I think I have stated shortly
what the views of the associations are. I do not
want to repeat unnecessarily. -
Chairman.] Now, who takes him up 2
Mr. Pember, I think I can deal very shortly
with this matter, your Grace. I will take first
of all the point of overriding previous legislation.
So far as I understand, the whole scope and in-
tention of these Provisional Orders is to over-
ride previous legislation to a very considerable
extent as against the railway companies, and,
therefore, I should not hesitate to defend this
against—
Chairman.] We need not trouble you, the
Committee will not agree to the proposed amend-
ment. - - -
Mr. Pember.] There is an amendment in
exactly similar terms I believe by another
association.
Mr. Rhodes.|| Yes, I was appearing really for
both of the two associations. :
Mr. Pope..] I think you put them both forward
together.
Mr. Rhodes.] Yes, I did. There was another
amendment that follows in order, which I need
not trouble your Grace with now, that was
altering the mileage limits for the charges to
wagons. After consideration the associations
say they will not press that amendment, that
is withdrawn.
Chairman.] Then now we have got the
Corporation of Leicester.
Mr. Pope.] Does the Corporation of Leicester
appear?
Chairman.] It is at page 4, Clause 5, line 7.
Mr. Pope." It is the same amendment as the
next for the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
and they are here.
(81.)
A A 4 Mr.
192
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Carver.] That aniendment, your Grace, is
withdrawn for the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board. - $ *
Chairman.] Then we come to the Railway
Companies Amendment to Clause 5, line 7.
Mr. Pember.] That goes, your Grace, after your
decision. , -
Chairman.] On page 4, Clause 5, line 7 omit
subsection I. and insert instead (this is an amend-
ment by the landowners, traders, etc., of South
Wales and Monmouthshire, and by the Marquis of
Bute)—(I.): “The following services rendered by
a company at or in connection with sidings not
belonging to the company, that is to say, loading
and unloading, covering and uncovering merchan-
dise, which charges shall in respect of each service
be deemed to include all charges for the provision
by the company of labour, machinery, plant,
stores, and sheets.” That is very much what we
have thrown out, is it not ?
Mr. Ram.] I hope not, your Grace,
Chairman.] Then we will hear you.
Mr. Ram.] The object of this Subsection I.,
your Grace, is to give special service terminal to
the railway companies, and the traders think that
they cannot do better in defining what that service
terminal be, than by adopting the words which
have already seemed good to the Committee in
section 4; and they propose therefore, instead of
leaving it vaguely that the company may charge
for as the section now stands, “ and services in
respect of the delivery and reception of merchan-
dise to and from such sidings,” to delimit and
define what those services are ; and inasmuch as
it is to be a special service terminal we propose
to insert the words which would name what those
are, namely, those which in Clause 4 are specified
as service trminals.
Chairman | But they are different words, are
they not ?
Earl of Camperdown.] Your amendment would
not be English.
Mr. Ram.] I hope so ; if not I will do my
best to make it so,
Earl of Camperdown.] The words run “The
company may charge for the services hereunder
mentioned ’’; and then when we come to one, you
say, “The following services,” &c.
Mr. Ram.] That it may charge for the follow-
ing, namely, then we get into (1)——
Earl of Camperdown.] No, it is not so.
Mr. Ram.] I think it is, with the greatest
respect to your Lordship.
Chairman.] Will you just read it again.
Mr. Ram.] “The company may charge for
the services hereunder mentioned, namely.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you do not want
“ the following services.”
Mr. Ram.] Unless you keep in the words
“ rendered by a company at or in connection
with sidings not belonging to the company.”
What we desire to have is a definition of what
those services are, namely, “ loading and unload-
ing, covering and uncovering merchandise, which
charges shall in respect of each service be deemed
21 April 1891.
or were not special.
\
t
to include all charges for the provision by th
company of labour, machinery, plant, stor e
and sheets.” The object of the amendment, and
I venture to hope it may be successful, is to .
grant to a company power to charge precisely the
same in respect of special services rendered at
private sidings, which by Clause 4 of the Pro-
visional Order they are entitled to charge when
rendered publicly at a public station, that is the
object of the amendment, and I venture to think
that if any words are wanted to make it clearer,
I should put in those words or words to that
effect. §
Mr. Pember.] It is simply to define special
services, which this clause deals with, into ordi-
nary services; in other words, the gist of this
amendmentisto turn special services into ordinary
services. & #
Mr. Ram.] In reply to what my learned friend
has said, I think the Committee should have before
them if possible a case in which there has been a
decision of the House of Lords on this point, as
to whether these services at private siding were
It is Gidlow's case; I dare-
say my learned friends know it as well as I do ;
but in this case it was held that an attempt to
charge terminals at private sidings being made,
namely bringing loaded trucks from the sidings,
those were not special services, but were inevitable
to the business of the company, without which
that business could not be carried on.
Mr. Pember.] But I thought you knew that
that case went up to the House of Lords on the
finding of an arbitrator who had found that cer-
tain matters in contention were matters simply
incidental to the business of a carrier, and ought
not to be charged for as special services.
1Mr. Ram.] My learned friend is right as to
how it got to the House of Lords, but he seems
to limit to that case that which was laid down
broadly, namely, that the matter which was.
claimed to be a special service was held by the
House of Lords not to be a special service.
Chairman.] But what you should address
yourself to is, why that Sub-section 1 should be
struck out. What is the objection to Sub-sec-
tion 1 ° t
Mr. Ram.] I intended to strike it out only
because I thought any adaptation of it in the way
I propose, any limitation of it in the way I pro-
pose, would be more clumsy, and would make the
sentence run worse than by striking it out, and
re-enacting, as I propose to do, the first half of
it ; and then de-limit the services in it.
Chairman.] But I think we ought to be seized
on the reason why it ought to go out first, and
then hear why those should be put in.
Mr. Ram.] For this reason, that if it stands
in, it will permit the company to claim for services
other than those which are properly described as
special service terminals. The object of the
clause is to give the company special service
terminals, as I understand. The clause seems to
me, and I think it will not be denied, that it is
intended, to give them something more than.
that.
Mr. Pope.] Certainly.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
193
21 April 1891.
Mr. Ram.] If they are to have something more
than that, what is it that they are seeking as
special service terminals over and above what
would be the service terminal mentioned in
Clause 42 w
Mr. Pember.] Remember that you have got
that proviso for Sub-section 1 following on the
declaration that these are only to be paid for when
they are rendered to a trader at his request, or
for his convenience; and you may get rid of the
difficulty of “ or for his convenience" by the pro-
viso, which is now part of the clause, that when
before any service rendered to a trader, he has
given notice to the company that he does not
require it, the service shall not be deemed to be
rendered to the trader.
|Mr. Ram.] It is quite true that that would
remedy the mischief; but I fail to understand
why the mischief should exist at all. If certain
other matters are to be rendered to a trader, let
us know what they are, and, even although he
may contract himself out of them, why should
they not be disclosed ?
Chairman.] Not if he does not ask to have
them done.
Mr. Ram.] The notice is to say that he does
not want it. They may charge him for certain
things that have been done ; and although it is
true that he might stop it for the future by giving
notice that he did not want it, he would have to
pay for the past.
Chairman.] But when he says he does not
want it, in the first part of the clause he says he
does want it; because it says, “The company
may charge for the services hereunder mentioned
when provided for, or rendered to, a trader at
his request or for his convenience.”
Mr. Ram.] But your Grace has left out part
of the clause “ or for his convenience.”
Chairman.] But you say that they might do
such things although he did not want them.
Mr. Ram.] “For his convenience.” They
might say they were done for his convenience;
and although he could get out of it for the
future, if they successfully allege that they had
done them for his convenience in the past, then
for the past he would have to pay.
Chairman.] Sub-section 1 will stand part of
the clause so far as that amendment is concerned
Mr. Clifford.] We have an alteration in Sub-
section 1. -
Earl of Belmore.] Who do you appear for 2
Mr. Clifford.] For the Mansion House Asso-
ciation.
Mr. Pember.] Are you not going too fast?
Mr. Clifford.] I thought the Committee were
going to adopt Sub-section 1.
Mr. Pember.] I think there is Lord Bute next.
Earl of Belmore.] There is Lord Bute and
the Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion.
|Mr. Pember.] But Lord Bute's is the next
amendment at Clause 5, line 9.
Mr. Corbett..] Lord Bute's amendment is with-
drawn.
Chairman.] Then we get to line 7. The
Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Association.
Mr. Poyser.] The first suggestion, your Grace,
is to omit Sub-section 1, and to read as follows.
The first words that are missed out are “ or in
connection with sidings”; and the reason we
move to omit a portion of the clause is, that we
want, as we have been struggling all through
with in this Bill, to get the services defined, for
which the charges are to be made, and those
words “ or in connection with sidings,” are wide
enough to cover the placing of trucks on a siding
by the railway company, or taking trucks off a
siding by the railway company, and I cannot
suggest anything else to which they would
apply ; but that clearly is not a matter for which
the railway company ought to make a charge I
should suggest. What the sub-section is deal-
ing with really, is service terminals, exactly in
the same way as they would be at a station, only
rendered at the traders’ siding instead of at the
station ; and the object of the amendment is to
limit the clause to those particular terminals that
have been already suggested by my learned
friend Mr. Ram. The way in which I suggest
it should be done is this : that the charge should
be for “services rendered by the company at
sidings not belonging to the company ” (that is
omitting the words “nor in connection with ”).
“Provided that such charges may not be in
excess of or in addition to the respective termi-
mals applicable to the several services as in here-
inbefore provided.” At present, there is nothing
at all to limit the charge to be made for services
rendered at the siding. Those charges are really
for loading, unloading, covering, and uncovering.
Mr. Pember.] This is only another way, your
Grace, of doing what you have rejected already
in the last amendment. - -
Mr. Poyser.] This is a way of doing what I
suggest ought to he done, limiting the charge to
which we are to be subjected for service termi-
nals at this siding, My learned friends say that
there are other things that they want to charge
for ; we should like to know what those things
are, in order that they may be set out and let us
have a declaration as to the rate we are to be
charged for those additional things. We want
to reduce it to a certainty, and we do not want
it left open to have things sprung upon us from
time to time, and to have it suggested that they
were done for our convenience and that we ought
to pay for them. Our sole object is to get it set
out in black and white what the services are for
which we are to be charged. If there are other
services, as my learned friends say, let them be
defined, and we can fix the charges for those
other services. I would also suggest that there
should be a maximum fixed for the rate, that
they are to charge for those services. I am
aware that there is an appeal to the Board of
Trade ; but at the same time if a maximum were
fixed as was done in the case of station
terminal, probably 99 out of every 100 traders
would be protected sufficiently by that, and would
not be obliged to go to the Board of Trade to
decide what the services are. The services them-
selves are precisely the same whether they are
done at a siding or at a station; take, for instance,
(81.)
B B covering
194
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
21 April 1891.
covering or uncovering. If there should be a
maximum station terminal at the station for
covering, why should there not be a maximum at
the siding? Those are the reasons why we put
before the Committee this amendment, which we
say is absolutely necessary to prevent charges
being made against us of which we have no know-
ledge, and which may be sprung upon us from
time to time. The other proviso is to save agree-
ments where there is a tendency on the part of
the railway companies to get rid of them. We
want the old agreements kept in force. The
traders whom I represent have agreements with
railway companies for doing different things ; we
want to preserve those, and not to have
additional charges put upon us.
Chairman.] We will not trouble you, Mr.
Pember. The Committee are not prepared to
accept that amendment.
Mr. Pember.] And the next follows, your
Grace, I suppose, because that is an amendment
to the effect that it is to be upon sidings, which
involves taking out the works “at or in connec-
tion with.” Do my learned friends for the
Mansion House Association desire to press that
now P -
Mr. Clifford.] Certainly, we propose the
substituted sub-section : “ services rendered
by the company upon sidings not belong-
ing to the company ; ” and the object
is to avoid the ambiguity which we
expect, as my learned friends before expected,
will arise upon the words in the clause, “ services
rendered by the company at or in connection
with sidings not belonging to the company, and
services in respect of the delivery and reception
of merchandise to and from such sidings.” The
sub-section which we propose would make it
perfectly clear that the services rendered by the
company to be charged for by the company
should be upon sidings not belonging to the
company ; that is to say, that when services are
rendered upon the private sidings those are ser-
vices to be charged for, otherwise that they
should not.
Mr. Pope.] Take the traffic of Messrs.
Huntley and Palmer; it comes into Reading
Station; it is then taken as an extra station and
put into their siding. How can that be covered
by “services rendered by the company upon
sidings not belonging to the company.”
Mr. Pember.] And if for any reason it is taken
two or three yards off the sidings in order to be
done more conveniently, it could be charged for.
Mr. Clifford..] The result would be that the
traders would be subject to this demand in re-
spect to services not defined in any way in the
clause, and there would be constant dispute and
uncertainty. -
Chairman.] The Committee are not prepared
to insert that ; they are prepared to adjourn.
Mr. Carver.] On behalf of the Mersey Docks.
and Harbour Board, your Grace, we withdrew
our amendment proposing to strike out this sec-
tion, in view of this proposal which the Mansion
House Association have before them, and I ask
your Grace to hear me upon it.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the amendment just moved, that is,
“ services rendered by the company upon sidings
not belonging to the company.” We do not
insert those words. wº
Mr. Carver.] The object of the course is
Chairman.] What are you applying yourself
to now, or wishing to apply yourself to ?
Mr. Carver.] To the question whether the
words “ or in connection with sidings” shomld
remain in that sub-clause.
Chairman.] But there is no amendment.
Mr. Carver.] Our amendment was to strike
out the sub-section ; but this other amendment
seemed more to the purpose.
Chairman.] But you withdrew that.
Mr. Carver.] Yes, in order to support the
clause proposed by the Mansion House Asso-
ciation. -
Mr. P mber.] But you did not say so.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is gone too.
Mr. Hanbury.] You have got no amendment
down to this effect.
Mr. Carver.] But I ask to be allowed to be
heard upon it.
Chairman.] No ; we cannot insert those words,
and we are now going to adjourn.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Will your Grace allow me
to mention that we withdraw the next amend-
ment but one subject to this. We propose apply-
ing to have the subject Imatter of our petition
inserted in an exceptional class ; and if your
Grace grants that request, it will not be necessary
to discuss this amendment at all; therefore I am
not prepared to discuss this amendment at
present.
Chairman.] You had better make an appli-
cation to-morrow morning.
Mr. Dush Wilson. Then I will make an appli-
cation to-morrow morning, when we come to
that.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CEIARGES PROVISION AI, O I, IXER BILLS. 195
Die Mercurii, 22° Apriſis, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE. -
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Frederick Sillery Bishop appears as Agent
tion, and for the Glamorgan County Council.
On CLAUSE 5–continued.
Chairman.] Now we will take the Amend-
ment of Messrs. J. and J. Colman on page 13.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is to omit the
words, “ and services in respect of the delivery
and reception of merchandise to and from such
sidings.” This is a matter which will not take
you a minute. Messrs. J. and J. Colmau do not
in the least object to the first part of that section,
“ services rendered by the company at or in con-
nection with sidings not belonging to the com-
pany ;” but the latter part, “and services in
respect of the delivery and reception of mer-
chandise to and from such sidings,” we do object
to. In the first place we do not exactly under-
stand what that is, and we think it would give the
company considerable power to charge where they
have no right at the present time to do so. The
duty of carriers, it has been distinctly decided in
the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of Smith
v. The London and North Western Railway Com-
pany and the Great Western Railway Company, is
to receive traffic and to deliver traffic, or allow a
person to take the delivery. Now it seems to
me that under this sub-section they might
charge for the doing of that duty, “ services in
respect of the delivery and reception of merchan-
dise to and from such sidings.” If they do any-
thing on our sidings I fully admit that they
should be paid, and they would be paid, just in
the same way as if they loaded or unloaded in
our sidings; we would have to pay them. It is
not necessary to have a clause for that, because
that is a mere matter of arrangement. They
would say, “We are not bound to do anything on
your sidings, but if we do we ought to be paid
for what we do.” I agree that they should be
paid for it. Our sidings join the main line of
the company, but this would give them the right
to charge if they merely put a truck off their
own line on to our siding, or took it from our
siding on to their main line. That was not the
intention of the Board of Trade; that was
for the Swansea and District Freighters Associa-
intended to cover something we do not under-
stand ; but we think it will cover a great deal
more than it should, and therefore we ask that
the sub-section may read : “Services rendered
by the company at or in connection with sidings
not belonging to the company; ” but “Services
in respect of the delivery and reception of mer-
chandise to or from such sidings” seem to me to
be a part of the duty of carriers, and ought
to be covered by the rate. That is the whole
point. The Mansion House Committee have a
similar amendment, but I do not want to raise
that ; that would be covered by Messrs. Colman's
amendment.
Chairman.] That was dealt with yesterday.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not.
Chairman.] It was argued, was it not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect, I
think not.
Mr. Pember.] It was argued two or three
times.
Chairman.] However, we had better deal with
the one before us.
Mr. Pember.] The real fact is that the first
part of the clause does not cover what might be
done under the words, “Services in respect of
the delivery and reception of merchandise to and
from such sidings.” Nothing is more common
than for a railway company to find that they
have a great deal to do in the way of taking
waggons out, sorting them, and picking them up
on the sidings, and a good distance in too on the
sidings belonging to say a colliery company.
The colliery company, we will say, want two or
three waggons to be taken to a particular desti-
nation at a particular time. The railway com-
pany go on to the sidings of the colliery company,
sort out those waggons, and take them away.
That is a most distinct service done with respect
to the reception of traffic. We are not bound to
do anything of the kind; but we do it continually.
(81.)
B B 2 It,
196
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
§
22 April 1891.
It is done their for the convenience of traders, and
exactly cognate services are done with reference
to the delivery of traffic. Does not that point
to a a service which may be done on the sidings
of a colliery company for the convenience of a
trader, off the line and off the property of the
railway company ? That being so, does it not
fall exactly within the category of services
rendered to a trader, at his request or for his
convenience, “in respect of the delivery and
reception of merchandise to and from such
sidings”? . -- º
Mr. Hanbury.] What is the precise difference
between the two halves of this section, “Services
rendered by the company at, or in connection
with, sidings not belonging to the company,” and
“ services in respect of the delivery and recep-
tion of merchandise to and from such sidings”?
Mr. Pember.] The services done under the
reception and first part might not be with refer-
ence to the delivery of merchandise.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a larger term.
Earl of Belmore.] They would cover it.
Mr. Pember.] That is a question. For in-
stauce, there is a great deal of service which
might be done which would have nothing to do
with the reception and delivery of traffic.
Earl of Camperdown.] Certainly that comes
under the first half, which is a larger term ; I
think the first half covers the second.
Mr. Pember.] Would you kindly give me a
minute; for, to tell you the honest truth, I have
asked my clients just to consider whether the first
does not cover the second.
Chairman.] We may ask the Board , of
Trade what was in their minds when they settled
that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] The services
which will have to be rendered and paid for un-
der this sub-section undoubtedly will vary to an
enormous extent according to the circumstances
of individual traders sidings and traffic. I have
no doubt whatever that you can take cases
where there is practically speaking no service
“in respect of the delivery and reception of
merchandise to and from such sidings. That
could not possibly be made a charge. If you
take the case which Mr. Balfour Browne put,
where a truck is just pushed on to a siding and
handed over to a trader to be loaded or unloaded,
there would be practically no service in that case
which could be charged for: On the other hand,
it was in evidence before us that in some cases
the engine of the company had to go consider-
able distances upon a trader's sidings, and of
course all the time that the engine is shunting
one or two trucks for the trader, its own train
is lying idle and it, itself is not doing anything
for the haulage of the the train to its ultimate
destination, and if engine is occupied for any
length of time purely for the benefit of the
traders, in the opinion of the Board of Trade
there ought to be some charge. At the same
time I admit it is impossible to lay down a gen-
eral rule, and we thought the best way to deal
with the matter would be to let the words of the
clause be pretty wide and let the arbitrator, in
—-
case of disagreement, decide upon the facts and
circumstances of any particular case.
Chairman.] The point was rather whether
the first part of the Sub-section, being general,
did not include the second, which is particular.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] At all events, to
put it the other way, it is arguable whether it does
cover it or not. The Board of Trade were of
opinion that the second ought to be covered. I
put it this way: that it is for the Committee to
say whether what is distinctly pointed to in the
second part of the clause should or should not be
covered. If it should be covered, it is best to
keep it quite distinct; if it should not be covered
it is for the Committee to decide.
Mr. Pember.] The words are arguable, I think,
after all. Now to put a case of this kind: Supposing
the connection between a collery company’s pro-
perty and the railway were half a mile from the
terminal station, the train brings up a quantity of
empty trucks to start with, and goes to the
terminal station and deposits its empty trucks;
a special engine that is there has to be put on,
runs along the half mile of the company’s line
and off the half mile to the sidings of the colliery
company. Now the engine has done two things:
it has first of all done work absolutely in connec-
tion with the sidings, so far as the run it has
made on the connecting line itself is concerned ;
it has also been specially called out to do half a
mile of haulage upon the line of the company .
before it gets to the sidings at all, and I doubt
very much whether that haulage could be con-
sidered as a service “at or in connection with
sidings.”
Earl of Belmore.] Would that not be covered
by the conveyance rate
Mr. Pember.] It could not be added to the
conveyance rate; that is just the point. The
conveyance rate would be to that station, and
this would be a special malter quite outside the
general rate. Then there is another thing. I
am not at all clear in my own mind whether the
words, “Services rendered by the company at or
in connection with sidings,” would not mean
services rendered at or in connection with sidings
in a physical sense. Do they not cover such
things as doing signalling work, for instance, at
a siding, and so on 7 I am not at all clear
whether the words, “Services rendered by the
company at or in connection with sidings,” would
not mean something physical in regard to the
sidings, and whether such a notion as “Services
in respect of the delivery and reception of mer-
chandise to and from such sidings ’’ would not be
excluded by the words, “At or in connection
witd sidings.” Now, here is a noté put before
me again. I have not had time to read it, so I
will read it in the words put before me at present.
One manager suggests, “ Cases where a private
siding is not large enough to receive the whole
traffic as it arrives. In such cases it frequently
happens that the surplus traffic standing in
neighbouring sidings has to be shunted and sorted
at the desire of the siding owner, so that particular
waggons or descriptions of goods may be delivered
first.” That, again, would be a question of the
reception and delivery of traffic.; but I doubt
very
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
197
22 April 1891.
*-*-*-*
very much whether it could be called “Services
rendered at or in connection with sidings.”
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a service “In
connection with sidings not belonging to the
company.” -
Mr. Pember.] I doubt very much whether
“connection” must not mean physical connection,
and whether it must not mean in relation to the
sidings. Sidings are one thing ; traffic brought
to sidings is another thing ; and I doubt very
much whether the word “sidings" could be so
stretched as to include the reception and delivery
of traffic worked in connection with those
sidings.
Barl of Camperdown.] Your contention, I
apprehend, is that the clause as it stands, is an
exhaustive definition of the word “service” ”
Mr. Pember.] Description.
Earl of Camperdown.] Whichever you like ;
because, supposing there might be something else
beside delivery and reception of merchandise
which is not included in the term “ service,” as
given in the first part of the clause, supposing
there to be such a thing, if it is not specially
mentioned in terms it will be excluded.
Mr. Pember.] I am inclined to think so.
Earl of Camperdown.) That is a very danger-
ous thing for you to admit, Surely.
Mr. Pember.] Here is an instance in point.
It seems to me that it would be very difficult to
bring that as “at, or in connection with sidings.”
Messrs. Huntley and Palmer's traffic is sent out
to a large extent mixed to the Reading Station ;
some is ready for delivery and others have to go
to sheds (says Mr. Lambert) to be loaded and
unloaded in parcels for different stations. That
is a service connected with the reception and
delivery of traffic ; but it is impossible to say
that it is a service at or in connection with
sidings.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That point really is
connected with this, that the Great Western is
broad gauge and narrow gauge too, and the un-
loading and re-loading is in connection with
that.
Mr. Pember.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Those are my instruc-
tions. I understood my learned friend to say
that it was the unloading and the re-loading that
was a service which might be charged for under
the one and not under the other.
Mr. Pember.] It is for the small consignments
which have to be taken to the different stations.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] D very one of the illus-
trations given by my learned friend, Mr. Pember,
and Lord Balfour of Burleigh too, seem to be
clearly covered by services rendered by the
company at or in connection with sidings not
belonging to the company. My learned friend
cannot limit it to “at the sidings”; otherwise
“ in connection with the sidings” would be no
use. First he said this, If we run upon a siding
we are not hound to do that. It is clear he is
not bound to run upon a siding, but if he does, he
has the matter in his own hand and can make a
charge ; therefore he does not need to cover that.
connection ” with the siding.
The next point he put was, “Supposing a siding
is half a mile from the terminal station, and we
have to haul that distance, we cannot charge for
that.” They can charge for that ; their rates
give them power to charge for that half mile of
haulage in the rate. Then my learned friend said
that the rate would be to the station. That is
not so. You may quote the rate to the station,
but if you have to haul to the colliery you may
charge that in addition. If it is merely haulage
in addition, of the half a mile, you may charge
that in addition, under the six-mile clause.
Mr. Pember.] I will read it: “For half a mile
or for half a mile and upwards " it would be
impossible to get it under the six-mile clanse.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Again I say, if there is
anything in that, that is a point in connection
with the sidings. Therefore, the first clause
covers it. The next illustration he gave was
that the traders’ sidings might be too small, and
that the railway company might have to store
upon their own sidings. Surely that is “in
connection with sidings.” Now the danger of
having it twice over is, that having got it in the
first, then the argument would be as to the
second, that it was intended by Parliament to
give something above and beyond that. If it is
covered by the first, the evil of putting in an-
other clause to cover the same thing would be
that you would give it them twice over. That
is the very danger that I fear.
Mr. Hanbury.] Will you give the Committee
a concrete instance of what you mean?
Mr. Balfour Brawne.] My learned friend says
(taking up his own instance) that in doing that
service the engine has done two things : it has
run half a mile, which he may possibly get under
the conveyance rate ; but, further than that,
they have done something in connection with
the siding, and further than that, that they
have done something in connection with the
delivery ; and if he came before the arbi-
trator, the arbitrator would have to allow it.
That is the danger we are in. He would have
to allow three separate charges, where realiy one
covers it all. Everything is done “at or in
That covers it all.
You do not require the last clause.
Earl of Belmore.] Hlow could he get a con-
veyance rate over a siding which did not belong
to the com pany ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, my Lord, he cannot.
Mr. Pember.] Practically, the whole thing
turns upon this.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You must not reply.
My Lord Belmore has asked this question, and
I will answer it. He cannot get a conveyance
rate for running over our siding, but the case my
learned friend, Mr. Pember, put was, running
half-a-mile over their own line to get to our
siding. That they can charge for, and with
regard to any haulage over their own line to get
to our line he is answered by this fact, that they
are not bound to haul off their line, it becomes a
matter of agreement. If we ask them to run
half-a-mile over our line they will say, We will
not go unless you give us a reasonable amount.
What we are afraid of is putting in this which is
(81.) -
B B 3 a matter
198 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
a matter of agreement, and takes it out of our
power to agree. Then, if I may advert to what
Tlord Balfour of Burleigh said, he said it was
aguable whether the first did not cover the
second; but what we are here to prevent is
having arguable things. We want to cover it
once for all, and we submit that you have not
heard of any second service which is not covered
by the first amongst the cases which have been
quoted to you ; therefore I ask you to strike out
the last words.
Chai, man.] Do you mean that the company
can charge a conveyance rate on the private
siding the whole of the way ?
Mr. Balfour Bromme.] Without a doubt, at a
place where the traffic is taken off the main
line.
Mr. Pember.] On that very last point let me
add this. Under any powers of charging con-
veyance rate under the general rate powers of
this schedule, what kind of power does anybody
suppose that we should have of making a charge
that would pay us for harnessing a couple of
trucks, or it may be a half-filled truck, to a
special engine to take it out of the terminal
station, and drag it over half a mile of sidings,
and leave it if you like, or drag it back again P
Mr. Hambury.] You want to make a special
charge for running over that particular portion of
your own line beyond the conveyance rate 7
Mr. Pember.] Certainly, if it is done for the
trader's convenience.
Earl of Camperdown.] Beyond your convey-
ance rate 2
Mr. Pember.] Quite so.
Earl of Belmore.] Supposing you are travelling
from the other side of Reading to that on which
Messrs. Huntley and Palmer's works are situated,
do you only charge to Reading station the convey-
ance rate P
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Earl of Belmore.] That leaves half a mile un-
covered ?
Mr. Pember.] Yes, and when my learned friend
suggests that you can cover that by adding some-
thing on the conveyance rate, I ask this, Do you
believe that would adequately remunerate me for
harnessing a fresh engine to one or two waggons,
or even a waggon half-filled, hauling it half a
mile along our line, which I must do to shunt the
waggon, and then run back along our line.
Lord Belper.j You put the case of a fresh
engine, but it is constantly the practice of goods
trains that the engine should pull waggons on to
the sidings, and then go on with the train with
no fresh engine, and, as I understand for that
short distance you are enabled to charge the six-
mile minimum.
Mr. Pember.] We should not.
Lord Be'per.] But you are able to do that,
are you not *
Mr. Pember.] Not in such a case as that.
Lord Belper.] But let me refer you to this
part of the Board of Trade Report, on page 13 :
“In respect of traffic from siding to siding, or
from siding to station, where the companies have
little but the conveyance rate to depend upon,
we have retained the minimum of six.”
Mr. Pember.] That is where the whole journey
is under the six miles, but we could not say this
was a fresh piece of transit. If the transit had
been 100 miles this would be a hundred and
a-half. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Mr. Courtenay
Boyle and I have been consulting while this dis-
cussion has been going on, and frankly I admit
that the discussion has convinced us that there is
more to be said against these words than we at
first thought. We would rather take the judg-
ment of the Committee upon it unbiassed by
what we said before, as no other part of the
schedule hangs upon it. While the discussion
was going on we were inclined to think that there
is more to be said upon it than there was
before.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With reference to my
learned friend, Mr. Pember's point, about the
horsing, he says that for their own convenience
they will want another engine. He has carried
the traffic miles and miles with that engine, and
he ought to deliver by that engine, and if for
his own convenience he takes off the engine and
carries it half-a-mile along the siding, he wants
to charge an extra rate ; that is a monstrous pro-
position. I do not want to say anything more
upon that point.
The Committee consulted together.
Chairman.] The words are to be left out of
the sub-section.
Mr. Pember.] As that amendment has been
made, I would venture to ask your Grace, in
order to make it perfectly clear, that traffic is
included (I should have preferred it the other
way, but I think it can be done in this way) to
cut out from the words “company ” onwards,
and then I should say put in the words, “ or with
the traffic thereon,” so that it may read in this
way : “services rendered by the company at or
in connection with the sidings not belonging to
the company or with the traffic thereon,” or “on
the line.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We have not considered
that. It seems perfectly clear as it stands. I do
not like words introduced at the last moment.
Mr. Pember.] My words are a necessity from
that amendment of your own. After all, I sup-
pose there are two parties to be considered. I
do not forget you altogether and you must not
forget us. I do not think it is clear as it is, and
not thinking it clear, I think those words should
be put in, and I submit that they should be put
l ll.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect to
my learned friend, we have been going on the
principle that the amendments should be given
notice of
Chairman.] We will not argue upon that.
The point is as to the words suggested by Mr.
Pember.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think we ought to
have an opportunity of saying whether it will
affect it or not. It seems to me that the first
- words
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
199
22 April 1891.
words of the section would cover everything and
that by putting in the words “with the traffic
thereon " my learned friend may be just getting
the same thing as if he had got the words which
are now struck out.
Chairman.] We will consider Mr. Pember's
amendment when we come to the end of the sec-
tion. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, your Grace.
I will consider in the meantine and see if there
is any evil in it. I do not want really to oppose
anything that is useful, but I would like to con-
sider it. -
Now the next amendment upon your Lord-
ship's paper is by the Vestry of St. Mary, New-
ington. I have had an opportunity with my
junior of considering this. The case of the
Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, has been more
or less before the Committee, I think unneces-
sarily, because we can deal with it all in a special
clause, or rather in the schedule. It is a ques-
tion of town refuse, which has been more than
once mentioned, and therefore I will withdraw,
with your Lordship's permission, that amend-
ment and all other amendments standing upon
this part of the schedule with reference to the
Vestry of St. Mary, Newington, wherever they
come. I do not want to press any of them.
Now, the next amendment is that of the South
Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Association, and
this raises the important matter which I men-
tioned to your Grace the other day; you heard
yesterday from the railway companies, from Mr.
Beale, and others, that an agreement had been
entered into between the Midland Railway
Company and the traders in coal in Derbyshire,
and that agreement Mr. Beale promised to put
before us at a certain time. Now, in the case of
the South Lancashire and Cheshire Coal Asso-
ciation, an agreement has likewise been come
to between the London and North Western
Railway Company and the traders in coal. The
effect of that agreement is shortly this: under
the Act of 1865, certain rates were agreed to
be charged under that Act.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is that Act in force
now Ż
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is ; the rates were
established upon this basis: certain traders were
guarantors of the line, and certain rates were
put in the Act of Parliament and are now being
charged ; the desire of the traders was, that
nothing in the schedule should affect those rates.
Parliament had sanctioned them, the traders
were content with them, and the London and
North Western Railway Company were content
with them. Further, the traders' guarantee is
a continuing guarantee ; it was not merely a
guarantee of money in the first instance, but a
continuing guarantee to the company. The
company and the traders have come together,
and they have agreed, subject to the sanction of
Parliament, to continue those rates. All we
desire (and nobody, so far as I understand, ob-
jects to that) is that that should be sanctioned ;
but if you do not have something in this Act
confirming that agreement, of course that agree-
ment and the old Act of 1865 will be over-
ridden. Now, I can understand that the Board
of Trade (Lord Balfour of Burleigh uentioned
it yesterday when Mr. Beale spoke of the agree-
ment) might have an objection to an agreement
which modified this schedule if that agreement
were not founded upon statutory enactment.
This is founded on a statutory enactment, and
all we do is to preserve what Parliament esta-
blished in the year 1865, and, therefore, I ask
your Lordships to do this (and it is not necessary
for me to propose an amendment at all because
we are agreed); but if, for instance, you should
ultimately say, this agreement we cannot con-
firm, then we must propose certain amendments,
and this amendment, which is standing here, is
in principle agreed to. The other side object to
it in certain words, but the principle is agreed
to ; it is substantially contained in the agree-
ment, and, I think, it is quite unnecessary for
me, if that agreement is to be confirmed, to pro-
pose any amendment in this Order. I am con-
tent with the Order if the agreement is con-
firmed ; but if you do not confirm the agreement
I must have something introduced into the
Order to say that I shall have the benefit of
ordinary traders, and one of the clauses I pro-
pose is this— -
Mr. Pember.] I do not appear separately for
the London and North Western. My learned
friend Mr. Moon does that, but I was going to
say on behalf of other companies that we have
nothing to say specially to the agreement with
the London and North Western Company being
rendered right and proper, that is to say their
agreement with certain traders, but are you not
falling into an error of procedure. Your Grace
settled that you would not go on with anything
but the general Provisional Order at this time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Uufortunately if you
settle the first part of this order without hearing
me my chance is gone.
Mr. Pember.] I beg leave to doubt that, but
have you not done enough in reserving your
right to bring up your umendment upon the
London and North Western Order, when the
London and North Western Order comes up.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The difficulty is that
my learned friend does not see that you will not
go back in the London and North Western Com-
pany’s Order upon these general conditions. The
general conditions were to be the same in all the
Orders; that is perfectly clear. One of the con-
ditions I want inserted in all the Orders is this.
amendment, but if you give me my agreement I
am content to stand aside.
Chairman.] When the time comes we shall
have to deal with the London and North Western
and all their special cases.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] We can then hear all that you
have to say upon it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I follow that, but just
supposing that what Lord Balfour of Burliegh
said yesterday prevailed, and this agreement were
not to be confirmed, then you have gone over the
Order of the London and North Western Com-
pany and settled it without my being heard upon
it, and I have not got the agreement.
Chairman || But I apprehend that when we
(81.)
B B 4 CQIY) G
200
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
#
22 April 1891.
#
come to the special case of the London and
North Western Company it would be competent
for us to insert any clause in their Bill which
would carry out your views, we reserve your
right, s º
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would be perfectly
satisfactory for me, and with your permission I
will reserve my right until we come to the London
and North Western Companies Bill.
Chairman.] I see no difficulty in that.
Mr. Pember.] I see no difficulty ; it is what I
suggested ten minutes ago; but my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne would not take it
from me. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not care for my
learned friend's suggestion ; I want a suggestion
from the Committee. , - * * *
Chairman.] Then, Mr. Balfour Brown, we
shall hear you upon this when we deal with the
London and North Western Bill. So far, if it is
necessary to insert these words, that will be to a
certain extent an alteration of what we are doing
now, but only so far as the London and North
Western Bill is concerned. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so, your Grace. I
hope it will not be necessary to alter it at all,
because I believe the agreement will be accepted.
Earl of Belmore.] Has the Board of Trade
*
objected to the agreement P -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We have not seen
it yet. * *
- Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will submit it to the
Board of Trade. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] In answer to Lord
Belmore's question, I think it right to point out
that the whole question of these agreements (and
this is not the only one that will be brought
before this Committee) is one pregnant with diffi-
culties. You will find that the agreement is an
agreement for a special rate for a special district.
This agreement, and other agreements similar in
character, were brought before Lord Balfour of
Burleigh and myself, and also before the Board
of Trade during the whole course of this inquiry.
I will frankly state to the Committee what our
difficulty was, not that they may consider the
question at this stage, but that the Committee
may have it in their minds that there are points to
be considered when the agreement is brought
before them. The Act of 1888 says, that when
the railway company charge the traders in a
district different rates, or treat them in a different
manner from the rates which they charge to the
traders in another district, the onus of showing
that that is not an undue preference shall, lie
upon the railway company. . In this particular
case there is a defined district, the traders in
which have advantages accorded to them which
are not accorded to the traders outside the dis-
trict. During the course of our proceedings it
was brought under our notice, that although the
traders in that district were perfectly satisfied
with the arrangements, and although the railway
companies were perfectly satisfied with
arrangements, there were other traders just outside
the district who were particularly anxious to
share in the advantages, and who complained
the .
f
bitterly that the traders inside the district got
those advantages from which they were excluded:
It so happens that this district, to my knowledge
(although this is not actually before the Com-
mittee), is a very peculiar one ; I think you will
find, when the case comes before the Committee,
that this district is in the nature of the shape of
a soda-water bottle, it is like that (describing the
same), and a trader just outside the line com-
plains, and says, “these gentlemen who are
further away from the port than I am, are getting
lower rates than the rates accorded to me.”
The Board of Trade did not see their way to
decide whether these special agreements could or
could not be inserted in a Provisional Order;
they thought it was ultra virés, at any rate, to
put into a Provisional Order an agreement or
agreements which might or might not be an
undue proference, but which, clearly were a pre-
ference; they preferred to leave the question to
be argued before the Committee of the two
Houses, and they are sure that that decision will
be a right one. But whether that is so or not,
I am certain that the course which has been
suggested by your Grace in the chair is the
proper one, and that the consideration of this
agreement should be deferred until the amend-
ments for the London and North Western Com-
pany come on for consideration. *:
Mr. Balfony Browne.] I shall have something
to say, your Grace, in answer to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle at the proper time. I think my Lord.
Camperdown sat upon the Cnmmittee in which
this question was gone into.
Earl of Camperdown.] Never mind what I sat
upon. . . . - -
Chairman.] Now we come to the amendment
of the Chemical Manure Manufacturers' Associa-
tion, page 4, Clause 5, line 11 ; omit sub-section
(iii,) + a -
Mr. Poyser.] That is withdrawn, your Grace.
Chairman.] Who appears for the Sonth Wales
and Monmouthshire traders? After “weighing
merchandise,” insert “at the request of the
trader’? +
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace, the next amend-
ment is one in the name of the Marquess of
Bute; it is in Clause 5, line 11, after “weigh-
ing merchandise,” to insert “at the request of
the trader.” That amendment, your Grace,
I beg with your permission to withdraw;
but I propose to move the next one, and
it is this : on Clause 5, line 11, after “weigh-
ing merchandise,” to insert “where not weighed
by the consignor or the consignee.” Now,
your Grace, although the general provision in
the clause provides for services which are thereby
dealt with, being rendered at the request of the
trader, the large body of traders whom I repre-
sent are very apprehensive that in this particular
matter they want further protection; because
weighing is a very peculiar service, and weighing
is done more often by the consignor than by the
railway company ; and I believe it is a fact that
they will not be denied by the railway companies,
although, perhaps, they will not like to admit it,
that the weighing done by the ‘consignor and
consignee is really more accurate than the weigh.
l]] ( )'
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS,
201
ſº
ing done by the railway company. Very often
after the goods have been weighed by the con-
signor, they are re-weighed by the railway
company for their own convenience, and one
thing which the traders say they ought not to
have, is a charge imposed upon them for this
re-weighing. That is done really for the benefit
and convenience of the companies. . -
. Now, your Grace, we may take it that all the
large works and collieries provide their own
weighing machines, and these machines have
been put up in most cases at very great expense
by those large collieries and large traders.
Chairman.] How do those words apply; where
the service is provided for or rendered to the
trader who has given notice to the company that
he does not require it, does it apply 7
Mr. Woodfall.] If the Committee should be
of opinion that it is governed by the proviso.-
Chairman.] I ask you for your opinion.
Mr. Woodfall.] I can only say this; that
when we come here with these opinions we are
not representing the opinions of lawyers or
theorists. These are the opinions of traders who
have these fears. Spring up within them by their
daily working with the railway companies.
Chairman.] What I want to put to you, is
this ; that the third sub-section says “weighing
merchandise.” r
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes. º
Chairman.] If the consignor or consignee goes
to the railway company and says, “We do not
want it weighed.” do you hold that the company
would then weigh it whether the consignor or
consignee liked it or not ? - \
Mr. Woodfall.] I think it might be open to
this. Your Grace will remember that yesterday
Mr. Lambert said that his idea of the notice to
be given by the trader, that it was his request
that such-and-such services should be rendered.
to him, should be a particular notice applying to
each occasion, and not general notice ; ánd it
seems to me that, some question might arise under
which the trader would have to go to the Board
of Trade. Of course the traders do not want to
avail themselves of the Board of Trade's arbitra-
tion; and it seems to me that the danger would
be quite obviated if the Committee insert these
words, which would not hurt the railway com-
panies, “Where not weighed by the consignor or
consignee.” That puts this sub-section out of
the range of any discussion whatever.
Mr. Pember.] I do not know whether the
Committee would wish to hear me upon that
point. *
Chairman.] No, we will not agree to that.
Earl of Belmore.] That goes out.
Chairman.] The next amendment is that of
the South Staffordshire, Worcestershire and
Warwickshire corporate bodies and Associations
of Traders. $ I J
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My Lord Duke I beg
to move the omission of this clause. It is
divided into two parts. I object to the first part
because I submit that it is outside this inquiry
altogether. This is a Bill to confirm a pro-
f
22 April 1891.
visional Order containing a classification of mer-
chandise traffic, and a schedule of maximum
rates and charges ; and I submit that the deten-
tion of trucks has nothing whatever to 'do, either
with classification or merchandise traffic, or with
a schedule of maximum rates and charges; but
if your Grace and the Committee should be of
a different opinion and consider that it is within
the purview of this inquiry I would object to it
on the ground that it is one-sided and therefore
unfair. Half the trucks that I use in conveying
traffic from the various railways are provided by
the traders, and they are quite as liable to be
detained by the companies as the companies
trucks are to be detained by the traders. Any-
one who has travelled by railway beyond for
instance Rugby. Station has seen miles and miles
of traders' trucks standing there, some of them
having been there for weeks and weeks; and
anybody who employs many trucks has to keep
a number of persons to run up and down the
railway to see that they are not detained. I sub-
mit, therefore, that if there should be any pro-
vision inserted in this Act for the purpose of
protection railway companies' waggons there
ad
should be a reciprocal provision for ifie purpose
of protecting truders' waggons. r
This question was argued before the Board of
Trade, and the answer made then was that the .
traders have a common law right to claim if
their waggons are detained. Well, it may be
so : but that rests, I believe, upon no authority
beyond the authority of mere opinion. No
trader has ever ventured to bring an action'.
against a railway company for the detention of
his trucks; and, as a matter of fact, the present
practice is that a railway company does not
charge for demurrage, and that the trader does
not, on the other hand, charge or ask the railway
Company to pay for the detention of his trucks.
But I submit, and I venture to urge upon the
Committee, that if the common law right of the
railway company is to be converted into a statute
right, there is no reason on earth why the com-
mon law right of the trader should not be also
converted into a statute right. I say that, if the
provision is . maintained, it should be made
mutual.
Earl of Camperdown.] The clause is not
English as it stands. How can the detention of
trucks be a service rendered to a trader?
Mr. Pember.] That is a remark I made yester-
day.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).]
How can the detention of trucks by a trader be
a Service rendered to a trader?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think it is very clear
that it can be. The railway company provide
the trucks and the trader detains them.
Mr. Pember:J I think it ought to be “the use .
of trucks by detention,” or something of that
kind. It did strike me the other afternoon, and
I said to my clients that it does not lie in our
mouths to improve the English of the Board of
Trade, but it needs it here.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I do not know whether
it will be convenient to speak upon the second part
(81.)
C C of
202
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
of this clause. At present I have only addressed
your Grace upon the first part.
Chairman.] I think you had better.
Sir Alfred Hickman.]Then I object to the second
part of the clause on the ground of its vagueness
and uncertainty. The clause runs, “in cases in
which the merchandise is consigned to an address
other than the terminal station,” then there is the
use and occupation of something. But, your
Grace, until it is delivered at the point to which
it is consigned the delivery is not complete;
therefore, there can be no use or occupation of
the terminal station unless it is consigned to the
terminal station. This is the case of a consign-
ment to some place other than the terminal
station ; and it is intended to say that there
must be a claim for the occupation of something
at the terminal station after reasonable notice.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Do we understand
that the railway companies give up this sub-
section ?
Chairman.] No, they criticise it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I understood that
all the criticism was on the other side. If the
railway companies do not wish it—
Mr. Pember.] You can criticise a thing with-
out wishing to abandon. I might criticise my
wife, but I do not want to abandon her.
Lord H oughton.] Like Mr. Jackson 2
Mr. Pember.] Our names are not all Jackson.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The word was “use ’’
in the schedule as deposited by the railway com-
panies, and the word is now “detention.” The
Board of Trade were rather of opinion that the
charge should be made for the detention of
trucks; but I do not think that the Board of
Trade attach very much importance to one word
as compared with another. What we intended to
provide for was a case in which the trucks are
kept for the convenience of the traders by the
railway company.
Mr. Pember.] I can easily understand it. I
hope the Board of Trade will forgive us our little
joke; but we can easily see how it arose : it was
from adopting part of the words of the clause
originally deposited by the railway companies.
We have it as originally deposited, “in respect of
the use or occupation of any station, siding, ware-
house, depôt, trucks, machinery, or plant beyond
such a time ’’; the frame of the clause was of
course different, as you see. How we framed
our clause was this : we framed a clause the
heading of which was “special charges shall
include charges under the following heads”; and
then, with regard to those, we had charges in
respect of the detention of trucks, which made
it read all right. Now, the Board of Trade have
altered it from “special charges” into “special
services,” and cut out the words “charges in
respect of,” and begin with the words “the de-
tention of trucks.”
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I can find out the
original words; they are taken from the Midland
Railway Company’s Schedule as deposited, aud
the words, “the detention of trucks,” there
appear.
Mr. Pember.] Fortunately I do not appear for
the Midland Company ; I appear for the Great
Western and other companies; but I think
there can be no difficulty at all in making it
clear.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does “accommodation " cover
“ trucks ''P
Mr. Pember.] No, I do not think it would. I
will tell you what I think your Grace might do.
Suppose we were to put it in these words, with-
out pledging ourselves that we might not find a
flaw hereafter ; if you were to cut out the words
“ the detention of trucks or ’’ and put “the use
or occupation of trucks, or of any accommodation
before or after conveyance.”
Earl of Belmore.] Do the parties agree to
that ? -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I object to the clause
altogether, my Lord.
\lr. Pember.] But so far as the verbiage
goes? -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have no objection to
the mere words, so far as that goes.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, I think that is fair criticism.
I thought I had made it clear that the words
“any accommodation " would not ejusdem generis
to trucks by putting in “of” twice over, “ the
use or occupation of trucks or of any accommo-
dation”; but, in order to prevent any loophole
for an ingenious gentleman suggesting that it was
so, I think it would be better to put “trucks”
after “accommodation,” and to put it “the use
or occupation of any accommodation or of trucks,”
and then he camnot do that. -
Earl of Belmore.] What sort of accommodation
do you mean P
Mr. Pember.] I think sidings belonging to the
company would come under the definition of
accommodation and station room and wharfage
room. There are a hundred and one things
that would come within the meaning of the term
“ accommodation.”
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Would
the words “reasonably necessary" not meet your
objection ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My main objection to
the clause is that it is not reciprocal. I think it
is reasonable that the railway companies should
be enabled to charge for their trucks if they are
unreasonably detained by a trader; but I submit
that it is not at all reasonable unless the trader
has a reciprocal right.
Chairman.] How would you carry that out *
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have got the clause
here, and the addition to the clause that I pro-
pose; but it is necessary for me, first of all, to pro-
pose the omission of the clause altogether. If I
might take it at the same time, it is all part of
the same question really.
Mr. Pember.] Your Grace sees what is a common
attempt, and, indeed, it is often acquiesced in by
the railway companies, that a man leaves goods
in a station shed for a very long time. Cotton,
for instance, at Liverpool, as I happen to know
myself, is left in the goods sheds belonging to
the railway companies perhaps for a month at a
time, when they have not a ready sale for it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] First, your Grace, I
should
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
22 April 1891. , ,
should like to ask, if I may respectfully, the
opinion of the Committee upon the point that
this is outside the scope of the inquiry alto-
gether, that it has nothing to do with the classi-
fication of merchandise, or the schedule of
maximum rates and charges. -
Chairman.] Oh no, it is quite within the
scope of our inquiry. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] On that you are against
me. Then I submit that if you retain the words
you should add these words, “Provided that
when a trader provides trucks, he shall be
entitled to deduct from the amount chargeable
by the railway company for carriage, a reason-
able sum for the detention by the railway com-
pany of his trucks beyond such period as is
reasonably necessary for conveyance. Such
sum, in case of difference, to be determined by
an arbitrator, to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.”
Mr. Pember.] You are moving two amend-
mentS.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do you drop “beyond 48
hours”? -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No, I should certainly
put in “beyond 48 hours.” In the railway com-
panies’ case it is necessary, I shall submit, that
there should be some time fixed ; 48 hours is, of
course, the minimum time that could be sug-
gested. In the Joint and Various Powers Act
of the London and North Western Company of
1877 the period allowed is four days.
Mr. Pember.] I do not want to be captious,
but is not Sir Alfred Hickman practically moving
three amendments together ? -
Chairman.] Yes. What we are dealing with
now is the 4th Sub-section, supposing that is
amended and remains.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then I would ask your
Grace first of all to amend it by inserting after
the words “detention of truck ’’ the words “be-
yond 48 hours,” and then I shall ask your Grace
to amend it by adding the words which give a
right to the trader to charge for the detention
of his waggons.
Chairman.] Then do I rightly understand you
to say that your objection to Sub-section 4
would be withdrawn provided 48 hours was in-
serted P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] And the words added at
the end giving the trader the right to charge for
the detention of his waggons.
Chairman.] Then you do not object to Sub-
section 4 with the addition of 48 hours ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No, your Grace, with
the addition of 48 hours and the words at the
end giving the trader power to charge for the
detention of his waggons. -
Mr. Pember.] Would not the ground be
cleared if Sir Alfred Hickman withdrew his
amendment for the omission of Sub-section 4,
and stood upon his alternative of 48 hours with
the addition of the words at the end giving the
trader power to charge for the detention of his
waggons 2.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I will accept that sug-
gestion. * *
Chairman.] That will make it much clearer.
Mr. Clifford..] There are two or three amend-
ments your Grace to the same effect if you will
notice on page 15 of the amendments.
Chairman.] Do you mean before Sir A fred
Hickman |
Mr. Clifford.] No.
Mr. Hanbury.] Yes, before his proviso.
Mr. Clifford.j Before his proviso, yes; but I
mean to the same effect as his 48 hours proposal.
Chairman.] But that is as well dealt with un-
der one amendment as another.
Mr. Clifford.] Certainly; but we must be
allowed to support it. r
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] What
we want to hear you upon now is, whether the
words “beyond 48 hours” should be inserted in
the clause.
Sir Alfred ſlickman.] Then I would venture
to urge that it is most desirable in the interests
of both the traders and the railway companies
that the Act should be made as specific as pos-
sible; that there should be as little occasion for
discussion, litigation or reference to arbitration
as possible ; that at any rate a minimum period
should be fixed until the expiration of which
demurrage should not commence to be charged,
and that the extreme limit should be 48 hours,
as being the very smallest time that could pos-
sibly be allowed.
Mr. Woodfall.] Would your Grace hear me
now upon this? I have an amendment precisely
to the same effect and in precisely the same
words.
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Woodfall.] I move that on behalf of the
Marquess of Bute.
Chairman.] Yon had better speak to the
amendment of Sir Alfred Hickman, because it is
moved. e
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, it is precisely the same;
it is to insert after “beyond * the words “a
period of 48 hours, or ’’; and the reasons which I
should submit that to the Committee are these :
that it is first of all necessary to understand how it
is that the trucks get into the sidings of the colliery
companies. It is not the same for all railway
companies. Some railway companies only send a
few trucks; but with some, especially in the
district which I represent, of course, practically,
it is all their trucks that are used. Take the in-
stance of a ship being unloaded. The trains are
run down to the ship, but the trucks that go in:
first do not come out first, and they may be de-
tained there. Then, too, with regard to the
trucks that are run up to a colliery works, there
the same thing applies; the trucks that go in
first do not come out first ; and it would be
practically impossible in marshalling private
traffic in the private sidings, for a trader so to
arrange that the trucks that come in first should
go out first. Therefore you might have this
state of things, that whereas one truck would
come in there and, perhaps, remain there three
or four days, another truck might come in and be
(81.)
C C 2 . - unloaded
204
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
unloaded in a few hours; and without wishing
to repeat what Sir Alfred . Hickman has
said, that it is desirable so far as possible
to clearly express what the railway com-
panies want. I believe at this moment 48
hours is the time fixed by the Railway Clearing
House as between company and company; my
learned friend, Mr. Pember, will correct me if I
am wrong in that, but I believe that to be so at
the present moment. Now, we say that if the
clause is left as it is with the words “reasonably
necessary,” without saying who is to be the judge
of what is reasonably necessary, the trader would
be everlastingly under the terror of demurrage.
That is the state of things as it was described
when Mr. Muir Mackenzie put this case before
the Committee. He said that the Board of
Trade desired this Act to be as exhaustive as
possible, and to leave the traders in a state of
everlasting terror of demurrage is not what the
Committee, I am sure, desire to do. It would be
quite possible to take a general average of
detention of waggons, and that would be one way
of dealing with it which would be fair to the
trader; that if he is to be charged demurrage for
the waggons that are detained beyond, 48 hours,
then some credit should be given him for the
waggons which were unloaded quickly ; and it
would be quite possible to take the average in
point of time of the detention of waggons. I
submit to your Grace that the section as it stands
does not deal fairly with the trader, and that it
would be dealing fairly with him if those words
were inserted.
Mr. Clifford.j I also, appearing for the
Mansion House United Association, have a simi-
lar amendment, and we put it upon the same
grounds, your Grace ; that it is, above all, neces-
sary in all these cases that the trader should know
exactly where he stands as far as possible, and
that the term “such period as is reasonably neces-
sary "leaves it most dangerously vague, and the
result will be litigation and references to arbitra-
tion and difficulties between the traders and the
railway companies, which would be entirely
avoided if some definite period were pointed out
in the clause. We concur with the gentlemen
who have already spoken, that 48 hours would
be a reasonable period, and upon that part of the
case, and upon a further amendment which I have
upon the clause, I would propose to call a witness,
with your Grace's permission.
Chairman.] On the 48 hours part 2
Mr. Clifford.] On the 48 hours part.
Chairman.] You want to call a witness?
Mr. Clifford.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] I think it is worth while pointing
out to your Grace that my learued friend Mr.
Clifford's amendment does not bear out his own
defence of it. It is not the same as the amend-
ment of the other two traders, because it is this,
you see it on phge 15: “the detention of trucks
or the use before or after conveyance ’’ (mark
this) “beyond such period (not being less than
48 hours from the time when the merchandise is
ready for delivery, and the consignee has received
notice thereof) as shall be reasonably necessary
for enabling the consignee to take delivery of the
merchandise.” That is only a statement that it
shall be at least not less than 48 hours; so that
all the difficulty about arbitration would arise if
he had his will.
Mr. Clifford.] But the minimum period is
fixed. #
Mr. Pember.] I know the minimum period is
fixed ; but you are not to be had up at all on the
question of the reasonability, if it is 48 hours or
less ; but if it is 96 hours you are still to be had
up before the arbitrator to say whether the deten-
tion has been reasonable.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] I think we had
better deal with the question whether the words
“beyond 48 hours” shall be inserted, if you apply
yonrself to that. -
Mr. Clifford.] Wery well, your Grace.
Mr. FRANK IMPEY, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined
as follows:
Mr. Clifford
904. YoU are Secretary of the Midland Agri-
culturist Freight Association ?–I am.
905. You appear here representing, I believe,
the Agricultural Committee of the Mansion
House United Association ?–Yes.
906. What is your view, in the interests of
agriculturists, about the desirability of fixing a
definite period as regards demurrage 2–That
there should be a minimum time definitely fixed,
and that until after the expiration of that time
demurrage should not begin to run under any
circumstances.
907. Will you give your reasons for wishing
to fix it at a definite period as regards agricul-
tural traffic 2–For this reason ; that the notice
which the consignee would receive of the traffic
being at the station ready for him to take would
be sent to him in the country districts by post.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
The post would probably come in about 8 o'clock
in the morning ; by that time the teams and the
men employed on the farm would be away at their
work, and it would be impossible to make any
arrangements for sending for the traffic on that
day at least, without upsetting the whole of the
work on the farm, especially at certain periods of
the year, when the work of the farm largely
depends upon the way in which the horses for
instance are being used. -
908. Under those circumstances could arrange-
ments for carting traffic be made upon that day
when the notice was received ?—Not without
very great loss and inconvenience.
909. Does that suggest to your mind the
meccessity for a fixed period 2–Of a minimum
fixed period, yes, it does.
910. Are there other circumstances which lead
you
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
205
22 April 1891, .
Mr. IMPEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
you to think that that would be a desirable thing
for the protection of the trader 2—The fixing of
a minimum of 48 hours do you mean
911. Yes, the fixing of a minimum of 48 hours
I mean in regard to avoiding disputes? - Yes.
What the agriculturist would wish to feel is, that
he would not be under any liability for demur-
rage, that he could feel certain that he would
not be under any liability for demurrage at least
until the expiration of the 48 hours. *
912. Do you think 48 hours would be a reason-
able period to ask for after which demurrage
should begin?—I do, for this reason ; that it
would allow him upon receiving the notice one
day in the morning, to decide and fix what his
team should do the next day, and send them off
the next day to fetch the traffic.
Chairman,
913. You could do that in 24 hours ?—I was
assuming, what I think is correct in the country,
that is to say that the post generally comes in at
8 oclock in the morning. Nothing could be done
on that day ; but steps could be taken the next
day to do it, and that would take 48 hours.
Mr. Clifford.
914. The first day’s notice would be a dies
mom 2–Practically. -
Chairman.
915. May I ask you what description of traffic
you are proposing to deal with ?–Pretty much
any class of traffic I take.
916. You are talking of agricultural produce
—Yes.
917. What description of agricultural produce
do you expect that a gentleman would receive
notice of at 8 o’clock in the morning for him to
send for 2–1 will take a very large traffic from
London to the country districts round, that is
used in agriculture brewers' grains.
918. Yes?—Those would be sent down from
London to country stations; the notice would
probably come by the morning post, as I happen
very frequently to see it at the house.
919. Do you think it would come as a surprise
to him 2––He would know that he was expecting
grains within a day or so; he would not know
that they were coming that morning.
920. But would not the consignor advise him
that he was going to send him a load of grains 7
—Yes ; but the fact of the consignor advising
him would not justify him in supposing that if
his cart was at the station the traffic would be
there ready for him to receive. It frequently
happens when the consignee sends for traffic that
he has to wait a very long time before the truck
is in a position for him to unload it.
921. How far in the country do the brewers’
grains go?—I take it pretty much all over the
country ; they would not necessarily be sent
from London all over the country; they would
go from Burton and other places. *
922. Why would he get the brewers' grains
from long distances 2–I do not know why he
would, except that the fact remains that the
brewers' grains are sent from London for long
distances. -
Chairman—continued.
923. I suppose if he was living in a district
where there were breweries he would, probably,
get his grains from a neighbouring brewery 2–
I take it that the neighbouring brewery, as
rule, would not be able to supply the demand ir.
a district where grains were used to a large
extent for milking purposes. But exactly the
same argument would apply to oil cakes and
feeding stuffs coming to country stations.
Mr. Dickson.
924. Can you give the Committee any in-
stances where railway companies have charged
demurrage for periods of less than 48 hours;
have you any case ?–I could not cite any per-
sonal cases.
Chairman.] But if these words were inserted,
these 48 hours; would that give the trader the
right to keep his traffic on all occasions for 48
hours ?
Mr. Pember.] Yes, it would.
Mr. Hanbury.] And for all kinds of traffic 2
Witness.] I think it would.
Chairman.
925. Do you think that that would be a con-
venient state of things 7–Convenient to him or
to the railway company, does your Grace mean?
926. Generally 2–I think it would be a rea-
sonable state of things.
927. To the agriculturist?—I think it would
be convenient to both parties, considering the
whole circumstances of the case.
928. But to the company, would it be con-
venient 2–I think so.
929. What advantage would the company get
in keeping the grains for 48 hours?—They
would get no advantage.
930. Then why would it be a reasonable
thing for them 2–Because they must conduct
their business in such a way as to meet, to a large
extent, the convenience of their customers; it is
only reasonable that they should.
931. And oil cake 2–Yes.
932. Do you think that it would be convenient
to the company to have their oil cake at their
station for 48 hours?—No ; I am not supposing
that it would be convenient to the railway com-
pany ; they would naturally like to get it away
as quickly as they can ; I am simply speaking
from the point of view of the agriculturist, to
whom it would be almost impossible to fetch it
in many cases within a shorter period.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
933. Perhaps I might venture to ask a
question, rather extending his Grace's question,
whether you think it would be a convenient thing
to a railway company, or to other companies to
have four or five trucks of fish manure for 48
hours at a station, that might be used as a pas-
senger station ?—I should not suggest that that
would be convenient to the railway companies.
934. You put the case of brewers’ grains. I
am sorry to Say I ask in ignorance; how long do
brewers' grains keep fresh ; how soon do they
go sour 2–They will keep for some days.
(81.)
C C 3 935. How
206
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.]
Mr. IMPEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
935. How many days —They would not take
any damage by standing in the trucks for a
couple of days; I take it, as a 'rule, they would
be longer than that.
936. Now, you put it as an unreasonable thing
that if a farmer got a letter by the morning post,
say, at 8 o'clock, he should send his team over.
that day; you put it, as an unreasonable thing
that he should be expected to do that. But then
an arbitrator would decide in his favour if a
charge for demurrage were made 2–We do not
wish to be obliged to go to arbitration.
937. No ; you want to have the thing settled
in your own favour. Let me ask you this : Sup-
posing that 48 hours were fixed ; take this case
first ; and supposing it was a great deal too much
for many trades (more than was reasonable)
would it be fair for all trades, for whom 48 hours
was more than a reasonable interval, that the
railway company should be under an obligation
to keep the goods in the trucks 48 hours?—I
take it that 48 hours would be reasonable all
round.
938. What is your experience that leads you
to say that ?—An all-round experience ; I pre-
fer to speak on the agricultural question only.
939. I say, supposing it be a fact that with
regard to some trades and some traders, it is
quite reasonable that they should get their goods
away in 48 hours, or even 12 hours, is it fair to
allow them to keep at their will the trucks of the
railway company employed for four times or
twice as long as they need 2–-If it is a fact that
It is reasonable to expect certain trades to get
their goods away within 12 hours, it might be
prejudicial to the company in those cases.
940. It would absolutely be unfair, would it
not?—Not supposing that the rate was sufficient
to cover that service.
941. But if it is reasonable that a man should
take his goods away in 12 hours, it is not reason-
able to give him 48 hours, is it?–No.
942. Now, them, we will take the other case.
Supposing that the period were fixed at 48 hours,
and there are many trades which up to this time
the railway companies have thought it reasonable
to allow 96 hours to, would it be fair to restrict
them to 48 hours ?—This is the minimum.
943. We are not treating it as a minimum
clause yet. Would it be fair to limit such trades
as those to 48 hours ?—You say we are not treat-
ing it as a minimum clause. That is the amend-
ment upon which I was called.
Earl of Camperdawn..] No, excuse me.
Mr. Pember.
944. I thought you must have heard that we
are not taking the minimum clause ; we are
taking that the period should be fixed at 48 hours
as the time when the demurrage should begin.
I put it to you, supposing that for certain trades
the railway companies have agreed up to now
that long periods, say 96 hours or even longer
than that, are reasonable periods to allow them
to detain waggons, would it be fair as against
those traders to make demurrage begin at
48 hours ?–No, I do not think it would.
Mr. Pember—continued. *
945. That being so, does it not occur to you
that what the Board of Trade have done is the
right thing. They have considered that there
are all sorts of differences in different trades and
that it is well not to fix any one hard-and-fast
hour which should apply to all trades, but that
it is better to leave the thing to be a reasonable
period which shall be decided if necessary by
arbitration ?—I was under the impression that F.
was called on the amendment that the 48 hours
was the minimum. -
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Pember.
946. Very well. Does it not occur to you
that as there are great varieties of country, great
varieties of stations, and that from stations in
large towns like London, Birmingham, and so
on, the traffic must be got away with the utmost
possible speed that it can be got away with, it
would be a very foolish and unfair thing to fix a
stereotyped 48 hours for the whole of the
traffic 2–If that is so, it would be unreasonable.
Lord Belper.
947. Will you just tell us what is the practice
at the present moment of the railway companies
as to charging demurrage 2–Very frequently
they do not charge it at all. I believe their own
practice is to allow two days. *
948. You, of course, are representing the
agriculturists, and I want to know whether you
can speak as to any complaints of what the prac-
tice is at present 2–On the southern lines there
is the practice of demurrage, I believe ; I cannot
speak to that of my own knowledge.
Chairman.
949. We can only take what is of your own
knowledge?—Then I had better say that I could
not cite any instance.
Lord Belper.
950. You do not know what the practice is at
the present moment, and you do not know
whether there are any complaints of that prac-
tice?—I know that there are complaints; but I
cannot cite any definite instance.
951. If you cannot tell us what the practice
is, you can hardly tell us what the complaints
are 2–No.
Mr. Pember.] Will your Grace allow me to
say what I think will settle the matter 2
Chairman.] I do not think we need trouble
you. * $
Re-examined by Mr. Clifford.
952. You have told the Committee that you
are here representing the Agricultural Section of
the Mansion House Committee ?–Yes.
953. And in that capacity, have you heard
that complaints are rife as regards the practice
of the southern companies in charging demur-
rage 2–Very frequently. *
954. And for what period have you heard, in
that capacity, that demurrage is charged by the
southern companies 2—I have heard ——
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
207
22 April 1891.
Chairman.] This is all hearsay.
Mr. Clifford.] Necessarily so, your Grace.
This is a Birmingham witness, but he is also
Chairman.] A Birmingham witness to speak
to the practice of the southern compani S.
Mr. Clifford.] He speaks to the practice so
far as he has heard of it, as being a member of
the Mansion House Committee.
Chairman.] I think that the Committee are
perfectly agreed not to insert the words “beyond
48 hours.”
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Then now we have the railway
companies, page 4, Clause 5, line 18, after
“delivered "insert “ or posted to.”
Mr. Pember.] There is some amendment I
think your Grace will feel required there. The
words of the sub-section are “beyond a reason-
able period from the time when notice has been
delivered at such address that the merchandise
has arrived at the terminal station for delivery.”
We think that the words ought to be “delivered
at or posted to.”
Mr. Ram.] That will never do.
Mr. Pember.] Otherwise we should have to
prove delivery which we aannot do. But lest
your Grace should be under the impression that
that alteration would take away any reasonable
time from the trader, let me undeceive you at
once, it would not. Supposing that the arbitra-
tor had a case before him, and supposing that the
railway company said “ that letter was posted by
the evening post, say on Wednesday, 22nd April,
and in the natural course would be delivered on
the Thursday,” the reasonable time is what the
arbitrator would determine ; and he could
take evidence as to the time when the letter was
received or so on. If there had been an accident
in delivery he could take that into consideration;
if there had been no accident then he could again
take the time at which the letter naturally would
be delivered, namely, 8 o'clock the next morning,
and say that the rational time should begin from
that moment. But all the railway companies
want is, not to make the reasonable time date
from the moment when the letter was posted, so
as to cut off the twelve hours during which it is
in the post from the reasonable period; but
simply not to be put to prove that the letter
was absolutely delivered. That is all.
Earl of Camperdown.] The effect of it would
be to do that very thing; you may not wish
those words to have that very effect, but if they
were inserted they would have it.
Mr. Clifford.] Certainly, my Lord.
Mr. Pember.] I think not.
Earl of Camperdown, Yes, “reasonable period
from the time when the notice has been posted
to.”
Mr. Pember.] Yes; what you would say is
that you must allow a reasonable time for the
letter to get to its destination, and then a reason-
able time after the receipt of the letter to elapse
before the man sends for the goods. But if those
words are not in, then, to begin with, the rail-
way company would have to prove what they
could not prove, namely, the delivery of , the
letter.
Mr. Hambury.] You want to make the con-
signee suffer for the fault of the Post Office,
rather than the railway company, that is what it
COmeS to.
Mr. Pember.] No, Sir.
Mr. Clifford.] Certainly.
The Committee deliberate.
Mr. Clifford.] I hope, your Grace, you will
hear the traders before deciding this point.
Chairman.] Of course we will hear everybody.
Have the Board of Trade anything to say to
these words 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We are of opinion,
your Grace, that the insertion of those words
would be liable to the danger which the learned
counsel said would not arise ; we are afraid that
the time would run not from the receipt of the
letter, but from the actual postage, and we think
that would be very hard upon the consignor. On
the other hand we believe that the arbitrator,
supposing that the delivery had not taken place
in consequence of any fault of the trader him-
self, would be able to take that into consider-
ation.
Chairman.] "Then those words will not be
inserted.
Mr. Pember.] Very well, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then the next amendment is
Sir Alfred Hickman's, is it not? Page 4,
Clause 5, line 20: after “occupation ” insert,
“Provided that when a trader provides trucks
he shall be entitled to deduct from the amount
chargeable by the railway company for carriage
a reasonable sum for the detention by the rail-
way company of his trucks, beyond such period
as is reasonably necessary for conveyance. Such
sum in case of difference to be determined by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.”
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My Lord Duke, I
submit to your Grace and the Committee with
great confidence that if you should decide to
give this power to the railway company, which
they have not at present got, you should give
the same power to the traders. The evil is quite
as great (if not greater) on the traders' behalf
as it is on the part of the railway companies;
and I am sure that your Grace and the Com-
mittee would wish to deal out even-handed
justice between the two, and, certainly, if you
give it to the one you should give it to the
other.
Mr. Pember.] I think Sir Alfred Hickman
does not appreciate this. This is not a question
of reciprocity at all. Sir Alfred Hickman or
any other trader has a common law right to bring
an action, if necessary, against any railway
company for damages for the detention of his
waggons. That is an unlimited right which is
not touched by this Provisional Order at all. But
when you come to the company, the company
being a creature of statute and being essentially,
(81.)
C C 4 too,
208
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
too, a creature of the modern statutes (that is,
the Act of 1888 and this Provisional Order), those
powers of charges will be limited, and strictly
limited, to what appears in these schedules. It
is provided in Sub-section 10 of Section 24 of
this Act of I888, that “ The Act of Parliament
confirming any Provisional Order made under
this section shall be a public general Act, and
the rates and charges mentioned in a Provisional
Order as confirmed by such Act shall from
and after the Act coming into operation be
the rates and charges which the railway com-
pany shall be entitled to charge and make.”
And outside those charges the railway companies
will not be able to make any change whatever.
Now this sub-Section 4 is the enabling sub-
section, enabling the railway companies under
certain circumstances, but only under certain
circumstances, to make certain charges; and but
for that they would not have been able to make
any charge for the detention of wagons at all.
We, therefore, in order to get something like the
right which Sir Alfred Hickman and those whom
he represents have got at common law, are
obliged to have sub-Section 4 or something like it.
Very well. But he does not want any sub-
section to put him in the same position, Sir
Alfred Hickman has got his remedy at cºmmon
law, an absolutely unlimited one.
Mr. Hanbury.] But is not his point rather
that he wants to get a cheaper remedy ?
Chairman.] You had better, conclude, Mr.
Pember, what you have to say, and then we
will hear what Sir Alfred Hickman has to
Say.
Mr. Pember.] Then all I can say, your Grace, is
that this is (if you do not mind my saying plainly)
outside the functions of this Committee. The
functions of this Committee are not to alter a
common law remedy of the traders, but to
settle the charges of the railway companies. But
this would be to enable the trader to make a
charge in the nature of a counter charge against
the railway companies.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have you not got the
right of action at common law if your trucks
are detained P
Mr. Pember.] I know nothing of it.
Earl of Camperdown.] You are not sure.
Mr. Pember.] We might have an action for
breach of contract; that I cannot say. If there
was a distinct contract that the trader would not
detain our trucks for more than a certain time, no
doubt such an action would lie; but we should
have to prove such a contract, and a special one,
too, I take it. That would be very difficult.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would he not have to
prove a similar thing
Mr. Pember.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] Why not *
Mr. Pember.] Because we have no right to de-
tain his trucks at all : he has given us no contract
to lend us trucks. All we have undertaken to do
is to send his trucks, take his goods, and send
back his trucks at a reasonable time. There is no
magic in the word “trucks,” after all said and
done. A truck is sometimes full as well as
empty. If we do not send his goods in a reason-
able time he has a right of action against us.
But you will hardly think it part of your func-
tions to put in a clause, for instance, that if the
goods are not delivered and the truck sent back
in a certain time he might keep back some of the
money he owes us, a certain amount of money
out of the rate he would otherwise pay us. Now
why should you do that with regard to an empty
truck any more than with regard to the contents
of a truck 2 I really think it is outside the func-
tions of this Committee.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I submit to your Grace
and the Committee that the cases of the railway
company and of the trader are absolutely on all-
fours. The learned counsel suggests that be-
cause the rates and charges were fixed by
that Act of Parliament, therefore everything
was fixed and they could charge nothing that is
uot in the rates and charges. But this is not in
the rates and charges; this is entirely outside
the rates and charges; and if we are left in the
position we are in now, and no enactment is made
with regard to trucks, I submit that the railway
companies would have the same power precisely
as the trader has to claim for detention of
waggons. But at any rate, I say that the learned
counsel has shown that there would be no injus-
tice in giving to the traders this unquestionable
right. Undoubtedly it is fair beyond all argu-
ment that they should have this right. The
learned counsel says they have it. It may be so ;
but make it beyond all doubt that they have it.
Chairman.] Is it the case that your remedy is
at common law Ż
Sir Alfred Hickman.] It may be so.
Chairman.j But is it so P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I do not think the
highest authority in the kingdom can answer the
question authoritively. I believe that the opinion
of the law officers of the Crown is that there is
such a right ; but no trader has ventured to
bring an action upon the supposition that there
is such a right; and I venture to think that no
trader will ever dare to do so. It is not long
since a railway company upon a mere question of
sixpence took a case to the House of Lords.
What trader can have interests sufficiently large
to enable him to be put to the risk he would
run of large costs. Supposing he had a case
involving 100 l., the costs of which might come
to 1,000 l., a trader dare not do it. But if it is
put in the Bill that a trader shall have the right,
there can be no dispute about it, the railway
companies would not dare to take him to the
House of Lords or to the Court of Appeal.
Chairman | Then what you ask us to do is to
fine the railway companies for detaining the
goods?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] What I ask your Grace
to do——
Chairman.] Is that so *
Sir Alfred Hickman.] What I would ask your
Grace to do is, that whenever the railway com-
pany unreasonably detain a trader's trucks in
their custody for the purpose of weighing goods,
they should pay a reasonable sum for such de-
tention of his trucks.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
209
22 April 1891.
Chairman.] That is making the trader fine the
company for detaining his trucks?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] It scarcely amounts to
a fine, if the railway company take one of my
trucks and negligently leave it in a siding for
three weeks or a month.
Chairman.] Let me ask you, have you no
remedy at this moment 2 * +
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I believe not ; practi-
cally any remedy,
Chairman.] But when you say practically no
remedy, have you no remedy? *
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I cannot answer the
question. I do not think anybody can. As a
matter of opinion, Mr. Pember is of opinion that
we have ; other persons are of opinion that we
have not. But the proof that we have not prac-
tically, is that no trader has ventured to make
the demand.
Mr. Hanbury.] Your argument is, that even if
you have the right of action at common law, the
process is such an expensive one that nobody has
ever resorted to it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] That is so ; that the un-
certainty of the result and the expense of the
process make it nugatory.
Mr. Hanbury.] And you want to have the
same cheap process that the railway companies
now have 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Precisely.
Earl of Belmore.] What you ask us to do is
to give you the power to deduct a rebate from
the company, and leave them to go for an action
against you.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] It is suggested in that
form, because it is believed that it could not
come properly into this Bill in any other form.
You could not in a Bill that purports to regulate
the rates. and charges of the railway companies
give something that should enable a trader to
make rates and charges. What you might do,
and I suggest you might do it in the way this
clause is done, is that you might give a rebate
to the trader (it is done in some cases now) from
the charge for carriage, that cannot go beyond
the amount charged for carriage, in respect to
unreasonable detention.
Earl of Belmore.] But, in the way you have
drafted the clause you make the trader give
himself the rebate, and leave the company to get
it back as best they can.
Mr. Pember. Otherwise, as Sir Alfred Hick-
man says, it would be outside your purview.
Lord Belper (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Do
you purpose also to ask for power to make the
railway company pay if they have detained your
merchandise for an undue length of time 2
| Sir Alfred Hickman.] No, I have not proposed
that. . -
Lord Belper.] Then will you say what you
consider to be the distinction between the two
points; between detaining trucks and detaining
the merchandise that might be in the trucks?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] There is a theoretical
distinction, but practically there is none. Loaded
trucks are not detained, but empty trucks are
question.
constantly and regularly detained to a very
large extent, and that is the most important
The detention of merchandise does
not arise practically because the railway com-
panies deliver it with great promptitude ; and if
they do not, you go to another railway com-
pany. But all the railway companies neglect
empty trucks and leave them on the sidings
week after week. - l
Lord †. You say that merchandise is
not detained; but traders often recover on the
very ground that merchandise has been detained.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] That may be ; but it is
a matter of much less importance, and I should
not be inclined to propose it.
Chairman.] Now we should like to hear what
the Board of Trade have to say.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We were of opinion
your Grace that the power to charge should be
given to therailway companiesfor the reason point-
ed out by Mr. Pember. Then we had to consider
whether a similar right to claim a rebate in some
way or other (not perhaps in the words suggested
by Sir Alfred Hickman) could be given to the
traders. We were advised that the trader has a
right of common law action if his property is
detained. The action would probably be for
bailment or detinue ; I am not a lawyer, and
probably I should use the wrong phrase if I
attempted to say what the action would be. But
we were advised that an action would lie at
common law if his property were detained against
his wishes. We were further advised that it was,
wltra vires, for the Board of Trade to give power
to a trader to make a charge upon the railway
company, because that is what it would amount
to ; it would be in the form of a rebate, but it
would really be a power to the trader to make
a charge upon the railway company. For those
reasons (they were purely technical) we did not
insert the clause as asked for by the traders. But
we undoubtedly felt, all of us, that the traders
had a certain amount of claim ; that their
waggons were detained against their wishes very
often ; and we were of opinion that if the
technical difficulty is one that Parliament can
get over, there is no reason why Parliament
should not consider something like the proposal
of Sir Alfred Hickman. I said something like
the proposal, because there are objections to .
these particular words.
Mr. Pember.] There are details
with the amendment which certainly would not
do. If you were to consider that it was an
amendment that you could take into considera-
tion your Grace, there are certain words about
the details of it that I should have to say some-
thing upon ; but I will leave that until you have
decided.
Chairman.] Yes.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
SOme i Inne resume.
connected
Chairman.] The Committee have decided to
insert the following words: “Provided that
where a trader provides trucks he shall be en-
titled to a reasonable sum for the detention by
the railway company of his trucks beyond a
reasonable period.”
(81.)
D D Mr.
210
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
Mr. Pember.] I had almost drawn a clause,
your Grace, which would meet that, and perhaps
you will let us bring it up a little later.
Chairman.] But we cannot have the two.
Mr. Pember.] You meant those to be the final
words 2
Chairman.] Yes. But if you have got words
that are better words we will hear you.
Mr. Pember.] There is just one point it seems
to me.
Chairman.] That is the decision of the Com-
mittee. At the right period we will hear if you
have any words that will be better.
Mr. Pember.] Thank you, your Grace, would
you mind my saying this at this moment P Of
course the detention must be by the default of
the railway company. Detention very constantly
arises from the fact that the consignee will not
take delivery; and it would not be right to make
the railway company pay for that. I think,
therefore, if your Grace does not mind my saying
so at this moment, words should be inserted to
that effect. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Would the same
remark apply to the first half of the clause the
other way ?
Mr. Pember.] No, my Lord, because it is
always either they or their consignees who will
not take delivery.
Chairman.] But if you take down the words I
have just now read, then we will hear if you have
anything to say upon that.
Mr. Pember.] Then all I think I should care
to say at the moment is this: that the words
should be inserted, “through the default of the
railway company.”
Chairman.] Then we can do that now.
Mr. Pember.] “By and through default of" is
what you want, your Grace.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May we have that
clause to consider, and decide upon it to-morrow
morning 2
Mr. Pember.] I am quite willing to postpone
it.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Why do
you ask that P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Timeo Danaos.
Mr. Pember.] Oh, do not think that I am
giving you anything, if you mean Danaos as the
Latin for Pember.
Chairman.] Will you just put in, Mr. Pember,
what you think ought to be inserted (handing the
Bill to Mr. Pember). -
Mr. Pember.] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] And then Sir Alfred Hickman
wishes to have time to consider it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] lif you please, your
Grace. .
Chairman.] Then when we have got this we
will consider it the first thing to-morrow morn-
ing.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Thank you.
Mr. Clifford.] Will you allow me, your
Grace, to point out that at present there is no.
provision made for any arbitration in respect of
the reasonableness of the period.
Chairman.] What is this?
Mr. Clifford.] It was mentioned yesterday
and admitted on the other side that that provi-
sion for arbitration only entitled the arbitrator
to decide upon the question of charge, and not
upon any other question ; it was admitted that
the power of the arbitrator should extend to the
whole clause.
Mr. Pember.] I have ventured to write at the
side of your Grace's Bill the words that will
carry out your decision (handing the Bill back to
the noble Chairman).
Mr. Clifford.] If your Grace will refer to the
words at the bottom of the page 3 of the Pro-
visional Order, you will see “such reasonable
sum by way of addition to the tonnage rate as
shall in case of difference between the company
and the person iiable to pay the charge be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, “may charge for
the services here undermentioned ’’ which are
1, 2, 8, 4, 5.
Chairman.] Yes. Well, you can say anything
you like upon that to-morrow morning, “ provided
that when a trader provides trucks he shall be
entitled to a reasonable sum for the detention by .
and through the default of the railway company
of his trucks beyond a reasonable period.” If
Sir Alfred Hickman wishes to be heard upon
that we will not finally decide upon that part of
the clause until to-morrow morning.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Thank you, your
Grace.
Mr. Pember.] Of course your Grace meant
empty trucks I assume.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] I am not sure that empty is
right after all.
Chairman.] No, at all events if there is any
thing further you have to say upon it we will
hear you to-morrow morning.
Now then we come to the amendment by the
Glamorgan county council, and by the Swansea
and District Freighters’ Association, line 20, after
“occupation * insert “ But the charge for the
detention of trucks shall not exceed one penny a
ton cf the registered carrying capacity of the
said trucks a day, and such charge shall only be
made after the expiration of 24 hours given in
writing, which notice shall not expire until such
truck has been delivered to the consignee at least
two and a-half days.”
Mr. Bishop.] I appear your Grace in support
of that amendment. I am the Secretary of the
Swansea and District Freighters' Association.
This is one of those cases which it has appeared
to us is quite capable of clear definition as to the
working valee of a truck, per day, and there-
fore that it might be decided without having
it referred to the Board of Trade. The principle
upon
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs. 2] I
22 April 1891.
upon which the value of a truck to a railway
company or to a private trader per day would be
based is this. The usual way of purchasing
trucks is by a seven years' hire system, so much
a year for seven years. At the end of that time
the trucks have generally got several more years'
life. Assuming that 10 years is the life of a
truck, we take 9/. per annum as being the original
value of the truck. - -
Chairman.] But I do not think we could accept
this amendment, because it would bind the hands
of the arbitrator. 4.
Mr. Bishop.] That is just what I wish to
avoid. ' .*
Chairman.] You wish to tie the hands of the
arbitrator.
Mr. Bishop.] We wish to have it settled with-
out reference to arbitration.
Chairman. J No ; I think we could not insert
this clause. -
Mr. Pember.] The next amendment I take it,
your Grace, is thé Sonth Lancashire and Cheshire
Coal Association, because all the otbers have
gone. At foot of Sub section iv., insert the
following proviso: “But nothing herein con-
tained shall extend or apply to coal, cannel, culm,
slack, coke or cinders traffic, where such traffic is
delivered into the yards or sidings owned or
rented by the consignor or consignee, but where
such coal, cannel, culm, slack, coke or cinders
traffic is wharfed upon sidings or yards belonging
to and in the occupation of the company, the
company may charge a sum for the use of such
siding or yard, not exceeding threepence per ton
in respect thereof, and if the said traffic shall
remain on the said siding or yard for a longer
period than four days (Sundays, Good Friday,
Christmas Day, and Bank Holidays excepted),
the company may charge a further reasonable
sum in respect thereof.” -
Mr. Clifford..] After what was said by my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne upon that
subject with respect to the agreement which we
want to preserve, I will not press that agreement
but reserve it to be dealt with hereafter.
Chairman.] Now, then, we come to the Mar-
quess of Bute, Line 22, after “classification ”
insert “when undertaken at the request of the
trader.” -
Mr. Shaw.] On behalf of the landowners and
traders of South Wales and the Marquess of
Bute, I beg, with your Grace's permission, to
withdraw that amendment.
Earl of Camperdown.] Now, the railway com-
panies, on page 16. • a
Mr. Pember.] I cannot help thinking that this
amendment by the railway companies will find
its place better at the close of the amendments on
this Clause 5. It is substantive, as you see ; it
would be more in the nature of a new sub-clause.
It is to this effect: “Charges in respect of
water-side wharf accommodation provided by the
company, and special services rendered by the
company in respect of loading or unloading into
or out of vessels or barges where no special
charge is prescribed by any Act of Parliament.”
You see we have marked it Sub-section vii. I
cannot help thinking that it would come better
after the other amendments, if there are any
and I will ask leave therefore with your Grace's
permission to postpone that. -
Chairman, But then the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference propose to leave out
Clause 5.
Mr. Waghorn.] Yes, your Grace ; not so much
with the view of leaving it out, but with the view
of putting in slightly altered phraseology. A
point which has been overlooked I think up to
the present time in considering these questions to
Some extent is the manner in which these rates
are to be entered into the station rate books of the
company ; and the clause which the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference propose to insert begins
as follows: “The company may set out in the
station rate book, and subject to their being so set
out and to the services being rendered may charge
such reasonable amounts as in case of difference
shall be determined by the Railway Commis-
sioners in respect of the following matters.”
Your Grace, this question of the detention of
trucks, which is the Sub-section A., has been
discussed, and I do not propose to say a word
about it. - - .*
Chairman.] But do yon propose to insert those
words P.
Mr. Waghorn.] We shall propose to insert
Some such words as these ; but what would he in-
serted here would be covered by what your
Lordships have already decided. -
Chairman.] Then you do not want them *
Mr. Waghorn.] We do not attach importance
to the particular wording in respect to those
trucks. Our great point, the point upon which I
am addressing your Grace at present——
Chairman.] But do not you see that you pro-
pose by your amendment to strike out Clause 5
and insert another clause, and the first sub-section
of that is Sub-section A. 2 Do you propose to
move that, after what we have now decided ?
Mr. Waghorn.] No, your Grace; except that
I wish the operative part of the section, the com-
mencement of the section, to apply to whatever
may be said in respect to accommodation provided
for warehousing and trucks. If your Grace
would allow me to call your attention to the main
point of my observations, my remarks will
be more applicable to the second sub-section, the
collection or delivery of merchandise at the re-
quest of the trader, and what I wish to say upon
that point
Chairman.] Yes; but what I wish to know is,
whether the remarks you are making to us are
to be in favour of the Sub-section A., or do you
abondon that ?
Mr. Waghorn.] I do not abandon the Sub-
section A., my Lord, but I am quite satisfied with
any similar words that may be previously ap-
proved of by the Committee.
Chairman.] But we cannot do that. You
must either move Sub-section A. or withdraw
it.
Mr. Waghorn.] Then I move it.
Chairman.] Very well. Then you must show
us why you move it and why you propose the
first part. -
(81.)
D D 2. Mr.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
|
22 April 1891.
Mr. Waghorn.] Then I may revert, with your
Grace's permission, to the first words of our
amendment, “The company may set out in the .
station rate book, and subject to their being so
set out ’’--
Chairman. I think what you ought first to do
is to show us why you propose to leave out
Clause 5, because Clause 5 says, “Loading or
unloading, covering or uncovering merchandise
comprised in Class A. or Class B. of the classi-
fication.” You propose to strike that out. We
want to know why it is you propose to strike
that out. - - *
Mr. Waghorn.] It is the whole clause we pro-
pose to strike out.
Chairman.] The whole clause 2
Mr. Wayhorn.] Yes.
Mr. Pember. May I point out that the first
part of my learned friend’s amendment contra-
dicts itself. As it stands, it first of all says that
we may set out in the station rate books certain
charges, and then it says that they are to be
“Such reasonable amounts as in case of differ-
ence shall be determined by the Railway Com-
missioners.” We could not set them out until
they are determined, and then if they are not
determined we could not set them out.
Chairman (to Mr. Waghorn).] You had
better show us why we should strike out
Clause 5. *
Mr. Hanbury.] What is the real difference
between Clause 5 as it stands and your sugges-
tions 7 *
Mr. Waghorn.] I did wish to point out, if I
might, to the Committee what is the essential
difference between the two clauses.
Choirman.] Very well, yes.
Mr. Waghorn.] There are two essential dif-
ferences. Clause 5 as it now stands provides
for certain charges which are in, of course, a
completely different category. The services
rendered at sidings not belonging to the com-
pany are of an indefinite nature. Nobody
seems to know what they are. Your Lordships
have heard this morning how much has been
said upon the different points, what is and
what is not included in them; and my clients
would have preferred to have seen the
words which are at present in operation,
if I may say so, in Clause 5 referring to
these questions of services rendered at sta-
tions which are of an indefinite character ;
but they would have required to have some
more precise limitation in respect to those
charges which are capable of that precise limi-
tallOUI.
some time since, and it is rather impossible four
or five days beforehand to provide for a con-
tungency which has happened ; so that now we
should not wish to strike out what your Lord-
ships have done with reseect to Clause 5 as it
stands, and with regard to the accommodation at
the sidings; and we would wish simply that the
charges relating to such matters as collection,
delivery, weighing, demurrage, and warehousing,
should be governed by some such words as those
which we are now suggesting.
This amendment of ours was drawn .
That is one
essential point of difference : that definite and
indefinite services should not be mixed up together.
The other great point of difference, and the
one to which I want to address myself especlally
is, that this matter relating to the collection and
delivery of merchandise, should be dealt with by
means of the station rate books of the company,
I might, perhaps, call your Grace's attention to
the legislation on the subject of the station rate
book. It is the Act of 1873, Clause 14, and it
says, “every railway company and canal company
shall keep at each of their stations and wharves
a book or books, showing every rate for the time
being charged for the carriage of traffic.” Now,
your Grace, that of course is a very important
matter, and I venture to say that it has been a
little lost sight of in the discussion up to the
present time. The manner in which the railway
companies have hitherto dealt with this question
of collection and delivery, as brought out in the
evidence before Lord Balfour of Burleigh and
Mr. Courtenay Boyle, appears to have been this :
that so far as regards the mineral classes they do
not attempt to do any collection and delivery :
but in what they call their class traffic, in classes
*1 to 5, they quote a rate which includes collection
at one end and delivery at the other; and the
only rate which they enter in their station rate
book is the rate which includes this charge for
collection and delivery. By the form we pro-
pose the section should take, as settled by this
Committee, it would seem that it would be
hardly proper for the railway companies for the
future to quote a charge which includes collection
and delivery when they do not propose to render
those services. At the present moment the
practice has been explained to the Board of
Trade to be this. As a concrete example I will
say there is a rate from Paddington to Bath
which would be made up we will say of
2 s. 6d. for collection, 10 s. for railway
rate, and 2s. 6d. for delivery. That is entered in
the station, rate-book at the present
moment as a 15 s. rate. If the delivery is not
effected by the railway company, or if the collec-
tion is not effected by the railway company, the
course which the trader has to pursue now is to
pay the 15 S. rate which has been charged him,
and apply to the railway company to be kind
enough to allow him the 5 s. for the services
which have not been rendered. I take it that
according to the form which this Committee
seems to be prepared to adopt, for the future it
would not be open to the railway company to
say “we will charge you 15 S. for your traffic
from Paddington to Bath, although a carter may
cart it to Paddington Station, and another carter
not belonging to the company may cart it away
at Bath. As the form of the section is, “the
company may charge for the services hereunder
mentioned, when rendered to a trader at his
request or for his convenience,” I take it they
may not charge it when the services are not
rendered. Consequently it appears to me (and I
submit it to the consideration of the Committee)
that a complete revision and alteration of the
station rate books of the company will be
required ; it will be necessary for them to enter
in the station rate books of the company the rate
which they propose to charge for conveyance by
* railway,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
21.3
# ſº 22 April 1891.
railway, including the terminal charge from Pad-
(lington to Bath, it will not be open for them
in future to say that 15 s. is the rate for collec-
tion and delivery from Paddington to Bath, but
we cannot tell you what the collection and
delivery amounts to; we will allow you 3 s., but
what we charge we cannot say. That, I believe,
is the practice at the present moment. For the
future, I believe, they will not be able to do that.
If that is so, if my friends have taken a correct
view of the law, and if it will be necessary for
the railway companies to revise all the station
rate books throughout the country where the
dollection and delivery is included in the rate
which they enter in their station rate books, it
would be a very gigantic and serious task for the
railway companies to contemplate from day to
day ; and I think I am speaking as much in the
interest of the railway companies as in that of
the public at large, when I suggest that the
difficulty will be completely obviated, satis-
factorily certainly on behalf of the traders, if they
simply enter in the station rate books the amount
they propose to charge for collection or delivery.
Then, I think, without altering their station rate
books, that information, which is required to be
supplied by Act of Parliament, will be properly
supplied.
delivery rate is 15 s, from Paddington to Bath,
and if in the Paddington rate book they say
collection 2 s. 6 d., and in the Bath rate book
delivery 2 s. 6 d., the public has the information,
and that I take it is all that is wanted.
Then there is one other point in connection
with that. At the present time we understand by
the evidence that was laid before the Board of
Trade that the allowance for collection and deli-
very is an estimated average all round sum of about
ls. 6d. Now the traders very much desire to
pay what is fair and right; they wish to pay
more if more is due, and less if less is due. I
would wish to call your Grace's attention to the
remarks of Sir Henry James upon this question
of collection and delivery. He says, “ you can-
not average things that are never equal. If you
have to carry a boiler through the streets of
Stroud, and you have to take it up hill and down
a gradient and up a gradient you must ascertain
in some way what should be charged”; and then
Sir Henry James dealt with it at some length,
but I will read one other sentence if I may.
“All the incidents of conveyance must be differ-
ent in different cases, and different in every
locality according to the traffic carried, according
to the nature of the road travelled and according
to the distances travelled, distances which must
be variable and completely variable.” By that
Sir Henry James convinced the Board of Trade,
and in fact I think it is not desirable to fix
an average rate for collection and delivery. But
I think that Sir Henry James over-estimated
the difficulty that there would be in simply enter-
ing in the station rate book of every station the
amount that the company propose to charge for
collection or delivery at that station. The com-
panies must be perfectly well aware of that.
At a great many of the roadside stations of
course there is an average rate, and all they
would have to do would be to enter it in at once.
But there are these cases, such as Sir Henry
James mentions, of the hill at Stroud, heavy
If they say that the collection and
the Committee.
gradients, bad roads, and so forth, where they
must have arrangements with their own men and
Carters already, and they must know what it is
they are doing at these stations perfectly well;
and they have simply then to order their station-
masters to make this entry in the station rate-
books. The public then will be aware by seeing
the entry what it is that the railway companies
propose to charge; and no doubt, if they are
satisfied they will use the accommodation, if not
they will go, elsewhere.
The same observations, your Grace, will apply
to the question of warehousing and coal-tipping,
and all these charges that are made at different
stations. At one place the warehouse may be of
an expensive and elaborate character; they may
wish to charge more for that warehousing ; at
another they may wish to charge less. But
there can no difficulty in entering in the station
rate-book the amount per ton that they propose
to charge for different classes of warehousing
and accommodation.
I have therefore to suggest that that is the
manner in which these various services and the
charges for them might be dealt with by this
Committee.
Chairman.] Do you call any witness 2
Mir. Waghorn.] No, your Grace.
Chairman.] Has the Board of Trade anything
to Say upon this matter ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Your Grace, we
think that this is an absolutely impossible pro-
posal; and that if it were put in it could not be
carried out. Take the question of collection and
delivery, which has been put prominently before
There is a very great amount
of uncertainty, and very many disturbing ele-
ments, in the matter of collection and delivery,
and the cost of it. There is uncertainty as
between stations; as to one station it is expen-
sive to do it, at another station it is not so
expensive. There is even the difference between
town and Country; there is the difference be-
tween the cost of cartage in a hilly country and
in a flat country; there is the difference between
the cost of cartage in a populous country and
that where, in other words, there are many con-
signments in one direction, and where there are
long distances between the place where the
company undertake to deliver. There is the
great difference between the different classes.
It is all very well to say that you must average
between the classes; that is a matter of very
great uncertainty. There is a great difference
of cost between the different articles in each
class; and I do not believe, after the evidence
which was given before us in the former inquiry,
and such information as we have been able to
gather for ourselves, that it is possible to strike
any such average, even between the articles
which are in the same class.
Mr. Yates.] I think that Lord Balfour mis-
understood what my learned friend Mr. Wag-
horn proposed. It is not that there should be
an average struck at all ; but that at each station
they shall set out how much at that station is to
be charged for collection, how much at the send-
ing station is charged for collection, and how
much at the receiving station for delivery, so that
if either the consignor does the work at one
(81.)
D D 3 end,
2.14
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*
22 April 1891.
end, and the consignee at the other, you may get
the collection and delivery deductéd from the
rate, and the trader may know what is the cost
actually charged for conveyance between the two
stations, apart from collection and delivery, not
average. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I am sorry to make
a parade of my own knowledge, but I suspect .
that I know quite as much about this as those
who are seeking to correct me. As between
different articles I say that it is impossible to
strike on average. Supposing that there are two
articles in each class, one expensive and difficult
to cart, and the other not so, how are you, even
in a limited case where the company contracts'
with the contractor to cart the article in that
class, to say that the cost of carting, say, wax-
works is so much, and the cost of carting lace is
so much, how are you to say that even between
two classes where the company contracts with a
contractor 7 But how much more difficult would
it be if, as some companies do (and all companies
do it at some stations), they employ their own
waggons, horses and men? I know that the
company can take out the cost in a whole year,
what it costs to do the work of a whole station,
but how can you say what is the cost of a particu-
lar journey at a particular station with a particular
load in the truck. If I may draw an illustration
from common life, which I think will put it
before the Committee much better than I can.
One of the Committee may keep a carriage.
Well, he knows what the cost of the carriage and
horses and servants is for the year; but I ven-
ture to say that it is utterly impossible for him to
separate that into the work of a day or half a day, .
or say what any particular drive out to dinner or
for an airing in the afternoon may have cost that
member of the Committee. -
I believe that the proposal which has been put
before the Committee, even if it was desirable
in itself, is absolutely impossible to be carried
Out.
stage, but if the Committee have the least idea
of inserting this proposal I should not like it to
rest upon my verdict, or upon the verdict of the
Board of Trade; if there is really any doubt
raised in their minds by what the learned counsel
has said, I very respectfully suggest to the Com-
mittee that they should receive evidence upon
the points which I have endeavoured to put
before them from those who can be cross-exa-
mined with regard to the matters of fact that I
am stating to the Committee. .
Lord Belper.] Supposing the case put by the
learned counsel, that the whole rate is charged,
including the rate for collection, and delivery, is
it in the power of the trader to get given him
what the actual rate for conveyance is 7 &.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Most undoubtedly
it will be in the future; because you will have
set out in the future the maximum rate for con-
veyance, and the maximum rate for station and
service terminals; and anything over and above
that maximum rate will be collection and de-
livery. The rates are quotéd, either from siding
to siding in the case of traffic arising and ter-
minating at a siding, or from station to station in
the case of traffic arising at a station and
I was called upon, your Grace, at this
terminating at a station. If the goods are
either carted or delivered, in addition to the
station-to-station rate, as the Committee will see
when they come to deal with the rates, they will
see the letters C. and D., or both C. and D., as
the case may be, after the rates which are put
before them for consideration.
Lord Belper.j What I meant. was whether it
will be necessary for the railway company to
give the trader a book showing the different
heads; the head of conveyance, the head of
station terminal or service terminal, and the head
ôf special service terminals. - -
foºd Ralfour af Burleigh..] If the rate is a
station-to-station rate, and is within the maximum
in the future, in order to find out whether it is
within the maximum, you will have to add up
the conveyance rate, the maximum station ter-
minals, and the Maximum Service terminals
provided that the loading and unloading, cover-
ing and . uncovering, is done for that par-
ticular merchandise. Anything over and above
that must, of course, be put down to collection
and delivery or any other of these special
charges; and I presume, I may be wrong, but I
presume that if the rate is said to be for collec-
tion and delivery, it will be possible for the
trader to find out how much is charged him for
collection and delivery, and then to go to arbi-
‘tration as to whether that is a fair charge or
not.
Lord Belper.] He might find out his special
rate by subtracting the specific rates of con-
veyance and station terminals from the total that
he is charged. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I put forward my
view with submission; but I think that if you
were to ask Mr. Pember he would confirm what
I say, that the company will in future be bound
to specify what they put in. One charge and what
they put in the other. *
Mr. Dickson.] But, as a matter of fact, for an
enormous quantity of traffic the rate is a station-
to-station rate P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] For a very large
amount of traffic. : *
Mr. Dickson.] And is the custom of the rail-
way companies to charge for collection at one
end and for delivery at the other, showing in the
trader's account that he has to pay the different
items. * *
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Are you speaking
of the practice at the present time
..Mr. Dickson.] Yes.
Lord Balſour of Burleigh..] I suspect that in
most of the class rates from 1 to 5, the enormous
majority of the rates are collection and delivery
ra,!.G.S. * *
Mr. Yates.] Will your Grace allow me to call
a witness upon that ? *
Chairman.] I thought you said you would call
no witnesses. -
Mr. Yates.] That was before Lord Balfour's
explanation to your Grace, and it is upon the
express point. -
Chairman.] You brought forward your case
and I asked you whether you wanted to call
witnesses
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
215
22 April 1891.
witnesses in support of what you stated, and you
said no. -
Mr. Yates.] I did.
Chairman.] Then we have asked, as we are
entitled to do, what Ilord Balfour's view is after
you have stated your case. In the ordinary pro-
cedure before us then we should call upon
Mr. Pember for his view.
Mr. Yates.] It was only with the object cf
showing you what is the traders’ view.
Chairman.] But do not you see, your case is
before us as you chose to put it. You did not
wish to call a witness, and you did not ca
OO6.
Mr. Yates.] No.
Chairman.] Then the Committee are seised of
all you have got to say in your favour. We
have heard lord Balfour; and now we need not
call upon Mr. Pember. -
Lord Belper.] But Lord Balfour rather sug-
gested that Mr. Pember should answer that
question. It is a question that I shall have to
ask afterwards, and I think it is a very important
point. I should rather like to get it cleared up
now, as to whether the rates would be specified ;
I do not wish to interpose it now if it is not the
proper time.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] May I say, your
Grace, that there is a distinct indication on this
side still, that I have not distinctly apprehended
what the traders are desiring to have put in. I
should be very sorry to stand in the way, if I
have not correctly apprehended it. I thought
these matters had been fully brought out before
us; but if I have not correctly apprehended it,
rather than that should go forth, if your Grace
would allow a single witness to state as a matter
of fact what it is they are asking for, I should
prefer that should be done.
Mr. Pember.] Surely counsel can state what
they are asking for. If there is a question of
fact, I can imagine a witness being necessary to
clear it up.
Chairman.] I think we must proceed now with
some regularity, or else we shall never get
through this inquiry; but I think it will be quite
proper if Mr. Pember will answer the question
which Lord Belper put to him.
Mr. Pember.] Then your Grace, as I under-
stand it, the question put by the noble Lord,
Lord Belper, was whether the trader would
know in effect, after this Provisional Order be-
came law, what the station-to-station rate was, as
distinguished from any rate which would be
quoted, as they call it, “ carted and delivered.”
Lord Belper.] And the terminal rate also.
Mr. Pember.] My answer is that he un-
doubtedly would, and that the suggestion here
in this amendment has for one of its vices what I
was going to point out if I had been heard gene-
rally on the amendment, this vice, that it does
alter that law, and not to the advantage either of
the trader or of the railway company, that first
of all, whereas by Section 14 of the Act of 1873,
elaborate provisions are made for the publication
of rates, and their sub-division, provided by the
expenses.”
railway companies at all stations; will it interest
your Grace if I read that ?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] “BVery railway company and
canal company shall keep at each of their stations
and wharves a book, or books showing every rate
for the time being charged for the carriage of
traffic other than passengers, and their luggage
from that station or wharf to any place to which
they book, including any rates charged under any
special contract and stating the distance from
that station or wharf of every station, wharf,
siding, or place to which any such rate is
charged. Every such book shall during all
reasonable hours be open to the inspection of
any person without the payment of any fee. The
Commissioners may from time to time “(that
means the Railway Commissioners acting under
that Act) * on the application of any person in-
terested make orders with respect to any par-
ticular description of traffic, requiring a railway
company or canal company to distinguish in such
book how much of each rate is for the conveyance
of the traffic on the railway or canal, including
therein tolls for the use of the railway or canal,
for the use of carriages or vessels or for locomo-
tive power, and how much is for other expenses,
specifying the nature and detail of such other
That is how the law stood in 1873.
Now then in 1888 in Section 33 the following
additional enactment is made : “The book tables
or other document in use for the time being con-
taining the general classification of merchandise
carried on the railway of any company, shall,
duriug all reasonable hours be open to the in-
spection of any person without the payment of
any fee at every station at which merchandise is
received for conveyance, or where merchandise
is received at some other place than a station,
then at the station nearest such place, and the
said book, tables, or other document as revised
from time to time shall be kept on sale at the
principal office of the company at a price not
exceeding one shilling.” Then “Printed copies
of the classification of merchandise traffic and
schedule of maximum tolls, rates and charges of
every railway company authorised, as provided
by this Act, shall be kept for sale by the rail-
way company at such places, and at such reason-
able price as the Board of Trade may by any
general or special order prescribe;” and thirdly,
“The company shall, within one week after
application in writing made to the secretary of
any railway company by any person interested
in the carriage of any merchandise which has
been, or is intended to be carried over the rail-
way of such company, render an account to
the person so applying in which the charge
made or claimed by the company for the carriage
of such merchandise shall be divided, and the
charge for conveyance over the railway shall be
distinguished from the terminal charges (if any)
and from the dock charges (if any), and if any
terminal charge or dock charge is included in
such account the nature and detail of the
terminal expenses or dock charges in respect of
which it is made shall be specified.” And then
that is all I think I need read. Now then it
follows therefore that without the intervention
(81.)
D D 4 of
216
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
of the Railway Commissioners since the Act of
1888, any trader who has sent traffic, or is going
to send traffic, can go to the offices of the railway
company and say, “Give me a book,” and that
book shall contain the maximum rates and
charges from all their stations to all their stations,
and further shall distinguish the conveyance part
of such charges from the terminal charges. And
besides getting the book which contains "the
schedule of maximum rates and charges, he can
go to the secretary, under Sub-section 3, and he
can ask that the account in which the amount
claimed by the company for the carriage of his
merchandise shall be divided, and that the charge
for conveyance over the railway shall be distin-
guished from the terminal charges, and so on, if
any. So you see he gets two things. He gets the
book first which contains all the maximum rates
and charges; and then from the secretery he
gets the division of his own particular charge
split up for him. I will now take the case of
cartage and delivery on the top of all that.
Recollect that cartage and delivery he need not
pay unless he pleases, because any trader can
give notice that he does not want his merchan-
dise either on one occasion or upon all occasions
to be carted and delivered. They must then
quote him a station-to-station rate; and that
station-to-station rate he can have, on appli-
cation to the secretary, cut up as I say. After
that it seems to me absolute surplusage to ask
for such an amendment as this.
There is a further folly——
Lord Belper.] That puts it very clearly.
Mr. Yates.] I do not know whether your
Grace will hear me in reply upon that.
Chairman.] Yes, I think it is fair to hear you.
Mr. Yates.] All I wish to point out is that
upon this very question ; as my learned friend
Mr. Pember said, they are bound to give within
a week what the rates are made up of; but the
Board of Trade made an order to the railway
companies (which is to be found upon this blue
paper before Mr. Hanbury) to divide up that
rate three months ago, and you will find that
that is omitted from it.
Chairman.] But what Mr. Pember has been
quoting is from Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Yates.] With regard to what we have
wanted, it is this. It is perfectly true that they will
have to set out under the Act of 1888 the maximum
rate; but the maximum rate is not the actual rate
charged; the actual rate charged is a great deal
below the maximum rate as a rule, as you will find
when you come to deal with the question ; and
therefore what we want to know is how much of
the actual rate charged is the station-to-station
rate, and how much of the actual rate charged is
for collection and how much for delivery.
Mr. Hanbury.] You can get it upon applica-
tion to the secretary.
Mr. Yates.] Oh no, if you read the section;
I have not got it before me —
Mr. Pember.] But I carefully distinguished
for you what you could get under collection and
maximum rate.
Mr. Yates.] Can you distinguish between con-
veyance rate and maximum rate *
Mr. Pember.] You did not apprehend me ;
allow me to explain to you.
Mr. Yates.] Certainly.
Mr. Pember.] There are two things that you
can do. You can get from the company printed
copies of the classification of merchandise traffic,
and the schedule of maximum tolls, rates and
charges; that is one thing.
Mr. Yates.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] But you can get something
else. Under Sub-section 3 of Section 33 of
the Act of 1888, which does not apply to
maximum rates but to actual charges, you can
get from the secretary of the company an
account of what the charge made to you is for
the carriage of your merchandise, that is the
actual charge ; and you can have that charge split
up into conveyance rate plus terminals,
Mr. Yates.] Yes.
Mr. Pember. Now then, as I have told you,
that settles this fact, that if you have got a
station-to-station rate quoted you can then split
up that station-to-station rate into conveyance
rate and terminal charges. And, with regard to
cartage and delivery, if you have a collection and
delivery rate charged you are in this happy
position, that you can give notice to the company
that you do not want it done and they must then
Quote a station-to-station rate, and you know
then exactly what the cartage and delivery is.
|Mr. Yates.] Then I thirk, if that is the case,
there San be no difficulty in putting up at every
station what is the station-to-station rate and
what is the cartage and delivery, which is what
we ask. - -
Chairman.] Then we are of opinion that
Clause 5 should not be admitted. Now,
Mr. Pember 2 - -
Mr. Pember.] I am now to bring up our
proposed Sub-section 7, your Grace, and this
Sub-section 7 arises under very peculiar circum-
stances. I daresay there is no railway company
in the kingdom that either is not, or might not,
be within the range of this Sub-section 7 ; but,
as things stand, it is more in the interests of
what we call the southern companies, than it is
of the Midland or the Northern. Let me
read it, if you do not mind; it is that among
the charges that they may make under Section 5
are “charges in respect of waterside wharf ac-
commiodation provided by the company and special
services rendered by the company in respect of
loading or unloading into or out of vessels or
barges where no special charge is prescribed by any
Act of Parliament.” Now taking as illustrations the
condition of the southern companies and as affording
two or three good illustrations from them of what we
mean. The London and South Western, the Great
Western, and the London, Brighton, and South
Coast Companies have all of them got a waterside
wharf accommodation which is not at one of their
terminal stations, and docs not fall within the cate-
gory of a regular dock for which they have special
dock charges; in other words they have put up
certain waterside wharf accommodation, say on
the Thames for instance, which is outside their
terminal station, for any services rendered at
which they could not make any terminal charge
under
ON
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 217
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
22 April 1891.
under the terminal charges of these Provisional
Orders, at which they do render services out-
side of and in excess of the services performed
at an ordinary terminal station, and for which
they have no power to charge under any
Act of Parliament. For instance, the London
and South Western Company to take the
first instance that I have made a note
of, have such waterside accommodation at
Nine Elms or in the neighbourhood of Nine
Elms on the Thames; and there they do per-
form special services of a very expensive cha-
racter for some of their traders. Again, the
Brighton Company, I think it is, have a wharf
which is known as the Angerstein Wharf at
Deptford on the Thames, with a similar storage
of its own. That is the South Eastern Com-
pany, not the Brighton. The London, Chatham,
and Dover Company at Blackfriars, again, have
similar accommodation, and the Brighton Com-
pany at Battersea, I think it is; and at Dept-
lord too, I thought they had one at Deptford.
The Great Western Company have something of
the same kind at Chelsea and Bedford, and for
the services performed there the rate of terminal
charges to begin with are not enough ; and in
the next place the terminal charges do not apply.
There will be no power for us to make any
charges for the expensive services performed at
such places as those, unless we get a special pro-
vision for them in the Act of Parliament, or
rather in the Provisional Orders themselves
confirmed by Act of Parliament. I think it
will be necessary to put one or two witnesses in
the box to show you what these services are.
They have been, I think, in one or two cases the
subject of decision before the Railway Commis-
sioners, and very high allowances have been
given in respect of them. I may say that
we have a considerable amount of sanction for
this demand, for in the original report of the
i}oard of Trade, and in the schedule of maximum
charges which was appended to it by Lord Balfour
of Burleigh and Mr. Courtney Boyle, this sub-
section that we ask for, I think almost in the
words that we ask it, found a place, and it was Sub-
section 7 of their Clause 5. There the words run
in this way : “Charges in respect of wharf
accommodation provided by the company, and
special services rendered by the company in re-
spect of loading or unloading into or out of vessels
or barges.” That was to be found in the
Brighton Company's schedule. Now, the only
thing that we do is to limit that as against the
companies themselves, because we limit it to the
occasion “where no special charge is provided by
Act of Parliament.” With the exception of
those words, I think our Sub-section 7 is exactly
in the words of Sub-section 7 inserted in the
Brighton Schedule by the Board of Trade ; and,
in fact, I may say in all the southern companies’
schedules: I read it from the Brighton schedule as
a specimen, but I am told it is in all the others.
Now we ask for its re-instation ;
you think it right at any point ... to ask
Lord Balfour of Burleigh or Mr. Courtney
Boyle how it came to be dropped out
but if .
after it had been put in by their recommendation,
that is a matter that 1 must leave entirely to the
Committee, but I think it does want explanation.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle heard, a great deal of evidence upon this
subject ; and after they had heard the evidence
and all that I myself and my learned friend, Sir
Henry James, had to say upon the matter, they
thought it right to put in that sub-section. Some-
how or other the sub-section has dropped out, and
for reasons which we, of course, cannot analyze,
and it does leave now that it is gone, a hiatus.
and, I think, an improper hiatus, in the powers
for charges. It was in all the southern sche-
dules; it has now dropped out from them all;
and we ask to have it re-instated in them all.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not want
charges or services.
Mr. Pember.] No, wharf accommodation.
Mr. Boyle..] I appear, your Grace, for the
South Eastern Railway Company, it has been
mentioned by my learned friend merely to sup-
port what he said. I ask your Grace, if you think
it necessary, to be allowed to call a witness whom
I have here, who will tell you what a serious
matter it is for the South Eastern Company and
for others.
Chairman.] It is for you to think whether it
it is necessary, and not for me.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh j I should like to
say, your Grace, that the course proposed will
really be the right one. This sub-section was
put in at the last moment upon the request of
the southern companies. On reconsideration we
were not quite ceotain what the utility of it was ;
whether or not the purposes for which it was put
in might not be met under the clause which
allows the companies to charge for any accom-
modation or services provided or rendered by
the company within the scope of their under-
taking by the desire of the traders, and in respect
of which no provision was made by the sche-
dule. That is in the other class on page 14 of
this Order. I do not want to press that it is
properly to come under that clause. I simply
would like to say that this is a matter that stands
by itself and stands or falls on its own merits;
and if the southern railway companies, who
attach importance to it, make out a case, by
means of their witnesses for it, it is really a
matter for the Committee to judge of, and we
should not oppose it if the Committee in their
discretion thought fit to insert it.
Chairman.) Is there anyone opposing this
clause 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Oh, yes.
Chairman.] That is enough. Now will you
call your witness, Mr. Pember 2
Mr. Pember.] I will call Mr. George William
Staniforth.
(81.)
21.8
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
** *...,x* …º. º. º. < x. Aft:... ****** **sa-º-º-º-º-º-º:
sº. £as: “...sº-3-ºxºis**** -º-,
22 April 1891.
MR. GEORGE WILLIAM STANIFORTH, is called in ; and, having been sworn,
is Examined, as follows: --
Mr. Pember.
955. YoU are the goods manager of the
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway?—
I am.. -
956. I think the Brighton Company holds
several riverside wharves for merchandise traffic 2
—We have five more important wharves and
two minor ones. The most important of our
wharves is the one at Deptford, commonly known
on the river as Dead Man's Dock.
'957. How may we describe it? I see it is
described here as the Deptford Wharf adjoining
the Royal Victualling Yard, and the Surrey
Commercial Docks?—Yes, there is railway com-
munication from the wharf into the Surrey
Commercial Docks, besides which we have eanal
access to the water side canal of the docks, and
we have a railway into the Royal Victualling
Yard as well.
958. Besides that you have a whalf at
- Battersea adjoining the Grosvenor Bridge 2–We
have. -
959. And you have the Newhaven Wharf at
Newhaven Harbour on the River Ouse ?—Yes.
960. In Sussex 2–Yes. *
961. And, then you have the Kingston Wharf
at Shoreham Harbour on the River Adur 2–Yes.
962. Besides that you have the Littlehamptor,
Wharf at Littlehampton on the River Arun, and
two minor wharves at Ford Quay, Littlehampton,
and Langston Quay, Langston 2–The two last
are minor wharves of comparatively little import-
ance, but all the others are constructed specially
for waterside business.
963. And I think I am right in saying that the
Deptford, Newhaven, Kingston, and Littlehamp-
ton wharves, are wharves for the accommodation
of sea-going ships?--Yes, all of them. At Dept-
ford we can take ships of a 1,000 tons alongside,
and discharge them in ten or twelve hours.
964. And the Battersea Wharf, Ford Quay,
and Langston Quay, are wharves for the accom-
modation of barges or small sea-going ships?—
We can only deal with barges at those wharves ;
but we have a very large business there ; we have
valuable appliances in the way of steam cranes,
and all the accommodation that is required for
unloading barges quickly.
965. For none of these wharves do the com-
pany hold powers regulated by Act of Parlia-
ment other than those which govern the railway
generally; is not that so?—We have no special
power for any wharves; but the terminal clause
governs the railway generally, and we have
always considered that that sufficiently covers our
wharves under the words that entitle us to
charge for any services incidental to the duty or
business of a carrier.
966. So that if you had been left under your
existing Acts you would have considered that
your maximum power, plus terminal rates, to
charge terminals would cover expenses there 2–
It has already been proved in Hall's case that
the power exists.
Mr. Pember—continued.
967. And your feeling of security has proved
to be justified by the decision in Hall's case ?—
Yes ; but there was one point in Hall's com—
plaint that touched upon our charges at Deptford
Wharf. That matter was brought before the
Railway Commissioners, and in court it was.
withdrawn. The amount of our charge was
agreed with the consent of the Commissioners.
968. But now, supposing that your clause for
maximum charges (that is the one under your
special Acts of Parliament) is to be swept away,
and new powers under the Provisional Order
substituted, there must be special provision made
for these charges or you will lose the right to
levy them – I find nothing in the schedule
which proposes to provide for the powers that the
schedule proposes to sweep away.
969. In this schedule 2–Yes; in this sche-
dule. The power which we now hold we hold
undoubtedly by law.
970. Would the service and station terminals.
applicable to an ordinary railway station meet
the case of services rendered by the company in
respect of loading or unloading, &c., in the case
of these wharves 2–Not in any way whatever.
At Deptford Wharf we provide services out in
the river. First of all we have to provide dol-
phins and buoys out in the river; we have to
keep the stream in proper condition. All these
things are matters of great expense to the com
pany before even a ship gets alongside. *
971. And besides the riverside frontage, you
have provided there two docks, or basins, have
you not ?–Yes, we have two docks and basins,
and some 400 feet length of riverside frontage.
972. And I suppose the accommodation you
have provided there saves the merchant or trader
the cost of lighterage and second handling of
the merchandise?—In providing that costly pro-
perty, we had of course our own interest in
view ; but then we had at the same time the
interest of the merchant. The merchant would
otherwise have had to put his goods into a
lighter; there is the cost of putting it into the
lighter, the cost of conveying it by the lighter,
and the cost of unloading it out of the lighter.
All that is saved by bringing the ship at once
alongside our premises.
973. That amounts to a good deal per ton,
does it not ?—The cost that the merchant saves,
which he would incur before he reached our
premises, is more than the total amount we charge
him for the service we perform on landing.
974. I see you put the cost of lighterage alone
at from 1 s. to 1 s. 6 d. per ton 7–The lighter-
age alone may be said to save from 1 s. to 1 s.
6 d. per ton. *
975. The cost of putting into lighters is from 6 d.
to 1 s. a tom, is it not?—That would vary accord-
ing to the cost of the particular classes of goods.
I should think it would be from 5 d. to 1s.
976. You were talking of loading ships of
1,000 tons burden. . Letting them load, that
riverside
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
219
22 April 1891 ..]
Mr. STAIN FORTH.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
riverside accommodation would save them in the
case of coal, in breakage, by avoiding tranship-
ment into barges and out of barges?—Merchants
commonly put the value of saving the second
handling of coal to them at about 1s., a ton; that
is to say the breakage depreciates the value of
the coal to that extent, when it is haudled twice
instead of only once, as in the present case.
977. Will all those various matters that I have
mentioned come up to something like 3 s. 6d. a
ton as the maximum ?—They would amount to
nearly that sum.
978. What is your charge at Deptford 2–We
make a charge for all those accommodations that
I have mentioned just now ; that is to say the
use of waterside premises, the use of the river
bed which we keep in order, the use of dolphins
which the ships require for mooring, and bringing
their ships safely alongside, very often under
difficulty, with a very strong tide running up or
down the river ; and we have to render such
services as we can in keeping the ship even along-
side. Then we have very costly hydraulic ap-
pliances on the quay for unloading. We
provide the whole of the men in the hold of the
vessel, so that the crews of the ships do not
touch the cargo at all. We provide the men on
shore; we provide the buckets for lifting the
coal, and even the shovels; and we go so far a
to put gas lights, by means of elastic tubes, in
the holds of the vessels for the men to work by.
For those services and for landing we charge the
modest sum of l s. 6 d. a ton.
979. Still, taking Deptford as an illustration,
I think you hold it on a long lease?—We used
to hold it on a lease; but in 1878, 1 think it was,
we bought the premises at a cost of 50,000 l.
Since then we have laid out about 40,000 l. more
in machinery, and in improvements upon the
premises. -
980. And I think all your general merchandise
traffic in London is dealt with in your chief
goods depôt at Willow Walk, Bermondsey —
We should not require those provisions at all
except for river-borne traffic, because we have
our own general goods station at Bermondsey,
and could do the whole of our cartage business
there ; it is merely for waterside business that
we have incurred this duplicate expense of a
second station.
Cross-cxamined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
981. With regard to these wharves, did you
get them under Parliamentary powers ?—I think
we did. We bought them. I am speaking now
of Deptford particularly. I think we got special
powers to purchase.
982. And the Act of Parliament that allowed
you to purchase does not seem to have allowed
you to make any charge for them 2–I beg
you pardon. ſº
983. And the Act of Parliament that allowed
you to purchase does not seem to have allowed
you to make any charge for them 2–It made no
special reference to charges.
984. You claim that you have the right to
make certain charges under the words “duties
incidental to the business of a carrier’?—Under
this Act (holding up an Act).
held that under
Mr. Pember—continued. -
985. Have you looked at the terminal
clause that is proposed by this Committee ?--Yes.
986. Would you mind following that with me,
“ the maximum station terminal.” I will first of
all ask you this ; Your line comes down and
terminates at the wharf; take any one wharf?—
Yes, it does.
987. Then at that wharf you have what is
practically within the definition of a terminal
station ?--A second terminal station, and in the
case of Battersea a third terminal station in
London.
988. So that you would first be entitled to
charge for the terminal station at the wharf?—
Yes.
989. Now let us see if this does not cover it.
“The maximum station terminal is the maximum
charge which the company may make to a trader
for the use of the accommodation (exclusive of
coal drops) provided, and for the duties under-
taken by the company, for which no other pro-
vision is made in this schedule, at the terminal
station for or in dealing with merchandise as
carriers thereof.” –Yes, it is just that other
provision that we want.
990. I an aware of that. You have all along
the words “incidental to the
business and duties of a carrier" you could make
those charges 2—We have.
991. Under the words “dealing with merchan-
dise as carriers thereof,” can you not make them 2
—No additions to the schedules which are pro-
vided here that I can see,
Mr. Pember.] Where are you reading from ;
where are those words, “dealing with merchan-
dise as carriers thereof.” ” -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In Clause 3, “ dealing
with merchandise as carriers thereof.” (To the
Witness.) Let me understand what is intended to
be covered by this charge. You have described
what you do at certain places. You have deep-
ened the river ? – Yes, we have. -
992. You have put dolphins?—Yes.
993. You buoy and light?—Lighterage I do
not think we have.
994. Are you proposing to charge all that
under this indefinite charge 2–We are prºposing
one charge of one shilling and sixpence which we
make up to cover all those.
995. Indeed you are doing nothing of the sort.
You have not put one shilling and sixpence in the
clause —We have not ; but I am told by the
learned counsel here that that is the charge we
make. I do not ask for the sum of one shilling
and sixpence to be inserted.
996. You are asking for an indefinite charge,
the words being “charges in respect of waterside
wharf accommodation provided by the company
and special services rendered by the company
in respect of loading or unloading into or out of
vessels or barges where no special charge is pre-
scribed by any Act of Parliament” 2–We are
asking for a reasonable sum for those services.
997. Would that reasonable sum in your view
have to cover the deepening of the river, buoy-
ing, lighting and other services of that sort?—
The reasonable sum is to cover all the services
which we render and the accommodations which
we give.
(81.)
E E 2 998, Therefore
220
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
998. Therefore it would cover deepening of the
river ?—Yes.
999. Did you ever see a dock company or a
conservancy company get any such power to
charge an indefinite sum ?—I do not know any-
thing of the action of dock companies, but I
should think that their outlay must be covered by
their receipts.
1000. Do you know that the charges upon all
tonnage and all wharfage of goods are strictly
limited in every Dock Act 2—Sufficiently limited .
to leave them a profit.
1001. Do you know that there are dock com-
panies making a profit 2–When the business is
sufficiently large.
1002. Are the Hull Docks, for instance,
making a profit, do you know 2–
Mr. Pember.] We can admit that.
Chairmon.] Do not let us go into the Hull
and Barnsley Act.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Will you look at page
14 of the Order, and will you tell me why you
think that everything you want is not covered
by that. On page 14 of the London and North
Western Order there is an exceptional class,
“For any accommodation or services provided or
rendered by the company within the scope of
their undertaking by the desire of a trader, and
in respect of which no provisions are made by
this schedule.” I will deal with the last part.
There is no provision, you say, made by this
schedule for your 1 s. 6 d. 2-—I do not think there
IS.
1003. Why does not the first part cover it 2
“For any accommodation or services provided
or rendered by the company within the scope of
their undertaking by the desire of a trader?” P-
“By the desire of a trader.” I do not quite
see how a bargeman is ever to come to my
office to express his desire to be unloaded.
1004. I am obliged to you. The general
desire of the trader, you think, would not be
sufficient 2—The general desire of the trader
would hardly be expressed in such a manner as
to make it convenient for him to do his business,
I am quite sure of that.
Mr. STANIFORTII.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
1005. And whether it is by desire of the trader
or not, or for his convenience, you are to be
entitled to charge him 1 s. 6 d. for deepening the
river and putting dolphins, they having their
own 2–But he would not come to us if it were
not for his own convenience.
1006. Would you mind trying to answer my
question. Whether it is for his convenience or
at his request or not, do you propose to charge
him for the expense you did so undertake 2
—I do not think that such a question can
be answered at all. We know that a man does
not come to ask unless he comes for his own
convenience; he does not come for our con-
venience.
1007. Do you propose to charge him for every-
thing you have done in making Deptford Wharf
suitable for vessels 2—A railway company, like
every other trader, is entitled to make a small
profit out of its transactions, whatever it may
be.
I008. I am not concerned with these general
propositions?– Your question was a general
proposition.
1009. I asked a simple question, and you
answered it with a general proposition. How-
ever, I think, the rest is more for argument.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ram.
1010. In the clause we propose, you ask to
charge, amongst other things, after waterside
accommodation, for special services rendered by
the companies in respect of loading and unload-
ing ; do you mean those services to be rendered
at the waterside at the wharf?—At the wharf
front only.
1011. Them would you object to the insertion
of the words, “ special services rendered thereat
by the company ” —That is really a question
for the lawyers to settle.
1012. Are you asking to render the services
elsewhere than at the wharf?— No, I am not ; I
do not contemplate rendering the services any-
where but at the wharf premises.
\| R. CHARLES JOHN OWEN, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Noble.
1013. YoU are the Goods Manager of the
London and South Western Railway Company P
–-I am.
1014. And your company has, I believe, pro-
vided at considerable cost a wharf near Vaux-
hall Bridge 2–Yes, we have a very large wharf
there, about a quarter of a mile of river frontage.
1015. The river wharf was very expensive in
construction, and it is still, I believe, very costly
in regard to maintenance 2—We have th keep a
special class of men looking after the river wall,
and a special class of men looking after the river
bed, because owing to the scour of the tide there
it needs constant repair ; and further lhan that,
the company is liable for damages to barges,
Mr. Noble—continued.
which, owing to any irregularity in the bottom
of the river, they may incur by breaking their
backs.
1016. And very recently you had a very
heavy claim for damages, had you not ?—Yes,
and that notwithstanding the fact that we keep
special men to inspect the bed of the river.
1017. What number of barges do you load
and unload a month at that wharf 2–On the
average about 600.
1018. What is about the maximum number
you have there at a time – We frequently have
40 barges there.
1019. In connection with the wharf have you
provided very expensive steam cranes for the
purpose
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
22]
22 April 1891.]
Mr. Ow BN.
[Continued.
Mr. Noble
purpose of loading and unloading goods?—Yes,
we have four or five expensive steam cranes
there.
1020. And owing to the fall of the tide, does
it often happen that you have only two or three
hours a day when the barges could load 2–I
have been frequently at Nine Elms Wharf my-
self when the whole of the cranes and the men
employed have been entirely unoccupied owing
to the fact that they have dealt with the whole
of the barges that could lie alongside at high
water; I have been at Nine Elms several times
myself, and found the whole of the cranes and
the men employed in the work usually, abso-
lutely unemployed, owing to the fact that they
have dealt with all the barges lying alongside,
and it being low water they could not remove
those barges, and have had to wait till the next
tide before they could move them.
1021. And of course that would put you to
very considerable expense?—Yes.
1022. In fact, the cranes that you have provided
for that very purpose become absolutely useless,
do they not, for a large portion of the day ?—
They do.
1023. How do you deal with the trucks to and
from the wharf 2–The whole of the trucks which
are used on the wharfside have to be brought
across the Wandsworth-road from Nine Elms
Station, across the main road by horses and taken
to the riverside, the wharf being on one side of
continued.
the road and the station being on the other side
of the road.
1024. No engines are allowed to cross that
road 7–No.
1025. Then with regard to the shunting; how
do you do that?—The whole of the shunting has
to be done by horses owing to the numerous turn-
tables, and sharp angles on the river-front.
1026. Of course, traders who use this wharf
have the advantage of receiving the goods over-
side from ships in the Thames, and sending them
up in barges 2–That is so; and were it not for
this wharf they would have to unload from the
ships into barges, and then go from the barges
alongside some point in the River Thames from
whence the goods would have to be carted to Nine
Elms Station.
1027. And that, of course it goes without say-
ing, considerably increases the cost of taking it
between the ship and the railway ?—Yes, it would
double or treble their present out-of-pocket ex-
penses in getting from the ship to the railway
trucks.
Earl of Belmore.
1028. I do not quite follow that ?— I am
speaking of the difference between dealing with
goods direct from the ship through the barge
over our wharf, and goods being taken from the
ship to another wharf, and carted from such
wharf, which they would require if we had not
provided this wharf.
Mr. Noble.
1029. In your opinion, therefore, is it only just
that you should have an allowance for these
services 2—I think it is only just that we should
have an allowance for this reason, that they are
very considerably more expensive than the ser-
Mr. Woble—continued.
vices at an ordinary station, and therefore no
reasonable terminal that could be fixed could
cover those charges, and further, we do make at
the present time an additional charge for those
services, which is always paid without dispute on
the part of the trader.
1030. And in the original Order which related
to your railway company, there was a provision,
was there not, that you should be entitled to a
charge of this nature ?—That was so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1031. What original Order do you mean 2–
In the report of the Board of Trade to Parlia-
ment.
Mr. Pember. Or rather the Sheffield Order.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1032. It was only a schedule appended to the
Board of Trade Report. (To the Witness.) Let
me ask you how much did this Nine Elms
Wharf cost, a large sum ?—I believe the front
cost 40,000 l. •
1033. You did not expend 40,000 l of your
shareholders money, without Parliamentary power
I suppose ?—I believe not.
1034. Did you get no power to charge any-
thing for the wharf?—I believe we have no
power, but I am not in a position to say.
1035. Under what clause do you say at the
present time you make a charge?—We simply
charge for services rendered.
1036. Is this wharf of very great importance
to the South Western Railway Company; does
it bring a great deal of traffic that it could not
otherwise get 2–-I apprehend that everything
we get to supply the districts of the South
Western Company must have been brought to
the South Western Company. If it did not
come to the wharf it would have to come by
Cart. s
1037. Are there no places where you are in
competition with another company ?—Certainly.
1038. Do you mean to say if you have a wharf
and the other company has not, it does not give
you an advantage over that company ?—Another
company, if one company has a wharf, may find
it necessary to have a wharf, but if no company
has a wharf, every company will have to cart the
goods. -
1039. Where is the wharf 2–It is slightly
above Vauxhall Bridge.
1040. Close to your goods station ?—It is per-
haps 200 or 300 yards from it.
1041. And all along the top of the wharf there
are rails upon which trucks run, are there not ?
—Undoubtedly.
1042. Now a trader coming to that station and
using both the station and the wharf is to have
the advantage of the whole of the station use for
the terminal, is he not ?—I do not quite follow
Oll.
1043. The terminal he pays under the Order
would cover his use of the station, would it not ?
—Yes, of the station itself.
1044. Who is to tell where the station ends
and the wharf begins 2–The line of the Wands-
wrth road very clearly delimits or defines the
wharf from the station.
(81.)
E E 3 1045. In
222
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
22 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
1045. In your case ?—Yes.
1046. But in many cases it would not be so,
the rails running right on to the wharf, and being
partly station and partly wharf?— It might be
SO. * *
Mr. Pember.] We do not know such a case.
Mr. Balfour Browne. {
1047. I daresay you do not, but Mr. Owen
does. (To the Witness.) Do you know any other
wharves than your own 2– I do not know of any
wharves where you could not clearly say where
the railway left off and the wharf began.
1048. Which wharf are you speaking of when
you say that; do you know the Deptford Wharf of
the Brightou Company ?—I have in my mind a
wharf that I most recently saw at Bristol, where
there is a most distinct line between the two.
1049. Is that wharf owned by a railway com-
pany?—Yes.
1050. Which railway company ?—The Mid-
land Company.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poyser.
1051. Just a question about Nine Elms
Wharf. Do you now make a fixed charge for the
use of Nine Elms Wharf?—Yes, we do.
1052. The same in all cases 7–Yes.
1053. A tonnage charge 2–Yes.
1054. And that you can define as distinct from
the conveyance rate 2—We do so at the present
time.
Te-examined by Mr. Pember.
1055. Ths companies that you are mainly in
competition with are the Brighton, the Great
Western, and the South Eastern, are they not ?
—Yes. .
1056. They have all got wharves, have they
not ?– Yes, they have all got wharves.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pember.] I think, your Grace, those are
two fair specimens, and you probably will now
understand what the question is as to pointing
to what we ask, namely that inasmuch as the
sort of service we do there is far more expensive
than anything that is contemplated by services
provided for by the terminal clauses of the Act,
whether they are station terminals, or whether
they are service terminals, it is something quite
apart from them that we ask you to give us.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I should like, with your
Grace's permission, to call Mr. Wright, who is
the Goods Manager of the South Eastern Rail-
way Company. -
Chairman.] He would only corroborate what
these two gentlemen have already said.
Mr. Boyle. He would only confirm it.
Chairman.] Then I do not think you will
strengthen your case by calling him.
Mr. Balfour Browne.) In the first place, your
Grace, it seems to me that this refers only to the
railways south of the Thames. They have
called Mr. Staniforth, but we have had no illus-
tration with regard to any place on the north of
the Thames.
4-s-s
Earl of Belmore.] You had the Great Western
Company mentioned.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, by Mr. Owen.
Chairman.] Iłut this is a clause put forward by
Mr. Pember, and Mr. Pember states that it
chiefly applies to the southern railways, but he
does not say that there are no railways north to
which it either does not apply or may not apply,
and we have had the instance of the Great
Western.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I understood my learned
friend to say what your Grace has indicated, but
my learned friend has not called any bodv before
you except Mr. Owen, who incidentally in cross-
examination mentioned a wharf belonging to the
Midland Company at Bristol, and the other
witness that was going to be called was again the
general manager of the South Eastern Railway
Company, therefore in the first place I think
there ought to be a clear distinction drawn
between those companies that have such accom-
modation and those that have not ; but I say
it is most objectionable to give any company this
very large and undefined power. The Committee
lave fixed that there is to be a terminal which
is to be well defined ; that terminal is for the
use of accommodation differing at every different
station. You hear that at one place it may cost
next to nothing, and at another place it may be
very expensive. Now here we have what is in
the nature of what I may call a water terminal,
and it will be very difficult to distinguish between
the station of a company and the wharf, because
the two are often at one place, and you hear that
it is proposed in the first place to charge us a
terminal for the use of the station, and then to
charge a second terminal, or a water terminal,
and that is to be undefined altogether, for the use
of the wharf. But your Grace is there any ne-
cessity in this case for such a distinction ? The
last witness has just said that the terminal at
Nine Elms, “the water terminal as I call it,” is
perfectly well defined. He know what it is ; it
is always charged and it is so much upon the ton.
We leave it to be a matter of dispute to go
before the arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade. If there is a strong case for
this it ought to have been settled by the Board
of Trade, and dealt with definitely by a sum
fixed for that definite accommodation ; but the
only thing they put before the Board of Trade
was that in some cases there might be accom
modation provided which was to the benefit of the
trader, and there was no provision for the pay-
ment of that. The Board of Trade discovered
that, and it has covered it under the words “for
any accommodation provided or rendered by the
company within the scope of their undertaking,”
which is a most important provision, because
railway companies should not go beyond the
scope of their undertaking. You have had
this put before you in the vaguest possi-
ble way by my learned friends, they have not
told you whether they have got Parliamentary
powers for these wharves or not. Mr. Staniforth
says he believes he charges it under those words
“Incidental to the duties of the business of the
carrier.” If so, he has got those very words,
in the terminal under the clause, and he will be
able
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER
B II, LS.
2
22 April 1891.
able to charge it there and charge it again here ;
but surely he ought not to charge it twice over.
And then again Mr. Owen did not know, or could
not tell me, whether there was any power to
charge anything beyond that. If that is regu-
lated by the Act of Parliament, surely it would
have been important for your Grace to know
what that Act of Parliament is, and what the
charge was. Your Grace does not want to give
them power to charge it again. He gets power
to charge if under the Act.
Earl of Belmore.] At Nine Elms he cannot
charge it at the station. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He has told you dis-
tinctly that he proposes to charge not that, but
he proposes to charge the station terminal in the
station. At Nine Jºlms, supposing at the pre-
sent time they have power to charge 6 d. a ton
on every thing landed there.
Earl of Belmore. Put into the truck there.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, put into the
truck there.
Earl of Belmore.] In that case they will not
charge again for running into the station.
Earl of Camperdown.] They could not under
this schedule, because it says, “in respect of
which no provision is made in this Schedule.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not objecting, my
Lord, to the schedule, I say the schedule is suffi-
cient, but I was just calling your Lordship's
attention
important.
Earl of Camperdown.] What you said was
that he would charge twice over for it, and I say
that that is impossible.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Under this schedule,
my Lords, they could not charge it, but at the
present time they have power to charge for it
under the Statute, and you would give them
power to charge for it a second time. In the
schedule it is only “not otherwise provided for
in the schedule "; but even that is a great deal
better than their power. If it is all under that
word “carrier,” as Mr. Staniforth told you, if
you look back to the terminal clause they have
got it, and if it is otherwise provided for you do
not want to give them the second power at all.
Mr. Staniforth said it was always done under the
words “Incidental to the duties and business of
a carrier.” And in Clause 3, which you have
passed, you have got those words dealing with
the merchandise as a carrier; the very same
words, equivalent practically to the Brighton
clause ; and, under those words, I say it would
be very dangerous to introduce this new power.
They have been content to go on without
statutory power before and why should they have
it now 2
Lord Belper.] They say station terminal
would not be sufficient, as I understand.
Mr. Balfour 13rowne.] We have only had one
witness, my Lord, who said that the station
terminal would not in that particular case be
sufficient, but we have had no evidence as to
whether they really have not power at the
present time to charge it. If it would not be
sufficient, at any rate the clause as settled by the
JBoard of Trade would be sufficient for them.
to that point and I say it is most
Therefore I say that the Board of Trade sche-
dule is better than this Then, your Grace,
there is only one more thing that I would say,
and that is that they are again altering the
general law in a way that I say is unsatisfactory.
The Board of Trade have left their charge, sa
you see, “such reasonable sum as the company
may think fit in each case.” Now, in that
case we can go before the Railway Commis-
sioners, under Section 15 of the Act of 1873,
and by taking it out of this schedule they carry
it away to the arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade. At the present time, in the
case of all unfixed charges, we have a right to
complain to the Railway Commissioners. That
clause was specially kept in the Act; it was not
repealed, and, therefore, I say I prefer very
much to have it here in the schedule, when it
will go to the Railway Commissioners, instead of
having it inserted as another indefinite charge for
indefinite services amongst those mentioned in
Section 5.
Mr. Ram.] Your Grace, on behalf of the coal-
owners of South Wales and Monmouthshire, I
adopt all that my learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, has said, and I shall not travel over the
same ground again or address any further remarks
to your Grace upon those points. The points I
desire to draw your attention to, or two only.
The first is with regard to the wording of the
proposed new sub-section, and if your Grace will
kindly refer to the 5th Section of the Provisional
Order you will find that it will not run, I think,
at all as a matter of English, unless this altera-
tion is made, at all events with regard to the
first line, because the operative part of the section
is this: “The company may charge for the ser-
vices hereunder mentioned,” and then the
Committee have refused to insert the word
“ accommodation. Therefore, the whole sec-
tion now runs with reference to services;
the sub-sections are entirely with reference to
“Services.” No. 1 is “Services rendered,” and
all the rest down to 16 is all “ Services.” Now
if this proposed new sub-section comes in it
begins with charges in respect of waterside
accommodation, and there again they have the
Word “accommodation” which has been refused
by the Committee.
Mr. Pember.] Under circumstances.
Mr. Ram.] That may be so, but I am pointing:
out that there is some modification required, even
if the Committee think fit to leave to the com-
pany power to charge in the way they please;
I ventured to think that it would be sufficient if
it began with Special Services" in the second
line of the proposed new sub-section; that would
be for services that the company would then
have the power to charge for under Sub-
section 7, special Services rendered by the com-
pany at waterside wharves in respect of loading
and unloading. I submit that that would give
everything that the company are entitled to ask
for. Qf course I do not at all dispute what my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne has urged,
that in the opinion of the traders, the matter
had much better be left as the Board of Trade
haye left it, to be governed by this special regu-
lation on page 14, and that there is no modifica-
(81.)
E E 4 tion
224 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN
TEIE JOINT COMMITTEE
BEFORE
22 April 1891.
tion wanted. Neither of the companies is
entitled to charge more; they may charge under
that exceptional clause, namely, Part IV., on
page 14. -
Earl of Belmore.] Might not this happen?
Supposing that is left as it is, will not they be
tied down to the ordinary terminal charge 2
Mr. Ram.] I think certainly not, my Lord,
for this reason. The very object of this clause
is to enable them to charge something in addition
to the ordinary terminal charge.
Earl of Belmore.] A different and a higher one.
Mr. Ram.] Yes.
Mr. Pember. J That is what we ask,
Mr. Ram.] Then the only other remark I
would make is this: I asked one of the witnesses
the question, and I think it is plain that in order
to limit precisely that these services are to be
charged for, the charges of loading and unload-
ing, after “rendered,” there should be inserted
the word “thereat " I do not know whether my
learned friend objects to that. After the words
“special services rendered ” insert “thereat.”
Mr. Pember.] I do not object to that in the least.
Mr. Ram.] Then I am anxious to prevent the
possibility of special services rendered at some
places, other than waterside premises or water-
side wharves, being stated by the company to be
special services in connection with wharf accom-
modation, and therefore I am anxious to have,
after the words “special services,” or after the
word “rendered,” to insert the word “ thereat ; ”
and I understand Iny learned friend not to object
to that.
Mr. Pember.] Not in the slightest degree.
Mr. Yates.] I do not wish to repeat any of
the observations that have been made by my
learned friends, Mr. Ram and Mr. Balfour
Browne, but I wish only to say that the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire traders are quite in accord
with them in desiring that this amendment of the
railway companies should be excluded.
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace, as representing
traders who use Nine Elms Wharf, I should
object strongly to the clause going in in this
way, unless there is to be a statement that the
charges there are to be in lieu of terminals at
the station, because they charge us on the Nine
Elms terminal charge, and then, in addition,
they charge us this wharfage ; so I beg the
Committee to enforce that there shall be some
statement that the charges are to be in lieu of
the terminal charges which otherwise they would
make. The difficulty is, that we should be
charged both, and that is what the first witness
said would happen in this case ; that he would
be entitled to charge the two, the terminal and
this additional terminal as well.
Mr Pember.] I think that is a little baseless
fear upon the part of my learned friend. If
your Grace can imagine this traffic brought to
one of these wharves, say to Nine Elms Wharf,
and having been dealt with there, and having
had special services rendered to it there, after-
wards deposited for some purpose or other of the
trader at the terminal station of the South Western
Company and dealt with again there, and
having had special services rendered to it there,
then it can be charged twice over I agree, but
otherwise the condition of things that has been
suggested by the noble Earl will come about. If
the traffic is handled, and handled only at the
wharf, and thence sent straight away to its des-
tination upon the South Western Railway, it
follows that it will not be dealt with at the ter-
minal station at all, and therefore the state of
things that is alone contemplated will not come
about ; that is perfectly clear.
Mr. Pºyserl My learned friend says that, but
the proposed section does not say it.
Mr Pember.] Excuse me for saying that the
Section does say it; that is to say, the Provisional
Order says it in two sections taken together. If
you will look at the station terminal clauses,
and the service terminal clauses, Clauses 3 and 4,
you will see they say: “The maximum station
terminal is the maximum charge which the coin-
pany may make to a trader for the use of the
accommodation provided,” and “for the duties
undertaken for which no other provision is made.”
Is it not perfectly clear that, in the first place,
the trader must use the accommodation ; and
next, that the duties undertaken there are such
as “for which no other provision is made.”
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
Have you said all you wish to say about it?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] My Lord we gave
our opinion early when we said that it had been
put in at a late stage, and we would rather defer
to the judgment of the Committee after hearing
the evidence and arguments on both sides here,
because the matter had not been fully dealt with
as we thought before us at the previous inquiry.
Mr. Boyle.] I do not know whether the word
“thereat” has been accepted by the Committee.
Chairman.] We are now discussing whether
these words should be added; and then we shall
discuss, if it is carried, what the alteration should
be. The Committee agree to insert the words
proposed.
Mr. Pember.] If your Grace pleases, in order
to make it read well, in consequence of the fact
that the governing words of the whole section
are, “The company may charge for the services
hereunder mentioned;” then the words “ charges
in respect of" should come out, and it ought to
read in this way: “Waterside accommodation by
the company and special services rendered at
such wharves, waterside wharf accommodation and
special services rendered at such wharves by the
company in respect of loading and unloading.” I
think “ special services rendered thereat” would
do. “The provision of accommodation at a wafer-
side wharf.” I think, would be better, “by the
company, and special services rendered thereat.”
Lord Belper.] How would it do to leave out
“ accommodation,” and say “the provision at the
waterside wharf.”
M. r. fºr: I think that would hardly cure
it, my Lord. I think it should be : “the pro-
vision of accommodation at a waterside wharf by
the company, and special services rendered
thereat by the company in respect of loading and
unloading.”
Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to ask a
question upon the last words, because you say
where no special charge is prescribed by any Act
of Parliament. I thought, under this schedule,
that
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
225
22 April 1891.
that all the agreements and so on would be
recited. Ought you not to say “this schedule "?
Mr. Pember.] Would you like to have it in
this way in order to carry out what is in your
Lordship's mind? If it be that this schedule
does not repeal such special charges as Mr.
Mason has referred to, and that those will enure
they will be charges hereafter existing which
have been prescribed by Act of Parliament ;
but if I might venture to say so, I think the
criticism of the noble Earl is also sound, and that
there might be put in here, “prescribed by this
Provisional Order or by any Act of Parliament.”
Earl of Camperdown.] I have in my mind the
provision that has been referred to, where there
is no other special charge made in this schedule.
It was on page 14, if I remember right, which
Mr. Balfour Browne referred to, where there is
a description of a certain charge for accommoda-
tion and so on, and in respect of which no pro-
visions are made by this schedule. And then
you will observe that there is a very important
point involved in this. It is as to how far,
when this schedule has become an Act of
Parliament, and when the maximum rates laid
down in this schedule are fixed, all agreements
and so on which have been going on, and which
were created under a different state of things,
that is so say, under a different state of maxima
altogether as to whether they will or will not be
thereby expressly terminated. It is a very im-
portant point.
Mr. Pember.] Then I think, with all submis-
sion, that that is why what Mr. Mason said to
you is sound, and I do not know that I am not
really giving something away, but I think you
ought also to take care that there is no special
charge which has already been prescribed for by
this schedule which will not fall again under it.
Earl of Camperdown.] But the question is not
so much whether you are giving anything away,
but as to whether you may not be taking some-
thing.
Mr. Pember.] That is what I mean, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown || But will you just con-
sider it. -
Mr. Pember.] I will, my Lord, and I am in-
clined to say, as a matter of fairness, speaking now
not as an advocate, but amicus curia, that I think
it would be right to put “where no special charge
is prescribed by this schedule or by an Act of
Parliament.”
Chairman.] Would you like to consider this
and bring it up to-morrow !
Mr. Pember.] If your Grace pleases.
Mr. Poyser.] Then, your Grace, I should like
to move a proviso to this effect: “Provided that
the charges for such accommodation and services
shall be set out in the rate-books of the company.”
Your Lordships have already gone into the ques-
tion with regard to the rates.
Chairman.] Where do you propose your amend-
ment to come in 2
Mr. Poyser.] I am proposing it now, your
Grace. The question of setting out these rates
in the rate-book has been dealt with already to a
great extent, but I think the Committee have
been put off with a technical answer to the ques-
tions they have put. What I am asking here
is only what can be done, because the last witness
said they would separate the charges so that there
would be no difficulty in setting them out, and it
is a thing quite possible for them to do. Now
with regard to the reason of this, I will give
your Grace an instance which will illustrate
what I was going to say better than any amount
of argument. Supposing the maximum charge for
conveying a ton of merchandise is 10 s. from
point to point ; supposing the company act within
their maximum power and charge me an inclu-
sive charge of 10 s for the conveyance of my
merchandise from the place where I put it on the
railway to the place of delivery, I then want to
know out of my 10 s. how much is rate for con-
veyance and how much is station terminal, and
how much is this water charge. I cannot get it
for this reason. They gave what they deseribed
before the Board of Trade below the technical
answer that 10 s. is their charge for conveyance,
and I cannot get behind that, because that is
their maximum charge for the conveyance
of a fon of merchandise, and that is an
answer which binds me, and I cannot
then find out how much of my 10 s. is terminal,
how much is charged for this water rate, and
how much is conveyance rate. I ask them to
divide it, and their answer is that 10 s. is the
charge we charge you for conveyance ; that is
our maximum, and you must be content with
that answer. And, therefore, I ask you to give
us this proviso, that they shall set it out in the
rate books of the company. I propose the
words: “Provided that the charges for such
accommodation and services shall be set out in
the rate books of the company.”
Mr. Pember.] I think I can dispose of that in
a very short time. Your Grace has had this
very point before you by my learned friend
who appeared upon that amendment to leave out
Clause 5 altogether, the amendment of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, which pro-
posed to leave out Clause 5, and insert in lieu
theroof, “ The company may set out in the sta-
tion rate book and subject to their being so set
out and to the services being rendered may
charge such reasonable amounts,” and so on,
including in that “the collection or delivery of
the merchandise at the request of the trader.”
On that I pointed out first of all, and I will do
it again, that the charge which will be made
under this Sub-section 7 is one of the
charges over and above the conveyance
charge, just as carting and delivery was over
and above the conveyance charge, and apart
from the terminal charge, just as carting and
delivery was apart from the terminal charge,
which a trader, of course, can refute to have
charged to him because he can refuse to have it
done. It all comes under the same clause which
gives the trader the power of saying, “I do not
want to have this done.” It all comes under that
proviso at the top of page 4 of the Great
Western Order, ‘‘ Provided that where before
any service is provided for or rendered to a
trader, he has given notice in writing to the
company that he does not require it, the service
shall not be deemed to have been provided or
(81.)
F F rendered
:226
* *IINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint committee
* *
22 April 1891.
:
rendered at the trader's request or for his con-
venience.”
no charge can be made.
Grace, just as I argued about the carting and
delivery I argue about this. The law as it
stands gives him this abundant opportunity.
Under Section 33 of the Act of 1888, he can
first of all get printed copies of the classification
of the merchandise traffic, and a schedule of the
maximum tolls, ratés, and charges, and besides
that if he has a special change made to him under
Sub-section 3 he can then go and say: Now
look here, you have brought me certain goods
from your Nine Elms Wharf, we will say to
Basingstoke or Bishopstoke or any other place
upon the South Western Company’s line; now,
says he, I want you to split up that account for
me; and he can then get from them upon applca-
tion (there is no necssity for going before the
Railway Commissioners) an account of the way
in which the charge is made or claimed by the
company for the carriage of his merchandise;
that is, the actual charge made shall be divided
and the charge for conveyance over the railway
“shall be distinguished from the terminal
charges (if any), and from the dock charges (if
any) and if any terminal charge or dock charge
is included in such account the nature and detail
of the terminal expenses or dock charges in
respect of which it is made shall be specified.”
Now then I say with regard to these special
charges, as I said of carting and delivery, he can
first of all have the conveyance rates split away
from the terminal, and then having known
what those two are he can then know
by the simple process of arithmetic what the
special, charge is that is made to him besides.
In the case of carting and delivery, it would be
the charge made to him in respect of carting and
delivery. In respect of these special charges it
would be the special charges made under Sub-
section 7, and with reference to them, as with
reference to carting and delivery, he has only got
to prevent them being made anywhere by giving
notice to the railway company, under the proviso
at the top of page 4, that he does not want them
done any more, and the railway company will not
do them. •
Earl of Camperdown.] And supposing he said
both carting and delivery and wharf accommoda-
tion. -
Mr. Pember.] He cannot.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] One at one end of the
journey and the other at the other.
Mr. Pember.] But the goods cannot go back-
wards and forwards; I mean, for instance, a ton of
goods come to Bishopstoke Station ; in the first
place he can give a notice; he can cure it in both
instances. It is perfectly clear he can do that at
each end what he can do at one; he can give
notice at each end that he does not want them to
cart and deliver, and that he does not want any
wharfage services at this end, and having done
that, he says: Now then about those charges,
tell me what the rate will be from Nine Elms to.
Bishopstoke, and we are obliged to tell him, we shall
be obliged to split it up into the conveyance rate
plus the terminals at Nine Elms, and therefore he
is perfectly happy. He can say: I know exactly
\
Now if he does not want this done,
Now, then, your
charge was a couple of shillings.
'',
now what you charge me for carting and deliver-
ing, and I know now exactly what you charge
me for terminal charges, or he can give notice of
one. Let us suppose for instance that if the
railway company take a ton of coals in at the
riverside wharf and take it down to Bishopstoke.
and cart it for two miles from Bishopstoke station.
We will say that the total rate was 12 s. We
will suppose for a moment, that the riverside
Now then.
that leaves 10 s. for the terminal charge at Nine
Elms, if there be any, for the conveyance rate
down to Bishopstoke and for the carting from
Bishopstoke Station. Now let us suppose that
the terminal was 6 d.; that leaves 9 s. 6d. for .
conveyance and for cartage. Let us suppose that.
the cartage was half-a-crown and that therefore
would leave 9 s. 6d. ; that would be 7 s. for the
conveyance alone. Now the problem that I
fancy your Grace and colleagues want to solve is.
how is a gentleman to find all that out; how is.
he to find out all that sub-division step by step.
Earl of Camperdown.] For that 4s. 6d.
Mr. Pember.] I can only do it step by step,
but I am perfectly willing to make it easier still.
I will say first that such charges shall be con-
sidered dock charges within the meaning of Sub-
section 3 of Clause 33 of the Act of Act of 1888.
Now that dispenses with the rest of the illustra-
tion. I think we must bring that up, but I will
tell you what it will be in effect, “ that for the
purpose of the proyision of Sub-section 3 of Clause
33 of the Act of 1888, the above charges shall.
be considered dock charges within the meaning
of the sub-section.”
Mr. Poyser.] I do not think that that
will quite satisfy us in regard to what we
we want to know, that is to say, not that these
charges shall be within that Act. I have not
got the wording of the Act here now, the Dock
Charges Act, 1888. This is practically useless;
this is exactly the same technical answer that
thfy have been giving before. What they want
to assume is this, that they are charging the
maximum in every instance; that is the illus-
tration my learned friend put before the Com-
mittee; but that is not so. In nine cases out.
of ten they charge something below their maxi-
IIllll]].
Mr. Pember.] That has nothing to do with the
maximum charges. . -
Mr. Poyser.] Pardon me.
Mr. Pember.] I cannot pardon you, indeed ;
I am very sorry.
Mr. Poyser.] I am not saying that Section B.
has anything to do with the maximum charges.
Mr. Pember.] There you are wrong again ; it
has to do both with maximum charges and actual
charges, and this is the third time I have said:
that there is a distinction between Sub-section 2.
of Section 33, which deals with the maximum
charges and Sub-section 3 which deals with
actual charges. !
Mr. Poyser.] I follow that very carefully, and
I see exactly how it carries out the technical
answer that is given by the companies, that is to
say, when their maximum charge is higher than
- * the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
2
2
7
22 April 1891.
the dock charge, plus the actual conyeyance
rate, their answer is not under this Section 33,
but their answer is, we are only to set this out
where we make such charges, if any, and we do
not make any such charges because our maxi-
imum is an addition to the whole thing; our
maximum charge is 10s. ; conveyance, 5 s. ; dock
charges half a crown ; terminals half a crown ;
and we are not bound to set out those two half
crowns because we do not make the charge. That
is the answer they make to us. The 10s. is the only
charge we make to you, and therefore that is the
only conveyance charge, and that is the answer
by which we are bound. There is Tomlinson’s
case decided this very year before the Railway
Commissioners, in which it has been held that if
the total amount of charge be within their maxi-
mum rate, they are not bound to split it up and
divide it in the way we want it divided. J think
the Committee will see that the companies can
do this. Why will not they do it if they can do
it? There is some object behind it; and it is in
order that they may save this technical answer,
nnd that they may not be compelled to go into
terminal and dock charges, but may say: Here
is our maximum rate; that is quite sufficient for
you, you shall be bound by that maximum rate.
That is the position they are taking, and if your
Grace has noticed the argument of my learned
friend is that he has assumed the charge for con-
veyance as the maximum charge all through.
Chairman.] No, I did not understand his
argument in that light.
Mr. Poyser.] Practically, if his argument is a
substantial argument, that is the only way in
which he could arrive at it, because he says, you
must deduct the maximum rate for carriage, and
you must find out that there is something left,
and what is the terminal or dock charge.
Lord Belper.] Do you contend that, if it is
within the maximum, the railway company need
not give an answer as to how it is split up.
Mr. Poyser.] Yes, it is.
Lord Belper.] Where is the clause which
shows that it gives them that power P
Mr. Poyser.] Tomlinson's case; I will bring
up the point of that case to-morrow.
Chairman.] I want to know what interpreta-
tion you put upon these words in Sub-section 3
of Clause 33, which says that they shall “render
an account to the person so applying, in which
the charge made or claimed by the company for
the carriage of such merchandise shall be divided,
and the charge for conveyance over the railway
shall be distinguished from the terminal charges
(if any) and from the dock charges (if any).”
Mr. Poyser.] “If any ” are the words, and
the answer we always get is :
none of these charges because it is included in
the maximum rate and therefore you are not
entitled to them.
2
Lord Belper.] Surely in that case the railway
company would be making a false statement.
They have got the dock dues before them and
they are asked to make a rate and they say: No,
there are no dock dues; there is nothing charged
for dock dues because they are covered by your
maximum rate.
Oh no there are
Mr. Poyser.] But in the Court below they did
not put it in that way, what they said was that
it was a technical answer.
Chairman.] Never mind what they said in the
Court below, what we are dealing with is what
we have now before us. Do you mean to say
that the Company would say that they are
making no charges for either terminals or for
dock charges at the same time that they knew
they were making both.
Mr. Poyser.] Exactly so, they would give that
technical answer.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We said it was not
true and they said it was a technical answer.
Mr. Poyser.] That was so, I have pointed out
that those words “if any ” contain the whole pith
of the matter.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I argued the case of
Tomlinson. and upon that very ground, both
under this section and under Section 14 of the
Act of I872, and the Commissioners decided
against us. The Commissioners said if the total
charge is under the maximum neither can you
get it under this section, nor can we order it
under Section 14, therefore we are absolutely at
their mercy.
Lord Houghton.] Therefore it defeated the
whole object of the section.
Mr. Balfour Browne. It did.
Mr. Pember.] What my learned friends are
now saying is that the general law of 1873 and
1888 is absolutely illusory, and they are asking
you, sitting there for a definite purpose, to do
something under Section 24 of the Act of 1888,
to alter Section 3 of the Act of 1873, and Section
33 of the Act of 1888, and Section 14 of the Act
of 1873.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle).] Might I ask you a question ? Is the
Board of Trade of opinion that under the existing
law, when reinforced by this schedule, it will be
in the power of the trader to have the charge
which is made to them split up in the way we
have spoken of, provided that the total charge is
not in excess of the maximum conveyance rate.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I happen to know
the intention of Section 33 of the Act of
1888, because I was sitting in this room
when the Act was passed. The intention
of it was clearly that the trade should have the
power to have his raies split up into all its com:
ponent part, every single component part of
whatever kind. The words “if any ” were put
in because in certain rates there are no dock
charges at all, and therefore it was necessary to
put in “if any.” That is clearly the intention of
the Act of i888. Now the contention of the
traders is that the railway companies get over it
because they say that the whole charge is covered
by the authorised conveyance rate. Therefore
for the purpose of giving an answer to your
Lordship's question, we will say we make nothing
except the conveyance rate. That is the traders'
contention. Whether or not that would operate
in future I do not know. I venture to think it
would not, for a reason which has not been laid
before you up to the present time, and that is that
(81.)
F F 2 the
228
• MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
the railway companies dare not say that the whole
of this is conveyance, rate; because in another
case, where they might wish to set out dock
charges they would have to show so much lower
a conveyance rate as would put them at once in
danger of an undue preference.
Mr. Pember.] They make it an undue prefer-
€IłC6.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They dare not do it.
Here it is. Look at the schedule; they put it in
themselves, and whenever it is under the maxi-
mum they do not put anything for loading or un-
loading, covering or uncovering, collection or
delivery, or anything. This is Tomlinson's case,
and it was found justified by the Railway Com-
missioners under these very clauses, and the Rail-
way Commissioners deal with undue preference
(handing in the same).
Mr. Hanbury.] Do the Board of Trade see
any way bo which this difficulty can be met or
how the can prevent the railway companies from
shifting it from docks and terminals.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, Sir, not by way of
amending the general Act in a clause in a Pro-
visional Order Confirmation Bill.
may be possible that the Act of 1888 can be
made more clear. Personally, in my own humble
view, I say that it ought to be made more clear,
but I do not think it should be made more clear
by a clause in the Provisional Order.
Mr. Poyser.] If they set out the rate that
would do.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But you are dealing
with the rates in this, and why should you not
make it clear that we should be charged ? We
challenged that and said that is not a compliance
with the Act, and Mr. Justice Wills, in his judg-
ment, said distinctly that he considered “such an
application,” that was the application of the
traders, “ought never to have been made. The
company have obeyed the order.”
Earl of Camperdown.] That is the law at
present.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes,
Mr. Pember.] That is subject to appeal, but
will your Grace allow me just to supplement
what Mr. Courtenay Boyle said with reference
to my proposal under that sub-section. I say
make them dock charges under the sub-section
of the Act of 1873, and then they and all others
will stand and fall with all the general rights of
traders to have rates split up, and if the general
law proves to be insufficient on approval, then the
general law will be amended, and we shall be
obliged to split up these charges along with all
others, but if you were to simply tinker the Act
of 1888, Sub-section 3 of Clause 33, with regard
to this one matter, you would have it amended
with reference to everything else and prevent
the general use of it. Surely the best thing to
do is to do what I say, namely, to make these
included in some charge or other which is named
in that Sub-section 3, namely, dock charges, and
then leave it to the general law to alter that
along with everything else, and give the trader
the right that he has not got now, if he has not
got it, but I am bound to say I am astounded to
my Lord, it is.
22 April 1891.
We think it
hear that he is likely to be held liable to the
law. It is not law yet.
Chairman.] What are your words, have you
got the words, Mr. Poyser, that you wish to
add 2 • * * -- \
Mr. Poyser.] The words I suggested were,
“Provided that the charges for such accommoda-
tion and services should be set out in the rate
books of the company.”
The Committee deliberate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace
mind my saying that this has rather forcéd our
hands. We have a substantial clause to deal
with, the whole matter to be dealt with at the
end of this schedule, and I think, with great
respect, it would be as well to postpone it until
then.
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The effect of it would
be that if you adopt this policy even just now,
and you adopt our clause, you would have to go
back and strike out the proviso. §
Chairman.] What we are now discussing is
whether the proviso that Mr. Poyser proposed
should be added to this clause. That is what
we are going to make up our minds about.
Mr. Balfour Browne. May I point out this,
your Grace : that Mr. Poyser's amendment only
deals with dock charges. Now, of course,
we desire in the same way to catch them on ter-
minal services. In the case I have been referring
to, Tomlinson's case, it was not dock charges at ali,
it was loading, unloading, covering and uncover-
ing, collection and delivery, and there, because
they were charging under the maximum for con-
veyance, they said, We are charging you
nothing. It seems to me that it would be wrong
to deal with it on dock charges without consider-
ing the other question. -
Chairman.] You do not want the proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not, with great
respect. w
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] On that, might I
say one word P : I am sorry to intervene, but
does not this show to the Committee that really
a little more organization on the part of those
who are moving amendments is urgently re-
quired, because here an hour or two has been
occupied in arguing about this proviso, which it
turns out some of the traders think, or some of
the leading counsel think, would be better met
by a general provision.
Chairman.] However, what we have decided
now is not to insert the words proposed by Mr.
Poyser. We shall then discuss the clause, as
amended, or proposed to be amended, by Mr.
Pember to-morrow morning.
Mr. Pember.] Quite so.
Chairman.] You will bring it up, and then
we will either receive it or reject it.
Mr. Poyser.] I understand, your Grace, that
that is in view of the clause to be brought up by
my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne here-
after. Your Grace has rejected the proviso as
suggested
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
229
22 April 1891.
suggested, on the ground, I understand, that a
separate clause is to be brought up hereafter
dealing with the matter. -
Chairman. Certainly not ; that is not the
ground. The decision of the Committee was,
purely and simply, that they declined to insert
the provision which you brought up. The
clause was, by agreement, to be amended by
Mr. Pember. It will be brought up the first
thing to-morrow morning, and we shall then
hear arguments upon it.
Mr. Pember.] The principle of the Sub-clause
being, of course, adopted.
Chairman.] Yes.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.)
( 230 )
( 231 )
Die Jovis, 23°
Aprilis, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDown.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
The Counsel and parties are ordered to be called in.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace
allow me to mention a preliminary matter P
Your Grace has said, and we quite follow your
decision, that new clauses should be brought up
at the end. It seems by the number of amend-
ments that have been put in with reference to
clauses between 6 and 27, that that end will not
be yet. There are a great number of people who
are interested merely in the part of the Bill you
are on just now, that is to say, Clauses 1 to 6;
and I would ask your Grace whether you propose
to take the new clauses which would naturally
come in the first part of the Bill, at the end of that
part, or, whether it will be necessary to wait on
and see when the end of the Bill is come to,
either the one or the other. I am entirely in
your Grace's hands. If you say you will not
deal with them until the end the people might
go away; but if you say you will deal with them
now then they will wait.
Chairman.] Do you mean at the end of the
Bill P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At the end of this part,
that is to say before you touch Clause 7. You
will see that Clause 7 begins a new thing : “PRO-
VISIONS AS TO FIXING RATES AND CHARGES.”
Chairman.] What I think would be con-
venient is this : that if there are any new clauses
which refer to Clause 6, then we should take
them at the end of Clause 6.
Mr. Balfony Browne.] There are several new
clauses which would naturally follow on Clauses
1 to 6. Then I understand that you would
take those new clauses after Clause 6.
Chairman.] I think we ought to take the new
clauses that touch upon each particular clause.
Mr. Pember.] Have we got them all 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I understand so.
Chairman.] Part I. finishes with the 36th
line. Then we had better take all the new
clauses that refer to that.
Mr. Bidder.] Might I sugest, your Grace
while you are upon that subject, that new clauses
come in from time to time, and it would be con-
vetient to the railway companies if the Com-
mittee would fix some date within which all new
clauses should come in, so that we may have
them printed. We never know when we have
got to the end of them. n
Mr. Pember.] Say Monday next, your Grace.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That will scarcely do,
because there are lots of new clauses that have
to be considered, after some amendments have
been made ; they are consequential upon amend-
º and therefore we cannot absolutely give
them.
Chairman.] That would be a consequential
clause; it would not occur very often. I think
we should get all the new clauses done for the
convenience of the Committee; we never know
where we are.
Mr. Pember.] I think we ought to have them
by to-morrow morning.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You shall have them
by to-morrow morning, all that I am concerned
for.
Chairman.] With respect to these new clauses,
it would be convenient if it is possible that all
traders, say, should as much as possible confine
themselves to one clause, where it touches the
same thing; and where there interests are identi-
cal ; because yesterday we had several clauses
all going to one point; and that really confuses
the Committee.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It does, your Grace.
So far as my own clients are concerned I have
requested them to see that they are not bringing
up two clauses covering the same ground, but to
agree upon a clause that covers their interests.
Mr. Pember.] And the others ought to agree
upon that.
(81.)
E F 4 Mr.
32 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN IBEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.
Mr. Poyser.] I should like to ask your Grace
whether independent traders who are not repre-
sented on the Mansion House Committee will be
heard upon that clause. We should be quite
content with that. We may have witnesses to
call upon the point; but it would simplify, of
course, the position very much if we could adopt
any clause put in by the general body of traders,
and treat it as our own clause, and be heard upon
it.
Chairman.] You will be heard upon anything
with the four corners of your petition ; you
cannot go outside that.
Mr. Poyser.] I quite follow that, your Grace;
but we may be heard upon the clauses, if they
are within our petition, that may be suggested by
somebody else.
Mr. Pope..] But how many are to be heard
upon a clause ? There can be no difficulty in
their tendering their witnesses upon a clause;
but if we are to have 20 advocates upon a clause
where shall we be?
Mr. Poyser.] Then we should have to tender
a clause of our own.
Chairman.] We will deal with the question
when it arises.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Your Grace will not
take new clauses to-day ; they must be in by
to-morrow morning. I mean that we are keeping
people here who might go away.
Earl of Belmore.] Is your clause in that we
were talking of yesterday, the particular clause
you were upon yesterday, which you said you
would bring up to-day ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is in.
Chairman.] There were some clauses which
you said you would draft. Those, I suppose, are
in existence 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, your Grace, they
are, and I believe they are absolutely in print
already, and have been handed in.
Chairman.] Therefore we can deal with them
to-day.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Chairman.] The remaining part of Clause 2 °
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes. -
Mr. Pember.] And also what I promised to
bring up 7
Chairman.] Yes, but we will wait for that.
Mr. Balfour Browne wants to know whether
these gentlemen can go away.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We will wait, in case
your Grace can deal with it to-day.
Mr. Pember.] Now, your Grace, what I have
to do is twofold. First of all, I have to announce
with regard to the amendment we suggested for
the purpose of amplifying the services at or in
connection with sidings, and the receiving and
delivery of merchandise to and from such sidings,
which words you cut out, but with regard to
which we said we should like to have an amend-
ment covering traffic in connection with sidings,
we have made up our minds not to press that
amendment, and so you will not be troubled
with it.
Chairman.] Very well. Then Sub-section 1 will
read, “Services rendered by the company at, or
in connection with, sidings not belonging to the
company ”; and there it stands.
Mr. Pember.] There it stands.
Chairman.] And there is no objection now to
that sub-section ?
Mr. Pember 1 I think not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] None.
Mr. Pember.] Then I promised to bring up
on line 23 of Clause 5, that Sub-section 7 which
is to deal with the provision by the company of
accommodation at a waterside wharf; and we
have put the verbiage of that straight, and I will
tell you exactly how we have dealt with the
points raised afterwards, more particularly by the
noble Earl. I will read the sub-section as we
propose it: “The provision by the company of ac-
commodation at a waterside wharf and special ser-
vices rendered thereat by the company in respect
of loading or unloading merchandise into or out of
vessels or barges”; and then we put the proviso
which I promised to put, to this effect, “ Provided
that charges under the sub-section shall for the
purposes of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, be deemed
to be dock charges.” That was in order to put
these charges on exactly the same footing that
the general law puts other charges with regard
to splitting. Of course, if hereafter you think
fit to alter the general law generally, then
this proviso will be subject to such altera-
tion; but I deprecate now, as I did yester-
day, the altering of the general law with regard
to these particular charges, and making them
distinct from any other. I think it is only
right I should point out to you that, as it
stood yesterday, there were some words that
followed the word “barges,” and which would
come before our words, “ Provided that,” to this
effect: “Where no special charge is prescribed
by any Act of Parliament.” But for the present,
at all events, I should ask you to leave those
words out; and for this reason : No doubt you
will have to consider before you come to the end
of your labours what the effect of this Act of
Parliament as suggested by the noble Earl would
be upon pre-existing legislation; and looking at
the thing as carefully as I can, and coming to a
conclusion about it, it does seem to me as though
in the absence of any special declaration, this
Provisional Order, when it passes into law, will
be a document which contains the only charging
powers of the company ; , and therefore those
words, “Where no special charge is prescribed
by any Act of Parliament,” would not be neces-
sary, because there would be mone, unless they
were specially reserved. If they are specially
reserved they can be dealt with. But this is not
merely in reference to any particular company
which might have its special charges hereafter
reserved ; but it has to do with all the railways
of the country ; and therefore as the thing stands
it seems to me that those words are absolutely
unnecessary; and I would ask your Grace, at all
events, de bene esse, as folks say, to take the pro-
vision without those words. Hereafter, if it is
found
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
233
23 April 1891.
found necessary in consequence of anything that
your Grace hears, or anything that your Grace
may do to put such words in, that can be done at
any time; it can be understood that the matter
cad be referred to again, if the Committee think
it necessary.
Further, while that point was before you, I
incautiously said something about putting in
words to the effect, “ by this Provisional Order.”
or “by this schedule.” But I was told at the
time (ſ confess I did not attach the same impor-
tance to the warning that I ought to hay?
attached to it), that it would not do, and it will
not do ; and I think your Grace will be persuaded
of that in a moment. If those words were in:
and the clause ran, in fact, “where no special
charge is prescribed by this schedule,” the whole
intention of the sub-section would be done away
with ; because the intention of the sub-section is
that under the peculiar circumstances of these
waterside wharves, and of the class of services.
rendered therea', and the expensive character of
the services rendered, and the special character
of the services rendered, and also that they are
outside terminal stations properly so called, it is
right for all those reasons that the work done
there should be made matter of special charge.
Now as a matter of fact, when I look at the
definition of a terminal station, I find that it
might be considered large enough to include
such a place as this, so far as the mere termin-
ology goes. Let me just read for a moment
what the definition of a terminal station is.
“The term ‘terminal station means a station
or place upon the railway at which a consign-
ment of merchandise is loaded or unloaded before
or after conveyance on the railway.” Take any
one of the cases which will still be in your
Grace's mind that you heard of yesterday : it is
quite clear that the merchandise loaded at one of
these riverside wharves would come under the
definition of merchandise loaded or unloaded
before or after conveyance on the railway at a
place upon the railway; because the railway
comes down there, and therefore it might be
contended that that was a special charge which
was made already under the terminal station
clause in regard to this traffic. But as a matter
of fact, at the same time it was held that the
object of this provision would really not be
attained, because you would not have the special
charges which the peculiar character of this traffic
I understood your Grace's judgment thought
sufficient to demand. Therefore those words
ought to come out, and as I said yesterday, and
perhaps you will bear with me if I repeat it, the
trader is perfectly safe against the double charge ;
because, as I pointed out yesterday, the maximum
station terminal is the maximum charge which the
company may make to a trader for the use of the
accommodation. If he does not use the station
itself properly so called, if he has used this water-
side accommodation, then it is quite clear that
he will not be liable to the station terminal.
Again, with regard to the service terminal, the
service terminals are only for the services per-
formed at a station, and unless some fresh ser-
vice is performed at the station the service
terminal charge will not be made ; it cannot be
made against that particular trader. Under
those circumstances there is no danger whatever,
which I rather apprehend there might be at the
moment I spoke, of the trader being charged
twice. If on the other hand when his traffic
arrives at the waterside accommodation, is loaded
there, and if it has to be afterwards taken, for
any of the many purposes connected with the
distribution of traffic, to the terminal station
itself, and there has to be dealt with again, that
is to say, has to be unloaded into fresh waggons
or distributed by cartage and delivery into the
terminal station, which last is possible (it may
well be that traffic comes up and down the
Thames to a station siding, and has to be loaded
at the terminal station, sent to Nine Elms, and
then sent over London to Kensington and else-
where); it is quite clear that if fresh services
have to be performed there the trader ought to
pay ; but if no fresh services are performed, then
under Clauses 3 and 4 he can be charged neither
for station accommodation nor terminal service.
On the whole, therefore, I ask you to accept the
clause as I have drawn it, with the single excep-
tion that there may be something to be said here-
after in case your action should be of a particular
character with regard to the general law.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am sorry that my learned
friend has had to go back upon what he said
yesterday. He first said that the words he would
add would be “prescribed by this Provisional
Order or by any Act of Parliament,” and he
further went on to say that he would put in this,
which we thought a most important addition :
“Where no special charge is prescribed by this
schedule or by an Act of Parliament.” Now, in
this case, he has left out all that, and he says on
the ground that this Provisional Order would be
their only power for charging. My learned friend
must have said that under an entire misappre-
hension. In the Act of 1888 the Board of Trade
never had before them any dock charges, any
wharf charges ; the matter was never left to
them at all, the matter was never discussed, and
never decided. For instance, the London and
North Western Railway Company have an Act
for making certain charges at Garston Dock;
those charges will all remain untouched; and yet
on the back of them they proposed to put in this
clause which would give them the power twice
over. Let me suggest this to your Grace.
Nothing, of course, is beyond the power of
Parliament; but it seems to me entirely beyond
the intention with which Parliament sent this
matter to the Committee. You were to deal, as
I understood it, with railway charges only, and
not with dock and not with wharf charges, with
nothing beyond railway charges. If they want to
charge anything for these things they either have
the power at the present time or they have not.
lf they have it, this proposal of my learned
friend's will give it them twice over, and my
learned friend said that he would bar that by
putting in “Where not regulated by any Act of
Parliament or by this Provisional Order”; and
he has now pointed out that under this very
order itself he would have a power to charge a
terminal. He says that terminal station means
a station or place upon a railway at which a con-
signment of merchandise is loaded or unloaded.
Nine Elms Wharf is distinctly that ; Deptford
(81.)
G G Wharf,
.234
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.”
Wharf, which you have heard about, is distinctly
that. So that they have got that power in the
terminal already, this very thing ; it must have
been considered. And notwithstanding that, he
proposes to put in “The provision by the com-
pany of accommodation at a waterside wharf and
special services rendered thereat by the company
in respect of loading or unloading,” without any
qualification at all. -
With regard to the latter part of the clause, I
have nothing to say against it just now. If
you adopt the first part, the latter part of the
clause—- e
Earl of Camperdown.] But that is so.
Earl of Belmore.] We have adopted the first
part, * -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The latter part, I dis-
tinctly said yesterday, will have to be considered
when you consider my alternative clause ; and I
|believe that if you adopt my alternative clause
you will come back and strike out this first part
of my learned friend's clause ; but if you do not
adopt it, it is somewhat in my favour. But my
learned friend has not carried out what he dis-
tinctly said was to be in our favour, namely, that
this was not to be an addition to their powers.
Chai, man.] I am reminded that we passed
this clause yesterday down to the word “barges,”
and, therefore, we must not go back upon that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so, your Grace ;
but that was on the understanding that my
learned friend, Mr. Pember, would bring up
those words, providing that nothing in this
section was to affect these powers where they had
them under existing Acts of Parliament.
Chairman.] I think you are overstating it
there.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Let me read the words
that my learned friend, Mr. Pember, used.
Chairman.] What did we say ? That is the
point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will read exactly
what took place. I see first that my learned
friend, Mr. Pember, was asked to consider it,
and then my Lord Camperdown said, “But the
question is not so much whether you are giving
anything away, but as to whether you may not
be taking something.”
Earl of Camperdown.] By the proviso.
Chairman.] I am pretty sure I am right. We
passed the first part of the clause down to the
word “barges”; but there was no bargain or
understanding between us and counsel as to
whether those words were only to stand in the
event of his bringing up something. We passed
it to the word “ barges,” and now I think you
should direct your remarks to the latter part of
the section.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] On the latter part of
section which was then under discussion, my
learned friend, Mr. Pember, said, “That is what
I mean, my Lord. (The Earl of Camperdown.)
But will you just consider it 2 . (Mr. Pember.) I
will, my Lord ; and I am inclined to say, as a
matter of fairness, speaking now, not as an ad-
vocate, but as amicus curia, that I think it would
be right.” This is on page 7.
—&
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That is not from
the official Report. - * *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not got the
official Report, my Lord. “I think it would be
right to put, ‘Where no special charge is pre-
scribed by this schedule or by any Act of Parlia-
ment.’” That of course went to the whole section.
Mr Hanbury.] What is the special object you
are driving at ; is it to prevent a double charge 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so, and to pre-
vent your doing something which I do not think
is in the intention of the Committee, legislating
for dock and wharf charges, which are not before
you, and which are already regulated by Act of
Parliament. .
Mr. Hanbury.] We have done that.
Chairman.] But that we have done; that we
have passed. - 2.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If you put these words
in, my Lord, you will give them the power,
where they have not got an Act of Parliament,
to charge for the accommodation and services;
but you will also refuse them the power where
they have it already. That is all I want you
to do. . - -
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think that my learned
friend Mr. Balfour Browne quite followed my
learned friend Mr. Pember's reason for objecting
to put in the words. If you were to put in the
words, “Except where already provided for in
this schedule,” or whatever are the equivalent
words, the effect of that would be this: that
you have passed the section which deals
with service terminals, including loading and
unloading generally. Now loading or un-
loading into a barge is loading, and therefore
it would be said that that has been pro-
vided for in Section 4, and therefore you have
no right to ask for anything in the way of a pro-
vision for loading into barges, although the
object of the thing is to ask for remuneration for
the exceptional cost of doing it. The protection
really that the trader has, and we came to the .
conclusion that it overrode the whole clause, is
that the whole thing is to be a reasonable charge
subject to the decision of an arbitrator, and as
they have, under the Act of 1888, the right of
dissection to ascertain what they are being
charged, no arbitrator in the world would say
that it is a reasonable thing to be charged twice
over; first, under Section 4, service terminals,
and, secondly, under this section, for the same
service. Therefore, the protection to the trader
is complete. Whereas if you put in the words
you exclude the companies from getting a charge
for accommodation which thich they are entitled to.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] An arbitrator would
never have power to disallow a charge when once
granted.
Mr. Bidder.] It must be reasonable.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But it must not, I say.
If you find it in two Acts of Parliament they
can charge it twice over.
Mr. Woodfall.] I do not want to add any-
thing, your Grace, to what has been said by my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne ; but we are
all of the same opinion. *
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
235
#
Chairman." What is Mr. Pember's reason for
having left out the words which he suggested
yesterday ! *
Mr. Bidder.] I can tell your Grace exactly,
because we were consulting about it last night,
and I know exactly what was in his mind. At
first he was of opinion, and we were all of
opinion, that we might very reasonably put in
the words, “except where no special charge is
prescribed by this schedule or by any Act of
Parliament,” So far as Acts of Parliament are
concerned, general Acts, they are all wiped out
by these new clauses; this schedule repeals all
previous ones.
Mr. Hunter.] Is that clear?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, indeed.
Mr. Bidder.] Well, your Grace, I must qualify
that by this: excepting in this case, that where
there is express and special provision in an Act
of Parliament in respect to some particular
wharf, enacting that at Brentford or Deptford,
or some place of that kind, a certain special
charge should be charged at that particular
place. I do not think it would be repealed, and
I venture to think it ought not to be repealed ;
because where Parliament has, in respect of a
particular wharf under the circumstances of that
case, enacted with regard to that trade that a
charge should be so much, there is no reason to
interfere with it. But any general charging
provisions in any railway Act would all be re-
pealed, so far as they are inconsistant with the
provisions of this schedule. Therefore it was
not necessary to put in the words referring to
any Act of Parliament. -
Now with regard to the other matter, which is
the more important one, that my learned friend
refers to : “No special charge prescribed by this
schedule ;” that, as I endeavoured to point out
just now, points to one particular thing. If you
look back at Section 4, it says that the maximum
service terminals are for loading, unloading,
covering, and uncovering merchandise. Now
what we are dealing with here is a charge for
loading and unloading into vessels or barges,
and it is quite clear that loading and unloading
is not the less loading and unloading because it
is into a vessel or barge. If, therefore, you were
to put in these words which my learned friend
Mr. Pember on the spur of the moment sug-
gested, “prescribed by this schedule,” the effect
of that would be that you could not make any
extra charge whatever for the special accommo-
dation, hydraulic cranes, or whatever they might
be, that are required to load and unload from
the railway trucks into barges at the wharf; it
would come simply under a general terminal
service charge, and that is manifestly unreason-
able. The effect of the words would be that you
could never charge anything except the service
terminal charge. But on the other hand, leaving
it as it is, inasmuch as the section simply autho-
rises the company to charge for the “services
hereunder mentioned ’’ such reasonable sums as
an arbitrator in case of difference will settle, they
have the most ample protection, because it must
be a reasonable sum ; and it surely would not be
a reasonable thing to charge over again the
ordinary loading charge if you have already got
23 April 1891.
it in the service terminal. All that the arbitrator
in those Circumstances would award is what would
be a reasonable additional charge ; and it is ab-
surd to suppose that an arbitrator would say, “I
am bound to ignore the fact that you have already
got the terminal charge for loading.”
Earl of Camperdown.] I want to be sure that
my mind is clear upon the matter. What you are
proposing here is this : you are proposing to
make what Mr. Balfour Browne chooses to term
a double charge, but what you prefer to term a
reasonable charge; you want to go beyond the
maximum allowed under the service terminal
and get on to what is a reasonable sum, con-
tending that the maximum which is allowed for
the service terminal would not be sufficient to
remunerate you for the expense to which you
have gone. Is not that so?
Mr. Bidder.] In these exceptional cases they
stand by themselves.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Grace just
allow me to say one word upon what my learned
friend Mr. Bidder has said 2 I quite under-
stand what he wants. He says that service
terminal may not be enough for this exceptional
accommodation and service.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour /3rowne.] I understood your
Grace's decision yesterday to be against me on
that, and I am perfectly loyal to that decision:
I take it that that is so. But at the present time
I say that we do not know whether they have
not power to charge for that extra accommo-
º At a certain number of places they
8,V6.
Earl of Camperdown.] Where 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At Garston.
Earl of Camperdown.] But where do they get
it under this schedule 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not under this schedule
at all. -
Earl of Camperdown.] By a special Act, you
mean P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] By a special Act.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have they got it at
Nine Elms for instance 2
Mr. Balfour Browne | I do
asked Mr. Owens yesterday,
know.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then if there is one
single case where they have not got it, it becomes
a question for argument.
Mr. 13alfour Browne.] I admit that they should
have it where they have not got it ; but the
words that my learned friend Mr. Pember pro-
mised to put in yesterday would have given it if
they have not got it, because he promised to put
“ where no special charge is prescribed by this
schedule, or by any Act of Parliament.”
We
he did not
not know.
and
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend must not rely
upon Mr. Pember's words, because I can say for
Mr. Pember, in fact he himself did tell you that
he was satisfied that he was mistaken.
(81.)
G G 2 Mr.
236
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I contend that those
words are usual and proper; they ought to have
it where they have not got the power, but they
should not have it where they have the power.
At Garston, I believe, they have a charge for
loading and unloading ; at Barry Dock they have
a charge for these very services; and if they have
it you do not want to give it them.
Mr. Bidder.] You have no reply on this.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Forgive me, I have the
right of reply.
Mr. Bidder.] No, you are in mercy now.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say the evil of
it is this
Chairman.] If the terminus was at the dock
they would have power to charge what was
reasonable. If the terminus was in the town
they would be confined to the maximum.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In a dock they are
regulated by the dock Acts, and they have cer-
tain charges for wharfage, distinct charges.
Chairman.] But under this Provisional Order,
if they take their goods down to the wharf and
handle them there, they are entitled to a reason-
able charge for so doing.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Without doubt, your
Grace, and I am not disputing that.
Chairman.] But if they stop at the town, that
must be regulated by Section 4.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Clearly. But what I
say is this : Supposing they take them down to
the dock, where they have the power to charge
wharfage, and supposing that wharfage is limited
in amount (which in many cases it is), say one
penny a ton, then the trader would never know
what he has to pay. Under the dock Act it
would be one penny a ton ; but the railway
company would say, “We are not charging you
under the dock Act, we are charging you under
this schedule, and being a reasonable amount you
must go to an arbitrator.”
Chairman.] We must deal with what is under
the Provisional Order, and not under a dock
Act.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] But you do not want
to legislate in order to give them a second power.
Chairman.] If they have not got it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I suggest the words
my learned friend Mr. Pember has withdrawn
will give it them where they have not got it, but
it will not give it them twice over.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is to say, in some cases
for certain things a special Act of Parliament
would give them special powers.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Mr. Hambury.] And you do not want to touch
those.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not at all.
Mr. Hanbury.] But where there is no special
Act you want to apply this sub-section ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It would still apply.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
How would your proviso run ; let us have it?
Mr. Bidder.] As regards those words, my
Lord, I may say——
Chairman.] No, Mr. Bidder; if you will both
sit down for a moment Mr. Balfour Browne is
to let us know what words he would propose.
Meanwhile, I should like to know what the
Board of Trade have to say to us on this
matter. º
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Grace, in
Section 20 the right of the company to make
charges, which they are authorised to make by
any Act of Parliament in respect of docks or
shipping places, is safeguarded ; it is not inter-
fered with at all.
Chairman.] “Nothing herein contained shall
affect the right of the company to make any
charges which they are authorised by any Act of
Parliament to make in respect of any accommo-
dation, or services provided or rendered by the
company, at or in connection with docks or
shipping places.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] So far for cases where
they are authorised to make charges by Act of
Parliament. Then it is reasonable, and Mr.
Balfour Browne has admitted it, I think; at
least it is our opinion that where they are not
authorised by any special Act to make such
charges, they should have the power in this Pro-
visional Order ; and the Committee, I think,
have decided that point by adoptiug the words
down to the word “barges.” But we do think
that there is reason for argument, at any rate,
that unless the words suggested by Mr. Balfour
Browne, or some such words are put in, possibly
the companies might be able to charge twice
over for the same thing. If the traffic does not
go to a station, but goes to this wharf, and is
there unloaded into barges or loaded into barges,
the company should have power to make that
charge ; but the power should be limited to cases
where no provision is made in the schedule.
Earl of Camperdown..] Might I ask you one
question ? You say that the powers of the rail-
way company to make charges are safe-guarded
in Section 20; but Section 20 only extends to a
dock or shipping place. Now would a wharf be
held to be a dock or shipping place, is it certain
that that would be so P -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The intention of that
section was to safeguard all their extraneous
charges of that kind for docks, wharves, or ship-
ping places ; that was the intention decidedly.
Lord Belper.] I understood that the conten-
tion of the railway companies is, that if these
words “ not otherwise prescribed by this
schedule " were put in, then they would be
obliged to charge under the terminal charges, and
therefore they would be obliged only to take a
lower rate for their dock services than the dock
services which they give actually entitle them to
receive. The point rather seems to me whether
you could under this clause enable them to elect
to take their rafe under this clause, which would
enable them to take whatever is reasonable, and
then not take it under the terminal charges;
because if their contention is true they could
only take a lower rate, which would not compen-
sate them for the services which they actually
render.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] If the charge is made
in respect of a terminal station as defined by the
definition
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
237
23 April 1891.
definition of a terminal station, then the charge
ought to be the station terminal, and limited by
the amount of the station terminal as the Com-
mittee have limited it; but if it is not a terminal
station, then we think this clause ought to go in,
but that they should be precluded from making
under this special charge any charge which is
otherwise provided for in the schedule.
Lord Belper.] Quite so; but I understand
that this would cover the terminal charges, and
that therefore they would be obliged to take the
terminal charges. Accordingly, saying “not
otherwise provided for in this schedule" would
not allow them to charge otherwise than by this
schedule.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not quite see how
it would be so.
Lord Houghton.] I understood Mr. Pember to
say that a wharf might be a terminal station
under the definition in Clause 25.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] If it is a wharf under
Clause 25, it ought to be limited by the amount
of the station terminal if it is a terminal station;
if it is not it ought to be a reasonable sum.
Lord Belper.] You think that even then they
ought not to be allowed to charge more, although
the services and accommodation may be in
excess of what is usually given at a terminal
station.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle ..] That is rather a
a matter of evidence; but our opinion is that the
station terminal is wide enough to cover that
where it is a terminal station.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
Have you got your proviso ready ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I cannot draft it ex-
actly, my Lord ; the words will not do, but it is
nearly right I think. May I point out that the
difference between a terminal charge and this
charge, is that the terminal service is loading
into the dock; this is loading out of the ves-
sel.
Mr. Bidder.] No; the terminals are both
loading and unloading under Section 5.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But it is loading and
unloading in the station. This is loading and
unloading a vessel at a wharf. What I should
propose to add would be “provided further that
this power should not extend to any case pro-
vided for by this schedule, or where the company
have power to make charges in respect of such
services or accommodation under any Act of
Parliament.”
Mr. Bidder.] That would make the whole
clause absolutely nugatory ; because in every
case loading into a dock and out of a dock
is just as much loading and unloading where the
things go into a barge as if they went into a cart;
and in every case, therefore, we should have
power to apply the service terminal under Sec-
tion 4. That would simply render nugatory the
whole clause.
IEarl of Camperdown.] I could not take your
words down.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will read them again.
“Provided further, that this power shall not ex-
tend to any case provided for by this schedule, or
*
where the company have power to make charges
in respect of such services or accommodation
under any Act of Parliament.”
Chairman.] Would not those words put the
first part of this clause under the station terminal,
and so render what we have already done nuga-
tory altogether ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Well, your Grace, I
thought of that, and I see I have put at the side
“other than the service terminal.” You might
qualify my words by saying “by this schedule
other than the service terminal,” and that would
certainly cut it out of that. But if you are in
favour of the principle of my amendment, then I
should ask your Grace not to pledge me to the
words, and I will bring them up after considera-
tion. I do not like to draft in a hurry a matter
of great importance.
Earl of Camperdown j But what were Mr.
Pember's words yesterday; they seemed so clear
at the time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They did.
Earl of Camperdown.] Let us have them over
again.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] “Where no special
charge is prescribed by this schedule or by any
Act of Parliament.”
Mr. Bidder.] Might I shorten the matter a
little P. As regards the second part of those
words, “where no special charge is prescribed
by any Act of Parliament,” my learned friend
Mr. Pember and I have both shown your Grace
why we think the words unnecessary; but if
your Grace thinks there is any gain in adding
those words, we do not object to it. We think
they are perfectly superfluous and useless;
but if your Grace thinks fits to add those words
we are quite ready to acquiesce in those words
being added. The other words, “by this
schedule” we most strenuously object to, simply
for the reason which I have once or twice pointed
out, that it would make it impossible for us to
secure this extra charge at all.
Chairman.] What is it that you would not
object to ?
Mr. Bidder.] I have no objection if your Grace
thinks it necessary to insert the words “where no
special charge is prescribel by any Act of
Parliament.” I have no objection to that ; I do
not think it is any good.
Chairman.] Ibut there were some other words
“by this schedule.”
Mr. Bidder.] Those I object to, because they
would deprive me of the opportunity of getting
anything. If I put in the words “by this
schedule,” inasmuch as in every case in which I
could possibly have these services they would of
necessity be loading and unloading; therefore
under Clause 4 | could never use them at all;
the whole thing ought to go out in that case.
Mr. Saunders.] I hope your Grace will bear in
mind with regard to the Brighton Company,
whom I represent, that at the Deptford wharf,
and various other wharves, there are no special
charges by Act of Parliament. That is all I
want to say.
(81.)
G G 3 Earl
238 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFOR E THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.
• *-*-*-*
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course. I put that
Very case myself before you ten minutes ago;
those are the cases we cannot provide for.
Mr. Saunders.] There was only one other case
mentioned, therefore I wanted to make it clear.
Chairman.] Let me understand before we re-
tire what it is that Mr. Bidder would add at the
end of this clause. After what Mr. Balfour
Browne has said, “Provided that the charges
under this sub-section shall for the purposes of
Sub-section 3 of Section 33 of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act be deemed to be dock charges; ”
then you said something about an Act of Parlia-
ment.
Mr. Bidder.] After the word “barges” I
would propose to add, to meet my learned friend's
wishes, “ where no special charge is prescribed
by any Act of Parliament.”
Lord Belper.] Your reason being that you be-
lieve those words would have no effect whatever.
Mr. Bidder.] Aly own belief is that they are
not of the slightest use whatever.
Chairman.] But you do not think they will do
any harm P
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think they will do any
harm ; but I said some time ago that I do not
think it is any use putting in words, because they
will not do any harm.
The Committee retired to consult, and
after some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided to
insert after the word “barges” the words “where
no special charge is prescribed by any Act of
Parliament.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I believe that finishes
that clause ; but I want to mention a matter to
your Grace.
Chairman.] Then it runs on, “provided that
charges under this sub-section shall, for the pur-
}. of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the
ailway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, be deemed
to be dock charges.”
Mr. Bidder.] Certainly, your Grace.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There seems to be a
matter of some importance to which I should like
to direct your Grace's attention just before you
leave the clause. You will find that of the sub-
sections three deal with services simply, and
three deal with accommodation ; the first is
services, the second is services, the third is ser-
vices, the fourth, the detention of trucks, is
accommodation; the fifth, loading or unloading,
is a service, so that there are four services; the
sixth, the use of coal drops, is accommodation ;
and the clause you have just passed also has to
do with services and accommodation. Now if
you go back you will find that “the company
may charge for the services hereunder men-
tioned when rendered to a trader at his request,
or for his convenience, such reasonable sums by
way of addition to the tonnage rate as shall, in
case of difference between the company and the
person liable to pay the charge, be determined
by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.” Now, first of all, the word “services ''
is the only one that is used there, and you have
distinctly held that you would not put in, at the
instance of the railway company, the word
“accommodation.” Now, either one of two
things would follow from that ; either that there
would be no arbitration as to the three matters
which deal with accommodation, or that the
word “services" in the first part of the section
must be held to mean “accommodation,” con-
trary to the decision of this Committee, because
you have been distinctly asked to add “accom-
modation ” to “services,” and you have refused
to do so. Now what I propose, your Grace, to
do, if it seems to be convenient, is that there
should be something providing for arbitration in
all those cases of accommodation ; and I think
it is necessary. Otherwise there are only two
other alternatives; either that there would be
no arbitration where accommodation is given, or
that the word “services * in the first part of that
section will be held to mean “accommodation.”
Earl of Camperdown.] But is it not clear that
when you use the words “ services hereunder
mentioned,” and then proceed to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
all those are equally intended to be services *
Mr. Bidder.] In the meaning of that clause.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour
Browne).] Do you argue that it would not be
so P .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have looked at it very
carefully, my Lord, and I really believe it would
be held to be included; but the court would go
back and say, “It is quite clear that ‘ services’
in the first part of the section was held to mean
‘ accommodation.’” *
Earl of Camperdown. Certain sorts of
accommodation. The reason why “accommoda-
tion ” was not accepted was because
“ accommodation ” was a wider term than
“ services.” -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so.
Earl of Camperdown.] “Services” include
such accommodation as the Committee think it
reasonable should be charged for. That is the
effect of the decision.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All I want to be sure
of, and I am perfectly certain that it is the
intention of the Committee, is that upon every
one of those sub-sections there should be an
opportunity of going to the arbitrator.
Mr. Hidder]. So there is.
Chairman.] There is, surely.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I doubt it ; it seenis a
very doubtful point.
Chairman.] But surely what we have now
passed includes “services,” because it is loading
or unloading at the dock 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, loading or unload-
ing it is; but if you look at that very sub-section
which you have just passed, you will find that it
includes accommodation too : “The provision by
the company of accommodation ;” and coal drops,
for instance, is accommodation, and detention of
trucks is accommodation. I have serious doubts,
and what we want to do is to clear up all those
doubts. I think, if I remember aright, that
when this was argued before, my learned friend
Mr. Pember admitted it, because he said: “If
you
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION A 1, ORIC, Elk BILLS. 239
23 April 1891.
you say that, and I confess I am rather inclined
to think there might be, as the clause is worded,
a doubt as to whether an arbitrator ’’——
Mr. Hambury.] Have you foreseen this
difficulty, that even on your view of the case it
is quite clear that arbitration under this clause
would apply also to something that is neither
service nor accommodation ; that is the proviso
we inserted as to detention of traders' trucks.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Detention of traders'
trucks, I thought, was treated under the head of
accommodation; because, if you look at the
clause as they drafted it, it is, “for the use or
occupation of any accommodation ”; it is for the
use of accommodation.
Mr. Hanbury.] It would be inet in that way.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so.
Mr. Hunter.] Do you not think after the
wide extension that has been given to the word
“services" by the Court of Appeal in Sowerby's.
case, it is perfectly safe to leave the clause as it
stands 2
Mr. Balfour /?rowne.] I am not quite sure.
As I understand, both in Hall’s case and in
Sowerby’s case “services '' and “accommoda-
tion ” were held to mean the same thing.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you are out of
COurt at Once. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect,
this Committee have held something different.
Earl of Camperdown.] No.
Chairman.] We must not get into argument
about what we have done; let that pass. We
will deal with what you are now proposing, or
rather suggesting.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If they meant the same
thing it seems that there was no use in striking
out the word “accommodation.”
Chairman.] You argued against it; it was at
your instance that it was struck out.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was, and I really
think they mean different things.
Mr. Bidder.] I cannot share my learned
friend’s apprehension of difficulty. If he wants
to have “accommodation * put back I will take
no part, because your Grace has decided it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not asking for
that at all ; but I may say it is quite clear, and
my learned friend Mr. Pember distinctly admitted
it, that as the section stood, whether the accom-
modation was reasonable or not, the arbitrator
would have no power to deal with it. That he
admitted distinctly.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think you will find
that.
Chairman.] Let us confine ourselves to the
point you now raise, which is, as I understand it,
that the arbitrator would not have power to deal
with all the matters that are dealt with under
these sub-sections; that is your contention.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so, because the
word he has to deal with is “ services,” and when
you get further down in the section, you find
that word is not used in three cases, but the word
“accommodation ” is used. -
-
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether my
learned friend would indicate what he suggests to
cure it, what amendment he proposes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The amendment I
suggest would be to leave in the four sub-
sections dealing with “service” and take “accom-
modation” entirely out, and make another sub-
section dealing entirely with arbitration.
Chairman.] No, we cannot do that.
Mr. Bidder.] That is doing over again a whole
day’s work.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not ; it is perfectly
simple.
Chairman.] We cannot do that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then, your Grace, you
will leave us in a difficulty which seems to me a
very serious one.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I be allowed to say
here, your Grace, that you were kind enough to
say yesterday that you would give us until this
morning to consider the words Mr. Pember pro-
posed to add as to detention of traders’ trucks.
Chairman.] We have not got to that yet.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I only wish to say that
we are quite willing to accept Mr. Pember's
addition.
Chairman.] To which clause ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] To the proviso to be
added to Sub-section 4, providing for payment
for the detention of traders’ trucks.
Chairman.] Can you give us the words 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The words which the
Committee proposed were, “Provided that when
a trader provides trucks he shall be entitled to a
reasonable sum for the detention thereof.”; and
then Mr. Pember added, “ through the default of
the railway company.” I only wish to say that
we have no objection to those words,
Mr. Hunter.] But have you taken into con-
sideration the case where the trucks pass over the
system of more than one railway company, and
where the detention may be caused, not by the
default of the company with whom you deal, but
of another company beyond? Those words would
not provide for that case.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] If you think so, sir, I
should be glad if you would suggest some im-
provement upon them. It appears to me that
they are sufficient; but your opinion is much
better upon that point than mine.
Chairman.] What the Committee decided yes-
terday, and what was taken down, was : “Pro-
vided that when a trader provides trucks he shall
be entitled to a reasonable sum for the detention
by and through the default of the railway com-
pany beyond a reasonable period.”
Mr. Bidder.] “Of his trucks.” I think the
words were, “by and through the default of the
railway company of his trucks.”
Chairman.] It is suggested, Mr. Bidder, that
perhaps those words would limit the default to
the forwarding company.
Mr. Bidder.] I am bound to tell your Grace
that that is a question upon which we are not
quite unanimous ourselves. There is a prevail-
(81.)
G G 4 ing
240
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*~.
+
ing opinion that it would not limit the deſault to
fhe forwarding company; that where a company
had a contract for the carriage, it would be
responsible for any detention, but we have no
objection to its being made clear if it is so.
Chairman.] Assuming that to be so, we should
like words put in to show that the remedy is not
against the forwarding company alone, because
the forwarding company might not be to blame;
it is the other companies who receive the goods
in transit that may be the cause of the deten-
tion.
Mr. Bidder.] Would your Grace allow us to
consider that * We shall be quite prepared to
introduce the proper words.
Mr. Hunter.] May I suggest that the words
“through the default of" are quite unnecessary,
becauſe the detention must be for an unreason-
able period; if there is no default, then there
can be no detention for an unreasonable period.
It is obvious that it is not the default of the
company, that there is unusual delay.
Mr. ſº I agree with the honourable
Member ; but those words were asked for yes-
terday by Sir Alfred Hickman, and we did not
think they would do us any harm.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No, I did not ask for
them.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, those words were
suggested by Mr. Pember.
Mr. Bidder.] The words were suggested by
my learned friend Mr. Pember to meet the views
of Sir Alfred Hickman.
IEarl of Camperdown.] No, I think you will
find that what Mr. Pember said was, that he
did not object to Sir Alfred Hickman's º
provided that we would put in those words, or
something of that sort. I am told that it is at
page 209, I have not got it; but I am pretty
certain that is what was said.
Chairman.] I do not think we need go back
to what Mr. Pember said or did not say. We
had better apply ourselves to the matter before
UlS.
Mr. Bidder.] The point I understand your
Grace wants to be guarded is, that the trader
shall have his remedy, whether the default is
that of the forwarding company, or that of a
company beyond.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] If you would allow that to stand
over, we will consider how properly to º: in
words to carry out that intention of your Lord-
ships.
Chairman.] Very well.
Mr. Hunter.] Cannot we cut this matter short
by omitting the words “through the default
of ”? *
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think that would meet,
would it, the point his Grace has raised ?
Mr. Beale. || Yes, it would.
Mr. Moon.] There is a difficulty I think.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Grace will allow that
matter to stand over till we can see how properly
23 April 1891.
to put in words; I had rather not do it on the
spur of the moment.
Chairman.] Very well.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] Are
you quite certain that under the clause, as it
stands, arbitration will apply to all the matters
mentioned in the section ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not certain; but
the Committee have decided against me, I under-
stand. --
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not certain; and
I think it would be much better to take it out,
and to deal with the three things generally.
Chairman.] We cannot do anything in that
way.
Mr. Harzbury.] Your difficulty is that the word
“services,” on page 3, line 44, does not include
everything in the seven sub-sections?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Mr. Hanbury.] Would you say “services and
other matters”; something of that kind?
Earl of Camperdown.] And not only to the
sub-section, but also to the proviso.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I suggest what
would meet it, I think? If you take Clause 5,
and read down to the words “ tonnage rate”
(that is in the third line), and then, instead of
going on as the clause does, insert this: “Any
difference between the company and the trader
under this section shall be determined by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade
at the instance of either party.”
Mr. Hanbury.] That will do.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That leaves everything
to the arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.
Mr. Bidder.] You do not strike out “the
person liable to pay the charge"? -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You do not require it.
Mr. Bidder.] Any difference between the
company and what ''
Mr. Balfour Browne.] “Any difference between
the company and the trader,” (that is the person
liable to pay the charge under this section)
“shall be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance
of either party.”
Mr. Bidder.] But you must alter a great deal
more ; because the section reads at present, “such
reasonable sums by way of additions to the
tonnage rate.”
Mr. Hunter.] You might say, “a reasonable
sum by way of addition.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is all you want.
Mr. Bidder.] There is a much simpler way
of meeting my learned friend’s point, if you
simply put, “ services and other matters;” I do
not think it is necessary; but if you wish to
make it certain, put “other matters hereunder
mentioned.” §
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not at all certain
what the effect of those words would be, because
you
() N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES P.ROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
241 -
23 April 1891.
you are giving the company º to charge for
services and other matters. I do not want to do
that. That goes back upon the whole question
of accommodation, all we want is to cure the
question of arbitration, and I think my words do
that: “any difference between the company and
the trader under this section shall be determined
by an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade at the instance of either party.”
Earl of Belmore.] But that will break your
first three lines off in a very awkward way, will
it not, if you stop at “tonnage rate,” they will
not run : “The company may charge for the
services hereunder mentioned, when rendered to
a trader at his request or for his convenience,”
you must not use the word “such.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, you have to strike
out “such.” It will read thus: On line 46 strike
out “such " and insert “a " after “reasonable”;
strike out “runs " and insert “run” and after
“rate” strikeout all the words to the end of the sen-
tence in line 2 on page 4, and then read, as I read
before after the words “that any difference
between the company and the trader shall be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade at the instance of either
party.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Why not, “the person
liable to pay the charge ’’ as you have got in the
clause now P -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have no objection to
that: I will read it in that way.
Mr. Hunter.] It is necessary to make that
alteration in order to meet the case where the
company has to pay demurrage for the detention
of a waggon.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am much obliged to
you, Sir ; that was not in my mind.
Earl of Camperdown.] It was in my mind.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was my learnd friend
Mr. Clifford who drafted it. No doubt he had
it in his mind.
Mr. º What is you objection to “ and
other matters hereunder mentioned " ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have the greatest
possible objection to that.
Mr. Bidder.] Then why not indicate it.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Oh, Mr. Bidder, we
have had all one day on that very point, and I
do not want to go back upon it. The only
matter we want to cure is the question of arbi-
tration, and that I think does it.
Jhairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
What has the Board of Trade to say upon the
words proposed by Mr. Balfour Browne P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I hesitate very
much, your Grace, to express an opinion off-
hand ; I really would like time to consult about
it. Of course, if the learned counsel on both
sides of the bar are agreed that it is an improve-
ment, it is not so much for us to object; but
unless it is made quite clear that there is an
agreement about the words, I think there is some
danger in adopting them.
Chairman.] That there should be an arbitrator
to be appointed by the Board of Trade to apply
to all these seven sub-sections. Do the Board of
Trade see any objection to that? -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] If you will give
us a few minutes, I have not been able to get the
words down. *
Mr. Bidder.] I hope my Lord Balfour will
not assume that there is any alteration necessary.
We think the clause is perfectly right as it
stands.
Chairman.]. Does Mr. Bidder object to the
words? I think the desire of the Committee is
that there should be an arbitration, and that that
should be made quite clear.
Mr. Bidder.] Certainly, your Grace.
Chairman.] Mr. Balfour Browne proposes
certain words which he says will carry that out,
do you object to those words?
Mr. º So far as I follow them, I do
not think, on the spur of the moment that they
will do any herm; but I do not like saying so
without, like my Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
having a little time to think it over. I quité
understand and agree with the view of the
Committee, it is clear that the arbitration should
cover every case. My belief is most distinctly
that it does cover every case now. I cannot
understand anybody thinking there is any
ambiguity about it. I only throw out the sug-
gestion of “other matters” in case it was
worth while (I do not think it is) to add any-
thing.
Chairman.] It occurs to me, and I am
strengthened by the opinion of one of the mem-
bers of the Committee, whether it would not be
the best plan to take out the arbitration to the
Board of Trade from the first part of the clause
and to make it a proviso at the end after every-
thing. *
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know that it would be
any better or have any more force, because it
was at the end than at the beginning. I should
like to point out to the Committee that my
learned friend is not quite correct in saying that
Some of these things are services and some
not. There is not one of these heads that does
not include services. Even Sub-section 4, the
detention of trucks, ends with the words “such
use and occupation.”
Mr. Hunter.] The use of coal drops?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is no service in
coal drops,
Mr. Bidder.] Surely that includes services.
The provision of coal drops is itself a service; it
is “ the use of coal drops.”
Chairman.] Then we will not come to a final
decision upon this at the present moment, with
the understanding that we wish arbitration to
cover all the matters in that clause.
Mr. Bidder.] That that is the intention of
the Committee, and is to be carried out some-
how.
Chairman.] Quite so.
(81.) r
H. H.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
CLAUSE 5 IS POSTPONED.
ON CLAUSE 6.
M. r. Balfour Browne.] With regard to the
an endments proposed by the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference, I do not propose to ask your
Grace to omit the clause.
Mr. Bidder.] I understand my learned friend
Mr. Balfour Browne to say that the amendment
of the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference to
omit Clause 6 is withdrawn 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose to
pursue that. ---.
Mr. Bidder.] Then the Marquis of Bute
appears to be the next. On Page 4, Clause 6,
line 26, after “conveyance ’’ onit remainder of
clause and insert, “The sum of 3 4. per ton for
each 50 miles traversed, or any fractional part
thereof.”
Mr. Woodfall.] I beg to withdraw that amend-
ment.
Mr. Jidaer.] Then we come to the amend-
ment of the Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and
Leicestershire Colliery Owners’ Association, to
omit line 29, and the next by the Railway
Carriage and Waggon Builders’ Association to
omit, “ For distances, not exceeding 25 miles
3 d. per ton.” -
Mr. Soulter..] I appear, your Grace, in support
of the amendment by the Derbyshire, Notting-
hamshire, and Leicestershire Colliery Owners'
Association.
Mr. Bidder.] Would you mind one moment be-
fore you begin I was going to point out that that
amendment and the next amendment of the Rail-
way Carriage and Waggon 13uilders’ Association
and that of the railway companies are to a great
covering the same ground, though they are not
quite identical. If your Grace will follow me,
the first one that my friend Mr. Soutter appears
for, is to omit line 29 of Clause 6. Line 29 is the
line that provides for the 3 d. charge for distances
not exceeding 25 miles. The effect of that
amendment is, of course, to make 6 d. the
minimum charge. In the same way, in the next
amendment, that of the Railway Carriage and
Waggon Builders' Association, they propose to
onlit that line ; and the railway companies
themselves propose to omit that line. I do not
know whether it would not be convenient under
those circumstances if we for the railway com-
panies were to put forward our reasons first. I
think that that, on the whole, would be the most
convenicnt course.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not quite sure of
that ; we must go in order.
Mr. Bidder.] Are you one of them 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am one of them. I
propose an amendment. -
Mr. Bidder.] Then if you prefer it you have
the right to go first.
Mr. Soutter.] I quite agree to your going
first, Mr. lxidder.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Might I call your
Grace's attention to the amendment standing
last P
23 April 1891.
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I only wanted to ask
your Grace's view with regard it. You see, it
raises a point on the same part of the clause.
What I wanted to ask was that if you entertain
any one of the string of amendments in front,
you will bear in mind that mine has to come, and
that I am not precluded by any decision upon
the point, by mine not having been raised ?
Chairman.] We must hear you.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend means the
amendment on page 21, by the West Cumberland
Ironmasters’ Association ?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] I did not include that with the
others, because in point of fact it raises the
question of its being a mileage charge.
Mr. Soutter.] Then, your Grace, I appear in
support of the amendment of the Derbyshire,
Nottinghamshire, and Leicestershire Colliery
Owners’ Association, and I will just state shortly
the object of and reason for the amendment. It
is this: that that charge will not remunerate the
owners of the trucks for the use of the trucks.
My observations apply to the London and North-
Western, the Midland, and the Great Northern
Railway Companies. We say that the scale of
charges here will not remunerate the owner of
the truck. The scheme might perhaps be suffi-
cient on other systems, such as the Taff Vale
Railway, where there are special appliances at
the port of shipment, or at the ironworks; but
on these other systems the trade would be at the
roadside stations, within a short distance of the
collieries. Now, a truck can only perform a
journey and return in one week, and it would
take as long to perform the journey for a 25
miles run as for a 50 mile run. It is obvious,
then, that a truck would only be able to earn
something like 2 s. a week, or a maximum of 5 /.
in a year ; and that would never pay the owner
for the use of the truck. We say, therefore,
that the distance should be extended and the
charge to 6 d. per ton for the 50 mile run.
lèarl of Camperdown.] How are you a railway
company ?
Mr. Soutter.] We are affected in this way;
that if the railway companies are only allowed to
charge 3 d., the colliery proprietors, who are the
owners of the trucks, cannot make a larger
charge.
Mr. Bidder.] If we come down, they must.
Earl of Camperdown.] Why is that?
Mr. Soutter.] I propose to call evidence to
prove that.
Chairman.] What is your petition ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That the 3 d. should be
raised to 6 d. in that schedule.
Mr. Bidder.] That the minimum should be
raised to 6 d.
Mr. Soutter.] That you should eliminate the
25 miles distance charge and begin with a maxi-
mum charge of 6 d. for distances of 50 miles and
under. Your Grace, I propose to call evidence.
Mr. Bidder. Your Grace sees that for once in
il way
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL order BILLs.
243
*
a way our interests and that of certain of the
traders are identical, because they happen to be
owners of waggons too. 3. t
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just add a word
on the next amendment P It is precisely the
same as that which my friend Mr. Soutter has
proposed. I appear for the Railway Carriage
and Waggon Builders’ Association, and they own
trucks of the value of something fabulous, millions
of money, and they fear that if that charge of 3 d.
remains, the railway companies may be able to
supply trucks at 3 d., but they will have to get
the money somewhere else ; and if they do, the
private waggon-owners will be run off the road;
because 3 d, does not and never will pay them.
Like Mr. Soutter, I am going to put a wit-
ness before you to show that 3 d. will not pay
the railway companies, and it will not pay the
waggon owners and that therefore the charge is
too small. The result would be that if you left
it on the railway companies, the railway Com-
panies would be bound to do it, but the private
waggon owners would be run off the road, and
that would be a very serions thing, not only for
those who own waggons, but for the trade
generally. After Mr. Soutter has call a witness
I will call one before you, because it is a matter
of fact. - 3.
Chairman.] Then for once you are agreed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am afraid that is
impossible.
Earl of Camperdown.] Who represents the
opposition then if you have turned round and
become promoters?
Mr.
moters.
Mr. Shaw.] I oppose very strongly the altera-
tion which the railway companies propose
on behalf of the South Wales Coal Owners’
Association. -
Mr. Woodfall.] I shall oppose it too for the
freighters. -
Balfour Browne.] We are not the pro-
Mr. Bidder.] As the railway companies are
equally interested in this matter, and in point of
fact are identified in interest with these traders,
I wish to say a word or two before the evidence
is called. We shall also call evidence upon the
point; but I may perhaps remind the Committee
that this is one of the cases in which the original
conclusion of Lord Balfour and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has been altered since their Report. If
you will kindly look at their Report which was
adopted by the Board of Trade, and the original
draſt Scheme.
Chairman.] I have not got the original draft
scheme. If your Grace will look at the original
you will see to what I am referring. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Which railway are you
referring to ?
Mr. Bidder.] I have the Great Western. I
believe they are all the same ; but it is at the
end of the first part. It is Section 6, the very
same section that we are now discussing, after
hearing the evidence and the conclusions that
Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle had come to, and which were approved by
the Board of Trade, that they were to adopt a
minimum of 6 d. for distances not exceedigm 50
miles.
this.
23 April 1891.
miles; they next step to 1 s, for not exceeding
150 miles, and 1 s. 3 d. over that distance. That
the railway companies were perfectly content
with. * - -- *
Chairman.] What iz the heading under which
this comes 2 -
Mr. #º It is under the heading of maxi-
mum rates in the 6th section, and the last section
in that first heading is : “The company may
charge for the use of trucks provided by them
for the conveyance of merchandise,” and so on,
and then comes the charges. It is at page 21 of
the Board of Trade Report upon the Tondon
and North Western Schedule and Article No. 6.
It is practically identical with that which is now
before your Grace, excepting that it does not
contain the 3 d. minimum for distances under 25
miles, nor the intermediate stage of the 9 d.
minimum for distances within 50 miles and 75
We do not know why these were intro-
duced afterwards, but we shall be prepared also to
show your Lordships by evidence that in point
of fact the 3 d. does not meet the cost of
the waggon, and that business cannot be carried
on under 6 d., whatever the distance, except at
a loss; and in that respect, undoubtedly, we are
for orice identified in interest with everybody
who owns a waggon, because, if we have to
charge 3 d., everybody else must come down.
And I ought to point out one thing further, and
that is, that with regard to one railway company,
which is the one company of those before your
Lordships which is specially interested in this
question, the Midland Company, the matter
stands in this position, that they got from Par-
liament 10 years ago, namely, in the year 1881,
special powers to bring the waggons on their
line, and a tariff was fixed by Parliament at that
time, for the tolls they were entitled to charge
for the use of the waggons, and that is identical
with the tariff which the Board of Trade origi.
nally adopted, and no doubt was the source from
which it was derived; and I should submit, on
behalf of the Midland Railway Company, who
are the company principally interested, because
they own the greatest number of waggons, that
there is no reason whatever for departing from
that which was the scale laid down by Parlia-
ment when we obtained the powers; I may
mention that under the powers of that Act we
have spent 1,750,000 l. in the purchase of wag-
gons, so that it would be rather hard now to
alter that scale as far as that company is con-
cerned to what is an absolutely unremunerative
figure.
Chairman.] I should like to hear the Board of
Trade if they have any remarks to make upon
We are told, in the first instance, that the
decision of the Board of Trade' was very much
(in fact, here it is at page 26) on the lines pro-
posed by those who object.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] There is no doubt
of the fact, your Grace, that in this case there
was a change made, and we put in, in the Provi-
sional Order, 2 d. for distances under 25 miles,
and divided the distances between 50 and 100 .
miles, putting in a 9 d. charge for the 50 miles and
ls. for the 100 miles. I am not at all sure that
anything I could say just now will really shorten
the proceedings, because I am certain the Com-
(81.)
H. H. 2 mittee
244
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.
mittee are aware, from what has taken place, that
this is a highly contested matter, and that nothing
you could do would satisfy all the parties who are
concerned, and I am afraid you will have to hear
evidence upon the point, whether the Board of
Trade make a statement or not. The main
reason for the charge that guided the Board of
Trade was this : Speaking, quite generally—I do
not say it is so in every Act of Parliament—but,
in those Acts of Parliament which separate, as a
rule, the charges into their component parts, the
charge which is supposed to represent waggon hire
is, as a rule, about one-eighth of a penny per ton
per mile. It is probably , the case that
one-eighth of a penny would not pay, for
running a waggon one mile, or two-eighths
of a penny would not pay for , running
it for two miles, and so on; but then, on the
other hand, if you put in the smallest amount,
namely 6d., for any distance under 50 miles,
undoubtedly that would have the effect of raising
the maximum possible charge in those cases
where the waggon hire is now separated ; and
supposing, in those cases, a ton of coal is run
five or ten miles, and it is in the company’s trucks,
and they may charge 6d., it will have the effect
of raising the maximum charging power of the
company on those sections of the line very
seriously. And we thought, on the whole, after
full consideration, the fairest thing to do was to
say that the minimum charge for which a waggon
could be taken out should be 3 d., and dividing
it by the shorter distance. That, your Grace, is
the reason for making the change. As it was
proved, while it has satisfied them it has dissa-
tisfied others; and I am afraid, as I said before,
that nothing we can do, or that the Committee
can do, will avoid the necessity of the matter
being fought out as a matter of evidence before
you.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask you a
question? You say that the charge of one-eighth
of a penny will not cover the cost of supplying
the waggons: If, then, one-eighth of a penny
for one mile, and two-eighths of a penny for two
miles, will not cover the cost, why do you pro-
pose for a distance not exceeding 25 miles a
charge of 3 d. 2 - e
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Because we think
it quite possible that for a distance not exceeding
25 miles 3 d. might do, because we do not say that
twenty-four-eighths of a penny, which would be
3 d., would not do for 24 or 25 miles. I may
put it in one word. Whether a waggon goes
with coal one mile or 10 miles, or 100 miles, it
Thas to go to the point of loading and to wait there
till loaded, to wait loaded till cleared away, to be
hauled away, and hauled to its destination, and
there wait to be unloaded, and the cost of hauling
and demurrage is the same whether the waggon
goes in a train 10 miles or. 50 miles, because it
will be a day loading and a day on its journey,
and a day perhaps for unloading, and it is the
same whether the haul is a short haul of 10 miles,
or a long haul of 100 miles.
Mr. Souter.] I propose now, with your Grace's
permission, to call Mr. Barnes.
MR. ALFRED BARNES (a Member of the House of Commons), is called in ; and
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Souter.
1057. I THINK you have already given evidence
before this Committee 7—I have.
1058. I think you stated to the Committee that
your association represents the colliery proprie-
tors in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Leices-
tershire 2–Yes, that is so.
1059. And you have a very large annual
output, I believe –The largest possibly in the
kingdom ; an output of 20,000,000 tons.
1060. Will you explain your reasons to the
Committee for seeking this alteration in Clause
6?—Practical experience has shown that it is
impossible to run a waggon to pay for 3 d. under
25 miles; that is to say, for ordinary traffic.
There may be cases of extraordinary traffic, for
instance, if you go to a line like the Taff Vale,
where a train is run down in the day and emplied
in the night, but on the Midland and on
the Great Northern, and the London and North
Western, a waggon will not run above once a
week, even if it only goes five miles on the
average the detention is much the same whether
it runs five miles or 20 miles. An eight-ton
waggon would then earn 2 s., which would be
5 l. roughly for a year, and 5 l, per waggon
would certainly not pay. The association, of
which I have the honour to be chairman, repre-
sents three counties, and there are an immense
number of waggons owned by colliery companies,
Mr. Souter—continued.
they own many themselves, and they feel it is
practically impossible to run their waggons at
3 d. If the railway companies' charge is brought
down to 3 d. it will, practically, rule all private
waggons ; they cannot charge more than the
railway companies charge, and the only effect of
your putting in the clause the 3 d. on this line
will ruin the whole of their waggons as well as
the railway companies' waggons.
1061. Do your waggons run in competition
with the railway companies' waggons 2—Yes, of
course they do. -
1062. And, therefore, if this charge is limited
you will have to put up with the same maxima P
—Yes, precisely the same ; the figure will be 3 d.,
and they will make 5 l, per annum; they cannot
get any more than the company, and the com-
pany will lose equally with the private waggons;
they cannot run their waggons any cheaper than
the private owners; I mean that the railway
companies cannot.
Chairman.
1063. Are there many cases in which the
waggon only runs 25 miles 2–A great number
of cases, your Grace. We feel that it is impos-
sible to make a waggon pay fairly for 6 d. for
50 miles, and that does not pay very well; not
so much as when you come to longer distances,
because
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CIIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
245
23 April 1891.]
Mr. BARNES, M.P.
[Continued,
Mr. Souter—continued.
because longer distances, as a rule, are run in
trainloads. These are only two or three trucks
at a time, smaller traffic; but when you get into
train loads the waggons pay a great deal better
because they go in a body together and they
come back in a body together.
1064. Still, taking the average of those that go
very long distances and pay very well would
not that make up for the shorter distances which
you say would not pay ?—[t might do, your
Grace, but some collieries’ trade is solely in short
distances ; their coal is not suitable to go south ;
it is limited to their own district.
1065. But how many miles in your own district
do they go as a rule —They run up to 50
miles.
1066. Then the 25 miles would not apply?—
They are running under 25 miles, as well as up
to 50 miles and beyond, and where the average
is 25 miles at 3 d. and 50 miles at 6 d. it would
not pay, certainly. I own a great many at pre-
sent myself, and a little while ago I sold many
waggons to the Midland Company.
Earl of Belmore.
1067. What average earning in the year should
you say would pay a waggon 2–You could not
make it pay under from 8 /. to 10 l. a year.
Mr. Souter.
1068. Is the consumer prejudiced by this pro-
posed alteration ?— No ; I do not think the con-
Sumers are prejudiced ; they are not opposing it
to-day. -
1069. Of course the consumer being near the
pit, he would only have to pay a small rate for
conveyance 2—Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps I may be allowed to ask
a question before my learned friend cross-
examines 2 -
Chairman.] Very well.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
1069*. As a matter of fact, the payment of this
charge is entirely optional with the traders, is it
mot ?--Yes, entirely optional.
1070. And in the coal trade, which it mainly
applies to in matters of that kind, the traders to
a great extent do provide their own waggons, do
they not P –Yes, at any time they can do that:
many traders provide their own waggons.
1071. And if this 3 d. minimum were reduced,
would not the effect be very likely this, that the
trader would use the company’s waggons on the
short distances where he did not pay, and use his
own waggons for long distances 2 – Undoubtedly,
and that is what he does now, even at the 6 d.
rate. They run the company’s waggons for short
distances, and run their own for long distances.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1072. This clause which we are now discussing
is one for the Cumberland Association, and is
one that will apply, not merely to the special cir-
cumstances of your own case, the Midland, but
is proposed to apply to all collieries and all
traders ?—Yes, but it does not prevent them
charging 3 d.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens—continued.
1073. Have you considered what the effect
would be upon trade of a very large volume for
short distances?—Yes, I have. I mentioned the
Taff Vale, for instance, running down.
1074. Take the case where the whole trade of a dis-
trict, or the greater bulk of it, is conducted practi.
cally for distances of eight miles, under the present
circumstances, the rate for that would be, as we
have heard, 1 ſl. for eight miles; do not you see,
if you take your 3 d. scale, the effect of that will
be to increase threefold the present rate; and if
you take the 6 d. rate to multiply it sixfold 2–
Yes, I see that. -
1075. Do you think that is a reasonable thing
in the case of a large traffic 2–It would not at all
prevent the railway company having a maximum
charge.
1076. But that is another thing. We are dis-
cussing now simply what is to be put into the clause.
You see, do you not, that it might act most
oppressively in the case of long as in the case of
short distance traffic 2–Yes; and on the other
hand yours will act most oppressively the other
way.
Chairman.
1077. What traffic is it that you had in your
mind when you spoke of this very large traffic
that is carried for eight miles 2–It was the Taff
Vale Railway, which is, on an average, about 20
miles, to works.
1078. Dut where 2—Say from a colliery to
ironworks on the Midland and the London and
North Western and the Great Northern.
1079. But in answer to the learned counsel,
you said that there were many cases which you
knew of where a large traffic was carried for
eight miles?—The learned counsel said eight
miles.
1080. But you assented to that?—I assented
to the short distance, but not to the eight
miles.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1081. I ought to explain, perhaps, that
the iron ore trade of West Cumberland,
which is an enormous trade, practically consists
of the carriage from the pit to the ironworks,
which, in the majority of cases, is eight miles.
Mr. Bidder.] And, in those cases, I think my
learned friend will say the traders do provide
their own waggons.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] But we are sanc-
tioning now a railway charge.
Chairman.] The witness was asked with re-
gard to the traffic, and with reference to the .
eight miles, and I did not know whether he had
any particular traffic in his mind at that moment.
It appears not, and that he is only speaking of
short distances generally.
Witness.] Yes.
ICarl of Belmore.
1082. Can you tell us what your charge at the
present time is for short-distanco traffic 2–
Nothing less than 6 d., exceptieg a train-load
going to ironworks, which makes, perhaps, five
journeys a week, and then it will pay; but those
are exceptional cases.
(81.)
H H 3 1083. But
A46
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.]
Mr. BARNES, M.P.
[Continued.
Earl of Beluore—continued.
1083. But where you have not your own
waggons, the lowest charge the railway company.
at the present time make you is 6 d. 2–Yes; and
if they did not reduce it there we should put our
own waggons on and run them for 3 d.
1084. But if you were dealing with these
very short distances you would get more out of
your waggons, would you not?—No, not for long
traffic. -
1085. A waggon going 10 miles would be as
long going out as one going 60 miles —Yes;
but they would only make one journey per week;
and I find in the case of my waggons, of which
I sold 1,000 to the Midland, that in running
down into the south of England I could not make
two journeys a month out of them. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1086. Just let me ask you a couple of ques-
tions for the coal-owners of South Wales. You
said just now that the Waff Vale was quite
different to yours?—Yes.
1087. I suppose most of your traffic is long
distance traffic?—My own personal traffic is long
distance traffic; but not that of the association
which I represent.
1088. Most of the Midland coal traffic is long
distance traffic, is it not ?–No, it is not so, it is
over the whole length of its line, all up and down
it. A large extent of it is south, of course.
1089. So that the 3 d. would not come in
there 2- No ; but a very large quantity would
come in for the 25 miles. -
1090. This proposal of yours is to apply, I
believe, amongst the general conditions, to all
the charging powers of the railway companies 2
—Yes, as the maximum ; but that would not
prevent the Taff Vale from running at 3 d.
1091. But it is not your experience that the
railway companies, when they get the opportunity,
always charge up to the maximum ?—No, it is
not my experience.
1092, You know that there is no obligation
upon a railway company to find trucks, do you
not 7–No, there is not.
1093. Therefore a railway company need not
find the trucks?—No, you can find them your-
selves. -
1094. The South Wales people do all own their
own trucks, do they not?—Some railways do.
1095. Do you think if it was made worth the
railway company’s while that they would not try
to own flieir own truck and oblige the traders to
take them, especially in South Wales 2–That
would be for Parliament to decide, whether they
would give them power to compel them.
1096. Do not you think if they were given
this large charge of 6 d. for a long run they
could by means of their trucks oblige the traders
to take their trucks in preference to their own 2
—No, I do not think they could, it would not
work commercially.
1097. You said just now that 10 l. a year
would pay ?–Yes; 10 l. a year would about pay
for the waggon ; it depends upon the size.
1098. What is the class of waggon 2–Eight
t;OIlS. * *.
1099. What is the cost of a waggon —The
Mr. Shaw—continued.
cost of a waggon varies very much according
to the price of the material.
1100. What is the present cost?—About 50 l.
Mr. Bafour Browne.
1100° Sixty-four pounds ten shillings?—There
have been, I daresay, 55 l. to 60 l. within the last
twelve months. w --
Mr. Shaw.
1101. Taking the run in the South Wales
district as 20 miles, and giving a little more for the
railway company than you did just now, giving
them two runs a week at 6 d., do you see what
the railway company could make 2–I am per-
fectly well aware of that, but the Taff Vale
Company could not rule the whole of the king-
dom. -
1102. Do you think it is fair that my clients
in South Wales should be hit in this manner as
it is proposed they should be.
Mr. Bidder.] Might I point out to any learned
friend that unless l am very seriously mistaken
his clients depend upon the Taff Vale, and I
believe the Taff Vale Company do not own any
Waggons,
Mr. Shaw.
1103. But they would own waggons if it was
worth their while. (To the Witness.) Do not
you know that the railway companies oblige you
to come up to their requirements and speci-
fications with regard to your private waggons ?
—Yes, certainly they do on the ground of safety.
1 104. Do not you know that we cannot put
on a waggon unless it passes the railway com-
panies?—Yes, I know it generally, and very
properly it is so. It is in our interest as well
as their interest, because they give you a proper
specification and a waggon that will hold to-
gether. -
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
1105. You said that you represented the
Derbyshire distrist?—Derbyshire, Nottingham-
shire and Lincolnshire district. *
1106. With regard to that district particularly,
have you had any meeting of the Derbyshire
coal owners to discuss this question ?—Yes.
1107, May I ask when 2–It may be a few
weeks ago. - - -
l 108. You are aware, are you not, that I am
a Derbyshire coal owner 2—Yes. -
1109. Why was not I asked to attend that
meeting 7–13ecause you are not a member of
ður association. * .
1110. How far does your association extend ?
—It extends over the whole country.
1111. Does it extend to the South Derbyshire
District P --Yes. * {
1112. Nuneaton, and so on ? — Not up to
Nuneaton. -
1113. Your experience has been in the work-
ing of your own waggons, I suppose ?—Yes;
and the Midland Company’s waggons.
1114. When you speak of cost, you refer to
the cost of your own working?—I refer to the
cost of working ; that I know as chairman of the
association, .
O y RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
247
23 April 1891.]
Mr. BARNES, M.P.
[Continued.
**
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
association, who are the owners of all those
waggons.
ll 15. You are not speaking of your own per-
sonal knowledge?—Yes, I am speaking of my
own personal knowledge, which is confirmed by
that of all the other owners of waggons.
1116. Let us confine ourselves to your per-
sonal knowledge. You say that you own
waggons 7–Yes.
1117. Have you considered that a railway
company have not to send the empty waggon
back to be loaded where it was originally to be
despatched from ; they send it to the nearest
place of loading ; they have not the two journeys
that the ordinary trader would have 2–That is
not my experience.
1 118. Is it not obvious that a railway com-
Mr. WILLIAM FREDERICK
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
pany, having a waggon empty in London, would
not send it back to Derbyshire to be loaded ?–
That entirely depends upon the balance of their
trade.
1119. It is only the balance of their trade
- that they would send back empty, is it not ?—
I know they do send back empties, and most of
our empties come back from the south that I
send to London.
1120. What you mean is that, in your ex-
perience, a railway waggon emptied in London
would be sent back to Derbyshire to be loaded ?
—Not always, but it depends upon the pecularity
of the trade in the way the balance of their
trade runs.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
BUTLER, is called in ; and having been sworn, is
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne. -
sº
1121. YoU reside at Highfield, near Wrex-
ham, and you are a colliery owner and managing
director of the Iron Colliery Company, Limited P
—Yes.
1122. And have you been connected with the
management and the engineering of collieries for
a considerable time 2—Yes, for about 15 years.
1123. You are a member of the North Wales
Coal Owners’ Association, are you not?—Yes.
l 124. And you are an associate member of the
Institution of Civil Engineers?—Yes.
1125. And lessee of certain works P-Yes.
1126. Is there, do you know, a very large
capital invested in waggons which have been
either built by the owners or have been pur-
chased by them 2–Yes. The capital is very
large. I should not like to give it as an
authority ; but we have recently had several
meetings at which I think the majority of the
waggon owners of the kingdom were represented,
and from what I gathered there the total capital
invested in private owners' waggons is from
25,300,600 l. to 30,000,000 l.
1127, Now the output of your own colliery is
about 150,000 tons per annum, is it not?—Yes.
1128. About 65,000 tons, I think, are sent by
you yearly to Birkenhead 2–Yes; that is our
chief port of shipment.
1129. Do you also send coal for private con-
sumption in Birkenhead P--Yes, very largely.
1130. What is the distance of your colliery
from that port P –It is 32 miles from Birken-
head.
1131. And with regard to the remainder of
your coal, where is it sent to ?–To inland sta-
tions at different distances all over the country,
chiefly in Wales, some in Cheshire, and some
going as far south as Bournemouth. -
1132. Have you made yourself familiar with
the statements contained in the Railway Carriage
and Waggon Builders’ Association Petition ?---
Yes, I have read the petition.
1133. And have you prepared certain state-
ments showing the result of one year's working
of 311 waggons that your colliery 7–Yes. I
should say, your Grace, that the statements that
I would ask to be allowed to hand in to you, are
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
for the year ending the 31st March last, and
they show the running of our rolling stock, and
I have divided it into three portions. One is
the traffic carried to Birkenhead for shipment,
a distance of 32 miles; the second statement
deals with the traffic carried to stations within
a limit of 23 miles from the colliery; and the
third statement deals with traffic earried to 67
stations at varying distances beyond the limit of
25 miles. . -
1134. Will you tell us just generally what the
result of those statements is 2–Yes. During
the year I find that our colliery worked 269
days.
1135. And your waggons made how many
trips ?--Our waggons made 9,256 trips, or 29.76
trips per waggon, which divided by the number
of working days gives an average time for each.
trip of 9.04 days. -
1136. Now how many trips did they make
with the shipping coal to Birkenhead over the 32
miles that you have mentioned —The shipping
trade shows a very much better result in the run-
ning of the Waggons than the trade to any other
place. That is accounted for to a great extent
by the fact that we have an agent there whose
business it is to look after the shipping of the
coal, and to see that our waggons are not ordered
forward before they are reasonably required, and
also to see that they are returned when empty as
quickly as possible. I find we made last year
5,256 trips shipping coal to Birkenhead, 32 miles,
and the average time occupied per trip was 4.71
days.
1137. As against the 9:04 average 2–As
against the 9:04 average. This is the statement
I have prepared, which, with your Grace's per-
mission, I will read. It is a statement for the
year ending March 31st 1891, showing the run-
nings of 311 colliery waggons carrying coal for
shipment to Birkenhead, a distance of 32 miles;
and the total number of trips made was 5,256 :
the total number of running days (that is the
total days between the hour when the Waggon
left the colliery and the hour when it returned)
was 24,774 ; giving an average of 471 days per
5
(81.)
H II 4 trip
248 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE T AREN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued. .
trip. The average earnings of those waggons
was 10° 19 d. per trip per running day.
1138. That deals with Birkenhead. Have you
also a statement made out with regard to the
traffic carried with your trucks running 25 miles
from your colliery 2–Yes, I have.
1139. How many trips did they make?—The
result is rather interesting, because I may say,
your Grace, that I have never had occasion to
have statements of this kind made out, and,
therefore, until these averages are got one never
knows what your waggons are actually doing,
and I should have thought, from general know-
ledge, that the results would have been very
different to what I see they are. I have taken
here 24 stations within a distance of 25 miles
from the colliery. I may say, your Grace, that
those stations vary in distance from two miles
from the colliery to 25 miles, and the total
number of trips made was 1,536; the total
number of days occupied was 13,307; and the
average time occupied per trip was 8.66 days,
and the average earnings per waggon per working
day was 5.56 d.
Mr. Bidder,
1140. That was charging 6 d. 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1141. Now, as I understand, you wanted to
apply those statements you have just put in to
the schedule which proposes to only allow the
railway company a charge of 3 d. How do those
statements that you have put in show that the
3 d. would be unremunerative?–If you will allow
me I will deal with the third statement first.
Thiss tatement shows the running of our waggons
to 67 stations, varying in distance from 26 miles
from the colliery to 220 miles, and the charge,
speaking generally, is 6 d. per ton up to 50 miles,
9 d. per ton for 75 miles, and 1 s. per ton above
that distance. About 30 of the stations, or nearly
50 per cent, would be 9 d. stations, and they are
fairly representative ones. I find the total num-
ber of trips made was 2,457; the total number of
days occupied was 25,949; and the average time
occupied per trip was 10:56 days; and the average
earnings per waggon per working day was 6-664.
Earl of Belmore.
1142. What do you mean by “working day ”?
—A working day is a day calculated from the
time the waggon leaves the colliery until the time
when it returns.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1143. Now, will you tell us how those figures
you have got out very carefully show that the 3 d.
would be an absolutely unremunerative charge 2
—The 3 d. would reduce, of course it is obvious,
all our 6 d. rates by one-half, and would affect us
to the extent about 307 l. per annum, or very
nearly l l per waggon.
Chairman.
l 144. How would it diminish all your 6 d.
rate to one-half?—I beg your Grace's pardon, I
should have said within the 25 miles limit.
Mr. BUTLER.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1145. Now, will you just tell me, what do you
find a waggon costs?—I find the average cost of
our waggons has been 64 l. 10 s. each.
1146. And the gross earnings of your waggons
for the year have been how much 2–The gross
earnings of the waggons for last year were
2,302 l. 17 s. 3 d., or 4 s. 1171 d. per trip, or
7'46 d. per trip. The gross earnings of the wag-
gons was 7 l. 8s. 1 d. per annum each.
Mr. Dickson.
1147. For how many working days in the
year !—Two hundred and sixty-nine.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1148. What has the cost of repair been 2–The
actual cost of repairs, of which we do a large
proportion ourselves, and of which the remainder
is done by companies under contract or per esti-
mate, was 862. 11 s. 10 d.
1149. How much per waggon?—£2. 15 s. 6 d.
per Waggon per annum. That of course reduces
the net earnings by that amount, which leaves
them 4 l. 12 s. 7d.
Chairman.
1150. Does every waggon you possess cost you
2. l. 15 s. and whatever it is per annum to re
pair 3–That is the average cost of the whole
number. Some of them would cost as much as
20 l. a-piece, and a large number would require
no repairs at all.
1161. In point of fact, each waggon does cost
2 l. 15 s, a year to keep in repairº–That is my
experience.
Lord Houghton.
1152. Does it include the renewal of your
Waggons –Yes, quite so, not the supply of new
waggons, but keeping up the stock.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1153. That keeps up the waggon in a fit work-
ing condition ?–Yes, quite so.
1134. But it does not supply new waggons;
and I suppose every waggon at some time or
other goes to the scrap heap 2–I should not like
to say that. There are, doubtless, occasions when
that is the case.
1155. What, about, is the life of a Waggon?—
I should not like to express an opinion upon
that. I, believe, myself, that a waggon's life
never ends. -
1156. How do those expenses work out rela-
tively to the possible receipts under this sche-
dule; or have you anything to add to the ex-
penses?–I should add a certain charge to the
expenses to cover a fair rate of interest upon the
cost of the Waggon, and also a charge for depre-
ciation other than repairs. That depreciation
perhaps requires a little explanation, and it is
this: However well you may keep up your
Waggon, you may keep it in perfect repair, and,
for practical purposes, as good as new, but your
Waggon is a second-hand waggon, and when
your colliery is exhausted, a waggon which may
have cºst 60 l or 70 l. will not bring you in
more than 20 l. or 30 l., although it may be
practically as good for running purposes the first
day
O N RAIL WAY RATES AND CEI ARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
249
23 April 1891.]
Mr. BUTLER.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
day it was started ; and I think that to cover
those two charges it is very fair and quite within
the mark to allow 10 per cent., and 10 per cent.
upon the cost of the waggons comes to 6 ſ. 9 s.
per waggon ; so that our net receipts being
47. 12 s. 7 d. and our charge of 10 per cent.
amounting to 6 l. 9s., leaves us with our present
rate of waggon hire l l 16 s. 5 d. per waggon
to the bad.
1157. And the effect of the proposed 3 d. rate
applied to your own waggons would, upon your
own waggons, amount to 307 l. 4. S. per annum
loss 2–Yes, our loss, instead of amounting to
1 l. 16 s. 5 d., would practically amount to
3 l. 16 s. 5 d.
1158. Do you think that many persons could
not afford to go on running waggons at all on
those terms ?--The effect of the reduction in the
rate, I think, undoubtedly would be to discourage
the building and owning of private waggons.
Chairman.
1159. How do you get at that figure of 1 l.
You say that the alteration would increase your
waggon from 1 l. 16 s. 5 d., and make it
2. l. 16 s. 5 d. 7—It is got at in this way : 1 l. is
the one-half of the earnings at 6 d. per ton over
the 25 miles, the number of stations within the
25 miles distance, that is to say, that the gross
earnings of those waggons to the stations at the
25 miles distance, was 614 l. and some odd
shillings; and if the rate is reduced to 3 d., the
amount is simply divided by two waggons, a
reduction of 307 l., and our having 3 ll waggons,
it practically is l l per waggon.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1160. Now, you were saying that many people
could not afford to do that, and what the effect
would be, will you just complete your answer P-
The effect of fixing a rate of 3 d. which
the railway companies would have to charge,
would be to enforce by competition the same
rate upon all private owners of waggons, and as it
would be an unremunerative one, in fact would
expose us to loss, the ultimate effect would be
that the owners of private waggons would be dis-
couraged, and the money invested in the waggon
building companies would be practically
unremunerative, and the trade would be seriously
jeopardised.
1161. With regard to the other charges in the
schedule, are you satisfied with those, the 9 d.
and the 1s. for distances exceeding 50 miles, but
not exceeding 75 !
Chairman.] What we are on now is the 25
miles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1162. Yes, your Grace ; but I thought it
would not be necessary to recall the witness.
He is entirely with the schedule upon this matter.
(To the Witness). Do you agree that 9 d. for a
distance exceeding 50 miles, but not exceeding
75 miles, is a fair charge 7–Yes, I do.
1163. And you want to keep it as the Board of
Trade has fixed it 2–Yes, I wish to keep it, for
it would affect us very seriously if the rate were
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
altered. If the 9 d. were to be struck out I find
that 30 out of our 67 stations would be reduced
practically to a 6 d. rate, and that would entail
considerable loss upon us; and moreover, the 9 d.
has become an established trade charge which is
recognised by dealers and others, and I think it
would be very prejudicial to interfere with an
arrangement which is a common understanding
amongst all. -
1164. And you think that the striking out of
of the 9 d. charge would be a bad thing for the
owners of waggons?—Certainly.
Mr. Moon." Perhaps I can save my learned
friend, Mr. Pembroke Stephens, the labour of
cross-examining this witness, because for the
London and North-Western Railway Company
we admit that the case of the West Cumberland
iron people must be specially dealt with. The
circumstances of the traffic are special, and the
circumstances of the rates are special, because
they were specially settled by Parliament as
recently as the year 1873; and when we come to
that part of the London and North-Western Rail-
way Company’s schedule, that will be the time
for my learned friend to come; and we shall not
object, of course, to his being heard, to say that
special treatment ought to be accorded the West
Cumberland iron people.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] In other words, we
are not to be taken as being included in Clause 6,
which we are now dealing with.
Mr. Moon.] Not to be barred from alleging
that you are entitled to special treatment, what-
ever may be the treatment accorded to general
traffic all over the country.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I think that is per-
fectly fair. The only thing, your Grace, is this,
that of course there is a certain disadvantage, as
we have felt elsewhere, in coming up at the very
close of the proceedings. My learned friend will
of course give us every possible notice that the
circumstances permit
Mr. Moon.] Certainly.
Mr. Shaw.] If I could only get the same
special treatment for my district I should save
your Grace's time.
Mr. Bidder.] There is nothing special in your
C{USC.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1165. The evidence that you have given
would not apply to the South Wales district,
would it 2—I have no practical acquaintance with
South Wales.
1166. Then it would not apply 2–I could not
Say.
1167. You know, do you not, that the South
Wales coal trade runs in very short leads, not
more than 20 miles on an average P-I know
it as a matter of common report, but not of
my own knowledge.
1168. Would it not be almost all coal for
shipment which you said just now showed a
better result than any other ?—I believe it is so,
but I cannot say.
(81.)
I I 1169. Assuming
250
COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT
z---—
23 April 1891.]
Mr. Shaw—continued.
1169, Assuming for a moment that in South
Wales
Chairman.
1170. First of all, do you know anything
about South Wales 2–No, I do not.
Mr. BUTLER.
[Continued.
—º
—r-
Chairman.] Then
information. - -
Mr. Shaw.] Then I will leave it there, your
Grace.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
he cannot give us much.
Mr. Bidder.] Then, your Grace, I will call
Mr. Noble for the Midland Railway Company.
MR. JOHN NOBLE, is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder, -
1171. YoU are General Manager of the Mid-
land Railway Company ?—Yes.
1172. You have with you, have you not, the
Act which your company obtained in the year
1881, of which I have handed in a copy to his
Grace 2–Yes.
1173. I should like to ask you this. Was
that an Act which was applied for with the sanc-
tion and approval of the coalowners and others
interested in your system 2–There was no
opposition whatever to the terms which were
asked for in this Act of Parliament as regards
the rates which we might charge for the use of
waggons. The rates are these : “In addition to
the rates, tolls, and charges which the company
are by any Act of Parliament authorised to
demand and receive in respect of the conveyance
upon their railway of coal, coke, culm, ironstone,
iron ore, lime, limestone, salt, paving stones, and
all undressed road materials, the company may
demand and receive in respect of the supply by
them of waggons for the conveyance of such
articles and things the additional rate or charge
following (that is to say), for all such articles
and things as may be conveyed in the company’s
waggons for a distance not exceeding 50 miles
the sum of 6 d. per tom. For all such articles
and things as may be conveyed in the company’s
waggons for a distance exceeding 50 miles, but
not exceeding 150 miles, the sum of 1 s. per ton.
For all such articles and things as may be con-
veyed in the company’s waggons for a distance
exceeding 150 miles the sum of 1 s. 3 d. per
ton.”
1174. That was an Act obtained, the main
object of the company being to facilitate trade
both in the interests of the trade and themselves?
—Yes ; there were two main objects which the
company had in view in asking their shareholders
to raise the large sum of money necessary for
the purchase of private owners' waggons. One
was that we should have them under our own
control entirely, and would be able to keep them
in the same state of repair as our own waggons;
and the second was that as there were nearly
1,000 private owners' waggons, I mean the
waggons of nearly 1,000 private owners running
upon the line, we should be in a position to
facilitate the transit of the traffic sent out in
those waggons, and the empty waggons back
again to be re-loaded, much better than we can
possibly do when we have the waggons of 1,000
different traders to send out and send back to
the particular colliery or merchant to whom they
belong. In fact, we sent out a circular as
soon as we got our Act of Parliament, to all the
owners of private waggons upon the Midland
Mr. Bidder—continued.
Railway Company’s system. The reasons which
induced the directors to ask the 'shareholders to
find the money to purchase the waggons is set
out in words contained in the circular.
1175. I think we might land in a copy of that
circular ; I see it is dated the 1st of November
1887 ?—Yes; that is when we first began to
offer to buy the private waggons : “The object
of my directors in purchasing the waggons is to
keep in traffic, to the advantage of the traders.
and of the company, a regular and adequate
supply of trustworthy waggons, suitable to the
requirements of every description of traffic.”
And in the same circular, having raised the first
instalment of the sum necessary for the purchase
of the waggons, we point out the charges which
we proposed to make. First, we stated what we
were authorised to charge by the Act of Parlia-
ment, to which reference has been made just now,
and that they were subject to modification ; they
were to be taken as the basis, but it was as the
basis according to seasons. -
1176. Now, at that time, these scheduled
charges of yours were at least as low, if not
lower, than what the traders themselves, being
owners of waggons, were charging to their cus-
tomers, the coal merchants, for their waggons 2–
Yes. Our application to Parliament for these
charges was based upon what was being at that
time actually done by colliery proprietors who
had their own waggons. They used to charge,
of course, in addition to the cost of the coal, so
much per ton for the use of the waggon, and we
endeavoured to base our charges as nearly as
possible upon the actual charges then being made
by the private traders. -
Earl of Camperdown.
1177. What was your actual minimum charge?
—Sixpence. You will see it is quoted that these
charges are “for a distance exceeding 50 miles,
but not exceeding 150 miles, the sum of 1 S. per
ton;” “for a distance exceeding 150, the sum of
ls. 3 d. per ton.” In fact we quoted the charges
mentioned in the Act of Parliament.
1178, I thought you said just now that, after
this circular there was another circular saying
that you would make certain definite charges to
your customers?—No, my Lord, there was no
second circular sent out.
Mr. Bidder.
1179. Under the Act of 1881, and following
up this circular, a very large proportion of the
owners on your system did sell their waggons to
you, did they not ?—Yes; we have bought from
these private owners between 60,000 and 70,000
Waggons,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
251
23 April 1891.]
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
waggons, representing in capital outlay, for which
we have paid the traders ourselves, 1,750,000 l.,
and we have built a considerable number of
waggons ourselves in order to keep the traders
supplied.
1180. So that you have practically close upon
2,250,000 l. capital invested upon the faith of that
schedule to the Act of 1881 2–Yes, and a great
deal more.
1181. Now, could your company have faced
the committing of yourselves to that capital ex-
penditure with a schedule containing 3 d. mini-
mum ?—No ; we got the charges approved by
Parliament before we commenced to negotiate
with anybody for the purchase of their waggons.
If the charges had not been what they are in this
Act of Parliament we should not have faced the
thing at all, because it would not pay the com-
pany or the shareholders any fair remuneration
for their capital if we had not the power to make
these charges. -
1182. What is your experience upon the Mid-
land system with reference to the amount of work
that you can get out of a waggon. Does the
difference of distance between 25 miles and 50
miles make any appreciable difference 2–No ;
and the reason for that is obvious. The great
bulk of the trade that is done on the Midland
line in coal (and this applies also to some extent
I suppose to the Great Northern, and largely
to the North Western) is coal for house
consumption. The merchants at the various
stations want sometimes three, four, and
sometimes seven or eight different kinds
of coal on sale at the same time ; they
order various kinds of coal. These waggons
come to the wharf; but it may be that the
merchant has not the demand for one particular
class of coal for a week at the time; that very
often happens. There may be a run upon
another kind of coal, and the merchant may be
able to get his waggons unloaded within a
reasonable time ; but with regard to the bulk of
his traffic he must have these various sorts of
coal on hand continuously, and he does not get
his waggons unloaded, so that they can make
more than one journey a week; that is, a week
from the time, the waggon leaves the colliery
until he has unloaded it, and it can be returned
to the colliery.
Chairman.
1183. Are you speaking now of places to
which you send coal within the 25 miles 2–
Yes, your Grace, I am. I got out a return
of the number of days that a certain
number of waggons, in fact, the whole of the
waggons sent out from five, or six collieries to
places within 25 miles of those collieries, have
been under load, and the average was seven
days.
Mr. Bidder.
1184. So that you cannot get more than a
journey a week out of a waggon, although it
goes to distances within 25 miles 2–Yes; and
then a journey a week does not apply to the
whole year.
1185. In the first place, there is a certain time
to be taken off because it has to be in the shops
Mr. Bidder—continucd.
from time to time for the purpose of repair?—
Yºu may take it that on an average a waggon
is in the shops a fortnight every year, and then
there are the summer months when the traffic
is slack and when there are thousands of waggons
standing doing nothing in the siding. -
1186. What do you make the cost of a waggon
to you now 2–I have put the cost of a waggon
at from 601 to 70 l. It is only a fortnight ago that
at one of our joint committees we opened
tenders for new waggons, and the lowest tender
was to the best of my recollection somewhere
about 66 l., and some of the tenders went up as
high as 80 l ; but taking a fair average some-
where between 60 l and 70 l is now the price of
such waggons, at any rate as we build.
1187. Then what do you say a waggon costs
you a year for maintenance and repairs, interest
on capital, and depreciation ?—I was going to be
modest enough to say 10 per cent., but I heard
the previous witnesses or one of the previous
witnesses say that that would be too low a sum
to take ; but if you take it at anything like 10
per gent, there is 77 year for interest, repairs,
and depreciation.
1188. And making a journey a week, that
third charge on an 8-ton waggon would give
you 2 s, per week 2–Yes; and if you take it for
40 weeks out of the 52, it is only 4 l, a year.
Earl of Camperdown.
1189. As against 71. a year for interest, re-
pairs, and depreciation ?—The actual out-of-
pocket cost.
Earl of Belmore.
1190. Including interest on capital?–Yes,
because the capital that has bought the waggons
is in the general capital of the concern, upon
which we have to pay interest to the share-
holders.
Mr. Bidder.
1191. Have you calculated as a matter of fact
what would be the effect upon the revenues of
your company if this sixpenny charge were put
down to threepence 2–It would mean a loss to
the Midland Railway Company now of 18,000 l.
a year.
1192. Then there is another point I should
like to ask you about. Of course this is a purely
permissive charge; it is perfectly practicable,
and it is done now by a great many traders to find
their own waggons for mineral traffic, is it not ?—
Yes, they can find their own waggons, of course,
but a very large number of the principal traders
upon the line have sold us their waggons upon
these terms and conditions, and I have not heard
a complaint with regard to the charges. The
complaints I have heard are from those who own
their own waggons, and who say our charges are
not high enough; that they cannot make their
Waggons pay.
1193. What I mean is that if any trader thinks
the business could be done in his special case for
less than 6 d. a ton, he can always provide his
own waggons 2–Yes.
1194. Or he can do another thing without
going to the expense of buying his own waggons,
(81.)
II 2 he
252
MIN UTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.]
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
he can hire them from one of the numerous
waggon companies 2–Yes.
1195. As a matter of fact, I believe your own
company and the North Eastern Railway Com-
pany are the only English railway companies that
do own waggons to any great extent?—That is
not strictly accurate. I believe the Midland
Railway Company has by far the largest number
of waggons; but the Great Northern Company,
and the London and North Western Company,
to a certain extent, provide waggons for coal
traffic. I do not know whether the Great West-
ern do or do not. I think not, but I am quite
certain with regard to the Great Northern, and I
am quite certain with regard to the Tuondon and
North Western Company.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1196. You said just now that you had taken
out a certain average of the time occupied by
your trucks; would you mind looking at the
schedule under “Special Charges,” Part IV. ;
you have got a charge there, have you not, for
demurrage after a reasonable time, for detention of
trucks?—Yes, we have got a power to charge for
the detention of trucks beyond such period as
shall be reasonable and necessary for enabling the
company to deal with the merchandise, and so on.
1197. Is not a good deal of the delay that you
complain of covered by that?—No.
1198. Will you just explain how it is not to
the Committee ?—Because we allow the mer-
chants a reasonable time for unloading their
waggons.
1199. What is your reasonable time now 2–
We allow them four days, independently of the
day on which the truck leaves the colliery and
the day on which it goes back.
1200. That allowance of four days is not a
reasonable allowance, is it 2–It is the universal
practice. In fact, we are obliged, as far as pos-
sible, to meet the requirements of the trade, and
when, as l explained to you, a merchant may
have so many different kinds of coal standing in
so many different waggons, and may have a run
for one particular kind of coal to-day this week,
and for another kind of coal on a day next week,
he says: I cannot undertake to conduct my
business properly to unload every truck that
comes into the yard within a certain number of
days, two days or three days; therefore we
allow him four, and we allow him to average
that over the whole month.
1201. Is not 48 hours very often the charge :
after 48 hours, do not railway companies very
often charge for demurrage under this detention
of trucks —Not on coal waggons. There are
some railway companies that charge no demur-
rage at all on coal waggons.
1202. Put you said the rule now was to
charge after a reasonable time –Yes, we have
construed “reasonable time” to mean at least
four days in the country and five days in
London.
1203. That is what you say at present, but
you might hereafter say that it was something
else?—The matter would be subject to arbitra.
tion if we were unreasonable.
1204. Do you know South Wales at all ?—We
have a small line there.
Mr. Shaw—continued.
1025. You know that the traffic comes running
down the valleys and full trucks of merchandise
are carried back, in fact the traffic there is for
shipment, is it not ?–Yes, a large portion of it,
and to ironworks.
I206. Do not you think that this clause as
amended by you, would hit the collieries very
hardly, supposing the railway company insisted
upon supplying us with trucks 7–They cannot
supply you with trucks because coal being in
Class A, the charges do not cover the provision of
trucks. They cannot compel you to use their
trucks, and your protection is that if the railway
company were to be so foolish as to charge any
exorbitant sum you can have your own.
1027. Have you not got a negative power
over us; have you not got certain requirements
that will oblige the trader, before he puts a truck
on to your line, to satisfy your requirements
before anything is done with that truck 2–If I
am right in my recollection, every company is
bound to do that under the Act of Parliament of
1845; but at any rate what is done is for the
safety of the travelling public upon the railway.
It is a matter which has been strongly urged
upon the railway companies by the Board of
Trade, and we are endeavouring as far as we can
(it cannot be done all at once) to insist that every
truck that comes upon the railway shall be safe
to run upon the line, and as far as we can do it,
shall be preserved in a state of safety.
1208. But you are the arbitrator in the case
of your own requirements, are you not, and not
the Board of Trade?—Certainly.
Chairman.] What are you pointing to now 2
Mr. Shaw.] That if there was a want of rail-
way companies at all in the districts which I am
dealing with, they could, by making their require-
ments so onerous, compel us to rise their waggons,
and with regard to any traffic there, which is
carried on so rapidly, they would be able to
charge us what they liked up to 6 d.
Earl of Camperdown. | Do you know what
your minimum rate is now in South Wales.
Mr. Shaw,
1209. The waggons, my Lord, are all owned
by the colliery owners, as I am instructed. (To
the Witness.) If the railway companies have the
power to charge this 6 d. in a district like South
Wales, where the run is only 20 miles for coal
for shipment, would not that put the coal in that
class, higher than in Class B. 2–-I have not
worked it out. I do not know. -
Chairman. What page are you referring to
In OW
Mr. Shaw.l. If your Grace will look at page
10 of the Midland schedule, take the first figure
there in Class A., just as an example, the Mid-
land Railway Company are given by the Board
of Trade so far a power to charge 1 d. per ton
per mile for 20 miles, that would be twenty
pence, add on sixpence and that is twenty-six
pence.
Chairman.]. Cannot you deal with the North
Western schedule 2
Mr. Shaw.] Certainly, your Grace, but the
London
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
253
wºm--
23 April 1891.]
London and North Western schedule is rather
more complicated because it is under different
Acts. -
Mr. Bidder.] But still we have agreed to take
the North Western schedule.
Chairman, What is the page in the North
Western schedule?
Mr. Bidder.] At page 8 your Grace will find
the rate for Class A.
Mr. Shaw.] But it will not work out exactly
the same in the case of the North Western as in
the case of the Midland.
Chairman.] Then take your own schedule.
Mr. Shaw.] They would be able, your Grace,
to charge under this schedule a penny per to:
per mile for a distance not exceeding 20 miles,
that would be 20 d. ; add on 6 d., supposing the
railway companies send the truck, that is 26 d. in
Class A. The rate includes the truck ; multiply
1.15 by 20 and you get 23 d. as against 26 d.
Mr. Bidder.] May I suggest that this is a
question of rates.
Witness.] Twenty-six pence is 3 d. more than
23 d. -
Mr. Shaw.] But what you are asking will have
the effect, especially in South Wales, of putting
coal in a more expensive class than Class B.,
would it not ; that is to say, for 20 miles they
will have to pay 1 s. 6d., whereas, if no trucks
were provided for articles in Class B. for 20 miles,
they would have to pay 1 s. 3 d. according to
our schedule. The whole question of class
is with the railway companies, but you
will have the power in future to charge all mer-
chandise in Class B., the rate there which relates
to the providing by the railway company of
waggons for the conveyance of those goods. In
Class A. there is no truck hire at all, so that if
they have this power to charge 6 d. as for 20
miles, you will be giving the railway companies a
power to charge for coal, which is an enormous
part of the company’s carrying trade, a power
more than is given to them in Class A.
Mr. Bidder.] I should like to point out to my
learned friend that this is really a question to be
dealt with, if at all, when we come to discuss the
rates, and that the question that arises on the
special decimals in the Midland schedule can
hardly be a question to discuss now, when we are
upon the question of general principle.
Chairman.] We are now dealing with Clause 6,
and we must confine ourselves to Clause 6.
Mr. Shaw.] And the only way to do it is as I
suggest ; you cannot do it in any other way.
Mr. Bidder.] It will be quite competent for my
learned friend hereafter, when we come to talk
about decimals and the rate collected, to say that,
inasmuch as you are entitled to a minimum charge
of 6 d., certain results will arise.
Mr. Shaw.] No, no.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] On this point I would
merely say that I support the point that has been
taken by my learned friend, and for this rea-
SOIl——
Mr. No BLE.
[Continued.
- sº
Mr. Bidder.] I must object to my learned
friend intervening, because it has been agreed
that his point is specially against the North
Western schedule.
Mr. Moon..] I would submit that my learned
friend has a special point, and he has a general
point; we have agreed that the special point
shall be reserved, but he is now proposing to deal
with the general point upon his amendment, which
really does not touch the amendment which is
now before your Grace. My learned friend’s .
amendment is to substitute a different system of
charge from that which is proposed in the
schedule.
Chairman. j. I think what you must confine
yourself to is this: you must confine yourself to
some argument to show why the clause with
regard to exceeding 25 miles in line 20 should be
struck out.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That, your Grace, is
precisely what I am proposing to do, and for two
reasons; first, because as a trader I object to the
change.; and secondly, that if the change is made
it might throw difficulties in the way of my
proposal later on.
Mr. Bidder.] Do you wish to ask Mr. Noble
any questions
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.j Certainly.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1210. I understand, with regard to this rate in
Clause 6, you justify the alteration which is pro-
posed, or at least you recommend it on the
ground that you are liable to certain
difficulties and delays with regard to
waggons?–No ; I am justifying it on the
ground that the amount which we are at present
empowered to charge by Act of Parliament is a
reasonable amount, and the only amount which
should enable us to carry on the business which
is carried on in these waggons.
1211–2. You are here proposing to alter the
Provisional Order as submitted by the Board of
Trade, and practically to double the amount
under this head, and I ask you whether you are
not recommending that change amongst other
things mainly upon the ground of these delays
with regard to waggons !—No ; I do not call
them delays, I call them the ordinary course of
traffic.
1213. Is there anything exceptional in the
Midland Railway, for which you speak, from the
North Western and North Eastern systems ?—
The North Eastern I do not speak so. Mainly
their coal trade, or a very large proportion of
their trade, at any rate, is to the coast.
1214. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that
the delays of which you have been speaking are
practically unknown in the case of the North
Western and North Eastern waggons 2—I know
nothing at all about it.
1215. Would you be surprised to hear that
the average time taken by, say, coke waggons in
and out of the works is an hour?—Between what
points do you mean *
1216. Coming from the North Western; coming
(81.)
1 ſ 3 from
254
, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.]
Mr. Pembroke Stephens—continued.
ing from Carlisle or Penrith, that when it comes
into the works, the average time taken in the
works, or from the time that the waggon arrives
until it goes out again is an hour !—I know
nothing at all about it.
1217. Would you be surprised to hear that the
waggons make two trips in the week, and some-
times the same waggon, so that it can be identi-
fied ?–It is impossible for me to have any know-
ledge whatever upon the subject.
1218. Do not you see that if it is so——
Chairman.] But you must confine your ques-
tions to topics upon which the witness is capable
of giving an answer.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Chairman.] He says that he knows nothing
about it.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1219. Then I will not carry it further beyond
this. (To the Witness.) Is it not the fact that you
are asking the Committee to make a change in
the rate on account of what you call your ex-
periences of waggons, in entire ignorance of what
happens on other systems ?—We are asking the
Committee to preserve to us our present rates,
not to alter them.
Chairman.] This gentleman appears to be per-
fectly competent to speak about the Midland
Railway.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That is my difficulty.
Mr. Noble is the Midland ; my learned friend Mr.
Bidder represents the Midland Company. It is
on the Midland evidence that you are asked to
alter all the schedules.
Mr. Bidder.] We ask to be allowed to adopt
the original Board of Trade draft instead of the
altered one.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
1220. I only want to ask you one or two
questions. You are speaking entirely from the
experience of your own system 2–Lntirely.
1221. Has there been any alteration or change
in the conditions of the trade or business since
you got those powers from Parliament in the year
1881, which would suggest or justify an alteration
in the scale?—None whatever in a downward
direction. I am afraid the waggons do not make
quite the same number of journeys now that they
used to do; they are not certainly doing any
better than they were.
1222. There is one other question that I should
like to put to you ; it was referred to. Under
certain old Acts of Parliament certain of the com-
panies have the right to charge waggon hire at
the rate of one-eighth of a penny per ton per
mile without any inferior minimum ?
Earl of Belmore.] Is that over the whole
system ; over the whole journey 2
Mr. Bidder.
1223. It is so under some of the companies'
old Acts. (To the Witness.) Did any of the
companies find waggons under those circum-
stances 2–No.
Chairman.] You say, Mr. Pembroke Stephens,
Mr. NOBLE.
[Continued.
that your difficulty is in getting what you want
from this gentleman, because he is the Midland;
but it is quite in your power to call the general
manager of the London and North Western
Railway iſ that will assist you.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If Mr. Findlay
comes, and his evidence is what I want, I shall
adopt it. Mr. Noble is really speaking for the
Midland Railway Company, and it is really an
exceptional application on behalf of the Midland
Company. -
Chairman.] But you can reduce that ex-
ceptional application by calling the general
manager of the London and North Western
Company, who would give you the evidence you
want in the most straightforward manner,
whether you call him or Mr. Bidder calls him.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am not appearing,
your Grace, for the London and North Western
Railway Company.
Chairman.] But if you want to establish
your case, you can establish it by calling any-
body you please. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am face to face at
the present moment with the Midland manager,
and he tells me that his knowledge is confined
to the Midland Railway. With that I am
COntent. .
Chairman.] I understood that you were not
content 2 •
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am not content,
your Grace, with the alteration of the schedule
in their proposal.
Mr. Moon.] Would your Grace ask my learned
friend whether any of the coke traffic that he is
speaking of goes for a less distance that 50
miles P. Because, if it does not, then I submit
that on the amendment which you are now dis-
cussing my learned friend is out of court.
Chairman.] However, Mr. Pembroke Ste-
phens is not in the box, or likely to be.
Mr. Bidder.
1224. (To the Witness.) There is one other
matter that was put to you by my learned
friend who cross-examined you first, that the
traders' waggons have to come under some re-
strictions, and to satisfy certain conditions before
they may be run upon a railway, and that is
so 2–Yes.
1225. But he suggested to you that those
were conditions which the company imposed
according to their own will. Now I See, on
referring to the Act, the General Railways
Act, 1845, Section 117, is this: “No carriage
shall pass along or be upon the railway (except
in directly crossing the same, as herein or by the
special Act authorised) unless such carriage, be
at all times, so long as it shall be used or shall
remain on the railway, of the construction and in
the condition which the regulations of the company
for the time being shall require ; ” then it adds,
“ and if any dispute arise between the company
and the owner of any such carriage as to the
construction or condition thereof, in reference to
the then existing regulations of the company,
such
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
255
28 April 1891.].
Mr. Noble.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
such dispute shall be settled by arbitration.” So
that there is arbitration to protect the trader 2–
Yes.
Lord Houghton.
1226. Do you, as a matter of practice, often
charge less than 6 d. for short distances?—We
do in cases where we know the waggon can per-
form the journey in a very short time. Take,
for example, coal going to ironworks, or iron ore
going to ironworks; we know that, as a rule,
those waggons are unloaded almost as soon as
they get to the works. Under those circum-
stances we modify the charge, as was stated in
the circular, that it is proposed to charge
so-and-so.
Chairman.
1227. Let us have the date 2–It is the 13th
February 1882; the only circular we have issued
setting out the charges. “The charge for
waggon hire shall be the charge as authorised by
the Midland Railway Act, 1881, as the basis,
subject to modification, according to the seasons
and special circumstances,” and these are special
circumstances which justify us in making a less
charge than 6 d.
Mr. Bidder.
1228. And you do make a less charge than
6 d. 2–We do make a less charge in a great
number of cases.
Lord Houghton.
1229. Does it form a very large proportion’of
your short distance traffic ; that was rather the
point I want to get 2—I do not think it does.
Mr. Dickson.
1230. What is the minimum charge you make
under those special circumstances 2–I think we
have nothing, speaking from recollection, less
than 3 d.
1231. But for special circumstances you have
3 d. 2–Yes, in such cases as I have referred
to.
Earl of Belmore.
1232. Upon the whole of your waggon traffic,
do you consider that you carn a fair interest
upon the capital expenditure ?—We are doing so
with the present charges.
1232*. Taking it over the whole?––Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] I will call Mr. Findlay, your
Grace, if my learned friend is anxious to have
the London and North Western manager.
Chairman.] You will not repeat what Mr
Noble has said.
Mr. Bidder.] No, your Grace, I should not
have called Mr. Findlay at all had it not been for
the observations made which cocurred just now.
MR. GEORGE FINDLAY, is re-called, and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
1233. I WILL ask you, generally, does your
general experience on the London and North
Western Railway, as regards the time a waggon
takes on a journey, agree with Mr. Noble's 2–
Quite so. -
1234. I will go at once to the suggestion made
by my learned friend, Mr. Pembroke Stephens,
that there is a certain traffic on your system in
the Cumberland district where a very different
result obtains. Will you just explain the case ?
—Mr. Pembroke Stephens alludes to the enor-
mous trade in coke which is carried from
Durham for manufacturing purposes; for smelt-
ing the iron and steel in the West Cumberland
district. It is carried in owners' waggons, and
the distance probably cannot be less than 150
miles. There is no doubt that when it goes into
the ironworks the waggons are taken to a high
level, and with doors at the bottoms of the wag-
gons they are expeditiously unloaded and sent
back on their journey. As to whether they make
two journeys a week or not I have the informa-
tion before me; but the case of coke for manu-
facturing purposes, such as you have mentioned,
is not at all on all fours with, and bears no
analogy to, the coal trade of the midland districts
of England.
1235. It is an entirely exceptional case which
stands by itself?—An entirely exceptional case
which stands by itself. To a certain extent it
Mr. Bidder—continued.
would apply to other manufacturing districts
probably, where the coal is taken in for large and
immediate consumption in ironworks.
1236. As a matter of fact, it does not touch
the question now before the Committee, I
understand, because it is traffic over 50 miles 7
—I am bound to say that there might be a little
local coal from a colliery called Moresby, in
Cumberland, where the distance would probably
be 25 miles, but in that case the waggons are
found by the local colliery owners, and the rail-
way company do not find waggons.
1237. I was going to ask you, as a rule your
company do not generally find waggons, do they
—No, except in in places where we are in com-
petition with the Midland Company, that is, for
the conveyance of coal from Nottinghamshire
and Derbyshire. We are not finding coal
waggons any where else upon the system. I
suppose there are about some 70,000 or 80,000
private waggons running on the London and
North Western system, principally in Lancashire,
and by arrangement with the Lancashire coal
owners they are offering no opposition to the
withdrawal of this minimum charge of three-
pence.
Chairman.
1238. They are offering no opposition to
the threepence being being turned into sixpence 2
—No.
(81.)
I I 4 1239. Do
256
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.]
Mr. Bidder.
1239. Do you agree with Mr. Noble in the
evidence he has given as to the unremunerative-
ness of the 3 d. charge 2–Yes, I also agree with
what your learned friend Mr. Moon has said,
that there are certain parts of the London and North
Western system, for instance in the Cumberland
district, where, having agreed to a particular
agreement as to the rates and the supply of
waggons that was made in 1878, we propose, so
so far as the Committee will permit us to do, to
maintain the status quo as regards those particular
traders, and to make no alteration either in the
rates or in the rate we charge for the supply of
waggons. We think that ought to be treated
exceptionally.
1240. That would be a special matter in your
own schedule?—Yes.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That is the point Mr.
Findlay and I have reserved.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1241. I have only one question to ask about
this, it is very fair, and I do not quarrel with the
statement you have made in the least. But with
regard to this traffic, whether it is long distance
traffic or short distance traffic, you do not make
any exception in our favour from this general
principle, which you are asking the Committee
to affirm 2–I think we do make an exception in
your favour in that particular part of the country
in Cumberland.
1242. That is the local case, which you and I
will not discuss it at this stage. But as regards
the alteration from 25 miles to 50 miles, although
our coke is so exceptionally well delivered,and there
is such very little delay with the waggons, equally
the 50 mile scale is to apply 2–Clearly so. With
the exception of the one colliery I have men-
tioned, the traffic comes all beyond 50 miles.
1243. But as you know, at any moment or
any year coke might come from a very much
less distance than that, and we shall be fixed
with a scale for all time 2—You would be very
glad to find it elsewhere, but I do not know
where it would come from any week or any year.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1244. The coal from South Wales is nearly all
going for shipment, except the long distance
traffic? — A considerable quantity goes long
distances, to Birkenhead for the American
Steamel'S.
1245. Southampton you mean 2–And to
Southampton.
1246. But all the short distance coal, or nearly
all, goes to the ports of Cardiff or Newport for
shipment –Yes, there is a very large trade that
goes to both Newport and Cardiff.
1247. The average distance is under 20 miles,
is it not ?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
1248. You referred to the withdrawal of the
petition of the Lancashire and Cheshire Coal
Association ?–Yes.
1249. May I ask you whether that petition
has not been withdrawn, whether the opposition
to this particular amendment proposed to you has
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
-smºs
Mr. Clifford—continued.
not been withdrawn upon the faith of the pre-
servation of the existing agreement 2
Earl of Camperdown.] He has said so.
Witness.] Said so. The agreement has, of
course, other matters in it affecting the South
Lancashire Coal Association, which, I suppose,
in due time will be laid before the Committee;
and of course it stands or falls. If the Com-
mittee do not approve of the arrangement when
it comes to be discussed, of course the whole
thing falls through. ... But still on the question of
waggons, I have it from Mr. Hewlett, who is the
largest employer of labour in the Wigan Coal
and Iron Company's works, that they are quite
content that the minimum of sixpence should
remain, in fact, anything less than sixpence
would not remunerate the coalowners them-
selves.
Mr. Clifford.
1250. Upon the condition that the agreement
is subsequently confirmed by Parliament?—With
regard to waggons it is unconditional.
1251. I think you will find that it was on con-
sideration of the preservation of the existing
statutory agreement?—I am speaking offhand.
Mr. Bidder.] It is a little awkward going into
special private matters, which the rest of the
companies have nothing to with.
... Mr. Clifford.] I should not have mentioned it
if Mr. Findlay had not brought it forward.
Mr. Pope.] I think my learned friend, Mr.
Balfour Browne, stated fairly enough what the
understanding was, that if you do not approve of
the agreement between the Lancashire and
Cheshire coalowners and ourselves it is open to
them to raise what amendments they may choose,
and the agreement is practically offin all respects.
They are entitled to raise either this or any
question they like with regard to this matter. It
is intended to settle all the questions between us.
If it does not settle all the questions between us
then, they are entitled to raise those question again
hereafter. $5
. Mr. Clifford.] I only wanted to ask the ques-
tion in order to reserve our rights.
Chairman.] The difficulty is that we may have
settled all these matters, and you cannot go back
upon them.
Mr. Pope..] I do not see that difficulty, of
course, but I presume that what would happen
would be this That when the agreement comes
up, if you do not approve of the agreement as a
whole, then the Lancashire and Cheshire coal-
owners would be at liberty to raise as a special
point in their own interest on our schedule any
point they may choose with regard to that agree-
ment; that would only refer to the Lancashire
and Cheshire Conference, of course.
Chairman.] I think there will be no difficulty
upon that.
Mr. Dickson.
1252. To the Witness.] What is the minimum
charge at present for a waggon running 20
miles?—ſ do not think we have any short dis.
tance traffic in competition with the Midland.
We run over the Great Northern Railway into
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 257
Aº
23 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued,
Mr. Dickson—continued.
the Midland district; our traffic is mostly for
long distances, but in summer probably for a
distance under 50 miles we should charge with a
view to employ the waggons as much as possible,
something less than sixpence, but not so little as
threepence. *
1253. But as a matter of fact you do not
charge threepence for the use of waggons for 20
miles on any part of your system 2–We do not;
and I might say that of course there is no obliga-
tion so far as I understand it, to find waggons
for this particular coal traffic. In fact in the
London and North Western Act of 1846 there
is an exemption from our finding coal waggons at
all. Therefore the argument of Lord Balfour of
Burleigh upon that point would not apply to the
London and North Western. And if we are not
bound to find waggons, I am quite sure that the
charge of threepence would prevent us from ever
thinking of finding waggons for the purpose.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] We have, your Grace, tw
traders I will ask you to allow my learned friend
Mr. Saunders to call from another district, who
are waggon owners. I should like, your Grace,
to have their experience shortly ; they are
colliery waggon owners.
Chairman.] Would they carry the matter
further ?
Mr. Bidder.] I am bound to say that they
would not carry the matter any further; but
their experience would be the same.
Chairman.] You see we have heard from Mr.
Moble and Mr. Findlay and the other gentlemen
what the general experience is.
Mr. Bidder.] Then I will take upon myself
the responsibility of not calling them, only
saying that they would have confirmed the
evidence from their own individual experience.
Perhaps I might also say, to save calling a
witness, that Mr. Wilkinson, of the Great
Western Company, has taken the waggon
charges for the coalowners trading on their
system, and they are in no case under 6 d. And
with those observations I will leave the matter
in the hands of the Cammittee.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The observations
that I shall make to your Grace will be very
few. It is quite evident, upon Mr. Findlay's
own showing, that there is no case for
altering the rate in the Cumberland
district, absolutely none ; because the evidence
that has been given relates to delays
on other parts of the system. He admits that ex-
ceptional facilities are given, and that no diffi-
culties arise. I am appearing in support of this
point. I shall have to appear against some prin-
ciples where the Board of Trade finds a little
differently ; but on this particular point I am not
differing from, but on the contrary accepting, on
principle and in spirit, the 25-mile limit as against
the 50-mile. I shall have to show you, when the
time comes fºr my amendment on that, how it
works out; but I submit, for the clients I repre-
sent, no case has been made out as against an
alteration.
if we were upon the Midland system, the Mid-
I am not concerned to find whether,
land Coompany might not for itself make out some
speeial case just as we shall have to deal by-and-
bye with special cases on the London and North
Western system, but as to what may be called a
general increase of rates, more particularly in the
case of my own clients, beyond what has been
settled by the Board of Trade, I submit that no
case has been made. The two witnesses who
have been called are the Midland, who do not
touch us, and the London and North Western,
who do. And the London and North Western
have admitted my case. As against the
trading witnesses, what I should say with
regard to that is this, that as the traders’
case for it has been put before you, it is asto-
nishing to find them arm-in-arm with the railway
companies in an increase of charges. But their
increase is not really a justification, their pro-
posal is not really a justification for putting more
money into the pockets of the railway companies
at the expense of the traders, but only goes to
this extent, We, traders, who are owners of
waggons, should like the railway companies to get
a high rate for waggons, because it will react in
our favour. That is the ground upon which
they ask for it. But that is no justification for
an increase as against the traders as a whole.
These rates in Clause 6 are rates affecting the
conveyance of merchandise generally, not for
particular owners who have or have not trucks,
but general rates applicable to all railways. It
may be a personal advantage to a trader who has
got a number of trucks to see a certain advan-
tage to himself in something the railway com-
panies may get ; but by doing so he is shutting
his eyes to the advantage of the traders as a
whole, which in this respect are the provisions of
the Order.
Mr. Shaw, I have only about two words to
say, your Grace, and they are these : that the
railway companies, such as the Midland, may
have made out a very good case for the ap-
plication before the Committee; but why
should that case tell against the district
for which I am interested 2 They have made
out no case for this alteration with regard to our
district, and if it comes to a question of rates, as
suggested by my learned friend Mr. Bidder, as
it does really come to what the trader has to pay,
and will have to pay, let him have a special pro-
vision put in for his Midland schedule, that is
all we want. We want to have ourselves in
South Wales guarded so that the railway com-
panies should not have power to put our coal
into a higher class than Class A.
Mr. Bidder.] I must point out in reply, your
Grace, that the evidence that has been called
before you does not relate exclusively to the Mid-
land system. Mr. Noble spoke as to the Mid-
land, and Mr. Findlay confirmed as to the London
and North Western; and I told your Grace that I
had colliery and waggon owners on the Great
Western system who would have told you the
same. Neither of my learned friends attempts
by evidence to negative what we have put before
you that the 3d, rate is an absolutely, unremune-
rative rate, or to show you that it is anything
but unremunerative. I submit that there is no
reason whatever for this change from the scale
adopted by Parliament in 1881.
(81.)
K K Sir
258
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
23 April 1891.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I be allowed to say
one word in opposition to this amendment? With
regard to the evidence of Mr Barnes it appear
that he has made an agreement which satisfied him
and he has really no interest in the question ; and
with regard to the particular point he has given
evidence in favour of, he said this in his evidence
the day before yesterday: “Where does the bulk
of that output go to ?–(4.) All down
south. — (Q.) To London 2–(4.) And the
eastern counties, and all down below London.
—(Q.) What is the distance from your col-
liery to London —(A.), 144 miles.” Then
this gentleman, not being himself at all interested
in the 25-mile question, comes here in order to
burden other traders who are competitors of his.
Then, my Lord, Mr. Butler is a gentleman who
has trucks of his own, and wishes to have the
general amount of truck-hire raised to enhance
the value of his trucks. I submit to you two facts
which, I think, will convince the Committee and
your Grace that 3 d. is a moderate rate for truck-
hire up to 25 miles. The North Eastern Com-
pany, who are after all the railway company in
the kingdom, and the only railway company who
provide all the waggons for mineral traffic on that
railway, have done so for many years, and there-
fore their experience as to what it is necessary to
charge is absolutely conclusive. Now they have
come to an agreement with the traders on their
railway, the mineral traders.
Mr. Bidder.] I must take exception, unless
Sir Alfred Hickman is going to call some evi-
dence, to his putting in facts of which no evidence
whatever has been brought before us.
Chairman.] But he is replying after you have
called your witnesses.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, your Grace.
Earl of Camperdown.] But somebody said (I
cannot tell you who) that the North Eastern
Railway Company was the only railway company
that supplied all the traders with waggons; it
was in some evidence.
Mr. Bidder.] What was stated in evidence by
Mr. Noble in answer to me was that the North
Eastern and Midland Companies were the Only
companies who supplied waggons generally, and
to a large extent. But Sir Alfred Hickman is
going a long way beyond that ; he is quoting
from an agreement which he says they have
come to with their traders, of which I know
nothing. I say that, if anything of that kind is
to be brought before the Committee, there must
be some evidence to prove it.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] You must
prove this agreement, you know.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] This agreement, your
Grace -
Chairman.] Are you going to prove the agree-
ment?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] If your Grace thinks it
necessary I will call Mr. Tennant to prove it;
but I submit that it is before the Committee
because it is an agreement between the traders
and the North Eastern Company to commend to
the Committee certain rates and charges to be
agreed upon ; and if it is not actually before the
Committee at the present movement it is in the
possession of the Board of Trade.
Chairman.] But nothing in the possession of
the Board of Trade is any good to us. If you
are going to deal with the document we must
have the document before us.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Is Mr. Tennant in the
room, the General Manager of the North East-
ern ? (No one answers.) Shall I call then Mr.
Gibb now, your Grace, or shall I finish my ob-
servations and call evidence afterwards 2
Chairman.] You may finish your observations
and then call him.
Mr. Bidder.] Upon the understanding that
he is going to be called.
Chairman.] Yes, you must call him and prove
the agreement.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then what I propose to
prove by Mr. Gibb is this: that the North
Eastern Railway Company have agreed with
their traders that on the Cleveland section of
their line they will carry mineral traffic four
miles for sixpence, including the truck-hire.
Then I say that if the North Eastern Railway
Company, with all their experience, find 6 d.
enough for conveyance for four miles and truck-
hire, surely 3 d. must be enough for truck-hire
up to 25 miles. Then I have in my hand, your
Grace, the third annual report of the Inter-State
Commerce Commission of the United States.
This is the official report, your Grace, which is
of the same force and the same authenticity as
the report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr.
Courtenay Boyle.
Chairman.] What are you going to show by
that ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I propose to read to you
an extract. -
Chairman.] To what effect 7
Sir Alfred Hickman.] To the effect that in the
United States
Chairman.] What does that signify to us?
In the United States there is a totally different
state of things.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I submit, your Grace,
that if in the United States one penny is suffi-
cient, threepence is sufficient here.
Chairman.] You cannot compare the two.
You do not know how much a mile it costs them
to make the railways and to build the trucks and
Waggons.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I was going to tell you
how much it costs.
Chairman.] Oh, no, we will not hear it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] If your Grace thinks
SO.
Chairman.] We had better confine ourselves
to Great Britain, Ireland, and the United King-
dom.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then I will call Mr.
Gibb. Has he left the room ?
Mr. Pope.] I have not seen Mr. Gibb. I did
see Mr. Tennant, when I came into the room,
leaving it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Mr. Gibb was in the
room a minute ago.
Mr. Bidder.] He was here about an hour ago.
Sir
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 259
23 April 1891.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Well, my Lord Duke,
your Grace is clear that you will not hear any-
thing about the United States arrangements 2
Chairman.] Certainly; upon that point I am
quite clear.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Well, my Lord, I would
only say this then, if I am shut out from that
part of my case, which I think would have been
very convincing, that I must rely on the North
Eastern agreement; and I say that if sixpence is
sufficient for four miles conveyance and truck
hire, surely threepence must be sufficient for
truck-hire, and I say in the interests of the rail-
way companies themselves——
Chairman.] I confess I think that because it
may be suitable in one particular district for one
very short distance it does not seem to me that
that argument would apply to the whole of the
country, even if you prove your argument.
Mr. Bidder.] Everybody knows that Cleve-
1and is a case of sending iron ore down to the
works, the very case in which the waggon would
be remunerative.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I must leave the matter
in the hands of your Grace then. -
Mr. Woodfall.] I think I ought to say this on
behalf of the Association of Freighters of South .
Wales. I also oppose this increase very much,
but I do not wish to say anything, because it
has been said by other counsel.
Chairman.] It is no use saying the same thing
twice over.
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace, that is what I
feel. I must strongly oppose it in their behalf.
Chairman.] The question we have now to de-
cide is, that for distances not exceeding 25 miles,
threepence per ton be struck out. Would Lord
Balfour wish to add anything to what he has
already told us? -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Your Grace, so far
as the northern companies are concerned, the
evidence stands as what you have heard it. . But
if this alteration is to be made general in the
schedule, I still think that there has not been a
sufficient amount of evidence before your Grace
and the Committee as to the effect of having no
limit below 50 miles in advance and no limit
below 6 d. in money. The Board of Trade were
convinced in the course of the autumn by the
figures put in not only on behalf of the railway
companies, but on behalf of the traders, that
the effect of the maximum rates we propose,
under the conditions in which we propose them,
that this clause making a charge of 6 d., the
lowest possible charge for waggon-hire, would
have the effect over all districts of the country
for Class A. traffic, and more especially coal, of
raising the present maximum powers of the com-
panies which serve those districts, in which the
great majority of the traffic is short-hire traffic.
Both Mr. Findlay and Mr. Noble expressly said
in answer to a question that they had no ex-
perience of short-hire traffic. The districts which
will be most affected are those where the coal
goes from collieries situated at short distances
from the sea to ports for export. Of course, it
is not the business, nor is it in the power of the
Board of Trade, to call witnesses; but I cer-
tainly thought when I heard that this was to be
contested, that those who were in favour of an
alteration which we made upon grounds satisfac-
tory to the Board of Trade, would have called
evidence before the Committee to support the
alteration which we made, and the evidence
which convinced us. They have not done so;
and, of course, the result of that must be what
the Committee choose to decide. -
The Committee retire to consult, and
after some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee find themselves in
Considerable difficulty in this matter, witnesses
having been called on one side, and none on the
other. The consideration of the amendment is
to be postponed until to-morrow, in order to give
an opportunity that the Committee may be in
possession of the information which was before
the Board of Trade. That is on the subject
matter of the amendment; that is to say, for
distances no exceeding 28 miles to be charged
3 d. per ton.
Mr. Bidder.] That is to say, if those gentle-
men, come forward and give evidence here, it is
to give them an opportunity of giving the same
evidence before your Lordships.
Chairman.] Practically it is. You have had
an opportunity of calling witnesses; we have
heard all they have had to say, and they have
been cross-examined ; but there have been no
witnesses on the other side.
Mr. Bºdder.] I quite understand, your Grace,
that anybody who gave evidence before the
Board of Trade, will have an opportunity of
coming to-morrow if they think fit.
Chairman.] But we do think it fit, we desire it.
Mr. Bidder.] What ſ had in my mind was
this that it should be given to your Grace in
the chair, so that we may cross-examine.
Chairman.] Clearly.
Mr. Shaw.] Will your Grace allow us till next
Tuesday : I can bring evidence, but it is down in
South Wales, and it would be very hard to get
it up in one night.
Chairman.] There is certain information and
evidence Lord Balfour of Burleigh alluded to.
Earl of Belmore.] We want to know what
that is.
Earl of Camperdown.] We want to know on
what the 3 d. is based here.
Chairman.] You see we are placed in this
difficulty, that whereas we have it upon the paper
that the Board of Trade originally fixed one
sum, and then from information and evidence
which was before them changed it to another sum,
We would therefore like to be in possession of the
information or evidence, or both, which induced
the Board of Trade to come to a different conclu-
sion from what they had originally determined
upon. That is our position, and you see we have
had only witnesses on one side and none on the
other.
Mr. Bishop.] May I ask whether your Grace
would be satisfied to take that evidence which
was submitted to the Board of Trade as read?
(81.)
K K 2 Mr.
260
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
23 April 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] Then we should have no oppor-
tunity of cross-examining it?
Chairman.] May I ask whom you represent?
Mr. Bishop.] The South Wales freighters.
Chairman.] We could not take that.
Mr. Bishop.] Unfortunately, the secretary of
our association has died in the meantime; he died
in January, just in the interval between the in-
quiry of the Board of Trade and this inquiry. That
is one reason why the evidence was not presented
to-day. & . .
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Perhaps your
Grace will allow us until to-morrow morning to
consult with the Board of Trade, and see whether
we can meet the undoubted difficulty of the case.
We have every desire to help as far as we possibly
CàIl.
Chairman.] Very well.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Will your Grace
allow me, before the Committee rises, to say one
word. Your Grace has been good enough to ask
me whether the Board of Trade are satisfied
that certain words would carry out on Clause 5
the decision that your Committee gave 2. As we
have agreed upon this, I will ask you now to
allow me to read the words of Clause 5, as we
think it ought to run to carry out your decision.
By that means the words will be upon the notes,
and they will be before everybody in the easiest
possible way for consideration to-morrow morn-
ing. We propose that Clause 5 should run in
these words, commencing thus : “The company
may charge for the services hereunder mentioned
when rendered to a trader at his request or for
his convenience a reasonable sum by way of
addition to the tonnage rate. Any difference
arising under this section shall be determined by
an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade at the instance of either party.” Then
will come the proviso as printed in the headings
in Roman letters I., II., III., IV., W., W.I., VII.,
as agreed to by the Committee. But we ven-
ture to suggest for consideration, that the pro-
vision which the Committee have agreed to
insert, giving the trader the right to recover for
demurrage, should take the form of a substantive
clause in these words: “Where a trader provides
trucks for the conveyance of merchandise, he
shall be entitled to recover a reasonable sum by
way of compensation for the detention of his
trucks beyond a reasonable period. Any dif.
ference arising under this section shall be de-
termined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade at the instance of either
party.” That preserves the arbitration for that
purpose, but it avoids the difficulty of making a
substantive enactment in the form of a proviso.
Mr. Bidder.] May I point out to Lord
Balfour of Burleigh that he has left out the
words “ by the company ”? That would cover
detention by the merchant to whom the goods
are consigned.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I purposely put
the words before the Committee at this stage
in order that they might be before them for con-
sideration, and I think it would tend to greater
conclusion than otherwise if they began to alter
them now.
Mr. Bidder.] We shall have in the minutes
to-morrow morning.
Earl of Camperdown.] There was an objection
raised to “ by or through the default of the com-
pany,” and it was suggested that those words
should be wholly left out.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And I think my learned
friend Mr. Bidder agreed to that.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tomorrow, Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
26]
Die Veneris, 24" Apriſis, 1891.
FRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir Jose PH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER,
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
On CLAUSE 6—continued.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)]
ARE you now prepared to give us your views
upon this point, and the reasons which induced
you to reduce the figure which you had origin-
ally put down in this clause ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes, your Grace.
I am quite ready to do that, if you wish to take
it before the thing that was mentioned last night,
the arbitration and amendment of Clause 5,
whichever you wish to take first.
Chairman. Then we had better take Clause 5
first.
Mr. Bidder.] Might I suggest to Lord Bal-
four of Burleigh, and to the Committee, that the
companies have only just this moment got the
print of that ; they have had no time to consider
it, and I think that it would be better that it
should stand over to Tuesday.
Chairman.] That is on Clause 5?
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, your Grace. We had no
opportunity of taking it down as Lord Balfour
read it; we have now got it in print this
moment, and have not had any opportunity
whatever of discussing it.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As a matter of
course, we should not oppose that.
Mr. Bidder.] I think that would be more con-
venient.
Mr. Moon.] I appear, your Grace, for the Great
Eastern Railway Company, and I may say that
at the conclusion of the case in respect of these
waggons yesterday, in the exercise of my discre-
tion I did not think it necessary either to address
the Committee or to call evidence for the Great
Eastern Railway Company ; but, after the con-
clusion of the case, your Grace asked a question of
Lord Balfour, and the answer to that question in-
volves the production of evidence before your Grace
and the Committee this morning, to show that
either in one district or two districts or more
districts in England, 6 d. would be too much to
allow for the provision of waggons. I should there-
fore like at some time or other to be permitted for
the Great Eastern Railway Company, either to
address the Committee, or to call evidence, pro-
bably to address the Committee, to state what the
position is of the Great Eastern Railway Com-
pany to whom the clause in the schedule which
you are now discussing will apply, as well as to
the Great Northern, the London and North
Western, and Great Western Companies. Whe-
ther I should do that now or whether I should do
it after the conclusion of the evidence now to be
called before you, of course I leave it to your
Grace to decide.
Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps I might point out to
your Grace, that all the companies to some extent
are in the same condition. We who did call
evidence yesterday were, I might say, calling
evidence, so to speak, in the dark ; we could have
brought evidence to the Committee to show what
the waggons did cost and what the working cost
of the waggon was ; but we had not the least idea
what the evidence was that induced the Board of
Trade to reconsider their original determination;
and therefore we have never been able to direct
evidence to answer that which we know nothing
about.
Mr. Freeman.] I represent in this inquiry,
your Grace, the [london, Brighton and South
Coast Railway Company, which is a typical
company of the southern companies, and this
question of the threepence, or minimum rate, is of
such vital importance to the southern companies,
owing to their very short runs, and the enor-
mous amount of traffic which would practically
be carried at the minimum rate that I would
respectfully ask your Grace before the inquiry
comes to a conclusion on this point to allow me
to call the General Manager of the London,
Brighton and South Coast Company, and pro-
bably one or two others, whom it concerns pro-
bably more than it does the northern companies.
Mr. Boyle..] I appear, your Grace, for the
South Eastern Company, to which what my
learned friend Mr. Freeman has said equally
applies. Ours is a short line, and we have a
(81.)
K K 3 greater
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELEC T COMMITTEE ON
24 April 1891.
greater proportion of short distances than the
London and North Western and Great Western
Companies have ; and I hope you will allow us
to call witnesses.
Chairman.] Why were not all these three
applications made yesterday ?
Mr. Moon.] So far as I am concerned, because
no evidence was called against us which I was
called upon to meet. I was quite ready to call
evidence, but we were quite in the dark as to
what evidence would be called, and after the evi-
dence that was given to the Board of Trade,
which we never heard of.
Chairman.] The Committee have nothing
whatever to do with what has been before the
IBoard of Trade; it is what is before us that we
have to do with.
Mr. Moon.] Of course, your Grace, Counsel
had to exercise their discretion as to whether
they will call evidence or not ; and, as the case
stood last night, it was an uncontradicted case in
favour of the railway companies. Therefore we
had to exercise our discretion.
Chairman.] You say an uncontradicted case
in favour of the railway companies; what rail-
way company do you allude to, because some of
the railway companies were just of the other
view P
Mr. Moon.] When I say an uncontradicted
case, I mean to say that the evidence was strongly
in favour of a sixpenny charge ; so strongly that
I was ready on that evidence to run the risk of
your deciding against me. But if the Board of
Trade are going to call evidence, or witnesses are
to be called, the evidence of whom I do not know
anything about, then I should ask to be allowed
to make some few observations with regard to
that. Your Grace will remember that you
called attention at the end of the proceedings
last night to the fact that witnesses have been
called all on one side, and none on the other.
Of course under those circumstances Counsel
would never think it necessary to call evidence.
Chairman.j But do you not see what hap-
pened 2 You concluded your case and had not
called witnesses; and then when we were going
to decide the matter we felt ourselves in a diffi-
cult position.
Mr. Moon.] That is perfectly true, your
Grace.
Chairman.] Then we felt a difficulty, and
asked the Board of Trade to give us evidence,
and that they will do at the proper time.
Mr. Moon.] But we had no information that
that evidence was forthcoming which the Board
of Trade are going to give.
Chairman. But you knew, as a matter of
fact, that the Board of Trade had determined
upon a larger sum, and then reduced it to a
smaller sum,
Mr. Moon.] We did know that ; but we did
not know of any evidence that has been given
to them since the inquiry at Westminster Town
Hall upon which they decided it.
Chairman.] I do not know whether any such
evidence has been given, but something must
have happened, in order to induce them to alter
their opinion; it may have been by no witnesses,
but by reconsidering the case—— -
Mr. Bidder.] Might I suggest to my learne
friend, if your Grace will permit me, that the
position seems to be this : Last night your Grace
intimated that the Committee thought they
ought to have before them the evidence and
representations upon which the Board of Trade
acted ; and I would suggest that my learned
friends might leave themselves with the utmost
confidence in the hands of the Committee. If,
when that evidence comes forward, there is any-
thing that places us at a disadvantage, that we
did not know before, probably your Grace would
give us an opportunity of answering it.
Chairman.] But I do not want to give you
power to give evidence in answer to the Board
of Trade. The Board of Trade's action will
merely be for the information of the Committee.
Mr. Bidder.] For myself, your Grace, I
should be disposed to leave myself entirely in
your Grace's hands; but if the Committee felt
that we suffered anything from not knowing
what that evidence was, I am sure you would
give us the opportunity of saying what we have
to say about it.
Mr. Moon.] Under those circumstances, I
should be perfectly content. If your Grace
thinks I may have my say at some time or other,
I am perfectly content to leave myself in your
Grace's hands, and to leave it to your Grace's
discretion to call upon me or not, as you think
proper.
Chairman.] Now we ought to hear what Lord
Balfour of Burleigh has to say.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Well, your Grace,
at the conclusion of the sitting yesterday, you
expressed a desire that the Board of Trade
should put before the Committee, as you ex-
pressed it, the information and evidence which
was before us, and induced us to change the
sums originally put in this clause for those which
are now in. I am not quite certain whether I
actually used the word “evidence ’’ myself; but
the evidence and information upon which we did
proceed (that is the correct term to use) are to be
found in the reports of the deputations and con-
ferences which were held between the Board of
Trade and various traders and railway companies
in the months of December and January last.
Those were officially reported, and I think I am
right in saying that copies of what took place
have been in the hands of the railway companies
ever since. Again, there were certain docu-
mentary statements put before us, some by the
railway companies, and some by the traders,
which induced us to change our minds upon this
subject. Those facts and figures, or some of
them, I can now put before the Committee; and,
in addition to that, some plain facts to be drawn
rom the schedules now before you, as to what
ne certain effect of the change which you are
now asked to make, would be upon the maximum
powers of the company, would also be useful.
Let it be clearly in the minds of the Com-
mittee what is the existing state of matters upon
the point. As I stated yesterday, there is a
maximum sum for conveyance in various Acts
of Parliament, and where the waggon hire is
separately
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
263
24 April 1891.
=-
separately stated by itself, so that it can be
ascertained, the sum in nearly all the Acts of
Parliament, with which I am familiar, is one-
eighth of a penny per ton per mile. The Mid:
land Company is an exception, as you heard
yesterday. That, of course, means that for
every mile in which goods are carried in com-
panies' waggons, they are entitled to charge
one-eighth of a penny more than they would if
the goods were carried in the owners' waggons.
It was pressed upon us, during the inquiry, in
Westminster Town Hall that one-eighth of a
penny was not sufficient for the short distances;
probably that will be admitted upon both sides,
and as a result of that, in the great majority of
cases for those classes of goods the companies at
the present time do not find waggons. . The pro-
posal in the schedule of the companies was, as
we adopted it, 6 d. for any distance under 50
miles, and 1 s. up to 100 miles. Well, as I say,
we adopted that proposal, and I assure the Com-
mittee that there was no one of our proposals
which was so much protested against in the course
of the autumn as that one, and, after considera-
tion, the Board of Trade made the change.
Now I will refer in the first instance to some of
the conferences which took place. There was one
between the association of South Staffordshire
traders and the Board of Trade, which took place
on the 14th January, and another between thc
representatives of the Midland Company, which
took place on the 9th December ; and the Great
Western Company put in a printed statement
with which they are perfectly familiar, which I
hold in my hand, a comparison of the coal rates
actually charged in South Wales with the exist-
ing maximum rates and the maximum rates pro-
posed in the Board of Trade's schedule. This
last I will hand in. I must just state to
the Committee that the object of this
table was to show that our proposed rates
for conveyance of coal and other articles
in Class A. was not sufficient to cover the ex-
isting actual charges. The Great Western
Company state in the first column, the places to
and from which their traffic is going, the distance
in miles in the second column; in the third col-
umn the actual rate in owners' waggons; and
in the fourth and fifth columns the maximum
rate according to one or other of the two schemes
which are placed in the Midland Company’s
schedule ; and in the last column the existing
maximum rate. It was pointed out to us, and it
is absolutely beyond any possibility of contro-
versy, that if to the maximum rate, as we pro-
pose it, for owners' waggons 6d. is added, being
the charge for any distance in company's wag-
gons less than 50 miles, the conjoint effect of
the two proposals would be very largely to in-
crease the powers of the companies for the con-
veyance of Class A. traffic in company’s waggons.
For example, supposing that the conveyance
rate is (as it very often is) a penny per ton per
mile for Class A. traffic in company’s waggons,
and we have put in our schedules at the present
time '90d. (that is the 9-10ths of a penny) per
ton per mile, and the hire of waggons is at the
present time 1-8th of a penny per ton per mile,
that is nearly for a short distance an exact
confirmation of the existing powers. But
if instead of the existing charge of 1-8th
-sº
of a penny per ton per mile, you give
a minimum charge of 6 d. for any distance under
50 miles, and the traffic (as it does very often in
this district) goes a very short distance, say six,
eight, or ten miles, and the charge is then 6 d.
for the waggon hire; the effect of that will be
very largely to raise the existing maximum con-
veyance rate; it would in the future under those
circumstances be for six miles nine-tenths of a
penny multiplied by six plus, not one-eighth of
a penny per ton per mile, but plus 6 d., being
the minimum charge for waggon hire. Now I
hand this in to your Grace (handing in the
same).
Mr. Bidder. Is that a table of Great Western
rates ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Yes; the Great
Western.
Chairman.] “Comparison of coal rates ac-
tually charged in South Wales with existing
maximum rates, and maximum rate proposed by
the Board of Trade scheduled on the Great
Western Railway.” (Handing the same to Mr.
Bidder.)
Mr. Bidder.] Possibly the Great Western
Railway Company will have that ; is that, my
Lord Balfour, what was handed in on the 9th
December 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No, that is the first
printed statement. You had better show it to
Mr. Lambert; Mr. Lambert will be perfectly
familiar with it.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, I think we have a copy of
that. (Handing the same back to the noble Chair-
man.)
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I have stated to
the Committee what we thought was proved by
the representations. I will now read one or
two of the representations that were made to us.
The Mining Association of Great Britain said,
“The association strongly object to the charges
proposed to be authorised for the use of trucks
provided by the railway company. They regret
to find that the evidence given on behalf of the
coal trade before the Board of Trade Tribunal—”
Earl of Camperdown.] When was this 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] This was sent in
on the 11th of December last, “ against the pro-
posals of the railway companies under this head,
has had no weight, but that in this respect the
proposals of the railway companies have been
adopted. The association object to the pro-
posed charges on the ground that they are
much too high, and submit that they should
bear a nearer relation to what has been found in
practice to be the actual cost, namely, about one-
half the proposed charges. They further submit
that the initial distance should not be 50 but
25 miles, at a maximum charge of 3d. per ton.
In the present proposals there is no intermediate
charge for distances between 50 and 150 miles.”
Mr. Hingley, a member of Parliament, in the
course of a deputation from the South Stafford-
shire traders, said, “Well, my Lord, I may say
that the matter has been dealt with so exhaus-
tively that I think it is needless to spend much
more time upon it, but I do ventnre, on behalf of
the South Staffordshire trade with which I
(81.)
K K 4 3.TIl
264
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOſ NT COMMITTEE,
24 April 1891.
am largely connected, to impress upon you the
question of these terminals. Sixpence per ton
on coal and 6 d. per ton on iron ore is simply an
intolerable burden upon the manufacturer.
These charges accumulate very fast indeed;
they appear small in themselves, but when you
have to pay 6 d. for terminals upon the various
component parts it becomes a serious sum by the
time the article is produced. What has been
suggested is that 3 d. for coal is ample. Nine-
pence per ton for a truck of 8 or 10 tons of
undamageable iron, that is 7 s. 6d. for the mere
terminal, and not for the handling or for services
of any kind, is an enormous cost, far beyond the
cost of the services rendered. I say if any
private company were to provide a station and
have these terminals, it would make an enormous
fortune at nearly all the stations. Of course, if
they choose to spend 100,000 l. on a station there
is no reason why the manufacturing trade of the
country should be burdened with that charge.
I have no doubt that what has been said will
receive full consideration, and if we can begin at
3 d. and have a graduated scale, that will probably
meet the case. I fully agree, and I have always
from the beginning of this discussion agreed,
that terminals should be defined and charged;
but certainly that ought to be deducted
from maximum rates. When it was pointed
out by Sir Alfred Hickman that in the one
case they have a difference of three-eighths
of a penny per ton for certain services, surely
that would include the terminal, 50 per cent, must
include the whole of the services, otherwise it
would be altogetheran inconceivable charge. Then
with regard to the waggons, the suggestion Lord
Balfour made with regard to dividing the scale
into 25, 50, and 75 miles, I think would meet the
case; at present the difference between 6 d. and 1s.
is too great. Begin at 3 d. and then charge 6 d.
and 9d, according to the circumstances; that
would meet the case. And many other repre-
sentations to the same effect were made to us.
We had an interview, as I have said, with the
Midland Railway Company, the only company
which has anything like the powers which the
railway companies are now suggesting should
be extended to all the railway eompanies in
the kingdom, and what took place with the
Midland Company is in these words:--
“Mr. Beale.] They are present actual rates
for the coal, and all our rates are so quoted in
owners' waggons with a separate waggon hire
charge added on where company's waggons are
employed. We have about as many company’s
waggons to owners' waggons as there are owners’
waggons running on the line.
“Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] “What is that
charge for a short distance like 6 or 7 miles 7
“Mr. Beale. As a rule the minimum, I believe,
is 4 d.
“Mr. Noble.] 6 d.
“Mr. Beale.] Our legal power is 6 d., but our
practical power—
“Mr. Noble.] In some cases we charge 4 d.
where the coal is going to works; but where the
coal is going for private consumption the charge
for waggons is 6 d.
*-sº
“Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Then your legal
power for waggons under the Board of Trade
schedule would be 6d, but your present charge
is 4 d, and you could cover your rate to some
extent, could you not, by the extra waggon
charge 2
“Mr. Noble.] That is so if we could put up the
rate at all, but the powers you give us in the
schedule are the same as those which we have
now under the Act of 1881. If we were to
charge the extra 2 d. for waggon hire, in many
cases it would destroy the traffic, just as the
putting up of the rate by 2 d, would.
“Mr. Beale.] It would be worth their while to
supply their own waggons?
“The President.] Yes.
“Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is not quite Lori
Balfour's point. Lord Balfour's point is that in
a certain number of instances where you get this
rate, plus the waggon rate, you would get some-
thing more than is set out, because you would
get 6 d. instead of 4 d. , You would get your
actual rate, but you would justify it in a different
way.” What I would impress upon the Com-
mittee is this : that this charge of 6 d.
for any distance under 50 miles, and
1 s for under 100 miles, is not the law
at the present time in any case, except in the
case of the Midland Company, or in any material
case so far as I know ; and the point I en-
deavoured to impress upon the Committee yes-
terday was that, as you were told quite frankly
by the representatives of the Midland Railway
Company, they have a larger number of their
own waggons to owners' waggons than any other
of the important companies with which you are
now dealing; and we believe that that is the
effect of the particular powers which they now
enjoy, and which they are seeking to impose
upon the trade all over the country. That may
be a good thing or a bad thing to do; there is a
good deal to be said, on grounds of public safety,
for the companies owning their waggons, and not
the traders; that is a very large question which
has not been argued here, and which I do not
wish to argue at the present time. If it should
be done, it should be done after full considera-
tion, and not, I think, by the introduction of a
power to charge in this way, which will really, if
you sanction it, and leave the figures for convey-
ance which we have put in the schedule the same
as they are now, have the effect of very largely
raising the maximum powers of the rest of the
companies you are dealing with. I said just now
that the reasons for the charge rested partly
upon evidence, by which I meant these reports
of deputations, partly upon documentary evidence
like that which I have handed in, and partly upon
facts which could be drawn from the schedules.
Now, if the Committee will kindly follow me for
a moment, I will endeavour to make good the last
point. If the Committee will take the London
and North Western schedule they will see there
the scale forconveyance rate of merchandise in class
A. for the greater part of the London and North
Western system. Now, the governing Act of the
London and North Western system is the Act of
1846 ; and I am going to deal, in this communi-
cation,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
265
24 April 1891.
cation, with the following articles, coal and coke,
ironstone and iron ore, sand and manure, and
slack. The whole of these articles are in Class A.
of our classification. The powers under the
London and North Western Act are different for
those articles. For coal and coke there is one
rate ; for ironstone, iron ore, sand, and manure,
there is another rate ; for slack there is a third
rate. Taking a distance of 10 miles, the present
maximum power of the London and North
Western Company, in company’s waggons, would
be for coal and coke 11+ d ; for ironstone and
iron ore it would be 1 s. 3 d. ; and for slack 10 d.
The proposals under our schedule would be
for a distance of 10 miles 9 d. ; that is, in owners’
waggons, not in company’s waggons ; but if you
add the 6 d. for company’s waggons you will raise
the cost for those distances in company’s waggons
from 11} d. in the case of coal and coke, and from
10 d. in the case of slack, to 1 s. 3 d, and 1s. 4 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are those figures which
you are now giving us the maximum charges of
which the London and North Western Company
may make under the present law, or are they
actual charges?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. They are the
maximum ; I am not dealing with actual charges
at all. The maximum for 10 miles for coal and
coke is 114 d'; for ironstone, ironore, sand and
manure it is ls. 3d.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the specific
charge for waggons in that 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] One eighth of a
penny per ton per mile, I think is the rate.
Dord Belper.] With no minimum at all 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No.
Lord Belper.] And two miles would be two-
eighths of a penny.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Yes; and under
this power, as a matter of fact, the company do
not provide waggons. The Midland Company as
you have been told, do provide waggons, but then
they are under the scale which the railway
companies are asking you to put in for everybody.
Lord Belper.] And the Midland Company
began to provide wagons under this particular
Act that gave it the power to charge for them.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No, I do not
think it is quite correct that they began it then.
I think they found it their policy on many
grounds to provide waggons; and in 1881, I think
it was, they came for powers and got these same
rates, which are now under discussion of 6 d.
under 50 miles and 1 s. under 100 miles; and
since that time under those powers they have, as
they told you yesterday, spent a large sum of
money in providing waggons.
Lord Belper.] But they bought a considerable
number of waggons before they got that Act of
Parliament, did they not ?
Mr. Bidder.] I am told, my Lord, that we
bought no waggons until we got the power.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. In that case it
strengthens the point that I am endeavouring to
make, that it is the effect of these powers that
induced the Midland Company to provide
waggons, and that if you give these same powers
to all the other companies you will be putting the
same premium that the Midland Company had in
view, upon providing waggons; and if they
provide the waggons and get a charge of 6 d. for
any distance under 50 miles, and the traffic only
goes a very short distance, the conjoined effect
of your decision would be largely to increase the
present maximum powers when goods are con-
veyed in company's waggons. That is the
point I have been wishing to make.
Now if you go to a distance of 15 miles, the
present powers of the London and North
Western Company, under the Act of 1846, would
be for coal and coke 1 s. 4; d., for ironstone and
iron, ore, sand, and manure it would be 1 s. 10 d. for
slack it would be 1 s, 3 d. ; and if you give this six-
penny power for the supply of waggons, the maxi-
mum power for conveyance of these articles in com-
pany's waggons will be 1 s. 7 d. Similarly for a
a distance of 20 miles the power for coal and coke
would be 1 s. 10; d. ; for ironstane and iron ore it
would be 1 s. 10; d. ; for slack, 1s. 8d. ; and you
would raise them all to 2s. If you go to 25 miles you
find that that is the point at which the two powers
run out to the maximum powers under proposal, if
put in the 6 d. ; and the present maximum power
would seem to be practically the same amount.
For coal and coke for 25 miles, 2 s. 4 d. I-8th ;
for ironstone and iron-ore, the same 2 s. 4 d.
1-8th ; and for slack, 2 s. 1 d. The power that
you would then give would be 2 s. 3.}
Your Grace, I have had since last night the
same comparative tables made out for the Great
Northern and the Great Western Railway Com-
panies. Taking the Great Western Act of 1847,
and the Great Northern Act of 1850, both of
which govern large portions though not the
whole of their respective lines, I would prefer not
to weary the Committee by reading them, unless
it is really desired ; but these are calculations
made under our direction at the Board of Trade,
and if their accuracy is challenged, of course they
will be handed to the railway companies to test
them ; but I think I have put enough before the
Committee, taking the London and North West-
ern schedule, at any rate, to justify us in coming
to the conclusion upon the information now before
us, that while the present power for waggon
hire is 1-8th of a penny per ton per mile, and
admitting quite frankly that for a very short
distance 1-8th of a penny per ton per mile is
not sufficient, it would not be fair to give
the companies power to charge 6 d. for any
distance under 50 miles, but that it is
fair to divide that distance into distances
under 25 miles, between 25 miles and 50 miles,
between 50 and 75 miles, and between 75 miles
and LOO miles.
I have only one other matter to put before the
Committee. If the Committee will refer to the
Provisional Order again, they will find that
there are rates set out for conveyance of goods
in Class A., and conveyance of goods in Class B.
The Committee are aware after the discussions
which have already taken place, that the sche-
dule presumes that the companies will not
supply waggons in Class A., but that in Class B.
the presumption is the other way, and that they
will supply the waggons. The differences between
the powers which we give for the two classes have
been carefully considered in relation to existing
(81.)
L L powers
266
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
powers which are divided into those two classes.
There is a certain difference between the Class A.
and Class B. Class A. as the Committee know,
is for the rougher and commoner kinds of goods;
Class B. is the next class higher, and there
is, as I have said, a certain higher power
given in Class B. than there is in Class A. ;
but the difference is not very material, and it
would in some cases be more than counter-
balanced. But if you give the power that you
are now asked to give, namely, 6 d. for any
distance under 50 miles, in other words the result
would be this: that if you add on to the powers
which we have given for Class A. a sixpenny
charge for the provision of waggons, that will
actually make the maximum powers which you
will give to the companies higher for the goods
in Class A. than it would be in Class B. Take
the London and North Western schedule again.
The general rate for Class A. in the first scale,
that is on page 8, the scale that applies to nearly
the whole of the companies, the governing rate
is 0.90 d. per ton per mile. If you take that at
15 miles it will work out to be 1 s. 1; d. The
Class B. rate for 15 miles at 14 d. per ton per
mile is 1 s. 6; d. The difference in other words
between the Class A. rate and Class B. rate is
5 d. for 15 miles. But if you add on the 6 d.
waggon hire to class A. that will make the Class
A. rate plus waggon hire actually 1 s. 7% d.
against 1 s. 6; d. in Class B. Take the Class A.
rate again at 25 miles. The class A. at 0.90 d.
per ton per mile is 1 s. 10; d., the Class B. rate
is, as I have said, at 13 d. ; that for the
25 miles would be 2 s. 73 d. as against our
proposal of 1 s. 10; d. for Class A. But
If you add on the 6 d. to Class A. you will bring
it up to 2 s. 4; d. which would be within 3 d. of
the charge for Class B. Therefore what I want
to impress upon the Committee is, that this is
really a very much larger question than it would
seem to be at first sight. I may be answered
that in that case it is not fair to bring the Mid-
land Company down from the powers which
Parliament gave them so lately as 1881. We
think that the proposals we have put in are not
unfair even in comparison with these powers;
but we do say that the Committee should not
lightly give to all the companies the power which
the Midland Company got in 1881 without
knowing exactly what they are doing; and I
think, as the intervention proved just now upon
the other side, that it was the alteration made by
the Midland Company in their 1881 Act which
has been the main cause of difference of policy
upon their line.
Now I want to be perfectly fair to the railway
companies on the other side. Mr. Moon, I think,
mentioned that the Great Eastern Railway Com-
pany felt aggrieved by the danger of their being
shut out and their case not being fully considered;
and the case of the London, Brighton and South
Coast Company was also mentioned. Now let me
put these facts before the representatives of those
two railway companies in order that they may,
if they can, give an effective answer to them if
they think it worth while. The present powers
of the Great Eastern Company for coal and coke,
which are the main articles in Class A., are l ; d.
per ton per mile.
Earl
include 2 .
Lord Balfour of Burleigh | Coal and coke.
Earl of Camperdown.] But does it include
waggons P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It is 1} d.
per ton per mile, inclusive of waggons. Our
proposal for that same class for the Great Eastern
Railway Company is 1:10 d. that is almost
1; d., because the 1: 12 d. would be the
1; d. I quite admit that the power for coal
is exceptionally low upon the Great Eastern
Railway ; it is lower than almost any other
article in Class A. We have fractionally, in
making uniformity, raised the power for coal
upon the Great Eastern Railway, and if this pro-
posal which is now before the Committee were
put in, there would be a very serious rise indeed
upon the maximum rates of the Great Eastern
Company for coal and coke. I think it right to
mention that, because I think it must have
escaped the notice of the advisers of the Great
Eastern Railway Company when they started
the question at all. The case of the London,
Brighton and South Coast Railway is quite as
strong upon our side. The present power for
of Camperdown.] What does that
the conveyance of coal upon the London, Brigh-
ton and South Coast Railway, including waggons,
is 13 d. per ton per mile ; and we begin, with the
scale which we have applied to the southern
companies, at exactly the same figure, and
exclusive of waggon hire. So that I really do
not see what, in this matter, either the Great
Eastern Railway Company or the southern
companies have to complain of in the action of
the 13oard of Trade, either in putting these
figures into the schedules, or in dissenting from
the proposal of the railway companies to make
an alteration as to the charges for waggon
hire.
I have occupied, I am afraid, some time on
behalf of the Board of Trade in this matter. If
I have not made it absolutely clear, it has been
from a desire to shorten what I have to say as
much as possible, but if there is any question I
can be asked, I shall be very glad to answer it
on behalf of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know, your Grace,
whether it would be convenient that I should
offer to the Committee now the observations that
occur to us upon the Board of Trade's view of
this case.
Choirman.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] I gather that there is no other
evidence, that Lord Balfour of Burleigh has re-
ferred to everything.
Earl of Camperdown (to Lord Balfour of
Burleigh).] Before the learned Counsel begins,
l should like to ask you one question, that is,
what answer do you make to the contention made
by the railway companies yesterday, and primá
facie established, that a charge under 3 d. will
not pay them P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I make this answer,
that their existing powers are one-eighth of a
penny per ton per mile and that if we give them
a maximum of 3 d. for any distance under
25 miles that is practically one-eighth of a penny
per
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
24 April 1891.
per ton per mile for the 25 miles; it is one-
eighth of a penny per ton per mile for 24 miles ;
and it is more than they can get for any distance
below 24 miles under their present powers.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then if they answer to
you as they have answered, that they do not do
the traffic at those rates simply because it would
not pay them to do it, and therefore they do not
‘do it, how does your argument apply P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Because they have
never had those powers; at the present time they
have only had one-eighth of a penny per ton per
mile.
Earl of Camperdown.] But an eighth of a
penny per ton per mile would be equivalent to
3 d. for 24 miles.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Yes, but it would
not be equivalent to it at any distance below.
Earl of Camperdown.] But then they contend
that a charge of less than 3 d. even for a yard
would not pay them. .
Mr. Bidder.] Less than 6 d.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes, that is the
contention, any sum less than 6 d. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Take it at less than 6 d.
then.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Then in answer to
that I put at once to you what Mr. Noble and
Mr. Beale said at the deputation to the Board of
Trade : that they had at the present time a 6 d.
power, but that, though they charged it for
household coal, where it was not household coal,
if I understandaright,their present charge was 4d.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace, I was going to
make the statement (and I think my Lord Balfour
of Burleigh will confirm me in the statement I
was going to make) that the Board of Trade have
had no evidence before them which would show
that under the ordinary circumstances of the
general trade of the country, a waggon can be
worked remuneratively for lessthan 6 d. I quite
agree, as Mr. Noble said yesterday, and as he
told the Board of Trade, that there are cases
where you are working to and from ironworks
coal for immediate delivery, or coal for shipment,
where the waggons return quickly and you can
get two journeys out of a waggon; you can
therefore afford to take a lower rate. But for
the general trade in coal for dealers and so on,
I think Lord Balfour will agree with me that
there is not a particle of evidence before the
Board of Trade to show that it can be worked
remuneratively for less than 6 d.
Mr. Hanbury.] Because the waggons are kept
away longer on account of their being used for
different classes of trade.
Mr. Bidder.] Because they are kept away
longer ; and as I explained yesterday, you can-
not get more than a journey a week.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I do not think I
could quite admit that. I would go this distance:
that below 3 d. I do not think it would pay at all
to take out a waggon, and that is why the com-
panies do not do it; but that the paying point
lies somewhere between 3 d. and 6 d. How
much it is below 6 d., and how much above
3 d. is the measure of the advantage to the
fix.
railway company or the advantage to the trader,
which is between the two maxima which you may
You must bear this also in mind, it is a
rather technical point, but I think also, we are
now giving a more definite power to charge for
demurrage than hitherto has been given, and
that must also be taken as an element in the
consideration.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] If you say that the paying
power is some point between 3 d. and 6 d., does
it seem fair to fix the maximum charge at a price
that you considered yourself is not a paying point?
If you say that you were fixing the maximum
rate, and if the paying point is somewhere between
3 d. and 6 d., surely by fixing it at 3 d. you seem
to be fixing the maximum rate at a price which
could not pay even as the minimum rate.
lord Balfour of Burleigh. I can say quite
frankly that if the figures which we have put in,
after the evidence that the Committee have heard,
which has been heard more fully than by us,
are not sufficient let the Committee by all means
put in any figures they think fit. But at the
same time I answer further that nothing has yet
been said here or has yet been said to us which
convinces me that it is fair to put in a power to
charge 6 d. for any distance below 50 miles; 6 d.
is obviously to my mind far too much for any
short distance. *----
Chairman.] But the point seems to be whether
3 d. is a fair sum to put in for not exceeding 25
miles.
lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I take 3 d., because
3 d. is the nearest translation into the new pro-
posals of the existing powers of one-eighth of a
penny.
Chairman.] But then you say that 3 d. does
not pay.
Mr. Pember.] I hope your Grace will allow
me to say that that is not so ; that with regard
to the Great Western Company the power
is much higher than the one-eighth of a penny.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..]. Which Act is
that under 7
Mr. Pember.] Under the general Act, the Act
of 1847, which regulates most of the Great
Western lines; the power is a farthing.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. A farthing per ton
per mile? - - -
Mr. Pember.] Yes, but we need not get into a
dispute about that. The coal rate in that Act is
exceptionally low ; it is only one-eighth of a
penny over a very short distance. I do not know;
it may be a penny, but that is a question of rates.
I should rather like to point out this to you : that
if you look at any one of these rates in Clause 6
that you are looking at now, they all drop the
moment you get over 25 miles, considerably
below a farthing. Take 50 miles, where you get
six-fifteenths of a penny per ton per mile.
Divide 6 by 15 and you get 0 12, that is to say
half a farthing.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh l Your Grace, I
should like to say this, and probably I think it
may be the last word that it will be necessary for
me to say, that I have indicated as fully as I can
the grounds which influenced the minds of the
Board of Trade. You are here sitting as a
Court of Appeal; and if we have done wrong
(81.)
L L 2 OL16
268
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
*—
one way or the other, it is to be rectified here,
and we and everybody else, I am sure, will accept
your decision. We were challenged to give the
facts that influenced us in our determination and
I have done so to the best of my power.
Lord Belper.]. I think I rather understood
from your general remarks that you considered
that the Midland Company stood in a different
position owing to an Act of Parliament they got
of late years, from what other companies did.
1 rather gathered, without your expressing a
definite opinion, that that was owing to their
having invested a large amount of capital under
that Act of l'arliament in recent years.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I will answer
that in a moment. We have had to codify a
great number of Acts of Parliament; and to put
into a small compass the powers which are given
to many companies in many Acts of Parliament,
over half a century. There can be no codifica-
tion, no equalising of things which are different,
without their being an advantage to some, and a
disadvantage to others. We thought that in this
matter we had struck a mean, fair to everybody,
and that the advantage of uniformity and codi-
fication were so great as to overbalance any
contrary disadvantages. But that again is a
matter on which we are here appealed against ;
and if the reasons which we have given have not
convinced the Committee, the Committee have
discretion to alter them.
Mr. Bidder.] I think Lord Balfour practically
agrees with me now, when I say that, so far as
we know, although there was evidence before
the Board of Trade to show that which we have
already told the Committee, namely, that in the
case of coal traffic to ironworks, where the wag-
gons return quickly, a less rate is remunerative,
so far as we know (and this I point out to the
Committee), there was absolutely no evidence, as
I said, to show that in the general case where a
waggon only does its weekly journey it could
be remuneratively worked for less than sixpence ;
and I think Lord Balfour will also agree with
me that there was absolutely no evidence before
the Board of Trade as to how this question
affected those owners of waggons who are not
railway companies, the waggon builders and
colliery owners. We showed yesterday that,
in point of fact, the charges that they made
are not under sixpence.
But now, your Grace, I will make a very few
remarks upon the main point. It is quite true,
as Lord Balfour said, that until the Act of 1881,
which the Midland Company got, the general
charges in respect of waggons, with certain excep-
tions, which my learned friend Mr. Pember re-
ferred to in the case of the Great Western Company
were, where they were distinguished, one-eighth
of a penny per ton per mile and without any
minimum ; and the consequence was that the
companies never found waggons, the thing
would not pay. That is the answer to that : it
was a tariff that prohibited waggons being pro-
vided by the companies. And when the Board
of Trade suggest that they are going to codify
by levelling that up, and levelling the Midland
rate down, it is levelling up a business that
never existed at the expense of this very large
in the case of long distance traffic.
business of the Midland Company, which has
been embarked in on the faith of the Act of 1881.
Then there must be always this to be re-
membered in connection with this question : that
the provision of waggons in this class of traffic
is usually, very commonly, in the hands of the
traders themselves; it is not like the higher
classes where it is, under ordinary circumstances,
out of the question for the trader to provide his
own waggons, and where they are to a great
extent therefore in the hands of the Company.
In Class A, he can and does as a rule provide his
own waggons ; to so great an extent, that it is
only in the case of the Midland, amongst the
companies now before you, and under those
special powers, that they have become to a con-
siderable extent providers of waggons; and even
in the case of the Midland Company, you have
heard that there are as many waggons belonging
to owners as there are in the hands of the
company. Consequently the thing is purely
optional. If the tariff in any case, if the minimum
of sixpence is more than a fair charge, and is a
profitable business, the trader not only can, but
will, provide his own waggons. And remember
that there is no obligation upon the company to
provide waggons in Class A., consequently the
only effect cf putting in too low a minimum is
that you provide the trader no opportunity of
getting waggons from the company, because they
will not find them, and they are not bound to
find them ; but assuming that you put it at
a higher figure than necessary, you still leave
the power always in the trader's hands of pro-
viding his own waggons. Whereas, in another
case, supposing it were possible to fix a three-
penny minimum, and to put an obligation upon
the companies to provide waggons, there would
be this great injustice, that the trader could then
always come upon the company for waggons
in the case of unremunerative short distance
traffic, and would always find his own waggons
Under those
circumstances there really is, I respectfully
venture to suggest, a total absence of evidence
in contradication of that which we showed yester-
day, which shows that, as a matter of fact,
always admitting the exceptional traffic to iron-
workers, or a port of shipment, in the general
run of business throughout the country, sixpence
is the minimum figure that could be worked re-
muneratively, whether the distance is one mile
or 50. For those reasons, and specially adding
also the circumstance under which the Midland
Company have embarked this large capital on
the faith of the schedule to the Act of 1881, I
say to the Committee that it would not be wise
or just that the amendment now proposed and
drafted should be adopted.
Mr. Pember.] The only thing that I want to
say, your Grace, is this: That with regard to these
coal rates as they are fixed it is perfectly true
that for 50 miles they do give very nearly one-
eighth of a penny per ton per mile ; when you
come to 75 miles they give one-twelfth ; when
you come to 100 miles they give about one-
twelfth again ; but when you come to a longer
mileage, say 150 miles, they positively give only
0.08 d. Now you know, if it was the existence
II]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL oRDER |BILLS.
269
24 April 1891.
in some Acts of the one-eighth of a penny per
ton per mile for waggons, which led . Lord
Balfour of Burleigh and his colleagues to fix the
3d., I can say they have gone far below the one-
eighth of a penny. If you will be at the trouble
of looking at the rates mentioned in Clause 6,
I undertake to say that there is not one of them
that comes to anything like the one-eighth of a
penny per ton per mile ; the others drop to one-
twelfth of a penny and even below. And also,
you must not forget this, and it is an important
matter, that it is not only coal that has the
benefit of being considered in Class A. There
are a number of things in Class A, ; coal is the
simplest thing to manage; it is done in great
quantities, and being a wholesale trade and
simply managed, it might be supposed that it
was cheaper. But there are all sorts of things
in Class A. ; limestone, stone, and undressed
material for roads, gravel, sand, and all sorts of
things, all of which are very intermittent trade, and
not so simple to handle; there are not the appliances
for handling them that there are for coal, and in
the course of which the waggons do not get back
so soon. And further, there is the fact, which
seems to have misled Lord Balfour, of the exist-
ence of this one-eighth of a peuny per mile in
certain Acts of Parliament, but by no means in all.
I have already shown your Grace that with regard
to nearly all the lines of the Great Western Com-
pany it is one-fourth of a penny per ton per mile,
and that with regard to certain other lines of the
Great Western it is one halfpenny. And upon
that Lord Balfour says: “Oh, but you must
recollect that the maximum rate for carriage in
that particular Act is very low.” To begin
with, that does not apply to an Act that has a
maximum of a farthing, and in the next place,
what has that got to do with this question ? You
can settle that when you come to the question of
rates. But what you are settling now is
the conditions under which you will force a cer-
tain branch of trade to be catried on without re-
ference to the conditions under which you will
force another branch of trade to be carried on,
and we have a right to ask you to see that the
conditions under which this traffic is carried on
are fair. -
Mr. Freeman.] On behalf of the London, Brigh-
ton and South Coast Company, will your Grace
allow me to say that on the whole of the Brighton
line there does not exist one case where one-eighth
of a penny per ton per mile is the limit. The lowest
charge for coal is one farthing, and in the other
cases it is one halfpenny ; and that is over
one small portion of the line. And I would
point out to your Grace that there has been abso
lutely no such thing as one-eighth of a penny on
our line.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Would you make
that quite clear? Are you not taking a case.
where the tolls are separated into the conveyance
rate and the component parts of the tolls Am
I or am I not correct in saying that under the
London, Brighton and South Coast Company’s
leading Act, the Mitcham and Tooting Act, which
covers nearly the whole of its mileage, the maxi-
mum power for the conveyance of bricks, coal,
coke, manure, lime, sand, etc., which are the
governing articles in the class, is at the present
time three halfpence including waggons
Mr. Freeman.] That is so.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Ours is three
halfpence per ton per mile exclusive of the
provisions of waggons.
Mr. Freeman.] I was excluding the split-up
class, which I understand is one-eighth of a
penny per ton per mile. In the whole of the
Brighton Company’s Acts there is no such limit,
and what I was about to point out to your Grace
was this : That if the Brighton Company is to be
brought in, to make the average between the high
companies and the low companies, the effect of it
will be this : That the Brighton Company having
to run entirely short distances, will have to carry
at a rate which must be entirely unremunerative,
and that will have the result of their in no case
providing waggons.
O'
8->
Earl of Camperdown.] Does the company
provide waggons as a matter of fact?
Mr. Freeman.] Yes.
Chairman.] Does the Brighton Company
convey coal in their own waggons 2
Mr. Freeman.] From Deptford Wharf, your
Grace, and the other wharves of which your Grace
have heard, they do convey coal in their own
Waggons.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] At three half-
pence per ton per mile as the maximum charge 2
Chairman.] What is the rate there, three
halfpence 2
Mr. Freeman.] That is, of course, the maxi-
mum rate, and it is a very unremunerative rate.
Mr. Bidder.] It is a very high rate, I know.
Mr. Freeman.] It is a very unremunerative rate,
I know.
Mr. Pember.] There is one thing, your Grace,
that I forgot to add. Lord Balfour says that
the effect of this might be to raise the rate
of Class A. above the rate of Class B., and that,
I say, we can consider when we come to the
question of rates. In the meantime I throw out
the suggestion that it may be it will make the
rate for Class B. too low. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh...] That refers to
the existing maximum, of course.
Mr. Boyle..] May I mention to your Grace
the case of the South Eastern Railway Company,
which I think is the strongest case of all. We
have no restriction whatever as to our charge,
except that it is to be a reasonable charge. No
eighth of a penny per ton per mile applies to the
South Eastern Railway at all. There is another
point which is very important to us
Chairman.] Do you mean that you could
charge anything you please ?
Mr. Boyle..] Any reasonable charge.
Mr. Hunter.] Do you mean over the whole of
your line !
Mr. Boyle..] Over 186 miles out of about 400,
over about half our line. -
h M; Hunter.] What is your limit on the other
alſ :
Mr. Boyle..] It is included in the tolls, the
(81.)
L L 3 tolls
270
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
tolls, the tolls running from three halfpence to
twopence halfpenny. But what I want to point
out specially to your Grace is, that half our
traffic is 25 miles traffic, so that to us this is a
most important clause. Lord Balfour has said
that he does not think it is fair to charge six-
pence for such a short distance as 25 miles.
What I want to impress upon the Committee is
this: That whether it is 25 miles or 50 miles
it is merely the difference that the coal is
running along the line. Take that difference of
25 miles as occupying the period of an hour, the
sixpence would practically pay threepence for
that extra hour at 50 miles. So that as a
matter of fact, whether it runs 25 miles or 50
miles, it is practically the same thing. In our
case we are actually in the habit of charging a
sliding scale of sixpence and eightpence for 25
miles. So that if the Committee pass this
clause it will be a great hardship to the southern
companies, and particularly to the South
Eastern.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is there much competition of
owners' waggons on your line P
Mr. Boyle.] Not very much. But on the
other hand we sometimes provide four-ton wag-
gons, which again is a very considerable gain to
llS.
Mr. Pember.] I see that the South Western
again have only “a reasonable charge ’’; that is
their limit by their Act of 1844.
Sir Alfred Hickman. Are we to be allowed
to answer the railway companies, your Grace P
The railway companies have made their case.
Chairman.] No, we are going to retire for
consultation.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
SOhne time l'esume.
Chairman.] The Committee consider that the
circumstances of each railway seem to be so dif-
ferent that they consider that the charges for the
use of trucks should be omitted from the general
provisions, and should be dealt with under the
maximum rates and charges.
Mr. Bidder.] Then that intimation would also
involve this, that the proviso to Clause 2 as to
rebate for waggons would be dealt with in the
same way, because the one must depend upon
the other.
Chairman.] Yes; then, in fact, what would
then happen would be that part of Clause 6
would be considered with each Bill 7
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] Therefore now it would be struck
out of the part in which it is ?
Mr. Bidder.] Not that it would be struck out
in this Bill, because you have before you the
London and North Western Company’s Bill ;
but that it stands over for individual considera-
tion when you come to the schedules of the
Bill.
Chairman.] That is quite right.
Mr. Bidder.] The clause being suspended for
a time will take its place in each schedule, and
may be modified to suit the decision you arrive
at.
of maximum rates.
Chairman.] We do not strike it out, but it will
be taken from its place and put into the schedule
Then there was a proviso in
Sub-section 4 of Clause 5 which we have not
completely dealt with ; words were to be put in,
“ provided that when a trader provides trucks he
shall be entitled to a reasonable sum for the
detention of his trucks by default”——
Mr. Bidder.] I think we understood that that
was to stand over till Tuesday, your Grace.
Mr. Carver.] Will it be convenient to your
Grace to consider the new clause which we pro-
pose to add in Part I. of the schedule? I think
your Grace and the Committee have a copy of
the print of the clause which has been proposed
on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board and of Sarah Tomlinson.
Chairman.] Where do you propose to insert
it 2
Mr. Carver.] It will be found coming most
conveniently after Clause 5, because it is a
qualification upon the power granted in the pre-
vious clauses, with reference to station terminals,
service terminals, and special charges. The
object of the clause is to prevent what we con-
ceive to be two leading principles of this Pro-
visional Order from being defeated in cases
where the railway do not charge maximum con-
veyance rates and maximum terminals, but charge
a smaller sum which is a very common case, a
sum which is less than their conveyance maxi-
mum, and then say that all these other services of
station accommodation and services rendered at
the terminal station and so on, are thrown in, and
that nothing at all is charged in respect of those
services and that accommodation. The result, as
your Grace and the Committee will at once see,
is this, that where that is the case they are in the
position of being able to say to the trad who
provides his own sidings, or who does his own
services, “We do not charge anything for our
services, and therefore are entitled to charge you
exactly the same rate as we charge to other traders
who do use our station, and who do have our
services.” That is a point which, as your Grace
will perceive, is an extremely important point to
all traders who own their own sidings, and to
people like the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, who are public trustees owning a very
large extent of branch railways and sidings and
working for traders. It is very important for
them because it puts them in effect in a pre-
judiced position. º
Now the way in which it is proposed to deal
with this clause is in the first paragraph of it to ;
deal with the question of station accommodation,
the clause says: “Where merchandise is received
or delivered by the company at the junction of
the railway with a siding or branch railway not
belonging to the company, the amount charged
to the trader by the company shall not exceed
the rate charged by the company in respect of
similar traffic when received or delivered at their
station nearest to the junction (with a just
allowance for any difference in mileage) after
deducting therefrom the maximum charge author-
ised by this schedule for the accommodation at
that station * (the nearest station), “ or a just
portion of that maximum charge, to be deter-
mined in case of dispute by an arbitrator to be
appointed
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS. 271
4.
appointed by the Board of Trade.” Now, your
Grace, I stop there, because so much is upon
the question of station accommodation. Let me
take a simple illustration; traffic which is passing,
we will say, from Station A to Station B; and
the railway company having the maximum power
of charging we will say, 20 s. for conveynance
rate from A to B, and we will suppose half-a-
crown terminal at A, and half-a-crown terminal
at B. At B one trader has a siding, and the trader
takes his goods at the station B, the railway
company, for their own purposes, in a common
case do not charge the whole 25 s., but they will
charge some rate, we will say less than 20 s., say
18 s., that 18 s. they are in a position to charge
the trader who takes his goods at B station, and
also to charge the same 18 s. to the trader who
takes the goods at his siding. If they were
charging the full maximum of 25 S., the trader
who owned the siding would be in a position,
under this Provisional Order to say: You cannot
charge me those service terminals of 2 s. 6d. at
B, because the schedule expressly provides that
you shall not do so ; you cannot charge a station
terminal, because the junction of my siding with
your railway is expressly by the definition not a
terminal station. You cannot charge me ter-
minal services, because the section which em-
powers the imposition of service terminals
expressly requires that the services shall have
been rendered by the railway company for the
trader; therefore I say if they were charging
the maximum this clause would be quite
unnecessary ; the schedule already provides for
those cases, and the clause would be unnecessary;
but immediately the railway company begins to
charge something below the maximum convey-
ance rate, then, as I submit to your Grace and
the Committee, the provisions and the plain
principles which run through this Provisional
Order would be defeated, and could be
defeated if the railway company chose.
Now the principles I refer to are
very clearly set out in the report
of the Board of Trade, and they appear upon the
Provisional Order itself. I take them to be
these, first, that the charges made by the rail-
way companies are to be charges in respect of
several items of work done, conveyance, station
accommodation, terminal services, special charges;
that is the first, and what is the object of that ?
The object is set out, and most clearly, in the
Report of the Board of Trade. I would refer to
page 15 of the report; they say that the policy
which they conceive Parliament has adopted of
separating the charge into terminals and con-
veyance is a sound policy. “If station terminals
were not distinguished from conveyance rates,
two inequifable results would follow. In the
first place, traders who provide their own station
or siding accommodation would be liable to the
same charge for conveyance of merchandise as
traders making full use of the companies’ sta-
tions; and, in the second place, long distance
traffic would be liable to be charged for terminal
accommodation more than short distance traffic,
without having any additional advantage.” Then
they go on to make similar remarks with re-
ference to the services. They say that “no
service terminal shall be chargeable if the trader
has requested the company to allow him to per-
24 April 1891.
do not.
to Court.
of the rate.
-*
form services for himself, and the company have
unreasonably refused to do so.” Therefore these
two principles I conceive are clearly in the
report, and they are clearly in the Bill, because,
whether you are dealing with trucks or with
the station terminal, or with the service
terminal or special charges, it is carefully
provided that they are only to be allowed
where the trader has the use of them. Now,
your Grace, is not that principle just as
applicable where the railway company are
charging less than the maximum as it is where
they are charging their full maximum ? I sub-
mit there is really no difference if the principle is
a sound one, where the companies are charging
their maximum ; it is equally sound where they
Then, as your Grace has already heard,
I think the day before yesterday, there is the
very greatest difficulty in getting to them, we
cannot force them to say in any case that they
are charging so much for station terminal and so
much for service terminal. I revert to my illus-
tration : Suppose the total rate they are charging
from A to B is 18 s., it might be said that the
trader could go to Court, as indeed I think my
learned friend Mr. Pember did say, and could
require the railway companies to split up that
18 S. into its component parts, and that then a
trader would be entitled to have a reduction in
respect of those portions which he does not use.
Chairman J Do you mean that under the 3rd.
section of the 33rd clause he would not go
to Court, he would go the company ?
Mr. Carver.] He can also go to the Court,
and in the case of Tomlinson v. the London and
North Western Railway Company, they did go
I can at once give your Grace and
the Committee illustrations of going to a company
and of going to Court. In Tomlinson's case
they went to Court, and the Court made the
order and the railway company made the return,
which has been in your Grace's hands, and that
return (and I have it here) is a return which is
absolutely useless, because in every case where
they were charging below themaximum they say,
“We are charging nothing for terminals.”
Mr. Pope.] That was not an application to
the Court to do more than compel the division
The answer is, there is no division
to make, it is covered by the maximum rate, but
that has nothing to do with the question whether
we could do it without prejudice to your claim
for undue preference.
Chairman.] I do not think we can go into
Tomlinson's case; was there an appeal P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; there was no
appeal, and there has been no appeal; the thing
is absolute law notwithstanding anything my
learned friend Mr. Pember said. -
Chairman.] I think you can leave out
Tomlinson's case.
Mr. Carver.] In that case the railway
company absolutely beat us; they said: “We
cannot divide this, this is all within the con-
veyance rate; they put it all down to the
conveyance rate,” and so were left just as we
were. That was a case in which the rate was
being charged to Mr. Tomlinson, which was also
(81.) -
L L 4 being
272
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ‘TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
being charged to Preston, which was the station
nearest to us, and he claimed to have the Preston
rate analysed to show how much of it was
really charged in respect of the Preston station,
but I say he failed. I could also produce
to your Grace, if it were thought advisable,
an application to a railway company, not
through the Court, but direct to the
railway company, to do the same thing;
an application with respect to the Great Western
Railway Company to distinguish the component
parts of the rate which they charge from Birken-
head for iron to Birmingham. They point blank
declined. They said, this is a long way within
our maximum rate of conveyance, and we are not
in a position to make an arbitrary distinction of
it into its component parts; therefore we were
beaten, and practically it is impossible to get a
decision. Now, as I said, the retort which invari-
ably the railway companies are prepared to make
upon this matter, is that the thing is covered by
the doctrine of undue preference, that is what I
am going to say, but, unfortunately, the question
has been tried and been tried more than once.
Mr. Hambury.] The undue preference in this
case, I suppose, is that it would be undue pre-
ference to charge exactly the same amount to the
man who does not use the station as to the man
who does.
Mr. Carver.] Exactly. That was the exact case
raised in the case of Howard v. the Midland Railway
Company, before the Railway Commissioners. I
have the report here, and I will just read from
the head note of that: “Where the total charge
made by a company for conveyance does not
exceed their maximum mileage rate, and there is
nothing on the face of it to show that part of it
consists of a separate charge for station services,
the company is, as between itself and the public,
entitled to attribute the whole charge to con-
veyance notwithstanding that they may perform
in addition station services, for all customers who
require them, for which they might have made
a separate charge ; and, therefore, a customer
who does not require such services is not entitled,
on that account to any rebate.” To put it
shortly, what the Court said in that case, and
what the Court said in the subsequent case of the
Preston Brewery Company against the Midland
Railway Company, was this: You, the trader,
although you own your own siding, have the offer
of all the services which all other traders have.
You can send your goods in this case (Howard’s)
to Bedford or from Bedford, you are under the
same terms as any other trader ; if you do not
choose to do it, it is for your own convenience,
therefore it cannot be said that there is an undue
preference. That, as I say, is the position which
the Court in both the cases I have referred to
took up, and therefore it comes to this ; that you
cannot attack this matter upon the ground of
undue preference, because the Courts say the
same facilities are open to you as to other traders,
only you do not choose to make use of them.
Now, I submit, that in this Provisional Order the
doctrine is laid down consistently all through,
that the railway companies are not to be allowed
to make that retort to the trader; but that the
doctrine is, that the trader shall not pay for that
which he does not use, and that the station
terminal shall not be given to a railway company
as against a trader who does not use the station.
That being so, I do submit with a great deal of
confidence that the doctrine of the Provisional
Order should be made sufficiently broad to cover
not only cases in which charges are made but
also should cover the other cases, and, as I say,
I believe they are the great majority of
cases, in which the company charges some-
thing less than its maximum charge.
Now with the view of illustrating that I would
refer to the case of the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board. It has been stated to your
Grace by one witness, I think, that they owned
something like 60 miles of sidings. I do not
know how far that is accurate, but it is at any rate
a very large quantity of sidings; and the way in
which the work is done on their estate in Liver-
pool and Birkenhead I may describe shortly as
follows: They own all the docks and the great
frontage of the River Mersey upon the Liverpool
side and the Birkenhead side ; they have different
methods of Working it in the two places, and I
Will give your Grace and the Committee evidence
as to how the Work is done, by means of a wit-
ness; but let me point out the importance of this
matter, not only to traders who own sidings, but
how important it is to the great body of traders
who use a port like the port of Liverpool, and
Whose goods go on the branch railways of
the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and on to
the railway companies’ lines. All of those
traders are affected by this question, and the
Mersey Dock and Harbour Board hold their pro-
perty as publfc trustees, as trustees on behalf of
the public, not to make any profit, out of it, but
With the object and the purpose of making the
port as cheap as possible and reducing the rates
as far as possible. It is, therefore, largely in the
interests of the public, even though they be not
owners of private sidings, that this provision
should be inserted, because if a trader is in the
position of being able to say, Not having used
the railway company’s stations I must not be
charged at the same rate as though I had used the
company’s stations, then the trader is left face to
face with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
and the Mersey, Dock and Harbour Board,
not seeking to make a profit in the matter, are
able probably to do the work for considerably less
than a railway company would be willing to do
it for. And of course they are interested, not
merely as trustees for the public, but they are
interested as owners of the estate. The estate
is one which has been built up by borrowing
money, and, very large sums of money are now
held in the shape of bonds, having been advanced
to the Dock Board, and the Board hold that
they are entitled as a Board to the protection of
Therefore, both as owners of the
property and as trustees for the public, they
are ln an Intimate manner concerned in this
question ; and of course they are only types
of a large number of public trusts which
exist in the country. Amongst others, we
have evidence here from the Londonderry
'Harbour Commissioners, who gave evidence at
considerable length before Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle in Ireland, and
they are interested in the same manner, and I
might cite the example of other bodies in the
their estate.
OWIOl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHABGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
273
*
24 April 1891.
same way ; for example, harbour trustees who
own railways and are in a position to do the
work themselves; all such bodies, as I conceive,
are interested in this question.
Earl of Belmore.] The Harbour Commissioners
do not own railways, do they. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, my Lord, they do :
the railway along the quay front belongs to them.
Mr. Carver.] Therefore, I submit it is a
matter of considerable importance to private
traders and the public at large.
Mr. Hanbury.] I wish to ask you how far
there has been any decision given as to whether
this constitutes an undue preference or not.
Mr. Pope.] It is expressly dealt with in
Howard’s case. If my learned friend had read
over the head note, it was expressly stated,
“Query, whether this would form an undue
preference.”
Chairman.] Will you refer us to the case ?
Mr. Carver.] I will read the head note.
Mr. Pope.] Will you read the last paragraph ;
it is : “Where a railway company charge uni-
form rates for all traffic alike, to cover receiving,
forwarding, and delivery, but the necessary
inference is that some separate charge for station
expenses is included, whether persons using their
own stations, though the railway company’s
station is available at their option, can establish
a case of undue prejudice; Quaere.”
Mr. Carver.] I will read the judgment which
establishes the case in a most satisfactory way.
It will be quite enough for me to show that it is
at least a doubtful question.
Mr. Pope.] But we are not here to settle
doubtful questions.
Mr. Hanbury.] We can settle the principle
whether it is fair or not.
Mr. Carver.] I will read what is in the judg-
ment : “But there is also the question whether
if it were necessary to infer that there is a
separate charge of some amount or other for
station expenses, a case of undue prejudice under
the Traffic Act could be established where the
railway station is as available in all respects for
Messrs. Howard's traffic, as for that of others,
and where Messrs. Howard use their own station
in preference, not as the result of arrangements
entered into between them and the company for
their mutual convenience, but because it facili-
tates their own business, and because owners of
land adjoining a railway possess the right of
opening a communication with it. Local position
gives to Messrs. Howard an alternative method
of dealing with the receipt and delivery
of their traffic, but they retain the right of using
the company’s station at any moment exactly like
other people, and do, in fact, occasionally exercise
such right. It is not, however, necessary to pursue
this point. It is enough for us to say that we do
not consider the rates Messrs. Howard are charged
to be such as we can divide in fixed proportions.”
Mr. Hanbury.] The judgment does not touch
it. * .
Mr. Carver.] With great deference, I think it
does.
*
Chairman.] Not what you have now read.
Mr. Carver.] It intimates, I think, what was
the opinion of the judges. At any rate, it did
decide that they were not entitled to a rebate,
which is what we are asking here.
Mr. Pope.] Under these
Stan Ces.
special circum-
Mr. Carver.] Let me read a passage from the
Beeston Brewery Company. I will quote from
the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Miller. It is
reported in 5th Brown and Macnamara's Railway
and Canal Traffic Cases; I will read from page
84. He says, “It is very possible (I will say no
more than that) that the Court may come to the
determination that some addition may be made to
a station to station rate for station accommoda-
tion, which would bring it, in some cases,
in excess of the legal maximum for con-
veyance : but such a rate, if legal, will have
no bearing whatever either on this present
judgment, or on the judgment in Howard's case,
both of which are dealing only with rates which,
being legal in other respects, are within the
statutory maximum for conveyance only. But a
company though at liberty to make an extra
charge for certain station services not included in
the maximum for conveyance, are not thereby, I
think, precluded from rendering such services
without extra charge if it suits them to do so,
provided they give equal facilities in that respect
to all comers; and, subject to that proviso, the
Company cannot be compelled, I think, to allow
a rebate to the trader who does not happen to
require the services, because it suits him better
to do the work himself”; and then he gives an
illustration : “It would, I think, be just as
reasonable for a passenger who carried his own
Gladstone bag to require a reduction in the price
of his ticket on the ground that the passenger
who had taken his ticket to the same place
immediately before him, had three trunks, and
required the services of two porters and a
barrow.” That, I think, very clearly indicates
if not a decision, what is in the judge's mind in
interpreting this question of undue preference.
Lord Houghton.] Who was the judge in that
case ?
Mr. Carver.] Mr. Commissioner Miller.
Chairman.] I do not think that affects this
case very much.
Mr. Carver.] I only cite that to meet what
Was at once put forward as an answer to my case.
I say at the very lowest it shows that the
question is doubtful, and, so far as it is an au-
thority, it seems to show that it was not undue
preference.
Mr. Hunter.] Was not the point in both of
these cases that the railway company claimed to
charge at the same rates to the siding owners at
Beeston and Bedford as they did to those who
employed the station. and were not they held to
be right in both cases?
Mr. Carver.] The trader was not allowed a
rebate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j In this matter for Messrs.
J. & J.Coleman and also for Mrs. Sarah Tomlinson,
(81.)
M. M. for
274
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
for whom I appear with my learned friend
Mr. Carver, we have adopted this clause and so
we are bringing up this clause. I do not hesitate
to say that this is one of the most important
things that has come before the Committee yet.
I will not say a word in addition to what my
learned friend Mr. Carver has said, but only deal
with the points he has not dealt with. The
object of all these sections was publicity, it was
said the traders had no means of knowing how
the inclusive rate was made up. Parliament
has from the very beginning been trying to give
the traders the information they desired. So
long ago as the year 1868, in the Regulation of
Railways Act of that year, by Section 17 it was
declared that the company was to be bound to
furnish the particulars of the charges for goods,
and that they had to distinguish “for the con-
veyance of goods on the railway, including
thereon tolls for the use of the railway, for the
use of carriages, and for locomotive power, and
how much of such charge is for loading and
unloading, covering, collection and delivery.”
But my Lords, between 1868 and 1873, when
the first Railway Commissioners Act was passed,
it was found that this was ineffective, and by
Section 14 of the Act of 1873 it was declared
that, “the Commissioners may from time to
time, on the application of any person in-
terested, make orders with respect to any par-
ticular description of traffic, requiring a rail-
way company or canal company, to distin-
guish in such book how much of each rate is for
the conveyance of the traffic on the railway or
canal, including therein tolls for the use of the
railway or canal, for the use of carriages or
vessels, or for locomotive power, and how much
is for other expenses, specifying the nature and
detail.” It was thought, my Lord, that under
that we had got the means of ascertaining how
much we were being charged ; without that we
cannot say whether there is an undue preference
or not. It is all very well for my learned friend
to say the law of undue preference meets it. In
Mrs. Tomlinson’s case, we suspected we were
not getting a large enough rebate for the work
we were doing on Mrs. Tomlinson's sidings, and
we went to the Railway Commissioners to ask
that these items might be distinguished in order
to enable us to see whether there was an undue
preference or not ; , but that was refused, and we
are absolutely at the mercy of the railway com-
panies. But that provision was not thought suf-
ficient, and then in the Act of 1888, as you have
heard, Section 33 was introduced, and I ask your
Lordships to remember what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
said, because it is not often you can get at the
intention of an Act of Parliament; he said, “I
happen to know the intention of Section 33 of the
Act of 1888, because I was sitting in this room
when the Act was passed. The intention of it was
clearly that the trader should have the power to
have his rates split up into all its component
parts, every single component part of whatever
kind.” Now we are absolutely precluded from
doing that. In every rate the railway managers
will tell you (Mr. Oakley told Lord Balfour of
Burleigh) there is a terminal, and that terminal
charges are included in every rate. These are
his own words: “ (Q.) You have as a fact been
charging these terminals up to the present time 2
—(A.) Certainly; the cost of the terminal work is
included in every rate.” Then, when we come
to Mr. Findlay, we asked him this, because
the cases are innumerable where the traders have
gone to the Railway Commissioners, under the
Act of 1873, and he said: “Tell us how these
rates are made up.” Mr. Findlay admitted
“Whenever it is under the maximum we say
no terminals are charged,” although Mr.
Oakley had distinctly told the Committee
that terminals are charged in every case. How
are we to get at it? Just look at the rates.
Just take the rate for sugar, to give an illustra-
tion, the actual rates being charged for sugar all
over the country are one halfpenny per ton per
mile, sugar being a very large article of traffic.
The Board of Trade proposed to give them for
conveyance of the article, sugar, 2-2 d. or four
times what the company is charging ; but when
the question of the quantum comes on we shall
have something to say upon it; but supposing
that rate is to be sanctioned, how shall we ever
be able to find out anything about terminals 7
The rate they are charging to-day is a halfpenny
a ton for the carriage, and they are to be allowed
to charge 2 d., so that I say we will have no
remedy whatever. Now it was the intention all
through that we should see the facts how we are
being charged. My learned friend may say, and
I am not quarrelling with him, I think it might
possibly be still said to be undue preference, if
they charge exactly the same, not performing
the same services; but I say distinctly, you can
never find it out unless you give us this power.
The railway companies' powers are enormously
in excess of what they charge, and it is evi-
dent that they are making a charge over
the conveyance rate. Then we will be absolutely
in their hands, we will have no possibility of
making it up. My learned friend Mr. Pember,
said that a railway company was bound to dis-
tinguish—we know that that is not so—we have
asked them and the Board of Trade has asked
them to give us information in regard to various
rates. We asked them distinctly to tell us how
much was for terminal and how much for the
expenses of carting and delivery, and so on; there
are the tables before you, and they do not show
one of them.
Earl of Camperdown.] We had them yesterday.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You may have them, but
they are very long. I will just give you one
illustration. The Board of Trade thought it was
fair that if we got the information, they should
have the opportunity of supplying further infor-
mation on the other side, and this is what the
railway company volunteered, and this is what
we ask for. Here is a bundle of hops from Lon-
don to Maidstone, they are charged 14 s. 2 d. a
ton, station to station, but it is not distinguished
that that is a station to station rate. Then when
we come to London—London to Maidstone—we
have volunteered 20 s. 10 d. ; they do not account
for the difference between those two rates. We
have written the railway company and asked
them to tell us distinctly as they did before, how
they account for the difference of those rates,
how is the terminal made up, but they never do
and they never will do it; unless we have some
such clause as that, we shall be absolutely at
their
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
275
24 April 1891.
their mercy. I am sure that it is contrary to
the intention of Parliament as expressed in 1868,
1873, and 1888, therefore I very strongly support
this clause. Remember the argument of the
railway company for terminals. They said :
Unless you have a terminal, if you have an
inclusive rate, the man who has a siding will be
charged the same as the man who has not. That
is the railway company's own argument, but
what is the good of it 2 If you still have an
inclusive rate, as you always will have under the
maximum, then we will have no remedy at all,
we shall be in their power as Messrs. Colman and
Messrs. Huntley & Palmer, and a number of
other people are at present. Messrs. Colman did
go to the Railway Commissioners to get this
matter settled, and they got, what? A small
rebate with reference to cartage.
Mr. Hunter.] It was a general rebate, not ex-
clusively with regard to cartage; it was a
compromise.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was a compromise;
but it is only equal to the cartage-service;
they have not really got anything equal to a
rebate for providing a station, or doing the
service upon their sliding, and we should fail to
get that unless we are able to get the power of
making the company show what they actually
charge for. Let me say that the Act of 1888
was very strong upon this. Section 24, under
which you are sitting here, began thus: “ Not-
withstanding any provision in any general or
special Act, every railway company shall submit
to the Board of Trade a revised classification of
merchandise traffic, and a revised schedule of
maximum rates and charges applicable thereto,
proposed to be charged by such railway company,
and shall fully state in such classification and
schedule the nature and amounts of all terminal
charges.” They never did. The Board of Trade
asked them in their circular to the railway com-
panies to state precisely the details of how their
terminals were made up, and they have not done
that to this day. When we first went to the
Board of Trade, we said to the Board of Trade,
we are under a great disadvantage, the railway
companies have not complied with your
request. I have tried to get that out in
cross-examination. We tried it and we failed,
and shall always fail unless you give us some
clause by which they are compelled to break up
the rates. The rules of the Board of Trade were
explicit, it showed how they understood the Act;
but they are absolutely disobeyed by the railway
companies. (Reading the rule.) There was
another place where they were told to specify
precisely the entire charge and all the terminal
charges, and with regard to those we have never
seen it to this day, and I say we never will see
it unless you put in some such clause as this.
Chairman.] Let me ask you this. Supposing
this clause is put in, how will that compel the
railway company to split up the rate 2
Mr. Balfour Browne. Thus, because, if you
will follow me in reading it, “Where merchan-
dise is received or delivered by the company at
the junction of the railway with a siding or
branch railway not belonging to the company,
the amount charged to the trader by the com-
pany shall not exceed the rate charged by the
company in respect of similar traffic when re-
ceived or delivered at their station nearest to the
junction.” There we will at once have the
amount absolutely fixed by that which is being
charged for similar traffic to the station nearest
to the junction, “with a just allowance for any
difference in mileage *; that is only fair because
suppose they carry ten or two miles, they
ought to have an allowance for that. “After
deducting therefrom the maximum charge au-
thorised by this schedule for the accommodation
at that station.” We did not think that was
altogether fair, because it might be fair
to take the whole off, so we say, “ or a just por-
tion of that maximum charge to be determined
in case of dispute by an arbitrator to be appointed
by the Board of Trade.” Now, what we say is
this, here is Messrs. Colman's station entirely
separate from the station of the Great Eastern
Railway Company, they supply the whole station
and the whole work. Are they to have no
allowance for that ? Unless we have some such
clause as this we shall get none.
Further than that, your Grace will see that the
next portion, which I do not think ury learned
friend read, but it follows on consequentially, deals
with service terminals in exactly the same way.
“When the rate at which any merchandise, is
carried would cover any services for which the
company may charge any service terminals or
may make any special charges, and any of those
services have not been performed by the com-
pany in connection with that merchandise, the
company shall allow to the traders a just rebate
in respect of the services not performed, to be
determined in case of dispute by an arbitrator to
be appointed by the Board of Trade.” Now I
think, my Lords, this is absolutely in con-
formity with the whole principle you have
been going on. You allow demurrage to a
trader when his truck is detained ; you
allow the railway company to be paid for
loading and unloading when they load and
unload, but when we do it ourselves, and they
are charging another man an inclusive rate for
both services, should we not be allowed a rebate
off that ? That is all we are asking for, and it
seems to me to be absolutely fair. We are
blocked by these decisions. It was a great
surprise to us that the Railway Commissioners
should have decided as they did. My learned
friend Mr. Pember is still confident in his opinion
that the Railway Commissioners are wrong. I
cannot think so. I think they were right, but
we cannot get what we require unless you give
it us by means of a clause ; and may I say, before
I sit down, I appeal to my learned friend, through
the Committee, with reference to the information
given on these two tables.
Earl of Belmore.] Would you just explain
about “a just portion.” What does that mean
in two or three sentences.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We thought it was not
fair to make them give the maximum; for in-
stance, supposing they are only charging another
trader one-half the maximum, that would be pro-
bably a just proportion.
Earl of Belmore.] Now I understand.
(81.)
M M 2 Mr.
276
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne j That is what we want,
is it not, that we shall be punished because we
take our traffic elsewhere, but that we should
have a just and reasonable allowance because
they are not charging more to the other
traders.
Chairman | Your intention would appear to
be better carried out by the new clause proposed
by Messrs. Colman.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Those, I think, ought
to have naturally come first, but I think they are
all necessary, every one of them. If your Grace
will just bear with me, I will tell you what they
8.T.C.
Chairman.] No ; I think we had better wait
till we come to them, else we shall get confused.
You have proposed a clause now in two sentences
and I think you have concluded.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, I asked the rail-
way company to give us information, and we
asked for these tables, otherwise when we come
to the question of getting the proportion out of
the rates, it will lead to interminable cross-ex-
amining to get that. They say they can do it,
and they ought to do it, and it would save your
Grace's time if they gave it us at once, otherwise
you would find it make my cross-examination
very long indeed.
Mr. Carver.] May I make one remark in ex-
planation of what your Grace has said
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Carver.] I am going to call a witness.
Chairman.] Then call your witness.
Mr. ANDREW COLLINS TUCKER SQUAREY is called in ; and having been sworn,
is Examined :
Mr. Carver.
1254. Are you Solicitor to the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board 2–I am.
1255. And you have held that position since
1867 I think 2–Yes.
1256. Are you conversant with the Dock
Estate in Liverpool and Birkenhead, and with
the policy which the Dock Board have pursued P
—Yes, generally.
1257. The Dock Board, I believe, own a large
number of branch railways on their estate 2–
Yes.
1258. Which compare with the railways of the
North Western and other companies 2–Yes.
1259. Taking first the Liverpool Estate, do
you produce a plan 2–1 do (handing in the
same). .
Chairman.] We are all prepared to admit, I
imagine, that the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board have a large business and have a large
number of sidings.
Mr. Carver.
1260. (To the Witness.) In these sidings do
you in some instances do the work of loading wag-
gons to the railways of the companies, and in
other cases do you allow the railway companies
to pass over your railways and do the work them-
selves?—Yes, I think that is so.
1261. Take as an example the grain warehouses
in Birkenhead. Is there a very large traffic in
grain which is worked entirely by the Dock Boards
employés and brought by them to the railways of
the railway companies?—Yes, there is a large
traffic, grain I think is the principal element of
the traffic, and the trucks I believe are drawn by
the Dock Board's horses and servants from the
railway junction to the warehouses. At the
warehouses they are loaded, and in the case of
grain also covered, and are then taken back by
the Dock Board's officers to the junction and
handed over to the company.
1262. Under present circumstances you have
to make such arrangements as you can with the
railway companies 2–Yes.
Mr. Carver—continued.
1263. In your opinion is it desirable that such
a clause as this should be introduced into the
schedule 2–It seems to me to be extremely
deficient without some such clause that the Dock
Board or parties, and they are very numerous,
who are in the position of the Dock Board can
really get the benefit of the services they per-
form or that the trader can escape from being
charged unduly.
Crose-examined by Mr. Pope.
1264. At present it is entirely at the option of
the Dock Board whether they do the work on
their own lines or whether they allow the railway
company to do it?—Yes.
1265. You have the entire control of the
whole situation ?—Yes. -
1266. What charges do you make?—I have
the traffic manager here who will tell you the
details of the charges.
1267. You make your own charges?—We
do, and the railway companies, I understand,
allow some rebate in respect of the work done
by the Board.
1268. Have you considered the effect of this
clause at all ?—Yes; I understand the clause as
stated by Mr. Carver in his opening.
1269. I understand you that this clause is
intended to compel a division of the rate into its
component parts 2–No, I am not quite sure ot
that. g
1270. Nor I either ; but that is what the
whole advocacy has been turning upon.
Chairman.] That is what we understand as
the reason for wishing to insert the clause,
namely, the difficulty of finding out how the
charge is made, partly for conveyance and partly
for terminals.
Witness.] I understand the object of the clause
to be this, that where the company are not
charging their maximum conveyance rates, and
services are done either by the trader himself or
by parties for the trader which are equivalent to
terminal
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DIER BILLS.
277
24 April 1891.] .
Mr. SQUAREY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
terminal services, the company should then be
compelled to make a rebate out of the rate
charged, though not the maximum rate in respect
to those services. -
1271. In other words, you would compel every
railway company to charge something as ter-
minals 7–No.
1272. Excuse me 2—We understand that every
rate does include something for terminals.
1273. But you would compel them to appro-
priate a portion out of every rate to a terminal
station or service 2–That would in effect be so,
because we believe that to be the present status
of the charge.
1274. Of course, as the law now is, they cannot
charge for a service, terminal unless they do the
service ; but whether they do that or not you
would compel them to appropriate part of the
rate to that ?—Upon the assumption that the
rate always does include that charge.
1275. That is your assumption ?—Yes, I
believe it is always the case.
1276. Let me give you an illustration and see
how that would work out. According to the
schedule the total amount of the maximum con-
veyance rate, the maximum station rate and the
maximum service terminal may amount to 12 s.,
is it your motion that the rate is built up scienti-
fically out of those three items ?—I fancy it is
generally.
1277. Let us see. Supposing the total rate is
8 s., which is less than the maximum for the
conveyance rate, your desire would be to make
the railway companies charge such a rate as
would include in it a charge for station and ser-
vice terminals?—No, if they are charging other
parties for similar traffic a rate which does include
those services then the contention, as I understand,
is that they should make a rebate to the traders
in similar cases where the terminal service is not
done by the company.
1278. But I am talking at this present moment
of this particular Clause. I will deal with the
detail of it by and bye ; but now how out of such
a rate are the company to distinguish what they
actually charge for terminals?—That I think is
a matter of calculation for the companies. I am
not able to answer.
1279. Is not the ordinary practice as to the
way in which a rate is fixed, that the trader goes
to the Railway Company and says, if you will
take me from point to point for such a rate, I can
do trade, and they fix a rate which will enable
him to do trade, not so much for conveyance and
so much for terminal. Now what you would do
would be that in a rate so fixed you would say,
you must distinguish so much for conveyance
rate, so much for terminal, and so much for
service —No, I do not say that ; I say that iſ
in the rate so fixed for such a service as you
have imagined the company performed any
terminal service, then where goods are carried at
the same rate and the company do not perform
the terminal services, the trader should have an
allowance in respect of the terminal service not
done by the company in that case, but done by
the company in the other case.
1280. He cannot charge for it unless he does
it; that is conceded ?—Yes.
Mr. Pope—continued.
1281. You propose to make a part of the rate
applicable to that whether he does it or not ?—
No, that is not so.
1282. One minute. Now assume another
difficulty of the trader's case : he wants a
reduction of the rate ; it is 8 s. : he says, if you
will reduce it to 7 s. 6d. I can do trade. The
manager says, it shall be 7 s. 6 d. Which of the
three component parts is the sixpence to come
off from ?—How is it possible for me to answer
that question ? - -
1283. How is it possible for anybody to answer
it 3–-I think the railway companies performing,
as they would perform for the trader, that ter-
minal service must have the means of knowing
the value of the terminal service.
1284. But excuse me there is six pence re-
duction upon the maximum rate. From which
of the three ingredients of the rate is that
reduction to come 2–You are asking me now to
do the work of a railway traffic manager.
1285. I am asking you to expound the pos-
sibility of its being done by anybody ?--It must
be possible to make some allowance with respect
to the terminal work done by the railway com-
pany. -
1286. I do not know whether it is the fact,
but I dare say it is the fact, that the rates from
stations in Liverpool to points in the country
where the distance is similar are the same 2—
That I cannot say
1287. You know what group rates are ?—Yes.
1288. How would this clause affect group
rates. It would make group rates impossible,
would it not ?–-I do not know. There are
gentlemen here who are much more familiar with
group rates than I am.
1289. I am perfectly willing to accept that.
If you say you know more about the legal busi-
ness of the Board than you did about the man-
agement of a railway, I am content to take that
answer ?—That is so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Carver.] We have a number of witnesses
here, your Grace, who will tell the Committee
about the working of these sidings. We have
also here the President of the Liverpool Cham-
ber of Commerce.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that I have
also witnesses here whom I might call with re-
gard to Messrs. Colman, and especially with re-
gard to Mrs. Tomlinson ; but it is, after all, more
a matter of principle than a matter of fact. You
have sufficient facts before you, and I cannot
press the facts upon you any further; the only
difference between us is that for Messrs. Colman.
I say that instead of being like the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board a public trust, they are a
private firm, who do the work themselves. The
traffic cannot be dealt with at the Great Eastern
Station; therefore they do it all themselves, and
they think that they are entitled to a rebate out
of the rate.
Mr. Carver.] I have the President of the
Liverpool Chamber of Commerce here who, I
think, would be able to answer Mr. Pope's
question. .
Mr. Pope.] By all means let him do so.
(81.)
M M 3 Earl
278
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
Earl of Camp, rdown.] Is he a scientific wit-
ness with respect to group rates; does he know
how group rates are made up, and things of that
sort P
Mr. Carver.] He is a gentleman who knows a
great deal about the matter, but I do not think
I could say that he is a scientific witness.
Chairman.] Could he answer the question Mr.
Pope put as to out of what proportion is the six-
pence reduction to come.
Mr. Coke..] Yes, my Lord, I could answer
that.
MR. HENRY CO KE is called in; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Carver.
1290. YoU are President of the Liverpool
Chamber of Commerce, are you not ?—I am.
1291. Are you also a member of the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board 7–Yes.
1292. You have paid considerable attention,
have you not, to this matter that we have been
discussing?—I have. --
1293. Would you please answer that question
as to where the sixpence would come off, if you
think it possible to do so?–1 should take it off the
conveyance rate.
Mr. Pope." He would take it off the convey-
ance rate, in order that that he might get the
maximum allowance in terminals, of course.
Mr. Carver.
1294. Would you just give your reasons for
saying that it ought to come off the conveyance
rate 2–The railway companies pressed upon Par-
liament the necessity that we should have station
terminals. The Liverpool Chamber of Com-
merce throughout pointed out the difficulties
which would arise.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether the Liver-
pool Chamber of Commerce is in a position to
argue this question. -
Witness.] The station terminal having been
sanctioned by Parliament, and in principle by
this Committee, we wish to see it put honestly
into operation ; and the oriy way in which we
think it can be done is by making every rate
which is fixed divisible into separate portions,
the station terminal, service terminal, special and
conveyance.
Chairman.
1295. That is to say, you would compel
the company to charge for each of those things
in every case ? - I should. It does and must of
necessity charge; but I should compel them
to specify what portion of the rate which is
charged for any traffic is charged on account of
station accommodation, what on account of the
service, and what on account of conveyance.
Mr.
1296. If an inclusive charge is made cov-
ering conveyance and the other services, and
some of the services in particular cases are not
rendered; is it your opinion that there should be
a corresponding rebate made to that trader who
does not have the benefit of the services —
Certainly.
Carver.
Chairman.
1295. But I understood this gentleman
Chairman--continued.
thought that these charges must be made in
every case ?–That these charges should be
specified.
Mr. Carver.] I understand that they are made
in every case, that is to say they are included,
but are not specified separately.
Earl of Camperdown.] The railway companies,
by applying for station terminals, have been
telling us that it was necessary that in respect of
their outlay some charge should be made. They
rather intimated that in respect of everything
which they have made outlay upon they ought to
be entitled to make a charge.
Mr. Pope..] I do not think the railway com-
panies have ever applied for station terminals. It
is in the interest of the traders that station ter-
minals should be paid.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The railway companies
applied in 1885 for Bills to authorise terminals.
Mr. Career.] May I reply to the remark that
was made by my learned friend Mr. Pope?
Chairman.] I think we cannot hear any reply.
Mr. Pope.] I will not make any remark if it is
to be a subject of reply on every occasion.
Mr. Carver.
1290. The question was put by my learned
friend to Mr. Squarey as to the impossibility of
working this clause in connection with group
rates. . (To the Witness.) Do you see any diffi.
culty in the possibility of working this clause in
connection with group rates ?–No.
1099. Do you wish to add anything to that?
Why do you say “us”?—Because I consider, if
this system is enforced upon the railway com-
panies by tuis Act, they will themselves find it
necessary to group these station rates, that is to
say, to make station terminals and service ter-
minals under a set of group rates for the various
classes of their stations throughout the whole line.
1300. The group rates are made chargeable by
the railway companies under the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act of 1888, Section 29 7–No
doubt.
Mr. Hunter.] Does not the whole basis of the
separation of station terminals rest upon the assump-
tion that terminal services, whether in providing
station accommodation or otherwise, are a constant
quantity?–Yes, that they are constant quantity.
And do not vary 7–That is so.
Mr. Pope. I do not wish to ask the President
of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce any
questions about rates. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILWAY 1:ATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
279
** 24 April 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose to call
witnesses unless your Grace thinks there is any
point upon which witnesses could add anything.
We have witnesses here who could speak to the
matter of private sidings, but I think this is a
question of general principle.
Mr. Pope.] The whole question that we are
now discussing is a question addressed to private
sidings. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is. I can answer
my learned friend Mr. Pope upon group rates
and whether any dednction should come off in
my reply.
Mr. Carver.] I have also the Secretary of the
Londonderry Dock Board here if the Committee
would like to hear him.
Chairman.] It is not for us to call the
witnesses, it is for you to call the witnesses
whom you think necessary to establish your
CàS6.
Mr. Carver.] All the different cases are similar
in principle ; therefore one does not add anything
by multiplying witnesses.
Mr. Pope. Are we going on with other parts
of the amendments P I have not the least idea
where we are; are we on the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board, or are we going to take others ?
Chairman.] We are on the new Clause 42 -
proposed by the Mersey Dock and Harbour
Board and Sarah Tomlinson. That clause is in
two paragraghs: “Where merchandise is received
by or delivered to the company.” We are asked
to add that to the Bill. (To Mr. Balfour Browne.)
What is there in Clause 4a that we are asked to
accept that is not covered by Clause 5a proposed
by Mr. Carver ?
Earl of Belmore..] You have just given me
one in substitution ; I thought you had given it
to the Chairman.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My Lord, there were
some of the clauses which did cover the same
ground, and I thought it important to have it
covered in the same words; I have handed in to
my learned friend ; that my Lord (handing in a
clause) is in substitution of Messrs. Colmans'
clause, and you will find that the third of them.
Chairman.] But do not you see that it is very
difficult to deal with this enquiry under any
circumstances; and here is a proposal in which you
have put your clauses which are coming on pre-
sently, before the two clauses which we are now
discussing.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so, your Grace,
and I think it is possible that they might have
been discussed at first ; but it really does not
much matter. The first two clauses of Messrs.
Colman are to get information simply, first to
have the information set out in the rate book, and
secondly to give the Railway Commissioners
powers to make certain orders.
Mr. Hambury.] When they have got the in-
formation they have got all they want. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We want more ; we
want to provide for the rebate besides.
Mr. Carver.] The Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board Clause is intended to establish the prin-
ciple of a rebate.
Chairman.] And Messrs. Coleman adopt that
same principle.
Mr. Carver.] Yes, they adopt that same prin-
ciple ; and then they have a further clause which
is to provide machinery and to enable the rebate
to be calculated.
Chairman.] That is is exactly what it is not ;
they do not provide further machinery : they
begin by providing the machinery which is
here.
Mr. Carver.] I conceive, my Lord, that it is
better to establish a principle first.
Chairman.] It is really in point of fact putting
Messrs. Colman before the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Board, instead of the Mersey Docks and
Harbour Doard before Messrs. Colman.
Mr. Balfour Browne, That is so.
Chairman.] Then I think we must hear about
it.
Mr. Pope.] Then shall we take Messrs. Col-
mans’ Clause and discuss it and pass over the
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You will find that the
last of Messrs. Colmans’ clauses is the same as
that of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, but
the first two are preliminary. I will read them ;
I do not think there is anything to be said upon
them after what my learned friend has said to
your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] Then in Messrs. Colmans’ clause
they do provide for the distinguishing of the
rate, which is the cardinal defect of the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board’s Clause.
Chairman.] They do ; but the two clauses
which we have here before us, if you read throngh
the paper on your left hand, are the two last
clauses in that paper.
Mr. Pope.] Very well, your Grace, I have not
seen that paper till this moment.
Chairman J Nor have I.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Well, your Grace, they
ware handed in. May I just read them, your
Grace, and you will see that although they are
very important to the traders they do not cover
exactly the same ground as the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board Clause that you have listened
to. “(7.) The Company shall enter in their
book of rates and distances, kept at each of their
stations, every rate for the time charged for the
carriage of traffic, other than passengers and
their luggage, from that station and from any
neighbouring siding or other place to any place
to which they book, including any rates charged
under any special contract ’’ (I think that is an
important clause that we ought to have because
there might be a special contrac) “in
such a manner as to show separately how
much of each rate is for (1) conveyance, (2) use
of trucks, (3) station terminals, (4) service ter-
minals, and (5) other expenses, if any, specifying
the nature and detail of such expenses.” Now,
your Grace, that is only to get on the face of the
rate book, where they are bound to keep a great
deal more information than we have at present.
Under the Act of 1873, Section 14, every railway
company is bound to keep a book at its stations
showing the distance from that station to every
(81.)
M M 4 other
280
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
... •
24 April 1891.
other to which they book, and also showing the
rate at which they are charging, and they are
also bound to show special rates. But the rate
is always an inclusive rate, and we do not know
how much is being charged for terminal charges,
and how much for other services; and we think
it reasonable not to amend, but just to extend
the law so that a trader may see that fully on the
rate-book. Then we have got on to provide
“ (8.) The Railway Commissioners may from
time to time, on the application of any person
interested, make orders with respect to any par-
ticular description of traffic, requiring the com-
pany to distinguish in their book of rates and
distances kept at each of their stations, how much
of each rate’’ (now here is the important para-
graph in the bracket) “ (whether such rate be
over or under or equal to the maximum rate for
conveyance).” That is the very point that Thom-
linson's case failed in, because there they will
not he able to say “it is under the maximum,
and therefore we will not distinguish ’ how much
of each rate (whether such rate be over or under
or equal to the maximum rate for conveyance) is
for (1) conveyance, (2) the use of trucks, (3)
station terminals, (4) service terminals, and
(5) other expenses, if any, specifying the nature
and detail of such expenses.”
Now my learned friend Mr. Pope has suggested
that any such thing would compel a railway com-
pany in every case to charge for all those things.
The whole hypothesis of fixing station terminals
and service terminals is that in respect of certain
traffic they do provide a station and do certain
services. If they do those, then we ought to be
able to see what they are charging. If in another
case it comes from a siding, and they charge no-
thing for the station terminal, of course they
would say “siding traffic; no station terminal *;
but even remember in siding traffic they have by
agreement; the Midland Company have by
agreement with Mr. Barnes’ Coal Association of
14,000,000 tons agreed for a terminal. If the traffic
is for 100 miles they are to charge 2 d. for
everything coming from a siding. If they
charge that, why should not we see what
they are doing 2 Then, your Grace, after we
have got that information, we still require
some remedy. Those two clauses would give us
first in the rate a statement of what the rates
were, and what the terminals were, not merely
the maximum, but what they are charging; that
is what we want to know ; and the second would
give us access to the Railway Commissioners,
who would make them distinguish whether it
was over the maximum or not, and we have it by
admission that every rate, whether it is under
the maximum or over the maximum, must cover
the station accommodation and must cover the
services. Now all we want to see there is first
how much do they put down for each. But
before all that we want Clause 9, the one that
the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have
brought up, because the first two clauses only
give us full information, and the latter says that
when we have got the information we are to have
the rebate. It provides for the diminution of the
rate, by reason of the fact that we have not used
their station. That, I submit to your Grace, is
perhaps the better scheme, and that because you
first get the information. If they are not
charging anything for these things, we cannot
claim any rebate ; that is to say, if, as a real
positive fact they are not. But if, on the other
hand, we find that a man uses the station, and
has his goods loaded and unloaded there, it is
absurd to tell me they are not charging for it;
they pretend not to be, but they are absolutely
in the rate charging for it. That as I am not
getting the service, and I am not using the
station, my rate ought to be lower than that of
the man who does use the station and gets the
service. And this scheme of clauses is to carry
out that which seems to me to be absolutely
reasonable. It is difficult on the railway com.
panies' own case, and I do not think the first two
clauses by themselves would effect our object;
because, though they would give us full informa-
tion, they would not give us effective remedy.
May I say one word with reference to the remedy,
and why I say this clause (9) is necessary? My
learned friend will answer that undue preference
is the answer. It is not, and I will tell you why :
because undue preference depends upon competi-
tion of interest. Let me illustrate it by the case
of Messrs. Colman. In Messrs. Colmans’ case
there is nobody trading at all in mustard or
starch or anything in Norwich, and he could not
raise a question of undue preference. - - - -
Mr. Pope.] Why not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne. He cannot. My
learned friend Mr. Pope may throw himself
about, but it is the fact, and the Railway
Commissioners have held over and over again
that there must be competition of interests,
What harm is it to Messrs. Colman that other
people in another trade are having their goods
corried cheaper ? It is no harm to them the
railway company would say. And in the
Nitshill case the Railway Commissioners dis-
tinctly held that because splint coal was not the
same in the market as cannel coal an undue pre-
ference did lie for carrying one of them cheaper
than another; the Words of the commissioners
Were : “There must be competition of interest.”
Therefore we have no remedy under the general
Act. At the present time there is nobody carry-
ing on the same trade at the same place so that
we could not go for undue preference. When
we did go for undue preference there happened
to be a small trader in mustard in Norwich, but
he had since ceased to exist. Therefore undue
preference is no answer to us. We must have
something in the nature of a rebate, if we do
not get the services for which other people are
paying.
Earl of Belmore.] With regard to including
“any special rate in any special contract.” Do
you mean to say that if to any station the com-
pany have a ulimber of special contracts they
have to show in every one of the special contracts
the special rates ? .*
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, they are bound
to set it out in the rate book; they
are bound to show every one. If they have
a special contract with me they are bound to
show in the contract with me so much ; but I
want to see what for. I want to see with regard
to the special contract man what he is being
charged for; whether he is charged for having
his goods loaded and unloaded ; whether he is
paying
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLL.
28 1
24 April 1891.
paying station terminals or only paying the con-
veyance rate.
Earl of Belmore.] Would they put in one line,
“ rate from so and so,” and then in another line,
“ rate for Mr. Brown " ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, they would do it
exactly in the same way as it is done in the
schedule. Instead of having the maximum, they
would set it out, conveyance rate so much, Sør-
vice terminal so much, station terminal, unload-
ing and loading, covering and uncovering, and
so on. They would merely put the actual
amounts being charged.
Earl of Belmore.] That is for the public. Then
if I have a special contract for any particular
reason, they would set it out. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so; it is only
cutting up the special rate in the same way as
they cut up the general rate. That is the whole
point of my case; and that is as important as
anything, because the special rates are all lower
than the other rates, and it is those special rates
that we want to see. Take for instance the
North Eastern Company. Out of their actual
rates 66 per cent. are special rates. And with
regard to the Great Western Company, 75 per
cent. of their whole rates are special rates; and
we want to see them because these are the
people who we think are likely to be preferred to
ouselves because they have lower rates than any
other party.
Mr. Pope.] I have not been heard, your
Grace. - -
Chairman.] No, we are going to consult on
another point, a preliminary point. We will not
forget you. -
The Committee retire to consult, and
after some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the new Clause (7) on behalf of Messrs.
Colman, that is, “ The Company shall enter in
their book of rates and distances kept at each of
their stations,” and so on ; and we have decided
not to insert the next one. “The Railway
Commissioners may from time to time,” and
so on, and we now wish to hear Mr. Pope on
No. (9.)
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace has relieved me, of
course, from a very considerable difficulty,
namely, the discussion of the question of splitting
up every rate in the rate-book in the way pro-
posed by these first two sections. Since you
have been out of the room I have been con-
sulting with the railway managers, and we think
that although the phraseology of these two
paragraphs appears very objectionable to us,
there may be some necessity for providing a
means by which the trader may be relieved of
the consequence of the undue preference which
undoubtedly might exist if you charge a different
rate to the station, including station terminal or
service terminal, through charging the same rate
to the siding. There may be, I do not say there
is, but I have not had time thoroughly to make
up my own mind, or to agree with the managers
as to precisely what that remedy should be ;
and therefore if now, at half-past three, you
would postpone this till Tuesday, I will
undertake on Tuesday morning to submit to you
not only our view with regard to the phraseology
of these clauses which appears to us to be
exceedingly objectionable, but will propose some
alternative for them which I think will do all
that ought to be done.
Chairman.] Where are you referring to ?
Mr. Pope.] The 9th and 10th paragraphs.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I dare say my learned
friend will extend his courtesy, and let us have
a copy of what he proposes as soon as he can.
Mr. Pope.j Of course. . .
Earl of Camperdown ( to Mr. Balfour Browne j.
Perhaps you might have a talk with him before
that. r
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know, I am
afraid. I really do think your Lordship's
suggestion is a good one ; I will try to meet my
learned friend.
Chairman.] Then we will adjourn the
discussion of this amendment till Tuesday.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases. On
Tuesday morning I will be prepared to discuss
the matter, and I will exactly point out what I
think is proper.
Earl of Belmore.] Then there is the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Conference.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is really con-
sequential, and I will ask leave to postpone it;
it is really very much the same. It is “Where
the whole of the services covered by the con-
veyance rate are not rendered by the company,
the actual sum chargeable in respect of each
consignment, shall be such reasonable sum within
the maximum as shall in case of dispute be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade.” That is really a part of
the same subject matter, I do not think it would
be useful to take up your time with that now.
Clause 6 is postponed.
PART II.
Provisions as to fixing Rates and Charges.
On Clause 7.
Chairman.] Are there any amendments to this
clause 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne j. There is no amend-
ment to that.
Clause 7 is passed.
On Clause 8.
Chairman.] Are there any amendments to this
clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At one time I proposed
to omit this clause altogether; but I have re-
considered the matter, and I do not think there
ought to be any short distance clause. I think
this short distance clause will have to be amended
by the distance being cut down from six miles to
a lower amount. But I think it is reasonable
that there should be a short distance clause, and
therefore I withdraw the amendment on behalf of
the Mansion House Association, and also that for
Messrs. Brunner, Mond and Company, Limited,
(81.)
N N which
282
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
*-
which is the second amendment on your Lord"
ship's paper.
Chairman.] We have no printed amendments
at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The railway companies
handed them to us.
Chairman.] What is it?
Mr. Balfour Browne || It is the railway print of
amendments to Clauses 7 to 25.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My Lord Duke, I beg
to propose the omission of Clause 8.
Chairman.] We must first of all amend it, and
them when it is amended it will be time to say
whether it shall stand part of the Bili or not.
Mr. Poyser.] I have an amendment, your
Grace, for the Chemical Manure Manufacturers’
Association on page 4, Clause 8, line 43, after
“ which * insert “either a siding charge or’; it
ought to be “a charge for siding accommodation
or.” I will read the clause to your Grace, and
then you will see how it is. Clause 8 says :
“Where merchandise is conveyed for an entire
distance which does not exceed in the case of
merchandise in respect of which a station terminal
is chargeable at each end of the transit three
miles, or in the case of merchandise not so charge-
able six miles, the Company may, except as
hereinafter specially provided, make the charges
for conveyance authorised by this schedule as for
three miles or six miles respectively.” Your
Grace will see there that what the Board of
Trade have done is to make a distinction between
the short distances where a station terminal
is charged at each end of the transit. I take it
that that must be because the railway companies
are supposed to make some profit on the statiºn
terminal, and that is the reason why there should
be a short distance of three miles instead of six
miles. But your Grace is aware that now it is
practically agreed that for sidings there is to be a
charge which is to be practically a station
terminal for those sidings; that is to
say under the clause we have already dealt with,
Clause 5, and then under Clause 19 there is to be
“in addition to the charges specified in this
schedule charges and payment by way of rent or
otherwise for providing sidings or other struc-
tural accommodation for the private use of
traders, and not required by the company for
dealing with the traffic for the purposes of
carriage.” That is practically a station terminal;
it is really to meet the same charges and the
same expenses for structure and otherwise that
a station terminal is to meet ; and what I suggest
as fair to those traders who have sidings is that
they should be treated as paying a station
terminal, because they pay a substitute for a
station terminal, they pay a charge by way
of rent or otherwise ; and while I am not
quarrelling with the clause any other way, I say
that, as a matter of equity, those words should
be inserted, after “ which "“either a charge for
siding accommodation or,” that is the way I
should prefer the words to run, “ either charge
for siding accommodation or a station terminal is
chargeable at each end of the transit.”
Chairman.] But you have not put that down
in the amendment.
Mr. Poyser.] 1 call it a “siding charge " there,
but I think it would be much better if I put “a
charge for siding accommodation,” having regard
to the 19th clause in the Bill that is to
come afterwards; and I think your Grace would
rather that I put the better words than that I
should stick to the words I have already proposed.
I am quite willing to leave it in that way if the
Committee think it better “a siding charge or.”
But what I want to do is, that where we pay
practically a station terminal we should be in the
same position with regard to this 8th clause as
if it were called by name a station terminal,
because, after all, it is only a matter of descrip-
tion ; we pay the amount. Therefore I suggest,
as a matter of fairness, it should be taken into
account, and that we should have that addition
made to the three miles’ clause in the section.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think this is a fair sugges-
tion ; I would assent to it in a moment if I did.
The scope of the condition is this : that the rail-
way companies proposed a six mile short distance
clause all round. The Board of Trade said, No,
that is not fair, six miles short distance in respect
of traffic for which there is no station terminal,
and three miles in respect of traffic where there
are station terminals, because it may be supposed
that you may obtain some remuneration out of
the station terminal which compensates you for
the haulage for the short distance. Now, my
learned friend proposes that a siding charge
should be considered as equivalent to a station
terminal, which it is not; because ll that we can
do is to charge something by way of rent for the
siding, and that may be a totally inadequate set-
off for the distance that it has to be hauled. If
my learned friend were willing to pay for his
siding accommodation the same rate that we
charge for the station terminal, then it would
have equalised matters, but inasmuch as he does
not do that, he proposes to take that advantage
and get it both ways. .
Mr. Poyser.] What I say in reply, with regard
to that is this, that I understood that station
terminals were based upon the accommodation to
be afforded to us, that is precisely the same
basis as underlies this charge under Clause 19
for the accommodation provided at a siding. It
is under those circumstances that I suggest that
we should have it the other way. I may say
that this short distance clause affects these
sidings immensely.
Chairman.] No, we will not insert those words.
What is the next amendment P
Mr. Shaw.] I appear for the South Wales
Colliery owners, your Grace, and I submit to
the Committee that certain words in this clause
should be omitted so that the clause should run
in the following way: “Where merchandise is
conveyed for an entire distance which does not
exceed three miles, the company may, except as
is hereinafter specially provided, make charges
for the conveyance authorised by this schedule.
as for three miles.” It is practically doing away
with the distinction that has been drawn here
by the Board of Trade between a case where
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
283
24 April 1891.
the railway company find the station accommo-
dation (which so far as coal is concerned is
merely a siding), and where the trader finds it
for himself paying all the expenses both of main-
tenance and everything else. This private
siding question is one of the most important
questions raised before this Committee.
For the people for whom I now appear, the
coalowners, especially in South Wales, in an
enormous nutuber of instances, coal is carried
from the colliery to the iron works or tin works,
or even to the coke works, a very short distance
over these lines. In order to let your Grace and
the Committee understand a little more fully
the position of South Wales, I may say also this,
that north of the coalfield there is a trunk line
which takes the coal going north, south, east,
and west, and south of the coalfield there is
another main trunk line of the Great Western
Company ; and the intervening valleys are
swept by short lines beginning from the Mon-
mouthshire Great Western Line, taking the
Rhymney, the Taff Vale, and the Brecon and
Methyr. Again, to the west the Great Western
and Midland come in. It is on these short lines
that this enormous business of the coal out-put
has grown up; and it is to prevent the railway
companies from getting a charge that they have
not now got that we ask for this amendment.
At present in all these districts, in all the lines
in these districts, the short mile is either three
miles, or at the outside four miles. The latest
opinion of Parliament upon the lines in this
district has been three miles. With regard to
the Barry Railway and Dock, Parliament only
gave them three miles when they asked for four ;
in the Vale of Glamorgan they have only
got three miles; and so far back as 1873,
when the Cardiff and Ogmore Bill came
before Parliament Lord Redesdale obliged
them to insert three miles. I ask that this
Committee should now carry out what has
always been the opinion of Parliament, espe-
cially in later days, with regard to this big
manufacturing centre : that the railway com-
panies should not have more power to put a tax
upon the trade of that district than they have at
present.
There is another point I cannot understand my-
self, the reason why the Board of Trade have drawn
this curious distinction between a place which is
found by the trader himself, all the expenses
connected with that place being paid for by the
trader himself, including maintenance (the whole
station so called, the private siding being paid
for by the trader), and a place where the rail-
way company find the station themselves. It
may be said that the railway companies make
some profit out of it. Then why should they
make a profit where they do not go in for ex-
penditure, where the trader expends the money
himself? -
I propose fo call one witness before your
Grace upon this point, just to show you what
the custom of Parliament has been with regard
to this matter in the last few years.
Mr. Pope.] What do you propose to prove 2
That might be admitted.
Chairman.] If all that you are going to call
witnesses to say is that certain words are in
certain Acts of Parliament, I suppose everybody
will admit that.
e Mr. Shaw.] And also to show that there is no
difference.
* Mr. Pope..] You have the Acts of Parliament
that will show you what the practice is.
Mr. Shaw.] The Acts of Parliament will speak
for themselves.
Chairman.] The advantage of that would be
that Parliament would not speak.
Mr. Shaw.] It only shows that what I am
asking has been before Parliament of late years;
and that is the shortest way of putting it. They
have considered that three niles is a proper dis-
tance in this district.
Chairman.] I will take that from you, that
that is in certain Acts of Parliament. You
would not quote to us what is not in an Act of
Parliament 2
Mr. Shaw.] Certainly not. I only want to
prove that there is no difference where a rail-
way coupany finds its station and where the
colliery owner finds his station. I will call
Szlumper.
sº Xr º ©
Chairman.] What is he going to say ?
Mr. Shaw.] That the railway companies do,
in fact, less work outside their own station for
the colliery owners than they do upon the col-
liery owners’ sidings; and, therefore, that so far
as the colliery trade goes, the short distance ought
to be two miles instead of three.
Mr. Pope.] This is exactly an interesting illus-
tration of the extreme difficulty of compiling
general conditions which are to please evey-
body.
Chairman.] Yes, that I think is quite clear.
Mr. Pope.] These are the colliery owners of
South Wales. They suggest a uniform short
distance of three miles. It may be that here-
after you may come to the conclusion that each
particular district should be dealt with accord-
ing to the character of its traffic, as regards short
distance clauses as well as other matters.
Mr. Shaw.] That is all we want.
Mr. Pope.] If we are to have a general
condition, I look a little further on and I find
that the Marquis of Bute suggests four miles as
the short distance limit, and the Glamorgan
County Council suggests three miles and four
miles; and if I go to the West Cumberland
Association, I find that they suggest four and a
half miles and six miles. How on earth are we
in a general condition to meet them all ?
Chairman.] We had better hear what this
gentleman has to say.
Mr. Shaw.] I do not wish to take up the
Committee's time by calling evidence on that
point.
Chairman.] But you can call him.
(81.)
N N 2
284
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
24 April 1891.
MR. JAMES WEEKS SZLUMPER, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as
follows:–
Mr. Shaw.
1303. YoU are a civil engineer ?—I am.
1304. And you have had large experience in
railway matters ?—I have,
1305. And especially in South Wales 2–Yes.
1306. You can speak to this six miles being a
great hardship if it were imposed upon the
traders of South Wales 2—Six miles, yes; because
the three miles short clause is a clause which to
my knowledge has been inserted in a large
number of Acts of Parliament, which lines have
now been taken over by the great companies;
and if this alteration were made it would greatly
alter the condition of thing upon which those
lines were taken over, and the conditions that
were then imposed by l’arliament.
Mr. Pope.] That is special, surely.
Chairman.
1307. Are you speaking now on behalf of
the railways companies 2–No, I was speaking
on behalf of the freighters.
Earl of Camperdown.
1308. Are you speaking for the Monmouth-
shire colliery owners ?—On behalf of the Gla-
morganshire coal owners.
Mr. Pope.j But the Glamorganshire coal owners
want four miles.
Mr. Shaw.] No, I beg your pardon, the South
Wales colliery owners wants three miles. The
Glamorganshire county council are not on at
present. -
Mr. Pope.] That is our difficulty.
Mr. Shaw.
1309. (To the Witness.) Will not this then be
a change in the existing statutory conditions as
regards South Wales?—It will be a very great
change in a very large number of Acts of Par-
liament.
1310. And will it impose a tax upon industries
in that district, which they are now exempted
from ?—It certainly will.
1311. By Parliament always treating the lines
in that district to a shorter distance than six
miles as the maximum ?—Yes, that is so.
1312. You remember so long ago as 1873 this,
matter came before Parliament 2–I remember
it did.
1313. Will you give the Committee an in-
stance?—The Cardiff and Ogmore Valley Rail-
way, which was really a colliery line in those
days, had a short distance clause given to them
of three miles; they could not obtain a longer
short mileage clause than that. That line has
now been taken over by the Great Western
Company. Of course if this Bill passes in its
present state, the whole of the matters and
things as regards that particular Act will be
increased.
1314. And the Barry Dock, in the same
way, got the three-mile clause 2–The Barry
Dock, in the same way, got the three-mile
clause.
Mr. Shaw—continued.
1315. They asked for four miles and got
three ?—They asked for four miles, but Lord
Redesdale went into the matter and he would
not give them more than three miles.
Chairman.
1316. But these are all special cases, which
would apply to the Great Western Railway ?—
But these lines that I am now speaking of, now
form, or some of them, a part of the Great
Western Railway because they were taken over
by the Great Western Company on the con-
ditions of the Acts of Parliament.
Chairman.] But would not this come better
when we are discussing the Great Western Bill ?
we have now got the London and North Western
Bill.
Mr. Shaw.] This is on the general conditions
which I understood your Grace to say were to
be applicable to all railways.
Chairman.] Very well.
Earl of Camperdown.] It may be perfectly just,
and may apply in this particular case, but may
not exist anywhere else.
Mr. Shau..] I agree with your Lordship ; it is
what we gave in evidence before the Board of
Trade that what is applicable to the great trunk
lines of the country in this matter is not appli-
cable to these short lines which we have to deal
with. It is upon these short lines that our works
have been built and upon these short lines the
coal has to go perhaps a hundred yards, perhaps
two miles only, into the iron works.
Earl of Belmore.] But that does not apply to
all the lines in that district. I had a Bill the
other day in another room, the Rhondda Valley,
where the distance is six miles. -
Mr. Shaw.] But if this question is to be treated
specially on each railway Bill as it comes up
that would meet our point at once, and I would
not have another word to say. -
Chairman.] Is it not so * That is what you are
now speaking of
Mr. Shaw. I will give you an instance. The
Board of Trade have carried out that very idea
in the Great Western schedule; because your
Grace will see the Monmouthshire line is treated
to a four miles short distance clause, not six
miles; they have made an exception there. We
want that exception extended.
Chairman.] Extended to the other lines in the
same district 2
Mr. Shaw.] Yes; we want three instead of
four ; because we think four miles too much.
Chairman.] That is in the Welsh Great
Western district 2
Mr. Shaw.] Yes.
Chairman.] Then you had better wait till we
get to the Great Western Bill.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
2
8
5
a 24 April 1890.
Mr. Shaw.] But I am now arguing general
conditions that are applicable to all railway com-
panies. -
Chairman.] But all your arguments I gather
are based upon the Great Western district.
Mr. Shaw.] On the Great Western and
London and North Western; we have the
Sirhowy line in that district.
Chairman.] Then we must go on.
Mr. Shaw (to the Witness).] From your prac-
tical experience, do the railway companies do very
little work outside the colliery owners’ sidings,
except just putting the coal trucks in and taking
them out 2—That is my experience.
Do you think it would be a fair and reasonable
thing to impose a six miles short distance clause
in the district 2—No, I do not, for the very reason
that you have given : that Parliament has already
sanctioned the three-mile clause, and it has been
in work for very many years past.
Mr. Pope.] Over the Sirhowy railway ?—I am
not talking of the Sirhowy railway. -
Mr. Pope.] That is the only one you can talk
of now.
Chairman.] I think you can talk of all the
rest.
Mr. Pope.] But I understood your Grace to
suggest that the proper time to bring up an
exceptional short distance clause in respect of
the Great Western Schedule would be when the
maximum rates and when the exceptions from
the lines to which the maximum rates are to be
applicable in that schedule, are before the Com-
mittee.
Mr. Shaw.] And then we should be answered,
why did you not bring them up before.
Mr. Pope.] Now my learned friend says the
Sirhowy line belongs to the London and North
Western Company, and if he chooses to go into
the London and North Western Schedule let him
by all means do so, but Mr. Szlumper cannot say
that the three-miles short distance clause applies
to Sirhowy.
*
Mr. Shaw.] These conditions are to be appli-
cable to the whole of the North Western system,
and if I do not raise it now, my mouth is to be
for ever shut.
Chairman.] No ; we will hear you on all
matters connected with the Great Western
Schedule when we come to it.
Mr. Shaw.] And the North Western ?
Chairman.] This is the North Western Bill.
Mr. Pope.] It will naturally arise when we
come to page 9 “Scale 2, APPLICABLE TO THE
RAILWAYS HEREIN SPECIALLY MENTIONED,”
and it then provides in respect of certain railways
that a four-mile short distance is to prevail; and
when we come to that it will exclude the Sirhowy
Railway altogether. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You are passing from
the general principle, my Lord ; and it is opposed
as a general principle upon all railways, and
therefore it will not do to more than lightly
touch on the schedule. We could call witnesses
from 20 different districts if you wished to hear
them, but we thought one would be sufficient.
Mr. Pope.] There is nobody suggesting any
amendments. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We are.
Mr. Pope.] For whom
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Glamorgan
County Council, and the South Wales Traders.
Mr. Pope.] The Glamorgan County Council
suggests not three miles, but three and four miles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But for the Mansion
House Association I withdrew their amendment
in favour of this amendment, and I mean to
urge it for the Mansion House Association.
Mr. Shaw.] If this point, your Grace, is
reserved to be discussed, so far as we are con-
cerned under each Act as it comes up, under
rates and charges, I am perfectly willing.
Chairman.] No, we are dealing now with
the whole subject, and you must apply yourself
to that.
Mr. Shaw.] In dealing with the whole I am
bound to deal with separate parts of the whole.
Chairman.] Then do so.
Mr.
Shaw.] I have given evidence so far as
this particular part of it is concerned (to the
Witness). You know at all events that also in
the Vale of Glamorgan, there has been the three
mile short distance 2–I know that.
Mr. Balfonr Browne.] But the Act of Parlia-
ment as passed was a three-mile short distance
clause. -
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Might I call your atten-
tion to the Schedule scale 2 on page 9 of the
London and North Western schedule, you will
find a schedule including some of these Welsh
lines : the Merthyr, Tredegar, and Abergavenny,
Abergavenny to Nantyhwch, Merthyr Extension,
and Cwm Bargoed Branch, Nantyglo and Blaima,
Brynmawr and Blaenavon, Brynmawr to Blae-
navon, and Abersy chan Extension and others,
those are the only South Wales ones. Then it
goes on in line 35 ; “Provided that,” it gives a
scales and then it says “provided that in respect
of the railways to which Scale 2 is applicable, the
power of the company to charge for a distance
less than six miles shall have effect as if four miles
were substituted for six.”
Mr. Shaw.] I have got that.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] It seems to me that your
point is already met by simply adding the South
Wales lines to which you are referring to this
schedule. It might be a matter of discussion
whetherit should be four miles or three; but it seems
to me that a proper subject of argument would
be whether any of your lines that it is necessary
to consider, as demanding a four mile scale instead
of a six mile scale, ought to be added there.
Mr. Shaw.] Of course that does leave open the
question of whether these rates are right or not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is a schedule to
increase the rates upon those lines, not to really
reduce them. These are very much higher than the
maximum rates in the other schedule;itis to increase
them on account of heavy gradients and other
matters of that sort. But I may say that I have a
general objection, and I take it that the six-
(81.)
N N 3 miles
286
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Szlu MPER.
ſ Continued.
24 April 1891.]
miles should not be in at all in any schedule, and
that three or four miles ought to be the outside
disiance, and that ought to be inserted in every
schedule and not in one only.
Mr. Shaw.
1317. (To the Witness.) Apart from taking the
distance by itself, do you think that so far as
private sidings are concerned no railway company
ought to have power to charge for more than
three-miles?— I think the three-mile clause is
sufficient certainly.
1318. Especially as the Board of Trade have
seen fit to give the railway companies only three
miles for where they find stations 2—That is so.
Cross examined by Mr. Pope.
1319. I suppose you brought before the Board
of Trade all those Acts of Parliament relating to
Barry 7–I did not give evidence before the
Board of Trade. -
1320. But somebody probably did 2–I do not
know. .
1321. Have you any ground for saying that
the three miles is the proper distance all over the
country, except that you find them in certain
South Wales Acts”—They have been well con-
sidered in these South Wales Acts, and well-
fought out, and in a large number, if not the
largest number of them, they are in ; therefore I
take it the three-mile clause is so.
1322. How far they have been considered some
of us know. They have come before Committees,
sometimes opposed, sometimes unopposed ; but
the Board of Trade, at all events, have given
very careful attention to the matter. So did the
Mr. Pope—continued.
Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords
in these cases. -
1323. What is it that constitutes a reason for
any short distance clause at all?—The reason, I
take it, that constitutes the reason for a short dis-
tance clause is that it is not so profitable on the
whole to run a short distance as to run a long
distance.
1324. And may not the profit which is derived
vary according to the circumstances of particular
traffic and particular lines?—That may be so;
but in all these cases in South Wales the traffic
is very great, and in big loads.
1325. Be it so. Do you mean to say that the
same circumstance which would regulate the
short distance traffic on the Barry Railway, or
on the Taff Vale Railway, would regulate the
short distance traffic on the London and North
Western main line between London and Rugby 2
—I think the same principle should guide all
coal-carrying lines in South Wales.
1326. You will come to South Wales.
not ask you any more;
local question.
I will
it is so obviously your
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne] . I will call a witness,
with your Grace's permission.
Mr. Pope." For whom 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For the South Wales
freighters, and for the Glamorgan County
Council. -
Mr. Pope.] You are entitled to do that of
COUTS62. -
MR. FREDERIC SILLERY BISHOP, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1327. YoU come here to represent the South
Wales freighters and also the Glamorgan County
Council 2–I do. &
1328. They have petitioned against this Order?
—Yes.
Mr. Pope.] What is this gentleman personally.
Is he the secretary of the association, or is he a
trader himself?
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1329. He will tell you. (To the Witness.) What
are you ?–I am manager of Pascoe Grenfell's
copper works in South Wales, and I am secre-
tary to the Swansea and Districts Freighters'
Association. -
1330. Is the principle objection of the
freighters and of the county council to this sche-
dule the long short distance clause of six miles 2
—It is.
1331. Have you looked over the Acts of cer-
tain companies to find out whether in the past,
when they had not tribunals specially authorised,
they had a long short distance clause like six
miles?—I have taken the list prepared for Parlia-
ment at the instance, I think, of Mr. Bartley, in
which all the Acts are set forth. I have gone
through that list and I find that there are 38
Mr. Balfour Browne— continued.
Acts of the London and North Western line that
have four miles and three as their minimum
cluase. The Midland Railway Company have
27 such Acts, and the Great Western have 37
such Acts.
1332. Can you tell me of the balance how
many there are which would have a six-mile
clause 2–I am afraid I cannot tell you that, I
will refer to the map.
1333. Are most of the works that the freighters
are interested in on branch lines where four
miles is less than the minimum ?—Yes.
1334. Do you know cases where railway com-
panies have obtained fresh Acts of Parliament
near such branches 2–Yes, the Vale of
Glamorgan, that was referred to just now.
1335. That was comparatively recently ; two
years ago, I think?–Yes.
1336. There, I believe, the minimum was a
three-mile clause 2–It was.
1337. And what inference do you draw from
the fact that that short distance clause has been
going down from the old six miles to three ?--
That the railway companies are satisfied with the
hree-mile clause.
1338. Where two lines unite at a junction, #.
traffic
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION A L ORDER BILLS.
287
|
24 April 1891.] .
Mr. BISHOP.
*
—ºm
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
traffic is carried say half a mile on each, this
six-mile clause, if it were allowed, would give
the railway companies 12 miles for one 2–And
that, as a trader, I say we object to very strongly
indeed. * ,
1339. Would it be seriously inimical to the
traffic 2–In our own particular case, under this
schedule of charges, it will raise our coal rates
75 per cent.
1340. An increase upon your present payment?
—Yes. -
1341. Is that all due to the increase of the
short distance clause 2–It is. I will particularise
it if I may be allowed. -
1342. Have you got any illustrations?—Yes.
1343. Will you just give one, please ?—The
illustration I have is this : About one mile or a
mile and a quarter from our works there is a
junction between the Midland line on which our
works are situated, and the Great Western line.
The majority of the coal that we consume comes
over the Greaf Western line to that junction, and
is then brought a mile and a quarter from that
junction to our works. The minimum distance
on the Midland line in that part of this area is
three miles; its present maximum charge is 1} d.
That gives them the power to charge 3; d., and
as a matter of fact they charge 4 d. But by this
new clause giving them 6 d., they would be able
to charge 6 d., which in other words would be 7 d.
a ton. We should therefore have to pay, instead
of 4 d. a ton for our coal, 7 d. ; and that on 50,000
tons of coal per annum is a very serious question
to us as smelters.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is their present power.
which you say is limited to a certain figure,
imposed upon them by a special Act of Parlia-
ment, in consequence of some private agreement?
Not a private agreement.
Mr. Pember.] The Mammouth, here.
Earl of Camperdown.
1344. Well, is it imposed upon them by
a special Act of Parliament, in respect to
Some contract?—No ; that was the minimum
by the schedule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
a two miles short distance clause. In the case
of Monnouthshire, which my learned friend lately
mentioned, it was passed over from the Mon-
mouthshire Company to the Great Western
Company, and a clause was introduced into that
Act saying that the Great Western Company
should never charge any higher rates than the
Monmouthshire Company had been charging.
Therefore that was continued, that was a special
agreement.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would that not be done
away with by the schedule 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is preserved specially
Mr. Colborne, who appeared
specially for Monmouthshire against the Great
Western Company, said that it ought to be
preserved, and it was. But there are various
agreements that were not preserved at all.
Take the Sirhowy line ; take this one on
the Midland, which this witness has just been
mentioning ; and I may say you will find that in
this legislation, for it is rather a matter of private
legislation for the Chairman of Committees than
for Committees of Parliament, it has been the
practice of Lord Redesdale and Lord Morley to
limit for the short distance clause, not to give six
distance at the the time that that Act was itself
I
obtained from Parliament, so far as I know.
believe that to be the case.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
My reason for asking the question is this : We
have had cases handed to us just now in which
the Great Western Company, and possibly the
London and North Western Company in South
Wales were only entitled to make certain charges
in some private agreement under which certain
railways had been handed over to them, and it
appeared to be contended that those private
agreements would be done away with by this
schedule, and that consequently an increased power
of charge would be given to them. I want to
know whether that was so or not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In these cases which
the witness is speaking about it is in consequence
simply of the fact that Parliament has gone down
from the six miles to a three, and sometimes to
miles but three, and even sometimes so low as
two miles; and that has been on the ground that
terminal charges have been introduced since the
six-mile clause had been orinally granted. This
is three miles plus the terminal charges, that is
what we are proposing.
Ilord Belper.] I see they have given three
miles as well as terminal charges. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so; there is a
terminal charge.
Mr. Pope.] Wherever there are terminal
charges (that goes to the very scope of this
question) only three miles is given by the Board
of Trade. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1345. I am not upon that argument just now.
(To the Witness.) As I understand, you think
that even in a case where a terminal is charged,
some short distance clause is a reasonable thing?
—I do.
1346. Will you tell me why you come
to that conclusion that three miles ought to
be the longest short-distance clause instead of six
miles —I came to the conclusion that four miles
ought to be the distance rather than three,
that is my personal feeling, on the ground that the
Board of Trade has gone upon a general average,
and I cannot understand why in obtaining a
general average they should have taken six miles,
which is the highest so far as I know of, on any
line in the country, and entirely ignored the
three and four miles on the 1880 to 1890 Acts, I
referred to just now. -
1347. And the six miles generally exists on the
older lines, and the shorter distanee in all the
more modern Acts of Parliament 7–Yes. x
1348. Do you think it would be fair that the
short distances allowed in the more modern Acts
(81.)
N N 4 should
288 COMMITTEE
MINUTES
OF EV IIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE TELE JOINT
24 April 1891.]
Mr. BISHOP.
| Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
should be considered in arriving at a fair short
distance clause ?—I think it is fair, even on the
trunk lines'; because as a rule the bulk of the
works being on the branches, they are not likely
to have such short distance traffic as three and four
miles on trunk lines ; they will generally, as a
matter of fact, have six miles on the trunk lines;
and therefore the applicatiou of a four-mile clause
would not be injurious to them even on their
main lines. -
1349. And would this clause by charging
six miles have the effect of making you pay
something really in the nature , of a terminal
charge, although you have provided your own
sidings —lt practically amounts to that, in
effect.
Lord Belper.
1350. With respect to the cases you men-
tioned of a large number of private Acts of Par-
liament, in which three miles was given as the
short-distance charge, may I ask whether in
those cases there were terminal charges also
chargeable?—I have not looked up each par-
ticular case, and I am afraid that I cannot
answer that question, except generally. I
believe they have “not power to charge ter-
minals.
1351. But you see that your answer is im-
portant, because the whole question that you are
arguing turns upon whether terminal charges
were chargeable in those cases, or whether they
were not ?—I see the importance of your Lord-
ship's question. -
J352. If not, it is the same as the Bill pro-
poses, and you want to alter it if they were
chargeable.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
1353. Do you approve of the argument of my
learned friend that the Chairman of Committees
has been in the habit of putting down the short
distance clauses, because of recent years terminals
have been allowed 2–1 have no knowledge
whatever of the action of the Chairman of Com-
mittees. - -
1354. With regard to the Great Western
Railway which you quoted, and in which
alone you are interested at Swansea, have you
taken the trouble to ascertain what the average
of their Acts of Parliament shows as to the short
distance clause, terminals or no terminals. I
have got here a list of the whole of their Acts,
Mr. Pope—continued. -
and the whole of their mileage; and if you will
take it from me that shows an average upon the
Great Western short distance of 5% miles
whether terminals are charged or not. Just
follow me a moment. Your suggestion is that
instead of the Board of Trade view : six miles
where there are no terminals, and three miles where
there are terminals, it ought to be amended by
saying four miles whether there are terminals or
not?—No ; I said four miles where there are no
terminals. -
1355. And what would you have where there
are 2–I leave that where the Board of Trade put
It
1356. Thank you. You get as much as you
can, and take as much more as will be given you ?
—We simply ask for the change of the word six
into four; and I have give the reason for that.
1357. For the loss of terminal you would only
give one extra mile haulage 2–I think it is quite
sufficient, and I have this reason if I am allowed
to give a reason.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1358. Yes, please, give the reason 2–The reason
would be simply this, that the terminal may
roughly be taken as 3 d., and I d. a ton per mile
would be a third of that. If it is meant to cover
a profit that is obtainable out of the terminal, I
think one-third of that as the profit is quite
sufficient to take into account.
1359. That is where they do not expend any
money at all ?—Yes.
Mr. Pope.
1360, Can you give me the list of the
Acts you have?—I have got them in my memo-
randum book. I shall be happy to let you look
at them. -
1361. I am afraid that there are other memo-
randa there that you would not like to put into
my hands 2—There are.
Chairman.] Is that all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all the evidence
I propose to call, but if any such statement is
made by my learned friend, Mr. Pope, as that their
average short distance is 5% miles, I should like
that proved, because I should like to ask a question
on that.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday next, Half-past Eleven o'clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
289
Die Martis, 28° Apriſis, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DURE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPER DOWN.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His GRACE THE DURE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
On CLAUSE 8—continued.
Chairman.] WHEN ws left off last time we
were at page 4, Clause 8, line 43.
Mr. Shaw.] I think your Grace left off on
Friday evening by closing the evidence that I
had to call upon the amendment which I pro-
posed for the South Wales and Monmouthshire
Colliery owners, to alter the short distance
clause universally to three miles. It is, I think,
for the railway companies now to proceed.
Chairman.] You proposed what ?
Mr. Shaw.] I proposed to omit all the words
that have relation to a private siding being charged
a longer short-distance charge than where the
railway companies find their own station. I
opened my case on Friday, and I called my
evidence ; and I think the matter is now in the
hands of the railway companies. I cannot make
another speech.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether your
Grace might not find it convenient to take the
whole of the suggestions with regard to amend-
ments of the short-distance clause; because it
may turn out in the end that you will find there
are so many different interests as regards the
short distance that it would be better that they
should be dealt with as a special matter. It may
be that my learned friend may make out his case
for the Monmouthshire traders to have a short
distance, different from that which should prevail
in the rest of the country, and in that case it will
be a special matter just as the reservation of any
agreement with the Monmouthshire traders would
be so. But before your Grace and the Com-
mittee have before you all the suggested amend-
ments, and know on whose behalf they are
suggested, you can hardly tell whether they are
such amendments as shall be dealt with generally,
or as special matters in the interest of the par-
ticular traders who bring them up. -
Mr. Shaw.] Your Grace, in reply to what my
learned friend Mr. Pope has just said, with re-
ference to taking all the amendments together,
the question I raised in the first amendment on
this clause is simply that where Parliament has
fixed the three-mile short-distance clause, as it
has in this particular district, that short-distance
clause has nothing to do with the rates: it is
simply because in the circumstances of each par-
ticular line, the traffic and all these things have
been gone into ; and lord Redesdale has over
and over again said that three ſmiles is sufficient,
and we do not want Parliament now to make
what we call a retrogade move, and put upon us
the six-mile clause.
Mr. Pope.] That is the question we shall have
to discuss. I shall have to call witnesses to show
that in the great majority of cases a six-mile
clause is the Parliamentary short distance.
Mr. Shaw.] I can only raise that point under
this general condition, otherwise I shall be told
that I am out of court later.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] If we discuss
this, and hear what you have to say upon it, we
can clear our minds, and then if necessary we
can take them altogether. -
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace, I have an amend-
ment precisely similar in principle to move on
behalf of the South Wales and Monmouthshire
Freighters’ Association. For some reason that
amendment has not been included in the railway
companies’ collation before your Grace; but it
has been in the room since the first day. It is
precisely similar in principle, if your Grace
thinks fit to hear me upon it now. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Is your amendment
identical with the other one 2
Mr. Woodfall.] We wish to make a universal
four-miles clause ; we give the railway companies.
something ; the principle involved is the same.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then what we are on is
the principle.
Chairman (to Mr. Woodfall).] 1 think we had
better hear you afterwards, because yours is a
different figure.
Mr. Woodſall.] Yes, it is to make a universal
four miles; we give the railway companies some-
thing, and we wish to take something from
them.
Chairman.] That is not identical with the
amendment before us, because that asks for three
miles, and for three miles only.
Mr. Woodfall.] No, it is not the same I admiti
(81.)
O O
290
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
it is so far, simply as to the principle that it is
the same, and I wondered if it would be con-
venient to hear me now.
Chairman.] Very well, then, we will hear Mr.
Pope.
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace, my first observation
would be directed to this first amendment, which
is not so much to the actual enactment of what
shall be the short distance, as an objection upon
the part of my learned friend to make any differ-
ence in the short distance under the circum-
stances which appeared just to the Board of
Trade: We have had this mafter very briefly
discussed before. On Friday your Grace will
remember 1 pointed out that the principle upon
which the Board of Trade have acted has been to
give a short distance where the relative propor-
tion of the station or terminal earnings to the
short distance renders it an equitable thing to the
company; but that where the company is
unable to recoup itself for the additional cost of
conveyance, by reason of not having a terminal,
they have given there a larger short distance.
That is the principle ; and that, I venture to
submit is totally independent of the question of
what the particular figure may be which would
represent either the one short distance or the
other; and it is a principle which surely is just.
The reason for putting in any short-distance
clause in any Act of Parliament is that the
expence which is placed upon the company
for hauling the traffic a short distance
is out of proportion to the earnings, the
mere mileage earnings which they can make,
and therefore, equitably, Parliament has always
given in one figure or another some short-distance
clause, in order to recoup them for that. But
the Board of Trade, seeing that they are now
putting beyond question the power to charge a
station terminal and a service terminal, where
services are rendered, and so on, have felt appa-
rently (of course I am not able exactly to explain
the mind of the Board of Trade excepting on the
construction of what they have done), that the
difference of charge, the profit, so to speak, to
the company, will be recouped by the shorter
mileage charge, where they are entitled to charge
for the terminal accommodation, have given a
shorter short distance in that case. And that, I
venture to think, is just ; and if your Grace
and the Committee will settle that principle, that .
will dispose of the first of the amendments which
are dealt with by my learned friend, leaving
open, of course, for further discussion the actual
figure of the short distance, either in one case or
in the other. What I am contending is, that
there should be a difference; that where there is
no terminal, the company should be recouped
for the additional expense of short haulage
by being able to charge a larger amount of
distance. My learned friend proposes to omit
the words “in the case of merchandise, in respect
of which a station terminal is chargeable at each
end of the transit.” The clause runs that in such
a case the short distance shall be three miles; in
a case where no such terminal can be charged,
and therefore no other remuneration than the
mileage distance can be obtained by the com-
pany, it shall be six miles. I leave the two
figures, three and six, unargued at the moment.
Is not that a fair and reasonable principle 2
Now, just let us look at what the Board of
Trade themselves say in their Report upon this
matter: “In their deposited schedules” (I am
quoting now from page 16 of the Report of Lord
Balfour and Mr. Courtenay Boyle) “the com-
panies proposed that they might be authorised to
demand and receive for any distance, not exceed-
ing six miles, the rates for conveyance authorised
as for six miles.” (We asked for a uniform six
miles.) “The justice of a short-distance clause
has hitherto been recognised by Parliament. It
is obvious that it is relatively more costly to
Steam up a locomotive, and prepare a train, only
to be used for the conveyance of merchandise for
a very short distance, than to do the same for a
long distance, and the profit derivable from the con-
veyance of short-distance traffic is modified by the
initial cost. Consequently Parliament has usually
authorised, in recent Acts, a minimum of distance for
charge. It was contended on behalf of the traders
that if station terminals were authorised the neces-
sity for the short-distance clause would vanish.”
(That was the traders’ contention; we asked for
a uniform six miles, and the traders said, If you
get a station terminal, in that case the additional
expense would be so far modified.) “We are
not prepared to go so far as this?’ (that is
that it would vanish). “The initial cost, which,
in our opinion, justifies the existence of the short-
distance clause, has to do with conveyance rather
than the provision of structure. On the other
hand, we do not consider that the railway com-
panies made out their case for a larger minimum
distance than that authorised in the majority of
recent statutes. We propose, therefore, to autho-
rise a short-distance clause, but, in respect of
traffic going from a station to a station, to fix the
minimum at three miles instead of six. This seems
to us to be fair in itself, and in accordance with the
recent practice of the Legislature. In respect of
traffic from siding to siding, or from siding to
station, where the companies have little but the
conveyance rate to depend upon, we have retained
the minimum of six.” - -
Earl of Camperdown.] From siding to station
they would of course have one terminal 2
Mr. Pope. They would have terminal. I
do not think I can say anything to put the matter
in a clearer light than the Board of Trade have
done themselves, and I would ask your Grace to
decide this question first ; it is quite independent
of the amount of the figure.
Mr. Shaw.] Just a few words in reply to
what my learned friend Mr. Pope has just said.
I think, as I understand him, he says, that the
reason for drawing this distinction between, I
may say, siding to siding traffic and station to
station traffic, is that the railway companies, by
a terminal charge being given them, are able to
make that terminal charge pay a little of the
initial cost for doing the short distance at the
station. Is not that going back rather from
what the Board of Trade said on the question,
asked by your Grace, when we were discussing
the question of terminal charges. Lord Balfour
of Burleigh then said, in answer to your Grace,
that unless you defined the station terminal in a
clause
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 291
28 April 1891.
clause by itself it would render it very difficult,
if not impossible, to prevent the owner of a pri-
vate siding from being charged the charge for
the station terminals. Is not this reason for
drawing a distinction between these two gentle-
men by my learned friend Mr. Pope, merely
putting upon the owners of private sidings a
certain charge for terminals, which, otherwise,
they would not have to pay ? There is just one
question I do not think was quite clear ; I think
it was my Lord Camperdown who mentioned it,
that at “each end * might mean that we would
have to pay the six miles short-distance clause.
That would not be from station to siding, it
ought to be at the other end. That is all I want
to say in reply to my learned friend Mr. Pope,
reserving the question of figures. *
Earl of Camperdown (to Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh..] Would you tell us why you treat the case
of traffic going from a siding to a station exactly
in the same manner as you treat traffic going
from a siding to a siding 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It does not get
two station terminals. .
Earl of Camperdown.] It gets one.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It gets one ; and
that is now only 3 d., the companies asked for 6 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] But observe this: if you
take two trucks, and one goes from a siding to a
siding, and the other goes along the line from a
siding to a station, the one that goes from a
siding to a siding will have the six miles, and so
will the other which goes from a siding to a
station, but which, besides paying the six miles
conveyance rate, will be liable to one station
terminal.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Of 3 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] Of 3 d., supposing it is
always 3 d. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] In Class A. I am
speaking of, of course. Perhaps I was wrong to
mention Class A., but I mentioned it because a
complaint was made by Mr. Bishop who is in-
terested in coal. - -
Earl of Camperdown.] There is no distinction;
it is for all classes of merchandise. Do you
follow my point : that merchandise going from a
siding to a siding will be in a more favourable
position than merchandise going from a siding to
a station to this amount, that the merchandise
going from a siding to a station will have to pay
one station terminal in addition to the convey-
ance rate; whereas the other will pay none.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Most undoubt-
edly that is so ; that is the provision made.
Earl of Camperdown.] I say, why was it made ;
why did you draw no distinction between those
two cases ; why do you make the merchandise
going from a siding to a station liable to the six-
mile rate ; why do you place it on a less favour-
able footing to the extent of one station terminal
than the other ? X-
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We thought the
price which would be paid for the steaming up
of the engine and carrying the train for a very
short distance of under six miles must in the
nature of things be so small that it was not doing
it any injustice even to make it liable to one
station terminal, if it had to run under six miles
short distance.
Earl of Camperdown.] But observe this: that
the cost of steaming up is exactly the same in
both cases.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes; but we
thought that if there were two station terminals
charged, on the whole that was a sufficient
minimum charge; if there were not two station
terminals charged, we thought the balance of
consideration was the other way, I do not say
very much the other way, but still we thought it
was the other way; and, having to decide the
question, we decided it in that way.
Mr. Pope.] I suppose that means that the
opinion of the Board of Trade is that there was
margin enough where there were two station
terminals, but that there was not margin enough
where there was only one.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I should like to
say this to the Committee, if the questions asked
of me are questions asked generally before the
Committee come to a decision : to that we have
prepared some figures which will be very short,
and which, if the question was asked generally
before you came to a decision, Mr. Courtenay
Boyle was going to put before you; and if you
are now asking general questions before you
come to a decision, I think it would be very
desirable (it would not take many minutes), that
the Committee should hear those figures.
Chairman.] Is the statement to go to show
the necessity of a short-distance clause 7
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, your Grace,
not that, but to show why we fixed the siding to
siding and siding to station at six miles rather
than three miles. . -
Chairman.] What we want to decide first of
all is, whether or not there shall be a short-
distance clause.
Earl of Camperdown.] A graded short dis-
tall Ce.
Mr. Shaw.] That is not disputed.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I did not under-
stand that that was disputed ; but I gathered
from Lord Camperdown's questions that you
were on the point whether it should be a differ-
ence between the two.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, all that I did was
this. I was pointing out that there was a dis-
tinction between the two cases which were
included under the clause, and I asked why that
distinction had been made, that was all.
Chairman.] Then the Committee are in favour
of a graded short-distance clause.
Mr. Pope..] Leaving the figures your Grace to
be discussed.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] Yes. I have not argued upon
them at all.
Chairman.] That will therefore dispose of this
first amendment. -
Mr. Pope..] It disposes of the first amend-
lment.
(81.) .
O O 2 Mr.
292
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
Mr. Shaw.] Except so far as the local ques-
tion; I did not reply on the local question.
Mr. Pope.] But it is disposed of altogether.
There is to be a differentiated short distance.
Mr. Shaw.] I mean the question that I raised
on Friday, whether this clause was to apply to all
the lines of these different companies as they
come up.
Chairman.] There shall be a short-distance
clause.
Mr. Shaw.] There was no dispute about that.
Mr. Pope.] A differentiated short-distance
clause. -
Chairman.] I thought you were disputing it.
Mr. Shaw.] No, simply the figure so far as
South Wales goes, *
Chairman.] Then what are those words: “In
the case of merchandise in respect of which a
station terminal is chargeable at each end of the
transit.” -
Mr. Shaw.] This was the general condition;
and if I take the one line of the London and
North Western Company that I am interested in
South Wales, when the London and North
Western case comes up specially, I shall be de-
barred then from adding any amendment to that.
Earl of Camperdown.] No.
Chairman.] Oh no.
Mr. Shaw.] If I have your Grace's ruling about
that I am content.
Mr. Pope.] I should say at once on behalf of the
London and North Western Railway Company,
that if there is any special case for differing, my
learned friend’s Monmouthshire traffic or South
Wales traffic from that which the general run of
railway companies throughout the country will be
subject to, he will be entitled to bring up his
special matter to be discussed.
Mr. Shaw.] And the same with respect to the
Great Western Company.
Mr. Woodfall.] May I respectfully point out
to the Committee, that having decided the prin-
ciple of a graded short-distance clause, practically
my amendment as it stands is disposed of, and I
have not been heard.
Mr Pope..] We cannot help that.
Mr. Woodfall.] I hope I may be allowed to be
heard on the question of the figures.
Mr. Pope.] We have not touched the figures,
Mr. Woodfall.] I know that, Mr. Pope.
Chairman (to Mr. Wondfall).] We will hear
your argument in favour of the four-mile clause.
Mr.
amendment which I have to bring up is to this
effect. I will read the words of it: “Where
merchandise is conveyed for an entire distance
which does not exceed four miles the company
may, except as hereinafter specially provided,
make the charges for conveyance authorised by
this schedule as for four miles.” Now, your
Grace, we say that there is really now no neces-
sity on the part of the railway companies for a
short-distance clause at all; because the original
idea of a short-distance clause was in lieu of ter-
Woodfall.] If your Grace pleases, this
minals. But, however, we do not dispute that
the railway companies shall have, if they want it
some short-distance clause ; but what we say is,
“Why should the trader who has provided his own
sidings be penalised because he has invested his
capital in making sidings. Why should he be
penalised by a six mile short-distance clause
which has never been heard of before, except in
one or two Acts P And I am told (and my
learned friend who appears for the Great West-
ern Company will contradict me if I am wrong)
that when the Great Western Company got their
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Act of 1846 passed,
and their Aberdare Valley Act of 1855 passed,
they only asked for a two-mile short-distance
clause ; and I am not aware that they have ever
come to Parliament to give them a greater dis-
tance. -
Now what I would respectfully submit to the
Committee is this : that when the railway com-
panies come here and ask for their short-distance
clause to be extended to six miles, the Committee
would require from them some evidence to show
why it is that nothing under that would pay
them to get up steam.
Mr. Pope. Certainly. You will have that as
soon as the multitude of you who bring up other
figures have done.
Mr. Woodfall.] That brings me, your Grace,
to the next observation : that if my rights are
reserved to bring up this question on the Great
Western Act, and as I appear for the South
Wales freighters, I candidly admit, after the
evidence given on Friday, that we are dealing
with a question that particularly applies to South
Wales. If I may be permitted to bring up any
objections to what the railway companies want
when the Great Western and cognate Acts are
considered, then I shall be satisfied.
Chairman.] If you have anything special to
the Great Western Bill you will be heard upon
it ; but if is upon the general question you will
not be heard upon it then, because now is the
opportunity.
Mr. Woodfall.] There are several other im-
portant railways that your Grace did not hear
of on Friday, when you were told which
Acts the short-distance clause applies to. It
does not apply to the Taff Vale Railway Com-
pany.
Chairman.] What we are now dealing with is
the principle of a short-distance clause, which
would equally apply to all the Bills we have
before us. If you propose to speak upon that
we are ready to hear you ; and if on the Great
Western Bill there is any special circumstance,
you will be heard upon it them, but not upon the
principle we are how dealing with.
Mr. Woodfall.] Then upon the general prin-
ciple I submit to your Grace that it would be a
fair thing to fix a short-distance clause at four
miles; that is giving the railway companies one
mile more than they claim, but on the other hand
taking away from them what they claim in respect
of the six-mile clause ; and I say that they can
show no case for the claim they make for the six-
mile clause, and that it would inflict a very heavy
- - penalty
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
293
28 April 1891.
penalty upon a trader who had invested his
capital in providing his own sidings. .
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My Lord Duke, ‘I
should ſike to say one word to the Committee
upon this question. It seems to have been
assumed that there is a special steaming up as
the phrase used was, for conveying a few trucks
of goods; but the fact is that the goods traffic is
carried on by trains, and the trains can drop a
truck or two trucks at a particular station or
siding without going to any extra expense in
steaming up or preparing a train or anything of
that kind. Nothing of the sort is done. The
merchandise traffic of the country is carried on
by regular trains, that start at regular times, and
leave trucks at different stations as they pass
them by. I submit that the great blot, if there
be a blot, upon these proposals of the Board of
Trade, is that they have increased the charges
upon the short-distance traffic, and I apprehend,
I presume that they consider that they would
equalise that by decreasing the charges on long-
distance traffic. But in fact that does not really
operate to the benefit of the trader at all.
traffic is short-distance traffic to a very much
larger extent than it is long-distance traffic ; and
though they have given very low rates indeed
for traffic for distances over 150 miles, practically
there is very little traffic over 150 miles that has
not the benefit of sea competition. It is a very
small country we live in, and supposing we were
sending goods to Glosgow, which is the
longest lead from Staffordshire, if the rate to
Glasgow were not low we should send it to
fiverpool, and ship it from Liverpool. So we
have the benefit of the sea transit to protect
us. We do not want low maximum powers
for long-distance traffic; but what we
do want is low charges for short-distance
traffic. In our district 35 per cent. of the
traffic takes place for distances under six
miles, and on the London and North Western
section that goes through our district, the Stour
Valley, as it is called, the short distant is only
two miles; and if we are to have that increased
to six miles, that will be a very serious burden
upon the trade. Practically the bulk of the
traffic is either from siding to station or ſrom
station to siding;
the great bulk of it would come under the full
distance of six miles, as laid down in the Report
of the Board of Trade. I am reminded that the
Stour Valley has no terminal clause at all, that
is a point I would rather take up when we come
to discuss the special question of the London and
North Western Provisional Order. ... "
Chairman.] Then what is your contention
now P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My contention is that the
provision that siding to station or station to siding
should be charged the full six miles is unfair and
unreasonable. -
Earl of Belmore.] How much do you ask P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I ask that three miles
should be the distance from siding to station or
from station to siding; and that the station to
station should be extended, as Lord Camper-
down suggested, from siding to station or station
to siding.
The
all the heavy traffic is so ; and
Mr. Hanbury..] And you also say that it is not
the fact, as stated by the Board of Trade, that
this does not come into play: “That it is rela-
tively more costly to steam up a locomotive and
prepare a train.” You say it is not done.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Practically never; if an
engine is prepared for a train it is for that train
alone, it does not come into the question at all.
But for the ordinary merchandise traffic which is
Carried on in two or three truck loads, the train
starts from a station at a particular time, and is
as regularly started as the passenger trains are,
and put down in the railway books as starting at
a special time, and stopping at particular stations.
Earl of Camperdawn..] I do not quite follow
you. Do you contend that it is not more ex-
pensive to a company to run a train for a short
distance than for a long distance?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] What I contend is that
there are no short distance trains at all. We
run trains from Wolverhampton to London, I
believe two trains on the London and North
Western Railway run every day, and they take
traffic to all the intermediate stations just as they
take passengers.
Chairman.] Then you say that there are no
short-distance trains on what, on the London and
North Western ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] It would be a big thing
to say that there no short-distance trains on the
London and North Western, but the rule of the
traffic is that the great bulk of the traffic, which
you may take practically for the whole of the
business, is done by long distance trains which
drop trucks at different stations.
Earl of Camperdown.] Just let me follow you
out, if you please. I just want to arrive at what
you mean. I do not understand you to contend
against a short-distance clause altogether ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not object to
the three miles P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] Just explain to me,
please, if it is no more expensive to a railway
company to run a short-distance than a long one,
of if there is scarcely such a thing as a short-
distance train, why you do not object to the
three-mile minimum.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I did object to it, and
I proposed the omission of the clause altogether;
but after the discussion that took place last
Friday and this morning, I think that to do so
would be take up the time of the Committee
unnecessarily, as it is not likely to be carried.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] My feeling was entirely
to do away with the clause altogether.
Earl of Belmore.] How would you meet a case
that was put to us the other day of some works
which were a couple of miles from a colliery, and
who get their coal those two miles. Do you mean
that those trucks are put always on a train going.
a very long distance 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Those would be mostly
(81.)
O O 3 - in
294
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
in one train loads. If I have ironworks, and
the colliery is only two miles from the ironworks,
I send a whole train-load between those two
places.
Earl of Belmore.] A whole train-load?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Yes, a whole train-load:
That is the practice to a considerable extent, and
that is the practice generally.
Chairman (to Mr. Hoodfall).] Do you propose
to strike out the word three and insert four.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, four miles as the only
charge. My clause would run like this: “Where
merchandise is conveyed for an entire distance
which does not exceed four miles, the company
may except, as hereinafter specially, provided,
make the charges for conveyance authorised by
this schedule as for four miles.” • .
Mr. Shaw.] Your Grace will see a little lower
down an amendment for the Glamorgan County
Council. In the absence of my learned friend
Mr. Balfour Browne, who is with me for them, I
also ask for the Glamorgan County Council to
leave out “six” and insert “four.”
need not press upon you arguments; the argu-
ments could not be better put than he has put
them. -
Chairman. Is there any other amendment
tº e y -
upon this clause in that sense?
Mr. Bishop.] May I say one word in favour of
the word “four º’ instead of “six”2
Chairman.] Yes. -
Mr. Bishop.] It is just this your Grace ——
Chairman.] The word “four * in place of
“ three º' you mean P
Mr. Bishop.] No, in place of “six.”
Chairman.] We are on in place of “three *
InOW. -
Mr. Bishop.] Then you have not come to that
yet. Very well.
Mr. Carver.] I understand that any special
application that may be made, is reserved until
the particular schedule is taken.
Chairman.] Any circumstances which are
peculiar to any one particular Bill will be con-
sidered then ; but not if those circumstances are
now applicable to all lines. -
Mr. Carver.] I mention it on behalf of the
Corporation of Preston, in order to reserve their
right to give evidence.
Chairman.] If it is applicable to a particular
|Bill, we shall hear it when we come to that Bill;
if it is applicable to the whole question, we must
hear it now or not at all.
Mr. Carver.] It is applicable to the London
and North Western Bill. -
Mr. Bidder.] I suggest, your Grace, that as
my learned friend who represents the Marquess
of Bute proposes to insert “four * instead of
“three,” it would be better to dispose of that
amendment first.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] Really I have nothing to say to
that. -
*
I think after
what Sir Alfréd Hickman has said just now, I
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course it must be
taken together with the subsequent amendment
that proposes to leave out “six” altogether.
Mr. Bidder.] Would it not be better to sepa-
rate them 7 • . . - -
Earl of Camperdown.] But you cannot. How
can it be done P
Mr. Bidder.] I see that is so. Then I propose
to call some evidence before the Committee to
explain the views of the companies upon this.
But I was going to suggest, as I understand,
that Mr. Courtenay Boyle has certain facts and
figures with reference to the views which the
Board of Trade take upon this clause, it might
be convenient if he would now submit them to
the Committee. Your Grace understands that
upon this clause we are content with the clause
as it stands; we are not at issue with the Board
of Trade ourselves at all; and perhaps it would be
convenient for Mr. Courtenay Boyle to explain
why the Board of Trade selected the figures.
Earl of Camperdown.] They have told us that;
we have have got their report upon it. -
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think you have have
got the figures upon the Report. I understand
there is something else they have to say.
Earl of Camperdown (to Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh).] When I asked you a question, and you
said that you had some figures to put before
us, what do those figures specifically relate to,
to the whole of the clause or to some point in the
clause ? . . .
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] They are to illus-
trate the reasons why the whole clause was
taken, and why we think the clause as it stands is
a fair average translation into the new system of
the powers at present taken by the railway com-
panies.
Chairman.] We think it would be conve-
nient if Mr. Courtenay Boyle would be kind
enough to let us have his views now.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Grace, this
clause is in the nature of an attempt to codify
very many hundreds of different Acts of Parlia–
ment. You have heard it stated that lately
Parliament has adopted a three-mile clause all
round, that is to say for station to station traffic,
siding to station traffic, and siding to siding
traffic. That, I think, is almost universally true.
But there are numbers of Acts in existence of
which the short-mile distance clause is for more
than three miles; it is for four miles in some
cases and six miles in others. The main line of
the Great Western Company is an instance ; I
am only giving this as an instance. The South
Wales Act of 1885, which governs the whole of
that main line traffic, which the Committee will
know runs from Cardiff, I think so far as Car-
marthen Junction, but anyhow so far as Neath,
has a six-mile short-distance clause, and had a
second maximum rate for coal. The Hereford,
Ross, and Gloucester Act has a six-mile short-
distance clause, and a 2 d. maximum rate for
coal. The Vale of Neath Act has a six-mile ..
short-distance clause, and l ; d. maximum rate
for coal. On the other hand the Pontypool and
Newport Act has a four-mile short-distance
clause
on RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PRovisionAL or DER BILLs.
295.
28 April 1891.
clause ; and the Llynvi and Agmore Acts have
a still shorter short-distance clause of three
miles. The intention of the clause is to put into
one shape a fair compromise all round. We have
thought that it was fair that the railway com-
panies should be able to charge six miles where
they did not get both station terminals.
But there is nothing intrinsic in it. The ques-
tion which Lord Camperdown asked Lord
Balfour of Burleigh does not relate to an essential
point of the clause ; it is a question of quantum ;
that is to say, there is nothing in the principle.
There is no reason in principle why the Com-
mittee should not say that the six-mile clause
shall only apply to cases where the railway com-
panies get only one terminal ; in other words
that the word “one * should be read instead of
the word “each "; there is no reason against
that at all in principle. But we have thought
that the clause as it stands is fair.
Now you have heard evidence on Friday from
South Wales to show how hardly some of the
South Wales traders would be treated if the six-
mile clause for siding to siding and siding to
station traffic were introduced. I should very
much like to point out to the Committee that
it sometimes happens that six times the convey-
ance rate which we propose (the maximum con-
veyance rate which we propose) is actually less
than four times the conveyance rate existing in
the Acts of Parliament. I will take an instance
of that. In the South Wales Act, as I have told
you, the charge is 2 d. a ton a mile. We reduce
that to 1-5 d., leaving in the six-mile clause,
so that whereas the total charge under our
our proposal is 9 d. for a six-mile haul, the total
charge under the present Act is ls.
in the Hereford, Ross, and Gloucester Act, the
total charge is 9 d. as we propos it, and 1 s.
under the present Act. In the Vale of Neath
Act the total charge, as we propose it, is 5-4 d,
the total charge under the present Act is 9 d.
In the Pontypool, Caerleon, and Newport Act
the total charge, as we propose it, is 5-4 d. ;
under the present Act it is 6 d. In the Swansea
and Neath Act the total charge, as we propose
it, is 5-4 d. ; under the present Acts it is 8 d.
Now an instance on the other side. In the
Coleford, Monmouth, Usk, and Pontypool Act
the charge, as we propose it, is 9 d. ; the total
charge at present is 7 d. In the Llynvi Valley
Act the total charge, as we propose it, is 5-4 d. ;
under the present Acts it is 4.5 d. There are
one or two more instances in which the clause, as
we give it, operates in the interests of the rail-
way companies; but there are many more where,
as we give it, it operates in the interests of the
traders. We believe that this is a compromise.
I do not think it is possible to codify all the Acts
of Parliament in this enormous Blue Book with-
out some give on one side and some take on the
other ; you must have give and take. This is a
clause, the advantages of uniformity in which
are very great indeed. Uniformity is essential
to the proper understanding of the powers of the
railway companies, and we have sedulously
aimed at that uniformity throughout the whole
of our proceeding. If uniformity is abandoned,
we must warn the Committee that they will be
asked to abandon it in almost every instance of
Similarly,
rates and figures that comes before them ; and it
will be almost impossible to avoid the conclusion
that if uniformity is to be given up, you approach
more and more near to the present actual con.
dition of rates where powers are distributed
among so many Acts of Parliament, that it is
impossible for a trader to ascertain what they
al’é”. * -
[Mr. Courtenay Boyle hands in the following
statement] º
“Schedule of the short distance clauses ap-
plicable to the undermentioned sections of the
Great Western Railway; showing also their
present powers for coal, &c., compared with the
conveyance rates proposed by the Board of
Trade for short distances.
The rates and calculations are for one ton of
traffic.
Company's Powers. Board of Trade Proposals.

Section of Railway. Rate Rate
y Extent, per Total per Total Extent
Of Ton | Ton Of
per | Charge. per Charge.
Clause. Mile. Mile. ** Clause.
. - Miles. | d. S. d. d. s, d. | Miles.
South Wales Consoli- - -
dation Act, 1855 tº 6 2 1 0. 1°5 . – 9 6
Hereford, ROSS, and -
Gloucester Act, 1851 6 2 1 0 1°5 – 9 6
Vale of Neath Act,
1846 - - -- tº 6 1; 1 0 0.9 – 5'4 6
Gloucester and Dean - - -
Forest Act, 1846 - 6 1% – 9 0.9 – 5'4 6
Shrewsbury and Ches- -
ter Act, 1846 - - || 6 1} – 9 0.9 – 5*4 6
Pontypool, Caerleon,
and Newport Act,
1865 - * * gº 4 1% – 6 O'9 — 5°4 6
Swansea and Neath
Act, 1861 - - - 4 2 – 8 0-9 — 5-4 6
Coleford, Monmouth,
Usk, and Pontypool - - w
Act, 1853 - = . * 4 1} – 7 1.5 – 9 6
Coleford Act, 1872 - 4 1% – 6 ().9 — 5°4 6
Llanelly Act, 1853 - || 4 2 | – 8 || 0-0 | – 5.4 6
ROSS and Monmouth
Act, 1865 - - - 4 1} | – 6 1°5 – 9 6
Llynvi Valley Act,
855 - as * * - 3 1% – 4:5 | 0-9 – 5-4 6
Ogmore Valley Act,
1863 - - * tºº 3 1 — 3 0.9 – 5°4 6
Cardiff and Ogmore
Act, 1873 - º - 3 l – 3 0-9 — 5'4 6
NOTE.-The provision of trucks is not included in the rates proposed by
the Board of Trade. -
The rates shown as the ‘Company's powers' are for conveyance in the
company's waggons.” - -
Mr. Hunter.] I should like to ask one question
upon this clause. Supposing that traffic goes
from a siding to a station a distance of eight
miles, four miles over one railway and four miles
over another railway, but making one continuous
journey of eight miles, will the trader be liable
to two separate six-mile charges P.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] As the clause stands,
yes; that point was carefully considered, and
that was the intention of the clause.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask you two or
three questions with regard to the principle you
(81.)
O O 4 aV €
296
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
have just stated to us as the principle underlying
the whole clause ? You say that your clause is a
compromise devised to reconcile the charges
which would he made under your new schedule
with the charges which have been made up to the
present time under existing Acts of |Parliament 2
Mr. Shaw.] Not with the charges.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, with the charges.
Mr. Shaw.] I think Mr. Courtenay Boyle did
not say so.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I said charging power;
the maximum charge. -
Earl of Camperdown.] The charging power
under existing Acts of Parliament?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] To reconcile them as
altered by us. -
Earl of Camperdown.] This is very important.
Am I to take it that the clause is framed on the
assumption that all existing Acts of Parliament
will lapse as soon as this schedule becomes law Ż
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly ; we believe
that to be the operation of Section 24 of the Act
of 1888. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Therefore this clause is
not what you yourselves would think best, and is
not the clause that would be made if you were
simply framing an Act of Parliament for the first
time, because, as you have said, the present cus-
tom is to make a three-mile short clause ; but it
is framed in order partly to recoup the railway
companies for what they will lose by losing all
their existing Acts of Parliament, some of which,
contain a short-distance clause running up to six
miles.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, that is not quite a
fair representation of our position. If your
Lordship will allow me I will modify it in this
way. -
Earl of Came, down.] Thank you.
Mr. Courteney Boyle.] Our intention is not to
stereotype old Acts of Parliament ; they have
been revised in our proposals; there is an im-
mense amount of revision, as you will see when
you come to the rates.
distance clause is fair and reasonable, starting
with carte blanche, but starting with carte blanche
with certain things to be borne in mind, namely,
what Parliament has done in the past. You
have heard some of the learned gentlemen below
me referring with great insistence to the Parlia-
mentary settlement, the Parliamentary decision
as regards the three miles. But it has not been
pointed out to your Lordship that where the
three-mile clause exists, the conveyance rate is
far higher than anything we propose.
Mr. Shaw.] No, the Barry and the Vale of
Glamorgan. The Barry Act is only ; d.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Mr. Shaw must not say
that that is universally the case. There are
some cases where our proposals operate in favour
of the railway companies, but there are many more
where they will operate in favour of the traders.
Mr. Hanbury.] What has been the tendency
lately in Parliament?
28 April 1891.
We believe this short-
—º
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] A three-mile clause,
with a higher conveyance rate. º
Mr. Bidder.] If Mr. Courtenay Boyle will
forgive me for one minute ; that is not so univer-
sal. In certain Acts of Parliament of new com-
panies the three-mile clause has been adopted,
and four miles; but even in recent Acts of the
existing old companies a six-mile clause is still
adopted. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I am only answering
a question as regards new Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Bidder.] So am I. I say that with regard
to the newest Acts applied to the old companies,
the six-mile clause still applies.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The practice of the
Board of Trade is universal : . that if in any Bill
there is a higher than a six-miles distance clause,
the attention of the Committee has been called to
the fact that three-miles is the practice now, and
it is left to the Committee to decide.
Earl of Camperdown.] May I ask one more
question, which is this: How have you ascer-
tained that this compromise which you propose in
this clause is equivalent, or something like
equivalent, to what the railway companies have
had up to the present time 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] By a comparison so far
as we can make it, of the present powers of the
railway companies, which are all set out in the
Blue Book, and our short-distance clause is set
out in the Blue Book too.
Earl of Camperdown..] And how far have you
been able to make that comparison 2 +
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not universally. We
have not tabulated the effect upon every railway
company. We have tabulated it over a good
many, but not over the whole number. There
would be 400 or 500 Acts of Parliament.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Do I rightly understand
that the reason for your inserting the longer dis-
tance of six miles is because the companies that
now have three miles will lose by having to
separate the charge for terminals 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Oh, no; there is a
certain amount of loss in our proposal, because
the conveyance rate has been reduced ; not the
station terminals. -
Mr. Hanbury.] As I understand, you really
split the difference between the companies that
have got six miles and those that have got three
miles.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I am afraid that in all
this question of settling rates there must be a
practical decision, of which the thumb is almost
the only measure. It will come to that, the
Committee will find. We have done our best to
compare the powers and to bear in mind what
the actual rates are ; but it is impossible, logi-
cally, to say that a particular compromise is
absolutely right. -
Mr. Hanbury.] But apparently the older prac-
tice of Parliament was to insert five or six miles,
and the more modern practice is to insert three ;
and you have practically split the difference
between the two practices, have you not?
Mr.
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES Provisional ORDER BILLS.
* ſ **,
2’
297
28 April 1891.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The three miles is
without division ; it applies to all classes of
traffic, station to station and siding to siding.
We have to a certain extent extended the old
six miles clause, but confined it to station to
siding traffic or siding to siding traffic ; we have
not allowed the railway companies to take the
six-miles clause when it is station to station
traffic, and get the two terminals.
Committee see fit to extend it (which is what
Lord Camperdown had in his mind), and bar
them from charging it where they have one ter-
minal, there is no reason why they should not
do that. - -
Mr. Bidder.] Then, your Grace, if it is con-
venient, I will now call Mr. Findlay.
Earl of Belmore.] May I ask you whether you
are generally in favour of the Board of Trade
clause, or whether you wish to modify it 2
But if the
Mr. Bidder.] We are quite content with the
Board of Trade clause. . It is, no doubt, as Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has said, a compromise ; it
reduces our charging power; but still it is a
compromise which we are prepared to accept.
Mr. Dickson (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Did
you consider the desirability of having uniformity
as to three miles, and increasing the maximum
conveyance rate 2 -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Yes; we considered
that. The increase in the maximum conveyance
rate would be strongly opposed by every trader
that comes before you.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace sees at once six
times the fraction of a penny is less than three
times 2 d, so that though the figure six remains
the same, it represents a smaller amount in
money.
MR. GEORGE FINDL AY, having been re-called ; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
1362. Just let me ask you first with reference
to your own system : you have, as a matter of
fact, I believe, under your existing Acts,
different short-distance clauses applicable to
different parts of your system 2–We have.
1363. I should like you, in the first instance,
to give their Lordships the mileage of your
system to which the six-miles limit obtains, and
then that to which a shorter limit obtains 2–The
London and North Western system is about
1,850 miles in length, and of that there are
upwards of 1,200 miles ont of the 1,850 in which
we are entitled to charge a six-miles clause;
1,860 is the exact figure. And, in addition to
that, upon joint railways that is jointly owned
with other companies, we have 113 miles upon
which we are entitled to charge six miles, making
a total of 1,399 miles.
1364. And of the remainder, I think a con-
siderable portion is four miles, is it not ?—There
are 276 miles that we are entitled to charge four
miles upon ; there are 91 miles upon which we
are entitled to charge three miles; and there are
15% miles upon which we are entitled to charge
two miles.
1365. Coming to the question intrinsically, as
a matter of fact, taking the case of short-distance
traffic, does even the six-miles limit leave a
reasonable margin to the company upon the work
and the expense of working the traffic under those
conditions ?—It about covers the cost. My friend,
Sir Alfred Hickman, both as a trader and an ad-
vocate, made a statement which I am quite sure
he will allow me to correct as totally inaccurate,
saying that the long-distance trains perform the
short-distance work, and that therefore it was as
clieap to carry short-distance traffic as it is to
carry long-distance traffic; it is completely wrong
in practice, because long distance trains, if they
were to call at all the stations to perform short
distance work, would never get to their destina-
tion in time. The practice is in this district of
South Staffordshire, and from Sir Alfred Hick-
man’s own works, to collect the traffic with
shunting engines or local trains, and to carry
them in the one direction to Bushbury where the
trains are made up in full train loads to go away
Mr. Bidder—continued.
to the North ; and for the South to take them to
a place called Adderley Park, near to Birming-
ham. And the cost of the local working from
station to station or siding to siding is infinitely
greater than the cost of working a full train load
through long distances to its destination.
1366. So that in order to realise the economy
of the long run, it is essential to arrange and you
do arrange, so that the long train shall not do
that picking up business 2–Yes, that is the
principle upon which all the railway companies
that I know carry on their business.
1367. Where for the sake of one particular
portion of the load of the train you have to stop
at short distances, are you thereby reducing pro
tanto the whole earning capacity of that train Joad?
—-Yes. And I can state to the Committee what
I stated in evidence at Westminster Town Hall,
and also in the hearing of Sir Alfred Hickman,
that those local trains in the hours that they are
at work, do not perform an average of six miles
per hour during the whole day that they are at
work ; it is constantly picking up and setting
down and doing shunting at sidings, so that the
progress of the trains is limited to not exceeding
six miles an hour. The average speed of a
through train, at least the minimum speed of a
through goods train, is probably 25 miles an
hour.
1368. So that practically you may say that
you do not get a quarter of the work as measured
by mileage out of the picking-up trains as you
do out of the others?—Practically, that is so.
1369. Now, taking it upon your schedule, in
a case where there is no terminal, six miles upon
the reduced mileage charge, which is '09 d.
(which comes to something under 5; d.); in your
judgment, does that do more than cover the
actual cost of such short distance traffic 2–It
does not do more than cover the actual cost;
and we hope later on to submit to the Committee
as a reasonable view, that that ‘ 19 d. should be
advanced to a little more. I should say this,
that there are certain districts of the London and
North Western system that are mentioned in the
schedule, that is certain lines in Cumberland and
certain lines in the Merthyr, Tredegar, and
(81.)
P P Abergavenny,
298
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
| Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
Abergavenny, and Nantyglo and South Lei-
cestershire districts, and a variety of exceptions
where we propose in some of them; in the
Cumberland and South Wales ones I may say
absolutely it is proposed in the schedule that
shall read four miles instead of six miles; and
when we come to the details of those cases we
shall be prepared to deal with those exceptional
branches in an exceptional method.
1370. What page is that in your schedule?—
That is at the foot of page 9.
1371. That is so I see ?—We shall have some-
thing to say upon the details of those.
1372. That is to say you admit that there may
be and are in point of fact, occasionally special
cases of exceptional circumstances that do justify
exceptional treatment?–Clearly so; and that
is in accord of course with the decision of the
Committee; and whilst we entirely approve of
the compromise which has been explained by
Mr. Courtenay Boyle to the Committee, we think
beyond that general compromise there are ex-
ceptional cases such as Cumberland, and some
places in South Wales, which would have to be
treated even differently from that general com-
promise.
Chairman.] Those cases we shall deal with
when we come to the London and North Westerm
schedule.
Mr. Bidder.
1373. And as you have referred to the
cases at page 9, one very exceptional circum-
stance appears on the face of it : that the mile-
age rate there is higher; and therefore four miles
upon that higer mileage rate comes to very much
the same thing as six miles upon the lower —
lt comes to a little more.
Chairman.] Do not let us go into exceptional
cases; we are going to deal with them later on.
Mr. Bidder.
1374. There is one other question that
I wish to put to you ; this case has been
referred to by an honourable Member, where one
company carries the traffic for four miles and then
another company takes it say another four miles,
the entire journey being over six miles, but the
journey accomplished by each company being
under the six miles. In those cases is the cost
to each company the same as if it were the entire
length of their journey 2–It involves, of course,
a separate working of each company.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I do not object in any
way ; but this point is separately raised on an
amendment lower down.
Mr. Bidder.] Still the question was raised, and
I thought it would be very convenient to ask Mr.
Findlay upon it while he was in the box.
Cross-examined by Mr. Woodfall.
1375. Allow me to ask you one question.
There is no instance on any line where the short-
distance clause exceeds six miles, is there ?–No,
not to my knowledge.
1376. Therefore, six miles is the outside —
Yes.
Mr. Woodfall—continued.
1377. Then, taking the present provision sug.
gested by the Board of Trade, three miles plus
the terminals, is to be taken as equalling the six
miles without the terminals; is not that so 2–
That is what Mr. Courtenay Boyle explained.
1378. I see this scale two on page 9, to which
you referred——
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I did not say that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That will not do.
Mr. Woodfall.
1379. Mr. Courtenay Boyle does not seem
to agree with what Mr. Findley said. (To
the Witness.) Can you tell me what the average
short-distance clause on your South Wales lines
is ?—I should say four miles. I can give it
to you in a moment. On the Central Wales and
Central Wales Extension it is four miles; on the
Swansea lines it is four miles; on the Merthyr,
Tredegar, and Abergavenny it is four miles ; on
the Brynmawr and Blaenavon it is four miles,
and on the Sirhowy it is four miles. You may
take it generally at four miles.
1380. The average on your lines is four miles?
-I have not given the average, but the actual
figures. -
1381. The outside is four miles?—I do not
think we have any in South Wales at six miles.
1382. On your own system, which you gave us
as 1,850 miles, on 1,200 miles of it you were
entitled to six miles, that seems to be a long dis-
tance for a short-distance clause, and that seems
to have been the idea of Parliament, has it
notº-I cannot tell you what was the idea of
Parliament except that they began with six miles
originally, and so far as I know all the great
main lines of the country were authorised with
the six-miles minimum. Then from time to time
small railways have been projected by parties
locally interested, and local colliery owners; and
the six miles has gradually come down to four
miles, and then to three, in regard to those small
lines which have been projected since those main
arterial lines have been constructed and in work-
ing order.
1383. Taking a case like the Taff Vale Rail-
Way, where the whole distance is about 25 miles,
I believe, you would give them exceptionai
power over what would be a fourth part of the
whole line, if you have six miles?—You must not
ask me to speak with regard to the Taff Vale.
1384. Taking that as a hypothetical instance,
when you have a line 24 miles, you would be
giving exceptional charging power over a fourth
part P-First of all, I should say from my know-
ledge of the Taff Vale, and I know it pretty
well, they have no short-distance traffic, or very
little. The average lead of the traffic on the
Taff Vale is probably some nine to 12 miles, and
it all goes down to the sea. The only short-
distance traffic I know of on that liné is that
exchanged between the Rhondda Valley and the
Barry. Dock Company, at a junction, the name
of which I have forgotten at the moment; the
Hafod Junction.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES provisional ORDER BILI, S.
i
A
... --~~
ſ
299
28 April 1891 ..]
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1385. On behalf of the Glamorgan County
Council I have to ask one or two questions. The
people who really will have to pay for this short-
distance traffic are the people who own private
sidings and send their stuff from the colliery sid-
ings into ironworks or coke ovens, or at any rate
the main part of the short-distance traffic.
1386. You are speaking of the local lines of
South Wales. Speaking quite generally 2–I
could not give an answer to a general question of
that kind. If you will refer to a particular com-
pany, or any case on the North Western system,
so far as I know I will give the best answer I
•C &l,]]. -
1387. I will put it this way: if you have the
six-miles short-distance clause from station to
station, are you likely to find that people will
bring their goods to you and send them, say, two
miles from station to station when they can send
them by road and give you no chance of charg—
ing?—I think you are putting an impossible
case ; because siding to siding traffic where the
six miles would be chargeable ; would be from
one works to another, from a colliery siding per-
haps to an ironworks, or something of that kind. .
1388. Those are the people who will really
suffer; the general trade of the country which is
carted and delivered into a station will not suffer
because they have competition by road to deal
with ; is not that so P-I cannot discuss such an
impossible case as you are putting.
1389. The colliery owner in the case I put has
not competition by road; the lines of the railway
company run in under his tips at the one end,
and run into his ironworks at the other end, so
that he cannot get competition to protect him 2–
If this six-mile clause is enacted against the par-
ticular traders you represent in South Wales, with-
out any exception the case would most probably be
as you put it. But on the other hand, mind you,
it is not all a trader's case; you must consider
also what is the case of the railway companies.
I take it that no railway company can be ex-
pected to perform services, even for a trader,
without getting some profit out of it. -
Chairman (to Mr. Shaw).] You are represent-
ing the Glamorgan County Council, I under-
stand P
Mr. Shaw.] Yes.
Chairman.] What do they complain of P
Mr. Shaw.] They want “four * inserted in-
stead of “six.”
Chairman.] Do they condescend to give the
Feasons why P *
Mr. Shaw.] I was going to give some reasons,
bnt really after Sir Alfred Hickman's speech,
I thought it hardly necessary to repeat what
has been said upon this argument for four miles
instead of six. I only wanted to get some infor-
mation from Mr. Findlay about it.
Witness.] I have already admitted that in
South Wales, so far as the North Western is
concerned, even in Glamorganshire, our mini-
mum is four miles, and it is proposed to be made
in this schedule four miles.
Mr. FINDLAY. *>.
[Continued.
_*
Mr. Shaw—continued.
1390. Have you thought of the consequences of
this in some cases where you have now only
three or four miles as the short distance. I have
some figures here, as to which you will correct
me if I am wrong ; but supposing the Great
Western have no power to charge for six miles 2
—I think Mr. Lambert is coming, and you had
better ask him about that.
1391. With regard to your Sirhowy line, your
maximum rate is seven-eighths of a penny, is it
not ?—I believe so.
1392. You have no power to charge any ter—
minals 2
Chairman.] That is a vexed point, is it not ?
Mr. Bidder.] You must not take Mr. Findlay
as accepting that. -
Mr. Shaw.
1393. (To the Witness.) And you have only
got four miles short distance?—When we come
to consider the rates and terminals, I can answer
the question; at the moment I have not referred
to the Act, and cannot tell you.
1394 If you got six miles on the Sirhowy as
the maximum, you would get really for a run of
about a mile the same as the Barry Company are
getting for the whole run from Hafod to Barry,
which is 19 miles actually 2–1 do not quite
follow the question. No doubt when we come
to discuss with the Committee the question of
the rates and terminals upon the Sirhowy line,
the company will do what is right, and if it is
necessary to make an exception we shall do it.
Earl of Camperdown.
1395. To interpose a question following upon
something that was said just now, taking the
case of your own railway, the London and North
Western, is the great proportion of the short-
distance traffic, traffic from private traders run-
ning from siding to siding or from one of your
stations to a siding of their own?—ſ should think
the short-distance traffic is from siding to siding,
or from siding to station. As between station
and station there must be very little of it.
1396. Very little short-distance traffic as
between station and station ?—Yes.
Mr. Shaw.
1397. Might I ask you one question which I
forgot to put to you?—On the twelve hundred
miles you mentioned just now, nearly all the
stations are more than six miles apart, are they
not ?—I should think the average distance of the
the London and North Western stations would
be from three to four miles apart.
1398. So that it makes no difference so far
as station to station traffic is concerned —That
would be the answer I gave to Lord Camper-
down, that from station to station it is not
important.
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course in the Black
Country and all that part of the line the stations
are not six miles apart.
Mr. Shaw.] Quite so.
(81.)
P P 2 1399. The
300
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1399. The three-miles short-distance rate
comes in where you have already had a station
terminal at each end of the transit, does it not ?
—That is the intention of the Clause, I believe.
1400. Are there many cases, as a matter of
fact, where you have to make up a special train
for the purpose of running these three miles?—
Not from station to station, I should think; it is
done by the local collecting trains in the manner
I have described before. -
140l. Is it not the fact that the local connect-
ing trains do run short distances and stop at
short distances, but in the aggregate your local
stopping trains cover a very long distance 2
—-No; because I have already given evi-
dence before the Committee (I am not sure
I made it clear), that the average rate of
speed of a local train, taking South Staf-
fordshire as a case in point, is not more than six
miles an hour; so that if a train has worked 10
hours' a day, it would only make 60 miles, whilst
for a long distance train it is not an uncommon
thing to run from London to Manchester, which
would be considered as a day’s work; that is 200
miles. - -
1402. That depends entirely upon the amount
of time they may have to spend in collecting the
particular trucks, does it not *-Of course it does;
the collecting, picking up, and putting off, does
occupy time; it involves the serivee of the men
and considerable extra labour in every way.
1403. I am not speaking of cases where you
are shunting or sorting out merchandise of various
classes, but where you are dealing with mineral
traffic; is it not the rule that the trucks, or train
loads, or whatever it may be, are there for you
as a rule 2–Not in all cases. -
1404. Not in all cases, I agree ?—No, nor in
the case of South Staffordshire. Take the Can-
nock Chase district, where we have a very
large coal trade, we are obliged to make
frequent collections at the different collieries,
and take them to the great mass of sort-
ing sidings where the waggons are made
up in full train loads,--That prevails throughout
the whole of the London and North Western
system, and other railways besides.
1405. Can you say there is such a difference
between the delays and services of this class as
to make any practical distinction from the point
of view of the railway company as between three
miles and four miles 2–It is a question of de-
gree. Of course three miles is less remunerative
than four, and the services practically at each
end (that is to say, the collecting, shunting, de-
positing, and picking up) is just the same for
three miles as it is for four. If we get four
miles of course it will be more remunerative than
three.
1406. With regard to one point mentioned by
my learned friend Mr. Bidder, which I think
fell from a member of the Committee, is it the
fact that in some cases as regards this large and
remunerative traffic, under the clause as it is
drawn, there would be held to be, not merely a
short-distance charge, but three short-distance
charges in a line of eight miles?
Mr. Bidder.] I thought your clients did not
Cumberland Coal Owners’ Association.
º to this, and that your point was a different
On 6 - -
, Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Not at all. If you
look at the notice of the amendment I have given,
you will see that my figure was four-and-a-half
miles. . . . - - -
Earl of Camperdown.] Who are you appearing
for at present P - * -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens...] For the West Cum-
berland Ironmasters's Association and the
My
point was of the same kind as the amendment
the Committee has been discussing, only my
figure was four-and-a-half as against four miles.
Mr. Bidder.] No ; if you look at your own.
amendment you are content with the three miles
and the six miles; but you ask that where there is
one station terminal charged there should be an
intermediate four-and-a-half miles. You do not
raise any objection to the three miles and the six
miles. - -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I think We do.
Earl of Camperdown."
In Ot. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If your Lordships
think I should not pursue it, of course I will not
do so; but as a matter of fact it is a point that
we attach importance to.
On page 24 you do
Mr. Bidder.] If you look at your amendment,
I think it arises hereafter. You do not raise
any amendment upon the point we are now
upon.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I submit that we
really do. The discussion arose upon the four
miles. - *
Chairman.] Are your clients not going to be
heard upon a special case?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] There is a difficulty,
if you will allow me to say so, on the special
case with regard to the ironmasters, that is ex-
pressly reserved by arrangement between
myself and my learned friend Mr. Moon, who
understands that our case is special ; but then I
appear also for other clients, the Cumberland
Coal Owners’ Association, who are in a different
category. But I may, say once for all, the diffi-
culty one feels in presenting this matter
in a satisfactory manner to the Committee is
this : it is very difficult to conceive a case
in which any trader (there being these nine Bills
before the Committee) in any part of England
would have an appreciable amount of traffic with
the nine railways, or even with the majority of
them ; and therefore, when a trader's case comes
up he is always liable to this observation, “Oh,
but your particular case is domestic, and relates
to a particular railway.” When a railway case
comes up, a Midland or North-Western manager,
or whoever it may be, comes and gives his
evidence as regards his particular line, and that
is taken as establishing the principle as regards
the nine railways. That is practically the diffi-
culty which we have been placed in more than
O]] CO. *:
Earl of Camperdown.] But who are these
- * indefinite
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
301
ſ
28 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
indefinite people that you refer to ? I want to
know what their amendment is.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] You may take it, my
Lord, with regard to any amendment.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you appear for all
traders of all sorts?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] No, my Lord; I
appear for the two associations I have mentioned;
but what I am saying is, that we are met with
this difficulty : we are told that we are discussing
principles, and whereas these principles affect all
nine railway companies, I say that there is no
trader who has traffic on all the nine companies,
and therefore he can only raise the point on his
own particular case, and when he does so raise it
on his own particular case, he is told, “Oh, that
is domestic.”
Chairman.] We have not got to that yet.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do either of your clients
move to omit three and six for the purpose of in-
serting four miles? -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] They have not
definitely done that ; but an amendment is now
moved, with the spirit of which they concur.
Earl of Camperdown.] That does not entitle
every one in the room to cross-examine every
witness. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am entirely in your
Lordship's hands. I merely point out that there
is that difficulty with which the traders have been
met more than once.
Chairman.] No doubt there is a great deal of
difficulty. You are only reminding us of what
we are all agreed, that this is a very difficult in-
quiry. I do not want to prevent you from
putting before us any remarks which you may
think bear upon the question before us.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1406*. With your Lordship's permission, I
should like to ask Mr. Findlay one question. (To
the Witness.) Is it not a fact that under this clause
as it stands it would not only be possible, but
certain that in a large class of traffic there would
be three short distance charges in a run of eight
miles?--If you run over three companies there
will... I should correct that answer by saying,
not if you run over, but if the traffic is physically
exchanged and handed over at the separate
junctions between the companies.
1407. I am putting the case of traffic arising
on one line, passing over another line, and ter.
minating on another line; in a run of eight miles
of that sort there would be three short distance
charges as the clause now stands, would there
not ?—There might be.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That is the principle
to which we object.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
1408. I think you said at the Westminster
Town Hall that the weight of your ordinary
mineral train was about 500 tons, did you not?
—No 3 the gross weight might be 500 tons,
including the waggons.
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
1409. What do you say your ordinary mineral
train weighs 2—The net load is 35 waggons of
about eight tons each.
1410. That would be something less than
300 tons?—Three hundred tons and odd. Then
there is the weight of the waggons, which
would be about half as much again.
1411. I think you stated at the Westminster
Town Hall that you never despatched mineral
trains without a full load as a rule 2–I was then
speaking upon the question of full train-loads
and I gave that answer, but that answer is quite
consistent with what I say, that you have first to
collect your waggons before you can despatch
your full train load.
1412. Then we may take it that your ordinary
mineral train is a train of 300 tons net weight?—
About that. -
1413. It was given in evidence, as you will
remember, at the Westminster Town Hall, that
a gentleman had taken the weights of your trains
for two or three days on your main line, and that
they averaged about 80 tons as regards the ordi-
nary merchandise trains ; was not that so 2–An
ordinary merchandise train as despatched from
London would be about 40 waggons, with rather
under three tons in each waggon.
1414. That would be about 120 tons 2–From
100 to 120; it is very light loading, some of it.
1415. You think that the evidence given as to
the traffic on the particular days taken must have
been exceptional as to the trains passing on those
particular days?—I do not know how any
gentleman could get the actual weight of the
particular trains for a particular day, without
coming to us for the information. I do not
know how he got it, and I do not know what
gentlemau you refer to.
1416. The way he got it was to count the
waggons, and he reckoned them at their full
weight capacity ?—Then it would not come out
at 80 tons, if they were reckoned at their full
weight capacity, whether they carried it or not.
1417. I will take your figures that the ordinary
train is about 120 tons, and the ordinary mineral
train about 300 tons?–Yes, but you must take
it with this qualification, that in working an
ordinary mineral train you take back an unpro-
fitable load of empty waggons, and therefore it
takes twice the mileage to earn your profit in
regard to a mineral train. The goods trains
are loaded in both directions, and therefore you
will find a goods train rather more profitable, even
with the lesser weight to work, than a mineral
train.
1418. I should like you to reconsider the
answer which you first gave me about the weight
of the mineral trains ; do you, after consideration,
say that your full mineral train load is only 300
tons net weight?—I did not work it out, but I
say there are 35 waggons with an average weight
of 8 tons per waggon.
1419. That would be only 280 tons ?—That is
about the load. In some parts of the system,
from Rugby to London, where the road is very
level, we work with 40 waggons, perhaps, instead
of 35 ; but I give 35 waggons as about the aver-
age load of a coal train.
(81.)
P P 3 1420. How
302.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[ Continued.
Chairman.
1420. How would that work out 2—Taking it
at 35 waggons it would be 35 times 8, that is
280 tons; if it is taken at 40 waggons it is 320
tons. 300 tons is about the load.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
1421. May we take it at any rate that the
weight of a mineral train which is to be under
these short distance conditions is very much
heavier than the weight of a merchandise train P
—No. I understood you to be discussing with
me now the question of the long distance full
train loads. If you take a short distance mineral
train, they pick up at a variety of sidings, as you
know very well; they pick up for instance at
your sidings, and all the sidings in the Stour
Valley especially, and carry the waggons forward
to Bushbury; and because you have not got the
means of receiving those waggons when we are
prepared to deliver them to you, we frequently
have to keep 60 or 80 to 100 waggons waiting at
Bushbury till you are ready to receive them.
1422. I do not quite see what that has to do
with it 2—It has to do with the working of the
traffic. I say that, the short distance is one thing
which involves a special and more costly service
to the railway company. When you once get
the waggons combined at the marshalling sidings
into a full train load, then the economy of work-
ing comes in ; but the collecting and the delivery
is the expensive part as regards the short dis-
tance.
1423. You gave us the figures as regards the
short distance clauses relating to the different
parts of your railway. Is it the fact that where
the short distance traffic prevails, that is, as you
mentioned, in the Stour Valley, the short dis-
tance clause there is only two miles?—I believe
it is.
1424. And where it is six miles it is on the
main line practically, where there is no short
distance traffic at all 2–I do not say that.
1425. I mean practically f–I do not say prac-
tically, because you know very well that the old
Grand Junction Railway runs parallel to the
Stour Valley, and upon the Grand Junction Rail-
way there are sidings and connections where the
six miles short distance clause applies, where we
have to do on the old Grand Junction Railway
exactly what we do for you.
1426. That is a very short distance, is it not ?
—It is as long as the Stour Valley, which is 12
miles. In South Staffordshire, as Mr. Mason
reminds me, in the South Staffordshire Railway
Act, which is the railway serving the district in a
complicated mode, the short distance clause is six
miles.
1427. You are proposing to have a higher
mileage rate, are you not –According to the
schedule which the Board of Trade have prepared,
they propose to give us something less than what
we have got to-day, where we have got 1; d. per
mile. -
1428. Dut it will be a higher mileage rate, will
it not, than on the rest of your system 2–Yes;
and the reason is that we have already the higher
mileage to-day, but we think it is not high
enough.
1429. That I quite understand. Now you
have, have you not, what you call a service time-
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued. ..sº
table for your goods traffic ; something like
Bradshaw 2–Yes, we have a service table for
working the London and North Western in every
branch and every part of it. 4.
1430. Could you allow the Committee to see
a copy of that ?—Yes; there are two or three
volumes of it.
Chairman.] What is, it that you were asking
for 2 º
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I was asking Mr.
Findlay to show the Committee what is practiv
cally a Bradshaw of the merchandise traffic.
Practically there is a time table, as I stated to
your Lordships in my observations, according to
which the goods traffic is carried on by local
trains which drop the different waggons just as
passenger trains do.
Chairman.] Is that disputed.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I was only asking Mr.
Findlay to confirm it.
Chairman.] Does Mr. Findlay, or anyone
else, dispute the fact that mineral trains on the
North Western or ony other trains, are worked
on a regular system
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I only wished to ask
Mr. Findlay to confirm the fact that they do
work upon a regular system, and that the trains
were not made up with engines specially
chartered for taking a few waggons here and a
few there.
PWitness.] What I am prepared to admit is,
that every train except special trains are laid
down in a tabulated form for the guidance of the
servants of the company, and systematised to the
utmost possible extent ; but what I wished to
correct was, and I hope I made that clear to you
and to the Committee, the general statement which
you made before I came into the box, to the
effect that the long distance trains worked the
short distance traffic. If I correctly apprehended
you, that was what you said; but if I am wrong
of course I apologise. I wished to say that
that was not the case.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
1431. The general practice being what you
have explained, to pick up the trucks and then
marshal them for the long distance service 2–
Quite so. **
1432. The picking-up business being expen-
sive business, for which the long distance service
remunerates you ?–Yes, it corresponds very
much with the full waggon load traffic to and
from the sidings, and the collection and delivery
by a cart and horse in big towns. º
1433. Where the entire journey is under six
miles, that necessarily falls under the head of
this pick-up service altogether ?—It does.
1434. You were asked one or two questions
with regard to certain traders in Glamorgan-
shire, as an illustration, who would suffer by the
six mile clause instead of a four mile clause,
which it was said they had at present. I think
the line applicable to them is the Swansea line,
is it not ?—The Swansea line.
1435. I see from the schedule the present
mileage rate there is 2 d. Therefore, the four
miles
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CIIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 303
(
28 April 1891.] Mr. FINDLAY. [Continued.
Mr. Bidder--continued.
miles at 2 d. entitles you to charge ai the present
time a short distance charge of 8 d. 2–That is
SO.
1436. Whereas, under the schedule now be-
fore their Lordships, the six-mile clause would
only allow you to charge 5; d., or a fraction
under six times 9 of a penny as the Bill is
drawn 2–As the Bill is drawn.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
1437. Therefore, so far from their suffering by
the change, your maximum charge would be
reduced from 8 d. to 5; d. 2–Yes. I rather under-
stood that the learned counsel who asked the
question was putting it apropos of the Great
Western than of any part of the London and
North Western, and I told him that Mr. Lam-
bert was coming, very probably.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT, having been re-called, is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
1437*. OF course, upon your system you have
very varied experience of this traffic between
sidings. This pick-up traffic and short distance
traffic P−Yes.
1438. I should like to ask you to give the
Committee your experience, first upon the ques-
tion of the relative expense and cost to the
company of working that class of traffic, and as
to how far you agree with Mr. Findlay's evidence?
—There can be no question that the working of
the short distance traffic is more expensive than
the long distance traffic, and I think the best way
one can illustrate that, is by giving the working
of an engine. -
1439. Will you do so, please?—We have
trains running through from London to Wey.
mouth, and the same engine runs the trains a
distance of 168% miles in 10 hours and 40
minutes.
1440. When you say a train, you mean a
goods train, I presume 7–That is a long distance
goods train. We also have a pick-up train
calling at all the stations between London and
Didcot, a distance of 53 miles only, which
occupies 10 hours and 20 minutes. So that you
have the same cost of engine, and stores, and
firemen’s and driver's wages, doing only 53 miles
as against an engine doing one long journey of
168 miles.
1441. Now, is your practice the same as that
described by Mr. Findlay, that is to say, picking
up from siding to siding, and then afterwards
marshalling the traffic and reconstituting the
train for a long journey 2–It is ; and the two
cases I have given illustrate it, that the trucks
from stations intermediate between London and
Didcot going on the Weymouth line are taken to
Didcot and there put on to the Weymouth train
when it arrives there. In the same way we
have marshalling sidings on the Monmouthshire
line at a place called Tydu, at the bottom of the
Monmouthshire line ; the trucks are brought
from the various collieries to stand in the colliery
sidings, they are brought down to this nest of
marshalling sidings, and they are there sorted
over for their various destintaions.
1442. Assuming that the journey is limited to
a distance of under six miles, according to your
experience of the actual cost of working, does it
leave any remunerative margin for the company ?
—I do not think so ; indeed I am certain of it,
if you will only consider how it works. First of
all, take the initial journey of six miles; you
must bring up an engine, pay the wages, and use
Mr. Bidder—continued.
the stores. It is quite clear that the six miles
will not be remunerative in that case. It is
equally clear that where time is cut to waste by
calling at station after station, there also it
becomes expensive.
Cross-examined by Mr. Woodfall.
1443. Is not it a little fallacious (if you will
forgive me for saying so) to put that instance of
the cost of running of a long distance goods
train as being the same as the cost of running a
short distance goods train, because the short
distance goods train would be the means of
bringing in a great many terminals, would it not?
—It does not follow ; because, taking a truck
going from, say, Southall to Frome, it is picked
up by this stopping train and taken to Didcot,
and there put on to the Weymouth train fo be
left at Frome ; but we get no additional terminals
by that.
1444 Coming to the instance you gave of a
train running through to Weymouth, 168 miles,
and a train running through to Didcot, 50 miles,
how many terminals would there be in the case of
the train running in the same time only 50
miles P Does not it follow that time must be con-
sumed, not wasted as you said, but consumed
in, so to speak, collecting terminals and bringing in
terminals?—I cannot see that it brings us any
additional terminals, and I have given you a case
in support of my view. If you mean that traffic
may arise at Southall for Reading, for instance,
which is dealt with by train, no donbt we get a
terminal at Southall and a terminal at Reading.
1445. I may be wrong, but if you say that the
same time is consumed in doing 50 miles as is con-
Sumed in doing 168, and you will not admit that.
it brings in terminals, then I should like you to
tell me how the time is consumed ?–I have
admitted that it brings terminals, but no addi-
tional terminals; we only get the terminal at the
stations where the goods arrive and where they
are delivered.
Chairman.] They do not get a terminal at all
the stations between Southall and Didcot.
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace; but there
must be a great many terminals in that distance.
Chairman.] Collected by degrees.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, your Grace.
Darl of Belmore.] What profit is there in that?
Mr. Woodfall.] I mean the time is not wasted.
(81.)
P P 4 Mr.
304 MIN UTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COM M ITTEE
28 April 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder.] Each ton of goods only pays two
terminals. *.
Earl of 13elmore.] It only pays two, whether
you get it all at once or in fifty dribblets.
Mr. Woodfall.
1446. (To the Witness)." In talking of a
long distance train, do you assume it
is a train with a full load 2 — It varies
from day to day. 1 spoke of the regular
train running from London to Weymouth taken
by one engine. The traffic fluctuates with the
day, but as a rule it is a full load.
1447. In considering the relative cost to the
company of long distance and short distance
trains, it is hardly fair to take one instance ; be-
cause it must depend upon the amount of goods
carried respectively by each of them 2–I can
give you other instances, but I simply gave that
illustration to show that the same engines, the
same stores, and the same firemen and drivers,
and the same cost, is spread over a distance of
168 miles in the one case and 50 in the other.
Chairman.] Surely it is admitted by every-
body who ever travelled by railway, that it is
cheaper to send a goods train a long distance
than a short; it costs more in proportion from
London to Didcot than from London to Wey-
mouth.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes; but Mr. Lambert gave
us one instance, and his one instance would be
fallacious unless we knew the amount of goods
carried in that instance.
Chairman.] But you do not want an instance
to prove it ; surely it is admitted on all sides
that it is comparatively cheaper to work trains
for long distances than for short ones.
Mr. Woodfall.] I was not contending that ; I
was only saying that Mr. Lambert's instance
was fallacious.
Chairman.] But you not object to the con-
clusion which Mr. Lambert has arrived at 2
Mr. Woodfall.] Not to the simple proposition.
Chairman.] That is what you were asking, was
it not ? -
Mr. Woodfaſl.] On the short-distance traffic,
what I say is that Mr. Lambert gave these in-
stances that the time was wasted in going a short
journey.
Chairman.] You might, perhaps, so far say
that no time was wasted. -
Witness.] I used the term “cut to waste.”
What I meant was that the same time is occupied
in doing the shorter journey as in doing the longer
one ; the same cost is spread over the lesser
number of miles. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
1448. Your instance had to deal with station
to station traffic, had it not ?—As between those
places, no doubt station to station traffic was the
bulk.
1149. It was not an instance having anything
to say at all to traffic from private siding to
private siding 2–Yes. I can give an illustration
bearing upon that : For instance, between
Llanelly Dock and Swansea Valley Junction
Mr. Shaw—continued.
we have an engine which makes four trips during
the day, and covers a distance of 47 miles only,
but occupying 11 hours 20 minutes. That is prin-
cipally siding to siding traffic.
1450. At Llanelly Docks you have got dock
charges, have you not ?–Apart from the engines
working ; the dock charges arise upon the vessels
and their cargoes. -
1451. But your engine is chiefly delayed, is it
not, in connection with the shipments in the
dock 2–Oh, dear no; the engine that attends at
the dock sidings is altogether a separate engine
from the one that runs the trains.
1452. Under the proposed powers given to
your railway by the Board of Trade, the rate is
1:45 d. for coal, as regards the Great Western
Company, is it not ?–1'45 d. for any distance
not exceeding 20 miles.
1453. If you multiply that by six it comes out,
I think, to 8 7-10 d., does it not ?—It does.
1454. So that it comes to this, that we have to
pay for carrying our coal a quarter of a mile
nothing less than 8 7-10 d. 2–But there is a
second schedule, I think.
1455. I am only taking this figure at present 2
—In that particular schedule, no doubt it will
be so.
1456. And that is more, is it not, than the
charge actually now charged by the Barry Rail-
way Company for going 19 miles 2–You must
remember that the Barry are cutting rates with
the Taff.
1457. They pay 10 per cent., I am told 2–
Never mind what they pay ; they are cutting
rates with the Taff.
Mr. Pope.] The fact that they pay 10 per
cent. is, perhaps, because they are owned by the
coalowners who send the traffic.
Mr. Shaw.] It is because they make a certain
amount of profit.
Chairman.] We will not argue that.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
1458. Do you agree with Mr. Findlay that an
ordinary mineral train is about 280 tons 2–It all
depends upon the district in which it travels.
1459. Can you give us an average roughly ;
we do not need to take it very exactly 2–On our
South Wales line we carry about 26 trucks to the
load, but as between Swindon and London we
can take 42 or 43. In some parts of South
Wales we cannot take more than 12 or 13
waggons. The load varies with the district, and
it is impossible to generalise in the way you
suggest unless you bear that in mind.
1460. You agree with Mr. Findlay when he
put the weight of a mineral train as being roughly
about 300 tons?—I do not question Mr. Findlay's
figures at al. I merely wished you to bear in
mind all these varieties of gradients and varieties
of districts. There are districts where Mr.
Findlay's figures would be perfectly accurate,
and there are other districts where he would be
the first to admit that he could not carry that
load, or could carry greater loads, as the case
might be.
1461. You agree with Mr. Findlay that this
short
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
305
28 April 1891.]
-T-
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
short distance traffic is principally mineral traffic?
— No doubt to a large extent it is.
1462. As regards the rate that the Board of
Trade put down for your mineral traffic, I think
the lowest rate up to 20 miles is 9 d., is it not ?
—I think that is the figure.
1463, There is the schedule; will you take it
from me that it is 9 d.?—I will take it from you.
1464. Supposing a train to be 280 tons, and
the rates were down to 9 d., will you take it from
me that it comes to one guinea 2–I will take it
from you, I assume you have made the calcula-
tion.
1465. Will you tell the Committee, please,
what is the average return from your goods
trains 2–I could not give you the average
figure. -
1466. You publish it every half-year, do you
not *—Yes, that is perfectly true.
1467. Is it 4 s. 6 d. 7—From 4 s. 6 d. to 5s. a
train mile. -
1468. This traffic which you are complaining
about would produce you a guinea a mile,
whereas your ordinary goods train produces only
4 s. 6 d. 2–That is assuming we get that. But
you know we do not get full train loads from
siding to siding in the way you suggest.
Chairman.] We did not get very precise
figures, but near enough for the purpose, 280
tons.
Earl of Belmore.
1469. Perhaps you could answer a question
that was put to Mr. Findlay, which I did not
quite follow. It applies to your line in the
same way. I understand that under certain cir-
cumstances it might be possible to get three short
distances on one run. Is that in practice ever the
case ; or do you generally take goods or minerals
whatever they are, to deliver them at the point
yourselves. If the Great Western Company
deliver them at a point within 18 miles (which
would make three short distances) say 17 miles,
would you practically charge three short dis-
tances, or would you merely charge in fact a
mileage rate?–In practice we should not charge
the three short distance charges. When the
question was asked Mr. Findlay I tried to recall
a case where three lines would be involved in so
short a distance, but I could not do so. But I
have no hesitation in saying that if three com-
panies were interested in a particular traffic they
would not insist upon their full powers there.
1470. Would it be a case of one short distance,
plus some milage rate, or would it resolve itself
practically into a mileage rate divisable between
the three companies 2–I have no doubt that as
a business arrangement each company would
consent to take a certain small proportion so that
the gross late should not cripple the traffic ; but
should allow the traffic to flow. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Might I ask a ques-
tion upon that, as it was my point?
Chairman.] Certainly.
Cross examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1471. The principle we are asked to sanction
by this Provisional Order is the principle of a
short-distance charge 7–It is. -
Mr. LAMBERT.
[ Continued.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens—continued.
1472. That would be a short-distance charge
sanctioned as a principle, but applicable to a
particular company, each company would have
power to charge according to this principle
which we are now laying down 2–No doubt.
1473. And three separate companies, having
three separate powers under the principle of
making this charge, what would the trader have
to rely upon as overriding or governing those
three sets of statutory powers, which the Com-
mittee are asked to give?—The traders would
have to rely on the common-sense of the com-
panies to quote such a rate as would allow the
traffic to flow. -
1474. Supposing it should be the traffic which
a company, or three companies, considered a
valuable traffic ; would they in that case, exer-
cising their common-sense view, tax it to the
highest ?—If it was a valuable traffic it would be
their interest to encourage it. -
1475. I mean traffic which, from the point of
view of the companies, would bear being taxed P
—I object to that way of putting it. Experience
has not been that railway companies tax traffic
in the sense you put it. -
1476. I withdraw the word “ tax * and say
charge. There is traffic, you know, which from
their point of view will bear high rates and
traffic which will not bear high rates. Suppos-
ing that the companies took it into their heads
that this particular traffic was a traffic that would
bear high rates, what is to prevent the three
companies each exercising their statutory powers
from charging their full rate 2–Their common-
sense and their own interest would be the factors
that the traders may rely upon. -
1477. At all events, you agree in this: that
as the clause stands, outside any discretion that
the railway companies might bring to bear, there
is anything to prevent, their doing that?—And
it is a reasonable clause I venture to suggest to
you because there are separate workings with
separate working arrangements and separate
costs, and therefore they are entitled to a separate
l]]l Ill Oſ) a. -
1478. But all within a distance of eight or
nine miles P –—
Mr. Pope.] What is the case you are referring
to P -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The case I had in
my mind was the case of coal and the case of
iron.
Mr. Pope.] What particular lines are you
referring to ?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Here we are back
again on particular lines 2
Chairman.] We are dealing with the general
C2SO. -
Earl of Camperdown.
1479. (To the Witness).] Would you tell me, if
you please, as well as you can, as nearly as you
can, what proportion of your total short-dis-
tance traffic is traffic running from station to
station, from station to siding, and from siding
to siding 2—It would be merely an estimate.
1480. Simply a proportion?—Yes. I should.
say that one half roughly speaking of the short-
(81.)
Q Q - distance
306
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 189 l ..]
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
distance traffic would be from siding to siding,
and with regard to the other two I expect they
would be equally divided between from siding to
station, and from station to siding. But I hope
you will not bind me too closely to that estimate,
it is of the roughest possible kind.
1481. Of course not. Then I should like to
ask you a question upon another point. On
your line what is the minimum short-distance
charge, how many miles. I mean, of course,
according to existing Acts of Parliament 7–I
was going to give your Lordship that. -
1482. And perhaps you could extend that
answer, and tell us on how many miles of your
own, or on what proportion of your line you can
charge different sums, and what those sums are,
just as Mr. Findlay did for the London and
North Western ? - -
Mr. Bidder.] Mr. Nelson hands me a paper
which probably would answer your Lordship's
question. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Just give it to Mr
Lambert them.
Mr. Bidder.] He has a copy of it.
you might like a copy also.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then let him read it
out shortly ; I do not want to go into details; I
merely want to arrive at the principles.
Witness.] The Great Western Railway com-
prises 1,861.3 miles, and on 1,098 miles of that
the minimum distance is six miles ; about three-
fifths of the whole. -
1483. And now what are the rates on the re-
mainder 7—They vary, my Lord, from two to four
miles.
I thought
Mr. Hanbury.
1484. Where you have this minimum of two
to four miles, are those parts of the line where
this siding to siding traffic would mostly run ?—
Not necessarily. -
1485. But as a rule 2–I could not even say
as a rule ; and for this reason, that the six miles
rules from London down to New Milford, and
therefore the whole of the South Wales main
line, on which there are colleries and works, is
governed by the six-miles clause.
Neath also, which is an important line for
collieries and works running up from Swansea to
Aberdare and Merthyr, is governed by the six-
mile clause. The whole of the distance from
London to Penzance through Bristol and Exeter,
Plymouth and Truro is governed by the six-mile
clause with all the sidings. Of course that is not
a colliery district, but with many sidings and
works, upon it.
Mr. Shaw.
1486. Might I just ask Mr. Lambert one ques-
tion. He made a statement which I do not
think he meant really, (To the Witness) In
South Wales the main part of the works are not
on your truck line ; they are on the Ogmore
Valley line 2–I said many of them.
1487. They are very few in comparison with
the Llynic and Ogmore ?—No doubt for the
corresponding distance, but I gave you the Vale
of Neath as a cross-country line on which
collieries and works exist.
Mr. LAMBERT.
The Vale of
[Continued.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
1488. Could you give their Lordships this
figure. Taking your whole system, what is the
average short distance you are entitled to charge?
—5.35 miles. -
1489. Now with reference to the question of
the short-distance train, the Didcot train, as com-
pared with the long-distance train, as a matter of
fact, those trains are as a rule not full, are they
—No. -
1490. Necessarily P – No; they are short-
handed trains that can be moved along and pick
up a truck at Southall, for instance, drop it at
West Drayton, pick up another at West Drayton
and drop it at Slough, and so on.
1491. And the same thing is true to a con-
siderable extent of a train picking up at sidings
short distance traffic for the greater part of its
journey, it would not be a short distance train 2–
Yes, there can be no question that these short
distance trains are very expensive to work.
1492. And the figure that Sir Alfred Hick-
man put to you, that even under the reduced
minima of this schedule, your mineral train would
earn a guinea a mile and the actual earnings are
4 s. 6 d. That shows how very far you are
below realising a full train load 2–Ouite so.
1493. My learned friend Mr. Shaw put to
you a question with regard to certain cases where
under the schedule you are allowed to charge
I:45 d. a mile instead of '09 d. as proposed?—
Yes. . -
1494. Am I right in taking it that those are
exceptional cases, that the '09 d. applies to the
greater part of your line 2–It does. That was
why I hesitated when the 1:45 d. was put to me.
1495. Without going into them, of course
there are some exceptional circumstances that
have led the Board of Trade to distinguish 2–
Yes. • . .
- Mr. Hanbury. -
1496. What I want to get at is this. As the
clause stands, for your siding to siding traffic,
you will always in future be able to charge the
fall six miles 2–We shall.
1497. At the present moment as a matter of
fact for that siding to siding traffic, what dis-
tance can you charge P-Six miles. -
1498. Not in all cases surely 2–In the cases I
gave you l,000 miles out of 1,800.
1499. But with regard to all siding to siding
traffic in the future you will be able to charge
six miles?—We shall, no doubt.
1500. Over the whole line 2–Over the whole
line. -
1501. But with regard to siding to siding traſ-
fic what is your average now 2–5:35 d.
1502. Over the whole line 2–Yes, that is the
average.
1503. For siding to siding traffic 2–Certainly;
that is the average charge. -
Mr. Shaw.] That is not the case, surely.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is not what you said.
Earl of Camperdown.
1504. But that was not the answer you gave
to me. You said to me that siding to siding
traffic was one-half of your total short distance
traffic?—I did.
1505. Then
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
307
28 April 1891.]
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
1505. Then if in future you are empowered to
charge for six miles over your whole line for
short-distance traffic, you will be empowered, will
you not, to do that over the whole of your line,
which you do now over half of it only ; it is a
1,000 miles out of 1,860. I will not quarrel over
the figures; but all the answers, as I understand
them, come to this, that it would extend the
power of charging a six-mile service for siding to
siding traffic very considerably. That you would
not dispute, I suppose ?—I do not quite follow
that my Lord.
1506. That was the effect of your own an-
swers ?
..Mr. Bidder.] It would extend it on the aver-
age of 5-35 d. - -
Earl of Camperdown. | No.
going into another point which is entirely remote
from the point we are at, because after I asked a
question which related to a special sort of traffic
then you said to the Witness, “What is the
average sum you are entitled to charge,” which
has nothing to do with my point at all. It is a
very good point of your's. g *
Mr. Bidder.] I think you are wrong, my
Lord.
Earl of Camperdown.] How 7
Mr. Bidder.] Because that class of traffic that
you are asking about, is spread over all parts of
the line. -
Earl of Camperdown.] But your question was
not limited to siding to siding traffic.
Mr. Bidder.] No, to the charging power.
Earl of Camperdown.]. Then that has nothing
to do with my point, My point related solely to
siding to siding traffic.
as it seemed to me, to all short-distance which, is
a wholly different thing.
Mr. Bidder.] But assuming for a moment that
siding to siding traffic (which I do not know
whether it is so or not) is equally distributed
over the whole line, then the answer to that in
reference to that particular class of traffic will be
an answer given with regard to the average.
Mr. Shaw.] That is just a fallacy.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, I do not think so;
that depends upon where the traffic is.
Mr. Bidder.]. I grant that. I said that I do
not know whether the fact is so, but assuming
that siding to siding traffic were equally distri-
buted over different portions of the Great
Western system. -
Earl of Camperdown.
1507. Which it is not. On that point I will
put a question then. (To the Witness.) Is your
siding to siding short-distance traffic equally
distributed over all parts of your line 2–I could
not say that.
1508. Are you not able to say that it is not
equally distributed over the whole of your line
I put it to you in that way?—I do not hesitate to
say that it is not equally distributed.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then Mr. Bidder's case
falls to the ground.
Mr. LAMBERT.
You are now
Your question related,
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury.
1509. , Is the siding to siding traffic prin-
cipally in those cases where you are limited
to from two to four miles?—No. I tried
to answer that question before by telling you that
from London to New Milford, including the whole
of the South Wales line, we were governed by
the six-mile clause from London to Penzance in
the same way; and from London to Birmingham
in the same way.
Mr. Bidder.
1510 But, of course, in your case, as in the
London and North Western case, though you
would raise the charge nominally in certain cases
for siding to siding traffic from in certain cases a
less mileage to six miles, yet taken in couple with
the reduction of maxima, you are actually re-
ducing the charge in every case?—Certainly.
1511. There is one other question ——
Mr. Shaw.] No, no.
Mr. Bidder.] I apologise if I have been irre-
gular. -
Chairman.] But I do not think you are in the
least irregular.
Mr. Bidder.
1512. (To the Witness).] There is one other
matter that I omitted with reference to the ques-
tion that was put by my learned friend Mr.
Pembroke Stephens, as to the hypothetical case
of three companies working traffic for a total dis-
tance of eight or nine miles. You have known
no such case anywhere 2–I cannot call to mind
any one.
1513. What I want to put to you is this:
Where the traffic goes so far over either one,
two, or three companies, and is worked by one
company, the Act of 1868 compels you to treat
it as one journey 2–Where one company works
it, undoubtedly.
Earl of Belmore.] That is what I wanted to
get.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordship looks at Sec-
tion 18 of the Act of 1868, it provides that
“Where two railways are worked by one com-
pany, then in the calculation of tolls and charges
for any distances in respect of traffic (whether
passengers, animals, goods, carriages or vehicles)
conveyed on both railways, the distances tra-
versed shall be reckoned continuously on such
railways as if they were one railway.”
Farl of Belmore.] I thought you meant where
one company took the goods and delivered them,
merely handing them over to another.
Mr. Bidder.] At any rate this covers the case
where the two lines are worked by the same
company; that is practically one thing.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] My case is three
distinct companies.
Witness.] May I just correct a figure that I
have given (I made the calculation roughly,
while Mr. Findlay was giving his evidence),
when I spoke of 1,098 miles. I find from a
paper which has since been given to me, where
the figures have been accurately taken out that
(81.)
Q Q 2 the
308
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.]
sº-
the six-mile clause really applies to 1,273 miles
out of our 1,861 miles.
Mr. Bidder.
1514. There is one other matter I must ask
you to clear up. When you said that half your
short-distance traffic was siding to siding traffic,
Mr. LAMIBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued:
did you mean in weight or in mileage 2–I had
weight in my mind, but, as I explained to Lord
Camperdown, it is a very rough estimate, and I
asked his Lordship not to bind me too closely to
it.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. HENRY OAKLEY, having been re-called ; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder. *
1515. ON your system you have I believe a
very large pick-up general traffic have you not?
–Yes, specially in Yorkshire where we have a
long mileage of railway in a very steep country,
and where our greatest loads only vary from 12
to 20 waggons.
1516. And in the case of your company the
proportion of siding to siding traffic is compara-
tively small, is it not?–Yes. I have only one
case from siding to siding; I have a great many
cases of siding to works.
1517. I do not want to go over the whole
story of the expense of pick-up traffic, but I
should like to ask your experience of one point
in connection with that short-distance pick-up
traffic. Is it not the case that you have
necessarily to work your engine with very
much less than a full load 2–Undoubtedly.
Taking a pick-up train, which is altogether a
separate business from a through train, there are
two classes; one a pick-up train that leaves the
traffic at the stations; the other the pick-up train
that takes the traffic from the stations. Dealing
with the first, the outside load that it would start
with would probably be 20 or 25 waggons; it
would drop three at the first station, and there-
fore lose a certain portion of its earning power ;
because the working of the trn fic is, that in the
morning you drop the traffic at the stations and
there is nothing ready for you to pick up
to take on, so that starting your engine
with say 25 waggons, it comes down to
22, 18, 16; and when you have gone on half-way
you have got probably about a third of the load;
so that your earning power at every yard you go
to is reduced, and consequently the expense of
running increases. But that is not all. A stop-
ping train occupies at least three times the time
that would be taken by a through train that
would be going the same distance, so that you
practically have a less load, and therefore a less
earning power; and you have a considerably
greater expense to earn lt. Taking the converse,
when you pick up (and you do that at night),
the train starts with perhaps four or five waggons
and picks up as it goes along ; and at the end of
a distance of 70 miles we will say it finds itself
with 25 waggons, for half or more than half of
its journey having only half a load and rarely if
ever getting a full load. I have some workings
of an actual train for a week in my hand, show-
ing the distances between the stations, the num-
ber of waggons taken up and put down on the
journey, so that the history or daily working of
that train can easily be illustrated if necessary.
1518. Does the examination in detail of that
train confirm the evidence which has been given
Mr. Bidder—continued.
by Mr. Findlay and Mr. Lambert 2—Absolutely.
In fact it is an axiom ; it is indisputable that the
time and cost of working this short-distance
traffic is three, four, or five times greater than it
is with a full ordinary train.
1519. Now then, I want to come directly to
the point at issue here. Taking the case of
siding to siding traffic, does a six-miles charge as
a minimum leave any remunerative margin to the
company ?—No, it does not ; and it cannot ; and
for this reason, that the waste of time at each
end of the journey is so enormous in proportion
to the earning power, that is the time or distance
at which you could earn money, that very item
of expense in the running is aggravated by five
or six times. Waggons are not simply hooked
on to a train when it arrives, you have got to
wait first of all ; you have to shunt into the yard
to get it, and probably there will be two or
three, or three or four waggons or parts of a train
to couple together ; so that you can easily throw
away from a quarter of an hour to half an hour
in the yard before you can get an effective load.
It is impossible to nuake any profit out of a series
of short-distance traffic unless you have a com-
paratively very high toll indeed.
1520. Then taking both your general ex-
perience and that specially minute investigation
in the case of traffic which has to be carried less
than six miles and no further (no long journey
afterwards). You say that a six-miles maximum
does not remunerate the company 2–Certainly
not ; and I am bound to add that so far as the
Great Northern Company's working goes, the
Board of Trade limit is too low, specially for me
in Yorkshire. -
1521. Now I ought to ask you, I do not know
whether you can give the Committee the statistics
with reference to your charging powers upon the
Great Northern system at the present time —
Yes. t
1522. Your short-distance charging power ?—
Yes, 1 can, having profited by the examination
of Mr. Findlay and Mr. Lambert. I have a total
of 638 miles. On 82% per cent. of that, or 527
miles, I have a six-miles minimum ; I have 8% per
cent., or 53 miles, with a four-miles minimum ;
and 9% per cent., or 58 miles, with a three-miles
minimum. But I must add that in each of the
cases where I have the three miles minimum I
have a very high earning power.
1523. A high mileage rate 2—A high mileage
rate. -
1524. The average, I see, on your system
being at the present time 5-06 miles —Yes, 5-06
exactly.
1525. And I may take it, in every case a much
- higher
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES IPROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
309
28 April 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Confinued.
Mr. Bidder—continued,
higher minimum than that which six miles would
work out at upon a reduced toll 2–Certainly.
And further than that, I should have been
entitled to some terminal between siding and
siding under my present powers. The proposed
powers; take that from me.
Earl of Belmore.
1526. Would you put the answer that you
gave so far as this ; that supposing you were not
under any obligation to the public to carry any
short distance traffic that might be offered to you,
it would pay the Great Northern Railway Com-
pany better not to take short distance traffic at
all than to take it?—Certainly at the very low
Tate.
1527. At the rates you charge P-No, not at
the rates I charge, because the rates I charge are
higher than the rates I am going to get.
1528. Then prospectively you consider that the
short-distance traffic will be a losing one *-
Certainly.
1529. And that you would be better without
it, and only have the long distance traffic *-
Certainly, and it is very hard, and it has forced
itself upon our minds constantly, that practically
the long distance traffic pays for the extra ex-
penses incurred in working the short distance
traffic. We must get a dividend, and if we
cannot get it out of the short distances we must
get it out of the long distances.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1530. There is one thing I did not quite
understand, I am sure you will make it clear.
As I understand, what I may call your delivery
train starts with a number of loaded trucks and
drops them at the stations as it goes on 7–
Yes.
1531. It follows that you start with an engine,
so to speak, in full work; as you go on, the
engine is doing less and less, when it becomes,
so to speak, more and more idle 2–Yes. -
1532. That is the dropping train. Now in the
collecting train, the train begins by picking up
waggons; it starts at its minimum of power, and
begins to earn its full complement when it is
getting near to the end of its journey 3–Yes ; I
can give you instances.
1533. I quite accept that from you. But
now I want to know this. At what stage does
this kind of traffic come into play : traffic that is
not merely picked up, or that is not picked up
and taken to the destination of the train, but is
dropped somewhere on the way ?—That is what
we call the short distance traffic, and is worked
by a pick up train, as distinct from a through
train. -
1534. But do you not see that that disturbs
your calculation that you were giving us 2– No.
1535. Wait a moment. The engine according
to you, either began without any trucks at all,
and was getting a fuller load as it went to the
end of the journey, or started with a full load and
was losing trucks as it got to the end of its jour-
ney. I want to put this to you : traffic at half a
dozen places along the line, not wanting to go
the whole distance, but short breaks, which train
Mr. Pembroke Stephens–-continued.
does that class of business?--This identical train,
and that is what we call short distance traffic,
and in respect of which we want a higher rate.
If this pick-up train took a waggon, say, up at
Hitchin to go to York, that would not be short
distance traffic, although it would be carried by
this particular train to Peterborough to concen-
trate with the through train there. The easiest
way of putting it to you is this: Here is a
particular train upon a particular morning, he
starts with six wagºons; at the first station he
stops at he puts off one and takes on four; at
the next he puts off three and takes on three; at
the next he puts off one and takes on nothing;
and at the next he puts off six and takes on
three, and he goes on over a journey of 76 miles;
and by working traffic between the stations inter
se on that 76 miles, and collecting the through
traffic, he lands with 25 waggons at the end, the
highest weight that he has ever had on the whole
journey.
1536. But do not you see that the calculation
we started with was a collecting train or a
delivering train, as the case may be 2–No,
pardon me, that was your misapprehension.
1537. No, I think not ; we started with a
pick-up train and a delivery train, and I began
with you carefully you know. You said you
put it as a calculation of power; loss of power
on the journey; you began with a full train and
dropping off trucks.
Chairman.] But what is the point that you
are now on, because we are of opinion that there
should be a short distance 2 -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Perfectly, your
Grace; ſ only want to get from Mr. Oakley the
fact that he had left apparently out of sight in
his delivering train or collecting train the inter-
mediate bits which, from our point of view, the
short omnibus traffic with short fares are the
paying part of the journey.
Witness.] That is exactly what they are not.
1538. That is the point. Do not you see that
your argument as regards the loss of power in
the engine disappears, if you are at intermediate
stages on the journey, giving your engine its
full work again 2–But that is just the point. I
thought I made it quite clear that in no part of
the journey does it get a full load, including the
traffic it picks up at A. and drops at B., between
the two extreme points; it is always under its
earning power. - -
1539. That is a very different state of things
from an engine started and proportioned to the
full load that was taken out 2
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend is a very long
way from his amendment.
Chairman.] I really think so.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Then I will not
pursue this further.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether anybody
else wishes to ask Mr. Oakley a question.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps it would shorten the
matter if, instead of calling additional railway
managers to speak to their own system, I were
(81.)
310
MINUTEs of Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
to give to your Lordships very shortly the
statistics of the proportion of six-mile charging
powers on other companies. Of course I could
call them to give it, but they are mere formal
statisties, and it might shorten the matter if there
is no objection. The Midland Company, out of
a total of 126 miles, have a six mile clause on
1,001 miles ; a five-mile clause on five miles; a
four-mile clause on 90 miles; a three-mile clause
on 68 miles; a two-mile clause on 19 miles, and
no clause on 86 miles; it is to be a reasonable
SUl IIl -
Earl of Camperdown.] On the Midland line
have you any figures there to show what pro-
portion of the traffic is siding to siding traffic,
and station to station traffic T
Mr. Bidder.] I will ask a question ? I have
not got the figures here. Mr. Noble is, unfortu-
nately, not in the room, but will, probably, come
in and answer that question. - -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Mr. Noble is in
the room.
Mr. Bidder.] Then I will call him to speak to
it.
MR. JOHN NOBLE, having been recalled, is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
1540. CAN you tell their Lordships of your
short distance traffic what proportion is siding to
siding traffic *—I never took out the figures; . I
cannot give an accurate answer, but I should
think the larger proportion would be from siding
to siding. All the heavy short distance traffic
at any rate, namely from collieries to works.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] Then, my Lord, the Brighton
Company have a six-mile limit for 357 miles out
of their total mileage of 460 miles; that is rather
more than three-fourths.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you happen to be
able to state whether the short distance traffic is
an important part of their system.
Mr. Bidder.] I would rather that somebody
came for the Brighton Company and answered
that. -- -
MR. GEORGE STAINFORTH, having been recalled, is further Examined, as follows:
- Mr. Bidder.
1541. Is your short distance traffic an impor-
tant part of your system 2–It is not so imporant
as it is on the northern lines. We have a con-
siderable amount of chalk ard malure, and that
kind of thing, and seaborne coal taken from the
wharves to places at a short distance, practically
from Deptford Wharf.
Earl of Camperdown.
1542. It would be a considerable traffic Y-
A very considerable traffic; seaborne coal
brought in and then taken two miles.
1543. What is your short distance charge?—
Six miles for nearly the whole of our line.
1544. At Deptford 2–Yes; the six
clause applies to Deptford.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
miles
Mr. Bidder.] The South Eastern Company
have a six-mile clause for about seven-eights of
their mileage, and the South Western Railway
Company have a six-mile clause for the whole of
their mileage.
Now, your Grace, I do not think it is necessary
to re-duplicate evidence upon this matter; it is
really reducing itself simply to a question of
quantum, whether six is the right figure or not ;
and it seems to me that there are only two re-
marks to make upon it that are really pertinent
to the subject; the first having reference to
what are the existing powers of the companies,
and the second having reference to what are the
merits of the matter itself, and what would be a
fair charge to remunerate the companies for the
work they do. It is quite clear that if you try
to fix a figure having reference to the existing
powers of the companies, the figure which the
Board of Trade have inserted in the schedule,
coupled with any maximum that the schedules
are likely to contain, is a distinct reduction upon
the existing powers of the railway companies.
It is not to be forgotton for a moment that when
you are comparing in the case of any company
the proposed six-mile limit with the existing
limits, partly six, partly five, four, or three miles,
that you are multiplying by six a lower mileage
rate than they are entitled to charge at present ;
that in most of the cases the maximum charge to
which the six-mile limit applies are charges of some-
like 1 d., 1 ; d. and 2 d. a mile, and that conse-
quently the charges even with a four mile rate, work
out to more than the six mile rate ; will work out
either upon the proposed schedules of the Board of
Trade or any figures that your Lordships are likely
to adopt. Therefore I submit to your Lordships
that it is clear that if you are guided by existing
legislation, in trying to codify the existing legis-
lation and fix at a mean figure which fairly repre-
sents what Parliament has hitherto authorised,
the six miles is thoroughly justified.
Now, look at it from the other point of view.
Is it the case of siding to siding traffic, because
that is the only question at present in dispute,
a three miles limit being accepted in the case of
traffic that does pay a terminal, is in the case of
siding to siding traffic six miles in itself an un-
reasonable limit? You have heard the evidence
of Mr. Findlay, Mr. Lambert, and Mr. Oakley,
and they, one and all, both from their general
experience and from the careful working out of
particular trains, say that taking that traffic by
itself, and of course in the case of short distance
traffic it has to be taken by itself, it is not
remunerative ;
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
3 11
Mr. STAINFORTH.
28 April 1891.]
remunerative; it does not cover the actual cost
to the company; and, therefore, whether you
look at it with reference to past legislation, or
whether you look at it upon its own merits, I
submit that it is clear upon the evidence that the
figure that the Board of Trade would adopt is
a moderate and reasonable figure, which is cer-
tainly not unfavourable to the traders.
Chairman.] When Mr. Findlay, Mr. Oakley,
and Mr. Lambert described their six-miles limit
and said that it did not pay, I understood them
[Continued.
to say that that was in consequence of the future
rates which are anticipated in this schedule being
lower than what they are now allowed to charge;
not did they say that the six miles limit would
not pay them even under the present charges?
Mr. Bidder. -
, Mr. Bidder.] I do not think it was made quite
distinct. Would you allow me to recall Mr.
Oakley and let him answer that question ?
Chairman.] Certainly.
Mr. HENRY OAKLEY ; having been re-called ; is furthered Examinéd, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
1545. YOU said in answer to a question put by
me that in the case of siding to siding traffic
where the entire journey is something under six
miles, the six-mile limit did not remunerate the
company. Had you in your mind at the time
the future maxima, or the existing maxima 2–
The future maxima, I should say. I said that
my answer referred to the future inazima,
Earl of Belmore.
1546. That you said in answer to me?—Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Woodfall.] I do not know if I may say a
word in reply to my learned friend Mr. Bidder. .
Mr. Bidder has called his witnesses, and perhaps
as it is my amendment I might make two obser-
vations in reply. I have literally two observa-
tions to make upon it, and two only, and they
are these : It is now abundantly clear that
whether the six miles is to be refused or not, it is
the very outside of anything that the railway
companies have charged in the past, and if it be as
Mr. Oakley has just said, when he said the six-
miles clause would not pay them, having regard
to the future, surely that is a case to be con-
sidered when we come to discuss the rates. Now,
we are settling generally the principle. If your
Grace and the Committee give me what I ask,
and fix it universally at four miles, it will be
open to the railway companies, when we come to
rates, to say : “This rate will not be remunera-
tive to us because of the general principle which
the Committee has enacted with regard to the
short-distance clause.”
Mr. Bidder.] That would mean putting up the
rates on the whole system for the sake of making
this four miles.
Mr. Woodfall.] Not at all.
The Committee retire to deliberate.
On their return,
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to strike out three and six for the purpose of in-
serting four.
Mr. Shaw.] I think the next amendment, your
Grace, will be in the form of a proviso upon this
clause.
Earl of Camperdown.] There are several
amendments before that. There is an amend.
ment before that to leave out “each” on page 4,
line 34.
Mr. , Murison.] The amendment under the
head of Brunner, Mond, and Company we con-
sider to have been already sufficiently treated in
the preceding discussion. -
Chairman.] Which one is that?
Mr. Murison.] On page 23.
Chairman.] There are three amendments.
There is one to leave out “each '' and insert
“ either.”
Mr. Murison.] I withdraw that.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
We should like to hear whether you have any:
thing to say as to the proposal under the head
of Brunner, Mond and Company as to leaving
out “each" and inserting “either” 2 Q-
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. As that hangs so
nearly upon the other point which Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has answered upon, perhaps you would
allow him to deal with it.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] There is nothing in-
trinsic in that amendment. If the Committee
think that in the compromise which we have
attempted to make as fair as possible, we have
gone too far on the railway side, there is no
reason why the Committee should not leave out
“each * and insert “either.” The effect of that
would be to bar the company from the six-miles
distance clause in cases where they get one ter-
minal. Our proposal is to bar them from the
six-miles short-distance clause in cases where they
get two terminals. The difference is a matter of
quantum, and it is one absolutely in the discretion
of the Committee, I do not think we consider
that any other point hangs upon it.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Pembroke Stephens).]
To meet this point you have suggested four-and-
a-half miles, but I understand you have with.
drawn that. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] No. Sir, I merely
held back because of the discussion as to the Sub-
stitution of four miles for the whole clause; but
now that the Committee have accepted the clause
as it stands, I come now to my proposition for
four-and-a-half miles, and I will put the point
very shortly.
Earl of Camperdown.] You are for the West
Cumberland Ironmasters’ Association, I under-
stand?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether your
Grace follows the money effect of the proposed
(81.)
Q Q 4 substitution
312
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN EEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
substitution to put “either” instead of “each.”
It means that you take away three miles in the
case of one terminal. Now the terminal is 3 d.
A'. r. Hunter.] Not in all cases.
Mr. Bidder.] I am taking the most important,
the coal or mineral, which is the principal one
which governs it all.
Mr. Hunter. Cases may occur under it where
you are dealing with mustard and things in a
much higher class. !
Mr. Bidder.] That is so ; but I am speaking
of the leading traffic which governs it all. The
terminal is 3 d. and per contra, three miles at the
lowest rate in the schedule must come to, as
near as can be, 2-7 d. Consequently if you take
away the 2-7 d. or 2; d. where the company
receive 3 d. a ton, it means that they are to give
the terminal accommodation for nothing; they
get in that case practically exactly the same as
in the case of a man for whom they do not pro-
vide a terminal service, they give the terminal
service for nothing. I do not know if your
Grace follows me 2
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] That is the case where the low-
est mileage is charged. But if you take a higher
mileage rate, they would actually be losers;
because any thing higher than an additional 3 d.
would make it more than 3 d. upon the coal
terminal. Of course it is quite true, as the
honourable Member says, that in certain classes
of goods the terminal is higher ; but that affects
to a very small extent this question.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr.
Stephens).] I see your first amendment is, “Omit
‘ each end ' and insert ‘ both ends.’” That is
identical with “either.”
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am not going to
press that. I do not argue that. I understood
that that point was to be raised by another
distinct amendment, and it seemed to me to be
better, and more sharply raised by that.
Whether that is moved or not, it is not my
amendment now. But, my lords, Ihave a further
point, I do not know whether you wish to decide
the “either ” matter separately.
Mr. º If your point is connected with
that, I should think we might take them to-
gether. º
Mr. Pembroke Stephens...] On the assumption
that the clause stands as it is now, it will have
this consequence : there are to be two categories
of charge ; one is where a station terminal is
chargeable at each end of the transit In that
case there is to be one charge, and where it is
not so chargeable, there is to be a second head
of charge. ... But the second head of charge in-
cludes really two distinct circumstances: one is
that they may get no station terminal at all; the
other is that they may get one station terminial,
Under the clause as it stands, whether they get
the station terminal or whether they do not, they
are equally to be allowed the six miles short-
distance clause. That, from our point of view, is not
reasonable. The first case of all is where there are
Pembroke.
two station terminals,that is terminals at both ends.
Then, surely if that principle is conceded and
established, there ought to be a difference between
a case where one station terminal is receivable
and a case where no station terminal is receiv-
able. There ought to be these three classes:
two station terminals receivable, one station ter-
minal receivable, and no station terminal receiv-
able. Under the clause as it is drawn, it pro-
vides one charge for the case where there are
two station terminals, but it provides a second
charge whether the station terminal is receivable
or not ; and therefore the object of my amend-
ment is this: That you shall have one rate of
charge when you get two station terminals; that
is passed. You shall have another rate of charge,
namely, 4% miles, where you get one station ter-
minal, and where there is no station terminal ;
there is the six miles.
Mr. Pope, That seems to me to be a proposi-
tion which meets the exact difficulty. It makes,
your Grace, a difference between the case where
you get two terminals and where you get one :
and that strikes me is the difficulty which is in
the mind of the Committee, namely, that you get
your six miles, although you get one terminal.
My learned friend's suggestion by his second
amendment would be, I think, a fair one, namely,
that when you get one terminal your short dis-
tance shall be #. miles, where you ...
get none it shall be six miles, and where you get
two it shall be three miles. I do not resist that
with any strenuosity at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will accept that for
Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company. &
Earl of Camperdown.] You have already with-
drawn your amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not.
Earl of Camperdown.] Your junior withdrew
it, I understand P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I would repudiate
my junior. - -
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
Will you give the Committee your view upon
this point 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] The Committee
really know as much about this as we do. It is
quite a logical proposal if the Committee choose
to adopt it. -
Chairman (to Mr. Pembroke Stephens).] Where
would those words of yours come in 2
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If your Grace has
got the sheet containing the amendments, you
will see that there will be certain consequential
amendments, but the rest are merely verbal.
Chairman.] The amendment is: “Page 4,
Clause 8, line 44, after the word “merchandise,’
insert “in respect of which a station terminal is
chargeable at one end of the transit four-and-a-
half miles, or in the case of merchandise in
respect of which no station terminal is ” that
comes in at the end of line 44, I understand 2
Mr. Pope.J Quite so, your Grace. It will
read : “ or in the case of merchandise in respect
of which a station terminal is chargeable at one
end of the transit four-and-a-half miles, or in the .
Gºa,SC
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
3.13
28 April 1891.
case of merchandise in respect of which no sta-
tion terminal is chargeable six miles.”
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If you have got
those words, I will read you the clause as it
should be, if you will allow me. You will have
to strike out the words “not so" at the begin-
ning of line 45, so that it will read: “in respect
of which no station terminal is chargeable.”
Then a little further on, in the same line, you
strike out the words “except as hereinafter
specially provided.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, that must not be
so ; there is a special charge on page 9.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle
says there is a special charge on page 9 to
which that refers, and therefore those words
would stand.
Chairman.] Then those words stand.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes. What I pro
pose then is, to omit the words “not so * at the
beginning of line 45, and then after the words
“ three miles " insert the words of my amend-
ment.
Mr. Pope.] Why not read the clause from end
to end, making amendments as you go along P
Earl of Camperdown.] That is the best way.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] “Where merchandise
is conveyed for an entire distance which does not
exceed in the case of merchandise in respect of
which a station terminal is chargeable at each
end of the transit three miles, or in the case of
merchandise in respect of which a station
terminal is chargeable at one end of the transit
four-and-a-half miles, or in the case of merchandise
in respect of which no station terminal is charge-
able six miles, the company may, except as
in hereinafter specially provided, make the
charges for conveyance authorised by this
schedule as for three miles and four-and-a-half
miles or six miles respectively.”
Earl of Camperdown.] It should be “and” six
miles. - -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] “Four-and-a-half
miles and six miles respectively.”
Chairman.] The Committee are prepared to
agree to that amendment and to insert it.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] As to the next
amendment, your Grace, I am not quite certain
as to the order in which the provisoes come. I
have a proviso which I am prepared to move,
but I understand the Marquis of Bute's proviso
is the first.
Mr. Woodfall.] That is so ; but I think what
the Marquis of Bute wants will be better pro-
vided for by the proviso to be moved by my
learned friend, Mr. Pembroke Stephens, and so,
if your Grace will allow me, I will not bring up
any proviso now, but will ask to be heard, if there is
occasion, when my learned friend brings up his
proviso.
Mr. Shaw.] I have a proviso on behalf of the
Glamorgan County Council which will come next
after the Marquis of Bute's ; but as the West
Cumberland iron-masters’ proviso is rather a
broader one, and asking for more than I was pro-
posing to ask for, it would be better, perhaps,
if your Grace took the broader one first.
Chairman] Cannot you agree upon one pro-
viso instead of discussing three provisoes at the
end of the same clause ? You had better agree
upon one proviso.
Mr. Shaw.] May I be allowed to reserve it
until after the West Cumberland proviso has been
taken 2
. Chairman.] You are asking us to go three
times over the same ground. Surely you can
agree one proviso amongst you.
Mr. Shaw.] I am now instructed that I may
withdraw my amendment in favour of the West
Cumberland proviso.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The proviso, your
Grace, which I propose to ask the Commttée to
insert I will read, so that the Committee may see
exactly what it is. It is to be inserted at the
end of Clause 8, line 2, on page 5: “Where
merchandise is conveyed partly on the railway
and partly on the railway of any other company,
the railway and the railway of such other com:
pany shall for the purposes of reckoning such
short-distance be considered as one railway, and
no other short-distance charge shall be made for
the conveyance of such merchandise.”
Mr. Bidder.] Conveyed in one hand, you
IY) 628,1].
Mr. Pembroke Stephens j No; where it is con-
veyed partly on one railway and partly on the
other. I do not mean in one hand. I do not
mean that joint working which was referred to
in the general Act at all. I mean, if they be
within a limited distance of a very few miles
traffic carried over three railways (whether in
one hand or whether exchanged at the junction
does not matter at the moment, it does not affect
the distance) in respect of the two or three rail-
ways, you shall not have two or three short-
distance charges.
Mr. Pope..] Why not, if each company has the
service to do P
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] My learned friend
can argue that by-and-bye. The principle of
this clause, if I do not mistake, is recognised
at all events. I do not say in so many words, but
I think it is recognised in the model Bili which
affects these various questions. But, my Lords,
it is a very serious matter. Supposing from pit
to port, which I will take as a common illustra-
tion and a common phrase (I am speaking apart
from any particular application; it may be
Cheshire Lines, or anywhere else), but Supposing
there is within a distance of, say, 10 or 13
miles, or even less than that, traffic which is one
traffic going from the point where it arises to the
point where it arrives, and that there is only a
run of 10 or 12 miles, what is the justifica-
tion really for three sets of charges in respect of
that traffic * The traffic managers themselves,
the moment that proposition is put before them
recoil from that and say, “We will not be
unreasonable; it would be safeguarded by the
common sense of railways, and what the trade
would bear,” and so forth, and all those phrases
which are very pleasant to hear so far as they 90,
(81.)
R. R. but
314
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
but which are absolutely, or might be absolutely,
idle by the side of express provisions in an Act
of Parliament. Therefore what we respec-
tively submit, but do strongly urge is this :
There has been a considerable discussion with
regard to what the short-distance charge
should be ; there have been considerable
differences of view in Parlian ent from time to
time even as regards the same railway. The
tendency of legislation, as you have heard, has
been to proportion these short-distance charges
really to the services done, and it cannot be pre-
tended, I think, with any weight or force, that
that there can be any ground for three exceptional
short-distance charges where the run is one and
the same. The liability to these short-distance
charges arises from this fact : that the charges
will be contained in three separate sets of powers.
The company then.selves upon whose line it
would be if it were running the multiple of those
four distances would say at once (they would be
obliged to say), “Oh, the short-distance charge
for that will pay us very well, and we should be
very glad to get it.” But we should merely, from
the fact of the traffic being interchanged at cer-
tain points between two or three systems, become
liable to another short-distance charge. Railways .
are constantly exchanging traffic, and in the case
of traffic worked in those short distances, you do
not, as a matter of fact, hook on two or three
different engines; it is done by arrangement and
concert among the railway companies themselves;
at all events, there is not such an addition of
labour or charge to the railways having got one.
short distance charge as to call for another in re-
spect of the same traffic. That is the principle,
and it is a very important one, upon which we
submit this proviso.
Mr. Pope.] I should like to hear what any-
body else has to say before I reply.
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace, I beg to support
this amendment of the West Cumberland Iron-
masters' Association, on behalf of the Marquess
of Bute. It was really the case that was put on
the amendment we have just been considering, of
traffic which passes from one hand to another ; so
that this state of things might arise : Although it
has been said that the three miles plus the termi-
mal was equal to the six-miles distance-clause,
yet we find the trader objects to this, that he
puys three miles, and in addition to that he might
have to pay two or even three terminals; because
he would pay under the three-miles clause to his
own company who had taken the consignment
immediately from him, but he would pay to the
company or companies to whom it had been
handed over.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. If you look at the defi-
mition of “terminal station,” you will see that is
not SO.
Chairman.] How could he three
terminals.
Mr. Woodfall.] Supposing, as Lord Camper-
down admitted, it was handed over and exchanged
to another company, they might exact their short-
distance clause of three miles for their terminal
service, and we get this case of traffic brought
from the Nettlefold Ironworks at Newport; it is
brought from their own sidings at Newport, a
pay
distance of three miles. There the company
bringing it would exact the short-distance charge
for three miles, plus the terminal. It is now
handed over to the Alexandra Dock Company,
who also may exact their short-distance plus their
terminal service. Therefore we say we shall be
exposed to that danger which would be met if
this proviso was added to the clause.
Earl of Belmore.] I)o you mean that there are
circumstances in which not only three short
distances might be charged, but that also three
terminals might be exacted 2
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes, my Lord, under the three
miles. -
Earl of Belmore.] How could they get three
terminals 2 I know about the short-distance,
but you said terminals. -
Mr. Woodfall.] They would exact it under the
short-distance clause.
Earl of Belmore.] Surely the terminals and the
short-distance clauses are separate matters.
Mr. Woodfall.] Quite so ; but they would
exact the short-distance clause of three miles
which is supposed to be plus the terminal.
Earl of Belmore. At one end ?.
Mr. Woodfall.] Yes. -
Earl of Belmore.] Not in the intermediate link?
Mr. Woodfall.] Not in the intermediate link.
Mr. Shaw.] I would also ask leave to support
this clause on behalf of the Glamorgan County
Council. This affects a great number of works
close to Swansea very much indeed ; in fact, I
am told there are something like 81 works within
a radius of six miles near Swansea, where they
will have to pay the double short-distance
charges between the Midland and Great Western,
and this would be a very very serious tax upon
the works in this district. I would hope that
your Grace and the Committee will see fit to
decide that this clause should be added to the
Bill as is proposed.
Mr. Carver.] I should like to ask your Grace's
permission to support this proviso on behalf of
the Corporation of Preston, whose case is a
special one.
Mr. Pope.] Where is its amendment?
Mr. Carver.] There is no amendment; but I
seek to support the amendment before the Com-
mittee.
Chairman.] Have you an amendment of your
own 2 -
Mr. Carver.] No ; we only seek to support this
amendment. It is a special illustration, and I
think your Grace will be glad to hear it. There
is the Ribble Branch Railway which belongs to
the Corporation of Preston and the London and
North Western jointly ; it is about a mile long.
It connects the branch railway belonging to the
Corporation of Preston at their docks, with the
system of the London and North Western Rail-
way Company, and that one mile of railway is
treated, as I understand, as being a separate rail-
way. We fear that if that is to be so treated as
regards a short distance over their main line, and
then one inile over the joint line, you would in
effect get two short distance charges; and your
Grace,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
3.15
28 April 1891. - Are"
Grace, I submit that that is clearly not a state of
things which should obtain.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know quite what
the particular instances are which are in my
learned friend’s mind. Mr. Lambert, for the
Great Western Company, did not know, and . I
certainly do not know, speaking for the London
and North Western, any case where such a thing
as three short distances may come together.
What may happen, undoubtedly, may be this:
where there are two companies, the traffic not
running through in one hand but being inter-
changed between the two companies (which is a
very rare case), the mileage might be calculated
upon the two short distances if it were dealt with
by both companies, and I do not know how that
is to be avoided unless you repeal the Acts of
both companies; and practically this is what this
amendment would do ; because each company, if
it has to handle the traffic and incur the expense
and do the service which entitles it to the short-
distance charge, ought to be entitled to charge it
although it may have been under similar circum-
stances in the hands of another company. Now,
I do not think that my learned friends are suffi-
ciently familiar with the actual state of the law
upon the matter. If the traffic, although there
were two companies, were worked by one com-
pany, the law as it stands provides that both
lines (the line worked by the company making
the charge and the company’s own line) shall be,
for the purposes of rates, all treated as one line;
the Act of 1868 provides that.
Chairman.] Would you give me a copy of the
Act of 1868 which you refer to. (The same is
handed to his Grace.)
Mr. Pope.] I should be prepared to advise my
clients to assent to this: that where the traffic is
conveyed in one hand over more than two com-
panies, or over two companies, as, for instance,
where it is conveyed by the London and North
Western over the line of another by running
powers, or anything over which the London and
North Western has control, and which makes
the rate the London and North Western rate,
then it ought only to be counted over one line.
But it is impossible ; and I shall ask your Lord-
ships to hear what the managers have to say
upon that, where there is not that relation be-
tween the two companies, but where the traffic is
exchanged, and where each company has to do
identically the same service ; unless you repeal
the law as to short distance I do not see how
you could make this binding. But I am quite
prepared to say, just as the Act of 1868 says,
that where a company work a line it shall treat
it as part of its own line, and the distances shall
be calculated as over one line. So where the
traffic is conveyed in one hand; let me take, for
instance, the Preston case, where the London
and North Western Company might run the
traffic by their own engine from the main
line to the Preston Docks (if ever those
docks are completed and opened) that ought
to be reckoned as one short distance ; it would
be in practice, and ought to be in fact,
But if there would be a separate intervening
company (I do not know that there is) why are
they not to be entitled to have their privilege of
charging if they handle and carry the traffic as
if it originated with them? If the London and
North Western engine, or a foreign engine, runs
with the traffic over a short distance of the other
company’s line, they ought not to charge that,
because they have not got the expense of con-
veying the traffic ; that is in one hand. But if
it is not in one hand they are entitled under Act
of Parliament to charge it, because they have to
do exactly the same service. I should not object,
therefore, to such a provision if it be necessary.
You shall hear as to that from the managers. I
do not know to what particular places it can
refer. There are one or two in West Cumber-
land, no doubt, where two lines are run over
where the traders constructed a line of their own,
and where they take the traffic from the North
Western Company, and have made agreements
for rates. Those agreements between the traders
who own the line and the London and North
Western Railway Company do no doubt include
the short distance on the traders’ own line and
the short distrnce over the North Western in
calculating the mileage. But if your Lordships
pass this, who is to suffer in that case ? The
traders who own the traders’ line P Are they
going to give up the short distance, or is the
London and North Western Company to give it
up 2 If the London and North Western con-
veys the traffic over the whole, it ought to have
One short distance; but if it is handed over and
the traders insist upon having their short dis-
tance, then the London and North Western
ought to have their short distance as well as the
traders. -
Mr. Hunter.] When you use the term, “ traffic
being in the same hand,” do you mean what is
usually called through traffic?
Mr. Pope.] Yes, I mean traffic carried by the
same engine over the whole transit by the same
Company.
Mr. Hunter.] Is not that a matter of arrange-
ment between the companies 2
Mr. Pope.] It may be a matter of arrangement
between the companies, and if so arranged there
ought to be only one short-distance; but it might
not be arranged, and I do not see how you are to
deal with such a question without depriving one
of the companies of its statutory rights.
Mr. Carver.] May I point out to my learned
friend Mr. Pope, that this Bill does not incor-
porate the Act of 1868, and would not include
the section he refers to. This Bill does not
include nor does not refer to the Act of 1868.
Mr. Pope.] Of course it does not, nor to any
general Act. - *
Mr. Carver.] Therefore it is not read with
that section.
Mr Pope.) Of course, it is the general law.
Mr. Carver.] It is to incorporate the Railway
and Canal Traffic Act. -
Chairman.] But this Bill does not repeal the
Act of 1868.
Mr. Carver.] No it takes its place.
Chairman.] Then if the Act of 1868 is not
repealed it is still in force.
Mr. Carver.] That may be a question ; I
think it will be a serious question.
(81.)
R R 2 Chairman.]
316
MINUTES OF EVIT) f. NCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT CoMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
Chairman.] There can be no question that if
it is not repealed then it is in force.
Mr. Carver.] Except that this is to be the
governing Act as you have heard from the
Board of Trade ; they expect all Acts to be
repealed.
Mr. Courtenay /3oyle..] Oh no.
Mr. Carver.] I think it is a very serious
matter to be considered. w
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Pope).] Are you going
to call witnesses 2 -
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. GEORGE FINDLAY, having been re-called, is further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Pope.
1547. I DARE say you have heard this discus-
sion about this duplex short-distance clause 3–
I have. s
1548. Can you, casting your mind around,
think of any cases to which that could apply 2–
I cannot call to mind exactly a case in point ; but
I can recognise in this the fact that it is a clause
intended to be in the interest and favour of the
traders, but that it is incomplete, as it may be
unjust to the two companies who actually exchange
traffic at the point of junction, and does not pro-
vide in the slightest degree, supposing the Com-
mittee enact this clause, as to how that short-
distance clause is to be divided between the two
companies. -
J 549. Quite so. You heard what I said with
regard to my entertaining, at all events, no ob-
jection to one short-distance applying to cases
where the traffic is conveyed in one hand 2–In
all working agreements where a company works
a small independent company, or where a com-
pany exercises by virtue of parliamentary powers
running powers over another company, it is the
universal practice of railway companies to charge
what we call continuous mileage. There of
course the working company or a company exer-
cising the running powers takes the responsibility
of making a through rate and apportioning it
aetually according to distance. But this would
commit a manifest injustice where two small
companies (putting aside any of the great com-
panies of the country) were interested in the
exchange of traffic at a junction, by depriving
them of that compensation which the short-dis-
tance clause is really intended to give them.
1550. The fact is that this clause, supposing
there were only one short distance allowed, does
not say which company is to get that one short
distance f—No ; and I am assuming the case of
two small independent companies, as it might be
in South Wales, where there are many small
companies of that kind. It virtually would take
away, according to my reading of the case, any
short distance clause whatever, and would not
compensate the companies for that extra work
that they have to perform in the exchange of
traffic at a junction.
1551. The truthis, that it would be impossible to
work, because nobody would know to which com-
pany the one short-distance clause was to belong?
—In the form now submitted to the Committee
it is incomplete. As I said before, if the Com-
mittee allowed it, it would require to determine
a second short-distance clause, where the distance
is measured continuously, as it might vary from
half-a-mile to two or three miles, and the Com-
mittee could hardly determine that.
Chairman—continued.
1552. Would you take in your hand the clause
in question. You are quite right in saying that
as drawn it would do away with all short-distance
clause altogether between two companies. Sup-
posing one company has got 50 miles and the
other one mile, the 50-mile company would not
of course have any short distance charge; but
the one mile company would. But according to
that it is to to be reckoned as one railway, and
no other short distance charge is to be made.
Then it would make it 51 miles for the run, and
no short-distance clause at all?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] ‘Is that so 2 If you
read the clause it is only “for the purposes of
reckoning such short distance.
Mr. Pope.] But that reckons it 51 miles.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] No.
Mr. Pope.] I assure you it is so.
it might be, no doubt.
However
Witness.] The clause is imperfect according to
my reading of it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1553. I understand you to say that if the
London and North Western Company were
working over their own line, and over a short
line, a branch line, there would be no difficulty
whatever in arranging that it would be one short
distance clause ?–Yes, and that, I understood is
provided for in the Act of 1868. -
1554. Never mind. Working over the Lon-
don and North Western line and over a branch
line, though two separate undertakings, there
would be no difficulty about this short-distance
clause *—Separate undertakings but continuous
working.
1555. Similarly in the case of a line, not a
branch line, but run over through running powers,
by the London and North Western, I understand
my learned friend to say, that there would be no
difficulty in that case?—Quite true.
1556. The service rendered is in taking the
coal, or whatever it may be ; say coal, a certain
number of miles?—Yes. You will see the
difference in a moment. The two services that
you have been specially alluding to are the con-
tinuous working of one engine, that is, the work-
ing through or the running through, there is no
second engine required, as there is in the case of
exchanged traffic at a junction where two com-
panies have to prepare and bring engines; it is
not receiving traffic from one company to another.
That is the whole foundation for a short-distance
clause payable to each of them.
1557. Outside the engine there is absolutely
- - IlO
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
317.
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
28 April 1891.]
Mr. Pembroke Stephens—continued.
no difference whatever; it is the same truck, the
same merchandise, and the same distance; the
only difference is in the engine.
Mr. Pope.] And provision of sidings, for which
they would get no payment 2
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If it is one distance
calculated through, I do not know what you
want to run out into sidings for. -
Witness.] It must be obvious, I am sure, that
to do the same work with two locomotives and
have the delay in shunting, and providing sidings
is much more expensive than to do it with one
engine working through continuously.
1558. I agree with you ; what is the difficulty,
if money is to be saved, in the three, or two
companies as the case may be, arranging to do it
by one engine without that delay and that diffi-
culty?—There are a great many difficulties.
1559. Let me suggest to you one 2—I cannot
do better than mention the case of your friends,
or some of your friends, the case of the Barry
Railway, who desired by three or four separate ap-
plications to Parliament-to run over the Taff Vale
from Hafod Junction and from another junction
up the Rhondda Valley. That was opposed by
the Taff Vale Company and rejected three or
four times, principally, I believe, upon evidence
which I helped them with in Committee to show
that it was physically impossible for the two
trains to be working in and out of the sidings at
the same time; that it would be a most expensive
and difficult thing to do. In that case Parlia-
ment refused the right to run. Therefore, what
Parliament refused upon the objection of the
Taff Vale Company must have been for sub-
stantial reasons ; and it would be impossible
under those circumstances that those two com-
panies could arrange to do what you suggest
they should do. There are cases such as that
(that is a very important case) where the
arrangement, however desirable primá facie in
itself, could not be practically carried out.
1560. That is a case, you know, which is pro-
bably one of the cases of the greatest hostility
you could select ; but I am taking an ordi-
nary case of traffic, not two companies
violently opposing one another, one desiring
to acquire something hostilely over the
other's line, I am taking the ordinary case
of traffic conveyed a short distance over
two or three lines of railway. Except for the
purpose of making difficulties and getting three
short-distance charges, what is the difficulty of
arranging, if you choose to do so, that one loco-
motive shall run that short distance —I put the
case where it is possible to arrange either by
working or running powers that it shall be done;
but who is to determine except the parties
locally interested in exchanging traffic at that
place, whether that possibility can be accom-
plished or not.
1561. Do you not think that there would be
the greatest possible inducement not to arrange
if the result of not arranging was to get three
short distance charges in place of one P-No ; I
am quite sure, speaking from a pretty long ex-
perience, that there is no desire on the part of
any of the great companies, or even the Small
ones in these later days, to offer obstruction for
Mr. Pembroke Stephens—continued.
the mere purpose of getting additional tolls or
payments.
Chairman.] We have been told that a case of
the three short-distances is not known.
... Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Oh, your Grace, if
it should be necessary to do it, I can prove
OIl62,
Mr. Pope.] If you could kindly tell me the
the instance in your mind, I will acknowledge it
if it exists.
Chairmun.] The gentlemen we have had
coming from the Great Western, the London
and North Western, and the Great Northern,
have all told us that they cannot call to mind
any case where it happens. You are putting
this as an argument to Mr. Findlay upon pre-
mises which he does not admit.
Earl of Camperdown.] You had better stick to
two companies.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I suggest three. You
see, your Grace, that I am arguing this purposely
on the general principle. I want to keep off the
traffic of particular railways, because I may be
told that that is domestic. I am endeavouring
to argue this as a question of principle. If you
ask me for a particular case, I can, of course,
give it.
Chairman.] We have been told that there is
no such thing. You can ask Mr. Findlay, who
probably knows every railway in the kingdom.
We have been told over and over again that
there is no such case, and two will do for your
argument.
Mr. Shaw.] I can give one instance, the case
of Cardiff running to Barry. It runs over three
railway companies, and three short distances
would come in. Goods going from Cardiff to
Barry would have to go over three railways.
Mr. Pope.] It only runs over two.
Chairman.] It does not really signify.
Mr. Pope.] There is no such traffic.
Mr. Shaw.] I am instructed that there is.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am told (and Mr.
Findlay will probably know whether it is so or
not) that in the northern district, in your
Whitehaven district and thereabouts, there is.
There is a traffic of this class which has to pass
over three lines within a distance of under 12
miles. I am told so ; Mr. Findlay will know.
Mr. Pope.] Mention the lines.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Very well. Take
the Egremont and Furness line, the Cleator and
Mirehouse and Whitehaven, or the Cleator,
Egremont, and Workington.
Mr. Pope.] Those are all worked ; there are
only two companies.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] When you say two
companies, one of the railways is jointly owned.
Witness.] The case you give is certainly not
on all fours, because Egremont is upon a joint
line, owned jointly by the Furness Cornpany and
ourselvés. And you gave the case of White-
haven. -
(81.)
R. R. 3 Chairman.]
318
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.]
Chairman.] You need not do that, because you
can take two.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1562. Then I am quite content with two; there
are plenty of cases of that kind.—Yes, and scarcely
any that I can call to mind of three.
1563. Then I will assume a possible three, and
a certain two. Now, then, in the case of two lines
of railway, except for the purpose or with the
consequence of making difficulties by leading
people not to facilitate the passing of the traffic,
what is the good of requiring a second short-dis-
tance charge for the transit of the same material
which could be carried by one locomotive if the
parties were only willing 2—I do not admit in the
slightest degree your proposition of creating
difficulties. It is put to me, what is the use of
these two short-distance charges, except for creat-
ing difficulties in the way of traders, and enabling
two companies to make higher charges.
1564. I have withdrawn than, I am not im-
puting to the railway companies the motive; I
am merely saying, may not the clause if sanc-
tioned in that form and without that safeguard
have that effect in consequence 2–It will have
that effect if sanctioned by the Committee, of
making two short distances either of three or six-
mile clauses as the case in ay be, and for the
recompense for the extra services which those
two separate companies perform, in those two
short distances. To meet your ease it would
mean that this Committee or Parliament practi-
cally should give a mutual running powers clause
over every junction which exists in Great Britain
so as to avoid the charge of the two short-dis-
tance clauses, or not give them at all.
1565. Let me put this to you : What possible
benefit does the trader or the public get from
your splitting up the line into two short-distance
clauses 2–1 do not grant you that the trader
gets any benefit; but I say that there is a per
contra ; that where it is physically impossible,
or cannot be done for want of power, such cir-
cumstances would require to be dealt with in
each particular case, And what very likely
would happen with regard to your particular
traders is that the companies performing that
service should be fairly recompensed for what
they do.
1566. But I wish to put that point, distinctly
to you, and I am sure you will see it. Supposing
the London and North Western engine to take
short-distance traffic a distance of say six or seven
miles they would only pay one short-distance
charge —Granted.
1567. Supposing, on the other hand, that
journey to be broken, and the London and North
Western engine only to run three miles, and to
be unhooked and another engine hooked on to
run four miles, what possible service does the
trader get who would get his whole distance of
seven miles from the London and North Western
engine, what benefit is it conceivable to suggest
corresponding with the benefit that the railway
companies get from splitting the journey and
getting the two short-distance charges 2–It is
rather a long question, but I look at at from the
equity of the case. It is not what the trader
Mr. FIN DLAY.
[Continued. -
--—-º"
Mr. Penbroke Stephens—continued.
gets, but that the company are to be fairly com-
pensated for the work they have to perform, and
which otherwise cannot be performed.
1568. But for what ?—For the reason that the
London and North Western probably, or any
other company, are not permitted or have not the
powers to pass over from their own railway to
this other railway.
1569. The London and North Western per-
form half the service which they otherwise would
perform, and another company is brought in to do
the other half of the service; and yet in one
case the trader would only pay one charge,
while according to your arrangement he would
pay two 2–1 admit that.
1570. That is a clear advantage to the two
railway companies. I want to know, where you
are doubling the charge upon the trader what
possible advantage or corresponding benefit can
you suggest to the trader from that arrangement,
satisfactory as it is the railway companies?—I
have already answered that question by saying that
I do not see the benefit to the trader but I see the
equity of the case from the company being com-
pensated for making the service.
Chairman.] But, Mr. Stephens, your proposal
was that the London and North Western Com-
pany was to carry the traffic down three miles.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Yes.
Chairman.] And another company to take it
on four miles. -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens,] For which, if the
London and North Western did the seven miles
they would get one short-distance charge ;
but for which it divided between the two the
two companies get two short-distance charges.
Chairman.] What I want to know is how
would the London and North Western get
beyond the three miles ; what power they would
have to go over the four miles.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.) I do not say that
they have the power to do it; but I say that by
the mere fact of unhooking the London and
North Western engine, the distance to be carried
in each case being the same, there being re-
muneration for the service rendered, by the mere
fact of a change of engine I am to be liable to
two short-distance charges.
Chairman.] But then the London and North
Western could not get further.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] But what I say is
that I am not taking anything from them. All I
say by my clause is that in the calculation of
distance they will be paid for their transit what-
ever it may be ; but in their calculation of dis-
tance you are not to split it up as if the seven
miles is two railways, but as if the seven miles is
one railway.
Mr. Pope.] Who is to get the short dis-
tance 2 *
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Who gets it in the
Clearing-house now 7 .
Earl of Camperdown.] I want to put one
question upon that remark of Mr. Pembroke
Stephens. You say four miles carried on the
Londo n
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
3.19
28 April 1891.
London and North Western, and three miles on
another line * - - - -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Typically.
Earl of Camperdown. That is the question
you put. Will you answer my question ; four
and three are seven, is it not ? -
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] There is no difficulty
in answering that.
Earl of Camperdown.]. Seven is beyond the
short distance clause ; so, by adding four and
three, do not you do away with all short-distance
clause altogether ?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Will you allow me to
say what I was going to say ? •º
Earl of Camperdown.] Will you answer my
question ? Do you not do away by that with the
short-distance clause altogether ?
Mr. Pembroke Stephens,] If––
Earl of Camperdown.] No. Yes or no.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am afraid I am
in the witness-box now. * g
Earl of Camperdown.] My mind is confused by
your statement. Do you not see that your state-
ment, although it is intended as an argument in
one direction, is perfectly capable, and I think
must bear the construction I am putting upon it,
that it is doing away with the short-distance
clause altogether ? Would you kindly point out
to me how that is not so.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I will endeavour to
do it, but I do not know that I can necessarily do
it by yes or no. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Then as near yes or no
as you can. *.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] In toking the dis-
tance of seven miles I took an unfortunate
distance I quite admit ; I merely took it upon
the spur of the moment.
Earl of Camperdown. Take 50, and one.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I am quite content to
take 50 and one. In respect of the one the
short-distance clause has arisen upon the railway
which carries the one, you cannot get rid of that.
Pray observe, that I am not doing away with
anything that anybody has got; I am only
saying that for the purposes of calculation, where
short distances apply, you are not to multiply
short distances, you are not so to work your two
railways as to get two short-distance charges. If
you have got one mile you would have one short-
distance charge ; you have no right to it for the
50 miles, because it is not a short distance.
Therefore that illustration is not to the point.
As regards the short distance of four and three,
if four be a short-distance charge, as it would be
within six, and if three be a short-distance
charge, which it would be, the argument of the
companies would be, “We have a right to a
short-distance charge on the three, and we have
a right to a short-distance charge on the four.”
It may be that I should have done better to have
taken the distance as three and three, instead of
three and four. I quite admit that, as regards
that probably I was hasty in selecting seven. I
do not care how it is done.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is not very near
yes or no; it is a very long way off it.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If the noble Lord
will repeat his question, i will try to answer it.
Chairman.] But you are answering it.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] What I say is this,
that the words of my amendment are pointed at
this, I mean this, no mole and no less ; I will
read it again. “Where, under the provisions of
this Act, merchandise is conveyed partly on the
railway and partly on the railway of any other
company, the railway and the railway of such
other company shall, for the purposes of reckon-
ing such short distance, be considered as one
railway.” Those are the short distances. But
the use of the word “such" carries you back in
this proviso to the earlier part of the clause,
which leaves the short distances in the earlier
part of the clause only where they arise, not in
the 50-mile case and the one-mile case, but only
where they arise. There, for the purposes of
calculation, you are to have one short-distance
clause and not two. That is the object of my
amendment, no more and no less. -
Earl of Camperdown.] That is no answer to
my question.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Then if you will
kindly favour me by putting the question again,
I will endeavour to answer it,
Earl of Camperdown.] My question was
whether if the London and North Western
Company carries some merchandise for four
miles, and another company carries it for three
(which admittedly is seven) all in one hand,
that does not do away with all charge for short
distance.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] If it goes beyond
six miles, yes. And therefore, my Lord, I said
I think quite ten minutes ago, that in selecting
the seven mile I may have taken an inappropriate
instance, and that admission I make to your
Lordship at once. -
Mr. Hanbury.] Then your point is this, as I
understand, that taking this seven miles if it is run
by one engine over two lines, you would have to
pay no short-distance charge ; but if it is split up
in the way you suggest you would have to pay
two short-distance charges.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That is the point. I
thank you for putting it right. Of course it is ob-
vious that without this proviso we should be under
the separate powers of each Provisional Order of
each railway company, and should have no answer.
Mr. Pope.] Might I suggest that from the
number of speeches and advocates it is very
difficult to know where we are.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens...] I quite agree ; but
in this case I was not responsible.
Mr. Shaw.] I think Mr. Findlay forgot when
he gave the instance of the Barry and Taff Vale
companies, that the Barry Company were given
contingent running powers over the Taff Vale.
Chairman.] I do not think it matters really.
Two is quite as good as three. (To Mr. Wood-
fall.) Have you any questions to ask Mr. Find-
lay ?
Mr. Woodfall.] No, your Grace.
(81.)
R R 4 Chairman.]
320
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] Have you any ques-
tions to ask 2
Mr. Pope.] No, not of Mr. Findlay. I pro-
pose to call Mr. Lambert.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I thought my learned
friend was complaining of the number of advo-
cates ; but I should have thought that the num-
ber of witnesses took up the time. -
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT, having been re-called, is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
1571. WHAT do you say about these two short
distances 2–It seems to me to be only reason-
able that where there are two undertakings, each
constructed with separate capital, the power they
have now of charging their minimum should be
continued to them. I may say that a case that
occurs to me is in Birmingham. There are
various waggon building companies in Birming-
ham on the lines of the three companies; some
on the London and North Western, some on the
Midland, and some on the Great Western. Traf-
fic is interchanged between the companies at the
junctions in and near Birmingham, and there is
an arrangement under which each company re-
ceives from the other a minimum payment for
taking traffic ; say, in our own case, from the
Midland Company at Bordesley Junction to the
Waggon Building Company at Handsworth, a
distance of about three miles or three-and-a-half;
and in respect of that it seems to me that it is
only reasonable that the Great Western Com-
pany, in view of there being a separate under-
taking from the Midland, having constructed
their line with separate capital and so on, should
have the power to make a minimum charge as
between the Midland Company’s junction and
the works of these waggon companies.
1572. How would it be, supposing the question
were that there was only to be one short-distance.
In the first place of course you interchange at
sidings in those cases 2–We do.
1573. Do you run over the Midland line 2–
No.
1574. The Midland Company find a fresh
engine and a fresh service to take the traffic for-
ward to the works?—Certainly ; and we on the
other hand find a fresh engine to take their traffic
forward. It is quite an independent service, but
it is a convenience to these various companies
having sidings in the vicinity of Birmingham
that the companies should interchange the traffic,
but in respect of that they get, as I have said, the
minimum charge which is equivalent to a short-
distance charge of course. -
1575. Exactly. Now I am a little puzzled
myself to know how it could be adjusted. Sup-
posing you run two miles we will say to these
exchange sidings, and the works are on the other
side, two miles on the Midland, and you each
convey for two miles, each find your own engine
and service for two miles ; if there was only one
short-distance, which has to have it?—I am
afraid it would give rise to dispute at once.
1576. I am afraid it would. Just let me see.
Supposing there were no works two miles up the
Midland line, but that you delivered at this
siding to the works, getting it on as you could by
cart, then you would get your short-distance 2–
Yes, we should undoubtedly.
Mr. Pope—continued,
1577. But because it is taken on by another
company instead of carting at the junction you
would not get your short-distance 2–No,
although it is an identical service.
Mr. Hunter (to Mr. Pope). Would the clause
meet your view if after the word “conveyed,” in
line two, were inserted the words “as through
traffic * P .
Mr. Pope.] “Conveyed in one hand,” as
“through traffic " would not do. I think the
honourable Member appreciates the difference.
There might be a through rate between the two
places and because it originates on our line and
terminates on another, it is technically called
through traffic, although it may be short traffic.
If it is “conveyed in one hand,” then I am con-
tent. Of course the Committee knew perfectly
well that we have no power to go on to another
company’s line unless it is expressly given us
by Act of Parliament ; and in this Bill you can-
not give us power to do that ; you cannet give
us the power to go on to another company’s line.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that for my
clients, your Grace, I will be pleased to accept
the proposal of my learned friend, Mr. Pope. I
am not wanting to prejudice my learned friend,
Mr. Pembroke Stephens at all.
Chairman.] Then we had better hear him.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It seems to me, not one
hand, but if it is conveyed by one company
throughout, then there should be only one short-
distance clause. That seems a reasonable com-
promise.
Earl of Camperdown.] Whom do you repre-
sent to-day ? -
Mr. Balfour Browne. For this purpose I re-
present the South Wales freighters.
Chairman.] We had better let Mr. Pembroke
Stephens proceed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pembroke Stephens.
1578. What is the exceptional service which in
your opinion calls for this second short-dis-
tance clause ?—I do not think I could put it
better than Mr. Pope put it just now, when he
suggested that if those goods were brought to that
junction by a cart we should be able to get our
short-distance clause for precisely the same Ser-
vice as we render when the Midland Company
deliver the traffic to us by rail. -
1579. But surely traffic brought to you in a
cart is in a totally different position from traffic
brought
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 32I
28 April 1891.]
Mr. HENRY LAMBERT.
[Continued.
brought to you on the rails where there is nothing
else to do but to hook on an engine 2–No, so far
as the service we render apart from the terminal
service. -
1580. But you have got to include a number
of other considerations that come in 2–No, for-
give me; the service is identically the same, as
I said just now. -
1581. Do you take the view ; are you urging
the view now, that you are standing this claim
upon any legal power you may now have of a
short-distance charge, whatever it may be 2–I
consider that we have the power to make the
charge under our existing powers.
1582. But do you not know that from the
point of view of this inquiry, we are supposing
that that power is no longer to exist, or no longer
to be exercisable in the same way ?—I am not
aware of that. I understand the object of this
inquiry ——
Earl of Belmore.] What power do you refer
to 2
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The statutory power,
which, of course, differs in every case. How-
ever, we need not go into the provisions again.
Witness.] I understand that we are to have
just and reasonable powers.
1583. Is your notion of just and reasonable
this: that if it happens to be geographically two
or three, say two railway companies coming
together, under this short distance charge, the
fairness and reasonableness of which we are now
settling, you are to have that in a very short
distance twice over. Do you consider that is a
fair thing 7—One company does not get it twice
over; each company gets its own short-distance
clause. * -
1584. That is where I am wanting to limit it,
where the effect of the arrangement would be to
give you your two short-distance clauses in a
very short distance 2–Each company would get
its short-distance clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.' I do not want to ask
Mr. Lambert any questions.
(The Witness is directed to withdraw.)
Mr. Pope.] I suggest, your Grace, in answer to
my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne, that it
would meet my reading of the clause in this way:
“Where merchandise is conveyed by the company
partly on its railway and partly on the railway of
any other company, the railway and the railway
of such other company shall, for the purpose of
reckoning such short distance, be considered as
one railway.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that is right;
that is only speaking for myself.
Mr. Pope.] I remove the phrase “in one
hand,” because it might be a doubtful phrase;
but “conveyed by the company ” would be the
company making the charge.
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not know whether
you observe that that might possibly lead to no
short distance at all, “shall for the purposes
of reckoning such short distance.”
Mr. Pope.] I do not think the companies are so
grasping that they would object to that construc-
tion. If they run more than the six miles they
will not charge the short-distance clause.
Chairman.] Let me have the words as you pro-
pose them.
Mr. Pope.] “Provided that where mer-
chandise is conveyed by the company partly
on the railway and partly on the railway of
any other company, the railway, and the rail-
way of such other company shall for the purpose
of reckoning such short distance be considered as
one railway,” and the rest I strike out as being
surplusage. That does not land us, of course, in
the liability which my Lord Camperdown sug-
gests that the seven-miles would land us out of a
short distance altogether. But we are quite
content with that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what I want.
I am not going to preclude my learned friend.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Then this, in effect,
I understand to be very much the clause in the
Act of 1868 over again ; because the Act of
1868 which my learned friend referred to, and
which has been handed in, is where practically
the railway worked by one railway company.
That is the same thing. “Conveyed by the
company ” is the same thing as “worked by the
company ” for all practical purposes.
Mr. Pope.] No—running powers or by agree-
ment or in any other way. The Act of 1868 only
provides for the company that is working. This
would cover running powers, or conveyance by
agreement, or anything you please.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so, it would.
Mr. Pope.] I assure you that the companies
are by no means grasping, if you would only
trust them.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] My learned friend
takes up a suspicious attitude towards me. I
have not suspected him much in the course of
this discussion it is only in this particular case.
Then, yout Grace, the objection to the clause
I think is this: that as this condition would only
arise where the traffic was conveyed by one com-
pany, practically it would happen, or it might
happen, that it would be conveyed by the two
companies, and the tendency would be (I do not
put it higher than that), that the pecuniary
interest of the companies being against what may
be called through conveyance, the tendency of
the clause as now proposed might be to interpose
unnecessary obstacles in the working of the rail-
way; that is to say, that if by the mere fact of
the London and North Western engine so to
speak going through, the railway companies were
to lose or be fined, a certain money advantage
which they would get by the London and North
Western engine not going through, the tendency
of things would be to make it “worked ” not
“conveyed" by the railway, but conveyed by
two railway companies. I submit that anything
on the face of a section of an Act of Parliament,
especially one of this kind, which has in itself a
tendency to bring about not the facility but an
interruption to traffic,is objectionable on that score.
Further than that it does not get over the real
difficulty. The real merit of the case after all is
this, that whoever conveys the traffic where the
distance is short, there ought to be in principle
no ground for getting two charges; and therefore
I say my learned friend's amendment does
nothing to meet that point at all ... My point is
that if you have side by side, I will not get into
mileage, but very short distances, the equity of
the case there is against getting short-distance
charges, because short-distance charges are asked
(81.)
S S for
322
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 April 1891.
for on the ground that there is something excep-
tional to be done, something which does not
require to be done in an ordinary case, but some
special expense, some special trouble, which
arises to justify the short-distance charge.
Surely where the distance is very short, where it
is so short that it would be within a short distance
of two companies, it would require some very
strong combination ofcircumstances to bring about
a necessity for two short-distance changes. My
learned friend’s amendment to my proviso
virtually admits the principle for which I am con-
tending because he says that if the distance is
identical, provided only it is a London and North
Western locomotive that does it, you are quite
right, there is no ground for charging you two
short-distance charges. But then he goes on to
say that because there is a change in the engine,
therefore he is justified in asking for a second
short-distance charge. My answer to that is,
that in the nature of things that will bring
about an unnecessary number of changes of
engines in cases where it would not ordinarily
arise ; and therefore from that point of view his
amendment is defective and bad in principle.
Then I should say that, so far as my learned
friend's argument upon anything that is in the
statutes is concerned, that of course fails after the
statement we have had from Mr. Courteney
Boyle this morning. He says in effect that the
effect of this Act is intended to be that after this
date all existing Railway Acts are to be looked
upon as gone; that we are now engaged in
making an arrangement which shall be fair and
equitable as between all parties; and I submit
that it is not fair and equitable to make this
double short-distance charge. And the fact that
the principal for which I am contending is sound,
is admitted by my learned friend Mr. Pope's
acceptance of the clause, subject to his amend-
ment, which amendment in fact accomplishes or
aims at accomplishing the same thing as regards
distance, though he draws a distinction between
the two engines.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will your Grace allow
me to say oue word upon this amendment. I do
not understand how my learned friend, Mr.
Pembroke Siephens
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Might I ask what my
learned friend is doing? This is my amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have withdrawn my
amendment in consequence of getting from my
learned friend Mr. Pope the promise of a certain
thing.
Chairman.] No, the amendment now under
consideration is the amendment of Mr. Pembroke
Stephens, which is a proviso to insert at the end
of the clause, and I invited all those who had
amendments to the same effect to agree together
and embody them in one amendment, so that we
should not have several.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And ſ withdrew my
amendment. I supported my learned friend Mr.
Pembroke Stephens until my learned friend Mr.
|Pope met us by making a new amendment.
Chairman.] Then if you are satisfied with the
amendment which Mr. Pope made ——
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If that is adhered to
of course I am, but if you propose to depart from
that, I ought to be heard upon it.
Chairman.] You will have justice.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all I want.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Then I think that
the question is ripe for your Grace's decision.
Chairman.] Then the Committee are agreed to
insert the proviso as amended by Mr. Pope.
Now Mr. Browne 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not want to be heard
in that case; I am satisfied,
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Your Grace,
before the Committee adjourns I want to ask a
question. I would like to suggest to you that as
I understand the next point you will take up for
consideration will be Clause 9.
Mr. Pope.] There is something to be brought
up before that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] There may be
some preliminary matters to adjust ; but I want
to suggest to the Committee (and perhaps as
there a large number of people interested in the
matter it may avoid some trouble to them) in
that Clause 9, unlike many of the other clauses,
at any rate. Whether or not it is unlike them,
is in a very great degree mixed up with the
principles upon which maximum rates will be
fixed. I happen to know that the agreements
which have been mentioned to the Committee
will raise questions as between what we have
called, and what everybody will understand here,
questions of simple graduation and cumulative
graduation, in making up the rate columns, and
I venture to suggest to the Committee (and I
think the application will be agreed to by both
sides), that Clause 9 should not be considered at
this stage, but should be postponed altogether
until after the Committee have had put before
them a great many considerations in regard to
the rate columns. I am quite certain that it will
tend to the saving of time, and may possibly lead
to the non-discussion of that clause at all.
Mr. Pope.] I quite concur in what Lord
Balfour says. Clause 9 is a consequential clause
upon the settlement of the maximum rates, and
until those maximum rates are settled we can
hardly proceed with profit to the discussion of
Clause 9 at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I fully concur in what
my learned friend and Lord Balfour have said.
Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald. I have an amendment
to that clause, your Grace, and I was about to
make the same suggestion to the Committee,
that it should stand over for the present.
Chairman.] Then you are all agreed ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have a good deal to
say upon it when it does come up.
Ordered,—That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow ; Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
Die Mercurii, 29° Aprilis, 1891,
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMoRE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Sir Joseph BAILEY.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODE HOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Castle.] MAY I make an application on
behalf of Messrs. Cross, Tetley, and Company,
Limited ? It is an application on matters arising
since this Bill has been before the Committee,
and, as we had the right to do, we have deposited
a petition, and I wish to reserve my right to
appear here when the matter comes on for argu-
ment. It is a matter affecting the London and
North Western private legislation, rather than
one affecting public legislation, and I wish to
add to the list amendments, if it is necessary to
do so. -
Mr. Pope.] I cannot object to my learned
friend being heard ; it is with regard to the case
of the Lancashire and Cheshire Coalowners.
He is interested in that, and when the matter
comes on before the Committee that could be
taken.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Lordships under-
stand that this is to stand over until we come to
the London and North Western Company’s
schedule.
Mr. J. Wrench Towse.] My Lord Duke, I
appear on behalf of the National Sea Fisheries
Protection Association, and I crave the indulgence
and consideration of your Grace and the Com-
mittee whilst I make an application to be allowed
to appear here ; because unfortunately, being un-
aware of the procedure of the House, we did not
take out an appearance upon the day named ; we
lodged a petition against the Bill of the
London and North Western Company at the
proper time, but as I mentioned to your Grace
just now, owing to our ignorance as to the pro-
cedure of the House, we failed to enter an
appearance; and we therefore now beg that your
Committee will kindly consider the matter in
order that when the question of schedules comes
on for discussion, particularly as to the schedules
on page 16, line 15, we may appear.
Chairman.] We will not go into details now.
If you ask to enter an appearance now, that is
your application ?
Mr. J. Wrench Towse.] That is so.
Chairman.] You say you are ignorant of the
law, but that is no excuse you know. However
we will hear you ; you may enter an appearance.
Mr. Pope.] Upon part of his petition, that
which refers to maximum rates, he will be no
doubt in time ; but I see there is a paragraph in
his petition which he can hardly prove now,
because that has been disposed of; there is a
proposal to revise the station terminals and ser-
vice terminals, because they are unjust.
Chairman.] No ; that we quite understand.
That proposal to deal with station terminals and
Service terminals, because you allege them to be
unjust, has been already decided by the Com-
mittee.
Mr. J. Wrench Towse.] Yes, I know that.
Mr. Pope.] Perhaps it would be convenient,
having arrived at the end of Clause 8, if we were
now to return to the discussion upon the clause
proposed by Messrs. J. and J. Colman, and I
believe by Mrs. Tomlinson, which was adjourned,
as your Grace will remember, in order that I
might discuss part of the clause and bring up any
suggestions which appeared to me to be necessary
to amend the existing law.
Chairman.] Had we not better go back to
Clause 5 °
Mr. Pope.] Certainly, if your Grace thinks
best. I did not know that there was anything
left on Clause 5.
Chairman.] Lord Balfour of Burleigh proposed
to bring up some words, “At the instance of
either party,” and so on. .
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh read out the words which he suggested on
our behalf, and those words will be found in the
account of the proceedings that day, the 23rd of
Aprii. But I am told that on consideration the
railway companies have got some words which
they think will meet the circumstances better,
and they have them printed now.
Mr. Pope.] This is what Lord Balfour of
Burleigh read out, it is at the end of the day, of
the 23rd April, and is as follows: “The com-
pany may charge for the services hereunder
(81.)
S S 2+- mentioned
324
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
mentioned when rendered to a trader at his re-
quest, or for his convenience, a reasonable sum
by way of addition to the tonnage rate.
Any difference arising under this section
shall be determined by an arbitrator to be ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade at the instance of
either party.”
suggest any amendment to that part of it, but we
propose to add the words, “The company may
charge for the services hereunder mentioned or
any of them when rendered to a trader at his
request’”; otherwise they would only be able to
charge when the whole service was rendered.
With that amendment, we accept the words of the
first resolution which Lord Balfour of Burleigh
suggested. *
Chairman. Then do both parties agree ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So far as I am con-
cerned, yes.
Chairman.] There are no more amendments
on Clause 5, are there 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend Mr.
Pope was going to propose a modification, I think,
of the remainder,
Mr. Pope.] Then as a substantive enactment,
Lord Balfour of Burleigh suggested, “Where a
trader provides trucks for the conveyance of
merchandise he shall be entitled to recover a
reasonable sum by way of compensation for the
detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable
period; any difference arising under this section
shall be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance
of either party.” As to those words, of course I
do not know whether they were considered
words, but we suggest that they will, as they
stand, introduce questions beyond that which
was the intention of the Committee. The first
comment I would make is this: that the use of
the word “compensation ” would go far beyond
what it was the main intention of the Committee
to provide for, namely, demurrage for the deten-
tion of trucks. The word “ compensation ”
would cover a claim which might be as wide as
the extinction of the trade of the truck owner,
and we might be involved in litigation very much
beyond the amount of demurrage which might
have been settled as the amount for the detention
of the trucks.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] You mean consequential
damages 2 -.
Mr. Pope. J Quite so.
Earl of Camperdown.] What you propose is
that there should be a substantive clause follow-
ing Clause 5.
Mr. Pope.] That is what I understand to be
Lord Balfour of Burleigh's suggestion, and I
quite acquiesce in that. Now if you will look at
the clauses we propose you will see at the bottom
of the page what we suggest to meet the view of
the Committee : “Where merchandise is conveyed
in trucks, not belonging to the company, the
owner " (that is in substitution of the words
“where a trader provides trucks,” etc.)
“the owner of the trucks shall be entitled to
recover from the company a reasonable sum by
way of demurrage for any unreasonable deten-
tion of his trucks, either by the company or by
The railway companies do not
any other company over whose railway the
trucks have been conveyed under a through rate
or contract. Any difference arising under this
section shall be determined by an arbitrator to
be appointed by the Board of Trade at the
instance of either party.”
Mr. Hunter.] May I ask you this ; You say
“ the owner of the trucks”; but supposing that
the trader is not the owner of the trucks, but
only the hirer of them *
Mr. Pope.] It is obviously intended to cover
that contingency, because it speaks, not of trucks
belonging to the trader, but of trucks not belong-
ing to the company.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is open to that ob-
jection.
Mr. Pope.] What other words would you
suggest instead of “owner.” P
Earl of Belmore.] “Owner or hirer.”
Mr. Pope.] If you will give me a moment, I
think we may easily hit upon a phrase which
would suit.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I suggest, Mr.
Pope, the word “freighter’?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think Sir Alfred
Hickman's suggestion “freighter’ would cover
it.
Mr. Pope.] I am afraid that would hardly do,
because the truck may not belong to the freighter.
For instance, a merchant sends his trucks to a
colliery, and it would be the merchant who was
the recipient of the traffic who would be entitled
to demurrage, if anybody.
Earl of Camperdown.] On the other hand,
the person who hired the trucks, the freighter of
the trucks, would probably be the person to
whom the trucks would be going back, and who
would want them back for the purpose of his
business.
Mr. Pope.] No ; the freighter of the trucks
would mean the person who put the commodity
on to the truck.
Earl of Camperdown.] But the truck having
reached its destination and being detained, the
damage would be done probably to the original
coal owner ; because the trucks would be de-
tained from going back to the original loader.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think the words
“owner or hirer’ would meet it ; not “owner
and hirer,” but “ owner or hirer.”
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I suggest “the
person providing the trucks”?
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] What is the objection
to the word “ trader ’’; it is used in the clause
above 7
Mr. Pope.] So far as I am concerned, I confess
1 do not see any objection to the word “trader’”;
but I was waiting to hear what other gentlemen
think about it.
Earl of Camperdown.] It would be a question
of the definition of the word “trader.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that would not
do, because what we want to do is to give the man
who either owns or has hired the truck the right
to something, but not the person whose goods
3, re
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
325
29 April 1891.
are in the truck. The hirer of the truck would
be the person whose goods were in the truck :
but I may add that there are words in this clause
which are objectionable, which I think you had
better settle before you get through the clause.
Mr. Pope.] Unless a better word can be sug-
gested we should be content with “trader.”
Chairman.] We had better hear Mr. Balfour
Browne to see if there are any objections to the
clause generally.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I may say that my
learned friend only gave me the clause this
minute ; but I daresay it was not ready before.
There are one or two things which seem to me
objectionable in it, the first being in line 3.
So far as I understand, if my learned friend puts
in the word “trader,” it is wide enough to cover
everything. Now, in , the third line of that
amendment, I agree with my learned friend in
the alteration he has made upon the Board of
Trade's suggestion ; striking out the word “com-
pensation,” and putting in “demurrage,” I think
is fair. I do not think the Board of Trade in-
tended to give us compensation in any way, but
did intend to give us demurrage for delay of
trucks. I think that is perfectly reasonable :
but I do not like the words at the end
of that line, a “reasonable sum by way
of demurrage for any unreasonable detention.”
We are to have demurrage for any detention
which is improper, and the reasonableness
of the sum that is given will be the measure
whether the detention has been reasonable or not.
It is “a reasonable sum for demurrage or deten-
tion,” and I object to railway companies going
and saying, “It is true you are to receive a
reasonable sum, but you are only to receive it if
the detention has been unreasonable.” That is
not the intention at all. Demurrage means
(whether it is reasonable or not) : If a truck has
been kept beyond a reasonable time we are to be
paid. The words “reasonable time” will limit it,
because if there is no detention there can be no
claim. If the detention has been short, then the
“ reasonable sum ” will be small; but if you put
in the words “unreasonable detention,” I think
you throw it into the hands of the railway com-
panies to show in every case that it was an
unavoidable cause of delay, which would leave
the whole thing entirely in their hands.
Earl of Camperdown.] Demurrage implies,
does it not, some fault on the part of the person
who pays it 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] Therefore any deten-
tion, liable to demurrage, would necessarily be
an unreasonable detention ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] You would not object
to that ; but what you object to is that it
should be “reasonable sum.” Supposing those
words were omitted, would that meet your objec-
tion ? -
Mr. Balfour Brºwne.] I think “reasonable
sum ” is reasonable ; but I object to “demur-
rage,” and “unreasonable detention’ too, because
demurrage means unreasonable detention, and
therefore you do not want that besides.
Earl of Belmore.] But take a case of this sort:
supposing that a bridge went wrong and you
could not get the trucks over, would not that be
a reasonable cause of detention ?
Mr. Balfour Browne j I am not sure for my
truck that it is. - -
Earl of Belmore.] Supposing that a bridge
went wrong, like the Tay Bridge, and that your
trucks were detained P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Remember, my Lord,
that all I am claiming is that I cannot use my
truck.
Earl of Belmore.] But you must take into
consideration that the railway company could
not send the truck back to you.
Mr. Dickson.] The arbitrator would take that
into consideration.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The arbitrator would
take that into consideration and award me a
reasonable sum ; but supposing that in the mean-
time a trader delays the truck of the railway
company, there is no such limitation as that.
Earl of Camperdown.] Could the arbitrator
award you anything else but a reasonable sum ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I think not.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the good of it,
then P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think the sum that
the arbitrator would have to award would be a
reasonable sum having regard to the value of
the truck and the time it is delayed. I do not
mind that in the least if you strike out “any
unreasonable detention ”; because there you
have got it in demurrage already.
Chairman.] Do you contend that it should be
a reasonable sum whether the company have
power or not to forward the truck.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think if they stop our
truck, we ought to be paid for it.
Charmon.] For whatever reason 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For whatever reason.
Suppose that I have a railway truck in my yard
just now, and I stop it because I have not been
able to get workmen to unload it or anything
else, I have to pay demurrage.
Earl of Camperdown.] But is not some de-
tention of your truck absolutely necessary 2
Mr. Balfour Browne..] But then it is not
demurrage. The reasonable use of a truck for
a certain time is of course necessary, and I think
we propose 48 hours as a reasonable time for that.
Mr. Hunter.] Would you be content with the
words proposed by the Board of Trade 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] “For the detention of
his trucks beyond a reasonable period.” I would
be content with those words; and I think, in
fairness to the railway companies, it ought to be,
before those words, “demurrage * and “not
compensation.” Further than that I have an-
other objection to the clause.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope).] Would
you accept the words “beyond a reasonable
period " ?
Mr. Pope.] I cannot accept those words, because
(8l. 11.)
S S 3 - they
326
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TA R EN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
they do not cover the case. I will hear what my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne says, and then
I will reply.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I think, your
Grace, that the last words in that paragraph,
before the words “any difference,” are most ob-
jectionable ; it reads on thus, “ detention of his
trucks " ——
Chairman.] We must settle your other point
first. You object to “any unreasonable deten-
tion ” 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes. Shall I leave it
there and mention the other point afterwards?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well. Then I
am perfectly content with the Board of Trade's
words.
Mr. Pope.] My objection to that is this : I do
not care about the word “ unreasonable.” If
you listened carefully to my learned friend, he
gave a definition of demurrage. He agrees that
this should be the payment for demurrage, and
his own definition of “demurrage * was the “im-
proper detention of trucks.” I am perfectly
willing to substitute the word “improper " for
“unreasonable *; it simply means this : that the
demurrage is to to be a payment for a detention
by the default or act of the company; and I
may suggest to your Grace that it is not a ques-
tion merely of detention for a period for the
unloading of the contents of the truck, as the
words which are suggested would mean, it may
be a proper thing to detain a truck because it is
unfit to travel without danger to the rest of
the traffic or without danger to the public. It
may be a proper detention, and no demurrage
would arise for that. It might equally be an
unreasonable one, I admit, and “unreasonable"
is just as good.
Mr. Hunter.] Supposing that the detention
beyond a certain period was caused by the defect
of the waggon, could that be called detention
beyond a reasonable period 2
Mr. Pope.] I do not think the question of
period would have anything to do with it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The railway companies
have full power to stop trucks that are not fit to
l’Ull]. - w
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend’s contention is
this, and that is really the point between us :
My learned friend says that he ought to have a
clause which will give him a payment for deten-
tion ; that he should only have to prove deten
tion to get his claim for demurrage. I say, No;
that he must prove the right to demurrage; he
must prove something which is improper; and
therefore an “unreasonable detention * may be
read “improper detention.” Then his claim for
demurrage would arise if the detention is im-
proper, but not if it is not ; and he has no claim
for demurrage merely for detention if it be a pro-
per detention.
Earl of Camperdown.] But Mr. Balfour
Browne argues that the word “demurrage * in
itself implies improper detention.
Mr. Pope.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] As I understand him
that is what he said.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It means the defention
beyond a reasonable period, which is improper
detention.
Mr. Pope.] But the period has nothing to do
with it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has everything to do
with it.
Mr. Pope.] It may have something to do with
it, but it does not necessarily follow that it will.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would your Lordship
look at the schedule where the company claim
demurrage, and you will see what it is. The
words are, “the detention of trucks" (it is in
Clause 5, Sub-section 4, page 4 of the London
and North Western schedule). If you look at
that you will find how the railway companies
themselves put it. “ The detention of trucks or
the use or occupation of any accommodation be-
fore or after conveyance beyond such period as
shall be reasonably necessary for enabling the
company to deal with the merchandise as carriers
thereof.” If that is good for the railway com-
panies it ought to be good also for the traders.
Mr. Dickson.] Your argument is that we
should use the very same words 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Just so.
Earl of Camperdown.] And those words, “be-
yond a reasonable period,” are actually used a
little lower down in the same clause,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes; therefore it ought
to be held both ways.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is why they were
suggested here, because they were in that
clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope).] What
is your reason for preferring the word “impro-
per " to “beyond a reasonable period.”
Mr. Pope.] I do not prefer the word “in-
proper’ to the words “beyond a reasonable
period.” What I object to is giving my learned
friend the right to claim demurrage for some
act, which does not entitle him to demurrage.
I simply want his claim for demurrage to arise
as it is at present. As the clause reads at present
the arbitrator might be called upon and we
should be liable to have an arbitrator give some
sum against us for some detention which was
absolutely proper, because my learned friend
says that his claim to demurrage is to arise simply
from the fact of detention. I say, No ; his claims
for demurrage arises from the default. Supposing,
for instance, there is an accident on the line, is he
to be entitled to claim for demurrage for that
Earl of Camperdown.] Then would you be
content to take “for any detention of his trucks
beyond a reasonable period’ ”
Mr. Pope.] “ For any improper detention " ?
Mr. Balfour Browne, No. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Without the word “im-
proper’?
Mr. Pope.] No, because I think that gives him
an absolute right. Supposing that it is limited
to
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
327
29 April 1891.
to the time which my learned friends have Sug-
gested, “beyond 48 hours ”; then my learned
friend says that the mere circumstance that the
truck is detained beyond 48 hours is to give him
a claim for demurrage, and he says that any
detention beyond 48 hours would be beyond a
reasonable period. I say that he is not entitled to
claim for demurrage unless that detention beyond
48 hours is an improper detention.
Earl of Camperdown.] But now observe, we
have given to the company these precise words,
“beyond a reasonable period,” in the analogous
case applying to them.
Mr. Pope.] Where?
Earl of Camperdown.] In Sub-section 4 of
Clause 5.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] “Or in cases in which
the merchandise is consigned to an address other
than the terminal station beyond a reasonable
period from the time.”
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] So that if that is
granted to the company, why should not the
trader have precisely the same thing in a pre-
cisely analogous case ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is no word “im-
proper " there.
Earl of Camperdown.] There is no word “im-
proper’ there. 4.
Mr. Pope.] Because it is not in the least
necessary. That provides simply and entirely
and alone for the neglect of the trader to receive
his consignment.
Chairman.] I am reminded by the Committee
Clerk that we have already passed and dealt
with a great deal of this which we are now dis-
cussing. I will read to you what we passed the
other day.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] The Committee decided to insert:
“Provided that when a trader provides trucks
he shall be entitled to a reasonable sum for the
detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable
period *; and then it was proposed to insert “by
and through the default of the railway company”;
and it was to consider those words “by and
through the default of the railway company ”
that we adjourned the consideration.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so, your Grace, I do not
object, as I said to my Lord Camperdown, to the
words “beyond a reasonable period,” in fact
you have already intimated that they should be
part of the clause. But what I am asking is
equivalent to what I asked them, namely that it
is not to be the mere fact of detention beyond a
reasonable period that is to entitle to demur-
rage, but the wrongful detention by or through
the default of the company. That is exactly
the point where we parted; and by the use of
the word “improper” you do imply that it is by
the act or deſault of the company.
Chairman.] What we have already passed is:
“Provided that when the trader provides trucks
he shall be entitled to a reasonable sum for the
detention of his trucks beyond a reasonable
period.” - -
*-as-s-se
Mr. Pope.] Quite so; and then I asked that
that must be made contingent upon the default
of the company; that it would not be fair to the
company to make them responsible by the mere
circumstance of detention beyond a certain time
if they can justify it to the arbitrator. What I
object to is its being sent to an arbitrator with
the instruction that he is to find a sum for deten-
tion, without any expression in the award that I
am to be discharged from such sum if the deten-
tion is reasonable. e
Chairman.] What words do you propose to
insert 2
Mr. Pope.] “Improper.”
Chairman.] Where 2
Mr. Pope.] What I suggest is this: My
learned friend objects to the words “a reasonable
sum for any unreasonable detention.”
Chairman.] But you are bringing up a clause
now which is to take the place of a clause which
we have already passed.
Mr. Balfour
cannot do that.
l}rowne.] My learned friend
Mr. Pope.] What you passed, your Grace
was to be a proviso ; and I think it was agreed,
when Lord Balfour brought up his words, that it
was desirable that those words should go in as a
substantive clause. I may tell your Grace at once
that I should not dream of going behind what the
Committee have already settled; not in the least.
But your Grace recollects that at the time I asked
that those words, even as a proviso, should be
limited to providing that the occasion of the
demurrage must be the default of the company,
and not the mere circumstance of detention
beyond a reasonable time; and I not think there
is any material difference between your Grace's
words and what we commence with : “Where
merchandise is conveyed in trucks not belonging
to the company, the trader” (as at present we
agree) “shall be entitled to recover from the
company a reasonable sum by way of demurrage
for,” not for the justifiable detention of trucks,
but for an improper detention of trucks beyond a
reasonable period. The detention of trucks
beyond a reasonable period may be either
justifiable or unjustifiable. If it is justifiable we
ought not to be liable simply from the circum-
stance of its being detained beyond a reasonable
time.
Mr. Hambury.] It is “ by the default of the
company.”
Mr Pope.] If you give me “ by or through the
default of the company”: if those words are added
I am perfectly satisfied.
Mr. Hambury.] But what we proposed was by
those words to bring in any other company as
well over whose line it came.
Mr. Pope.] I think not. I thought that his
Grace read the words to the Committee, and my
recollection was that I claimed to add to those
words “by or through the default of the com-
pany.”
Earl of Camperdown.] My recollection is not
very clear. I do not know when this occurred;
but I do remember this: I remember you pro-
posing those words “by or through the default of
the company. I think they were objected to ;
and I remember you also making a remark to
(81.)
S S 4 this
328
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
this effect: that something in the nature of
demurrage, or some term of that sort, would have
to be put in so as to define exactly what the
causes were why demurrage should be given.
But now observe, what you are proposing to do is
to insert the word “improper”; and the result of
that would be to make two limitations, number
1 “improper,” and number 2 “beyond a reason-
able period.”
Mr. Pope.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, that is so; number
1 is “improper,” and number 2 is “beyond a
reasonable period.”
Mr. Pope.] Be it so.
Earl of Camperdown.] You have stated now
that there might be a legitimate detention beyond
a reasonable period.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] How can that be 2
Mr. Pope.] Because you are going to define a
reasonable period.
Earl of Camperdom.] Are we ? I was not
aware of that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is left to the
Board of Trade to determine.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] “By and through the
default of the company ” are Mr. Pember's
words.
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not know that we
are going to define a reasonable period; that is
just the point.
Mr. Pope. But really and truly, the question
is, how is this cause of action to arise ? If you
give a trader a cause of action, although he may
get no damages, we are involved to litigation.
That is not fair. He must take the burden of
the litigation for an improper detention. I am
not wedded to the word “improper.”
Mr. Pope. Now demurrage is not a term of art
which, as my learned friend suggests, defines
improper detention ; we everyone of us know
that demurrage may be——
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a payment, that is
all.
Mr. Pope.] But demurrage does not involve a
payment for improper detention ; it may be the
result of a contract. Take, for instance, a charter
party, in which the owner of a vessel contracts
for so many lay days. Then the mere fact that
in discharging the cargo the vessel exceeds the
lay days, gives the owner of the cargo a claim for
demurrage and the owner of the vessel could not
answer that it was a reasonable period.
Mr. Hunter.] That is a fixed period.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, by contract.
Mr. Hunter.] When it is a fixed period, it
would render such words as “by default "un-
necessary ; but when the words are “a reasonable
period,” it cannot be a reasonable period if there
is no default.
Mu. Pope.] But what right have you to give
a trader the right to bring me before an arbitra-
tor, and to incur the cost of litigation, when I
have not been in default at all ? .
Mr. Hunter.] The answer to that is, that that
is precisely what we have given the railway com-
panies against the traders.
Mr. Pope.] No ; it is not so at all.
Mr. Hunter.] “Beyond such period as shall be
reasonably necessary for enabling the company to
deal with the merchandise.”
Mr. Pope.] That is so of course ; but that has no
reference to detention from any other cause except
failure to receive the consignment.
Mr. Hambury.] Can you make it quite clear to
me why the words which we applied in Sub-
section 4 to companies' trucks should not be
equally applicable to traders’ trucks, when they
are detained by the company ? Why should we
have different words for two sets of trucks?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Why should we have to
justify, and they not ? -
Mr. Pope.] Observe that the circumstances are
not the same. The provision of that Sub-section 4
is that the company are to give notice of the
arrival of the consignment, and that if the con-
signee does not take away the consignment
within a reasonable period he is to pay demur-
rage; that is a totally different matter. We have
no control over the taking away of the consign-
ment.
Mr. Hambury.] But “reasonable period *
covers that too.
Mr. Pope.] “Reasonable period” comes in.
Mr. Hanbury.] Why will not “reasonable
period * do for both sides 2
Mr. Pope.] You ask me to make it clear ; I am
afraid I am not making it clear. To my own
mind it means this : “Reasonable period * are
words that should be used because that would
define the measure that the arbitrator would take
of the damages he might award. But what I
complain of is giving the trader the right, simply
because the truck is detainsd beyond a reason-
able period, to claim damages unless he is able to
show that the detention beyond a reasonable
period arises from some default of the party that
has got to pay the damages. It seems to me to
be giving him a right to claim damages, not for
any wrong done to him, but because by an acci-
dental circumstance his truck is delayed beyond
a reasonable period.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say just one
word in answer to my learned friend ? I say that
the circumstances of the demurrage in the two
cases are precisely the same. If their trucks
come on to our yard, and we keep them beyond a
reasonable time, under the clause that you have
passed we have to pay, and we are not allowed
to justify and say that it has not been an im-
proper detention.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, you are.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We are not, with great
respect.
Mr. Pope.] You are not liable at all until you
have had notice that the trucks are ready to be
unloaded.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Is there any reason,
because we have to pay demurrage, why they
should not ? I say that what is good for us
ought
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
329
29 April 1891.
ought to be good for them. If we were allowed
to say, “Oh, there was a strike, we could not get
the trucks unloaded, and therefore we ought not
to have to pay demurrage,” then it might be
good for the railway company to have the same
power. But we have not got that power. If it
is beyond a reasonable time we have to pay, and
the railway companies should have to pay in the
same way. 4.
Mr. Pope..] May I point out what might
happen unless it is “improper detention" by the
company ? Supposing that a colliery owner's
truck is delivered to his customer's yard, it is not
our truck, therefore we cannot recover the
damage for the detention for an unreasonable
period ; it is detained by the consignee in his
yard, and we are liable to the colliery owner for
the detention of the truck because it is a mere
question of fact.
Mr. Hanbury.] No, it is “by the company.”
Mr. Pope.] It does not say “by the company.”
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Yes, it does.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is “either by the
company, or by any other company.”
1Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly, you have
barred that.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, I think that point is met.
The Committee deliberate.
Mr. Pope.] I have been discussing this while
the Committee has been deliberating; might
I suggest what I think would satisfy
the railway companies, and probably the
other side 2 I will read the clause as I suggest
it might be : “Where merchandise is conveyed
in trucks not belonging to the company the
trader shall be entitled to recover from the
company a reasonable sum by way of demurrage
for any detention of his trucks beyond a reason-
able time by default either of the company or of
any other company over whose railway the trucks
have been conveyed.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is the same again;
“ by default ’’ gets in exactly the same way, and
we would have to prove that it was by default
or improper.
Mr. Pope.] That is my object, that I should
not be liable for mere detention.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that just as we
are liable for mere detention they should be, so
long as it is unreasonable detention in the opinion
of an arbitrator.
Mr. Pope.] The Committee cannot fail to see
now, that my point, of detention in the yard, is
not met by learned friend's suggestion. Let me
put it again, to show the injustice of what my
ſº friend suggests. A colliery owner sends
his truck, we convey it and send it into the yard of
the consignee ; he detains it for an unreasonable
period, the colliery owner claims demurrage against
us for the truck ; it is not our truck, therefore
we cannot recover as against the consignee ; and
the honourable member for Preston pointed out
to me (and I thought it was a sound suggestion)
that it would not be detention by the company.
What difference can the words “by the com-
pany ” or “ by default of the company ” make,
except to mean the same thing? But my learned
friend says we are to be liable for that demurrage
simply from the fact of the detention, though we
have done nothing to cause it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that under this
clause you will not be liable ; that would be de-
tention by the consignee and not by the company.
The answer would be that if you took that be-
fore an arbitrator he would say “that it is not by
the company.”
Mr. Pope.] What difference would “by default
of the company ” make 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I say that if you have
our truck and keep it, you keep it whether by
default or anything; if you have it and do not
return it, you ought to pay demurrage; just
as if we have your truck and keep it, whether it
is by default or not, we have to pay.
Mr. Hanbury.] Can you give us a case of
proper detention beyond a reasonable period?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is no such thing.
Mr. Pope.] I am not asking for the word
“improper ‘’ now. t
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend is
asking for “default,” which covers it.
Mr. Pope.] I will not say I am convinced,
because I have no business to be convinced of
anything. At all events I do not now contend
against the decision of the Committee that the
words “beyond any reasonable time * are suffi-
cient. But what I maintain is that it must be
detention by an act of the company and not by
the act of anybody else.
Mr. Balfour Browne, That is so in the
clause.
Mr. Pope.] Then what possible difference can
it make by putting in “by default,” except that
as I say “by the company ” is not as clear, and it
would require some legal interpretation to make
it clear. We cannot take my learned friend's
admission now as to what the interpretation
would be of “by the company.”
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the words “by default of ’’ and the
clause will run : “Where merchandise is con-
veyed in trucks not belonging to the company
the trader shall be entitled to recover from the
company a reasonable sum by way of demurrage
for any detention of his trucks beyond a reason-
able period either by the company or by any
other company over whose railway the trucks
have been conveyed under a through rate or con
tract.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I shall have to ask you
to stop there, because those last words I object
to.
Earl of Camperdown.] But you accept
** trader ’’ P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so. I think
“trader” will do, therefore I do not want to go
back on that. The only words that I want
altered now are those four or five last words that
your Grace read, “under a through rate or con-
tract.” I want those struck out, and I will tell
you why. It seems to me that all that the Com-
mittee desire is that if by one of two companies.
(81.)
T T the
330
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
the trucks are delayed an unreasonable time, we
should be paid, and that nothing to hamper us in
the proof of our claim should be put in. If, for
instance, there is no contract at all between the
two companies, but Company A., the London
and North Western, allows our truck to go into
the hands of the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and
that company delays it, whether under a through
rate or under any contract, if that is done as a
fact, then we ought to have demurrage.
Mr. Pope.] From the Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, from you, because
the truck is in your hands; you have allowed it
to pass over into the hands of another company
without a contract or without a through rate,
and we ought to come against you. This would
hamper the trade enormously. Supposing We
say that a truck of ours is delayed a week, and
that is an unreasonable time, they may admit it
and say, that it was delayed by the Lancashire
and Yorkshire. Then we say, “Well, but we
want to recover from you,” and they say, “Oh,
we have no through rate with the Lancashire
and Yorkshire. It is true we allowed your
truck to go, and it is true the Lancashire and
Yorkshire detained it, absolutely by default, if
you like ; but we have no through rate and no
contract.” Under those circumstances we should
be debarred from recovering for the detention of
that truck.
Mr. Hunter.] If you have not a through rate
with the Lancashire and Yorkshire, you must
have an independent contract with the Lancashire
and Yorkshire.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Surely not, necessarily.
Supposing that no through rate exists at all, the
trucks are allowed to go to their destination.
All that that means is, that upon those trucks in
the clearing house each company would probably
claim its local rates. There is no through rate,
but the truck may be delayed all the same by
the Lancashire and Yorkshire.
Mr. Hunter.] There must be a contract with
the Lancashire and Yorkshire if there is not a
through rate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not sure of that.
Mr. Hunter.
Surely beyond doubt, express or
implied. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It may be express or
implied. But is it not the common right of every
trader to have his trucks sent continuously over
two lines? He may have that facility from the
Railway Commissioners. Supposing it is so, and
they say : “You forced the truck through under
no contract with us, you were acting under
statutory rights; we handed it over to the
Lancashire and Yorkshire, and they delayed it’;
under those circumstances I say that those words
ought to be struck out of the clause.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether your Grace
cares to hear me about a proposition so unjust 2
Chairman.] No. Those words will remain in
the last paragraph. ... Then there is the last para-
graph : “Any difference arising under this
section shall be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade at the instance
of either party.” Is there any objection to that ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have no objection to
that, your Grace.
Cbairman.] (To Mr. Pope). Will you be good
enough to read Clause 5, because we are not
quite certain that we have it down 2
Mr. Pope.] “The company may charge for
the services hereunder mentioned, or any of them,
when rendered to a trader at his request or for
his convenience, a reasonable sum by way of
addition to the tonnage rate. Any difference
arising under this section shall be determined by
an arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade at the instance of either party.”
Chairman.] Then now there is a new clause.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases; the new
Clause 5 I was to bring up.
If your Grace and the Committee will kindly
allow me, I think we shall understand where we
are better by considering where we were when
the adjournment took place. Would you kindly
take into your hands, not any new clause which
either of us is proposing at the moment, but the
clause which we were discussing at the time,
which is headed “New clauses proposed on
behalf of Messrs. J. and J. Colman,” The object
of the entire series
Mr. Carver.] The clause was originally moved
on behalf of the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, and Messrs. Colman adopted exactly the
same form.
Mr. Pope.] I am much obliged to you. We
are at present looking at the paper handed in by
Messrs. Colman; and, if you will forgive me, we
shall understand each other a great deal better if
you allow me to proceed uninterrupted. The
Committee have got the paper.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope, You will remember that the scope
of the whole of these three sub-sections, which
were moved as one section, was first to compel
the company to keep their rate-books divided
specially ; Secondly, to enable the Railway Com-
missioners to make a general order with respect
to any particular description of traffic, not with
regard to any particular trader complaining, that,
of course, I will deal with in a moment; and then,
that being the mode in which they proposed to
inform them of the materials which went to makeup
the rate,they proposed the other sectionsin order to
obtain a rebate where services were not rendered
or a station provided, and so on. Your Grace
and the Committee have decided to strike those
out and not to provide for them under the form
of 1 and 2. That leaves, of course, the pro-
vision of the General Act of 1888, that in the
case of any special complaint or any desire on
the part of a trader, with regard to a particular
instance, he can apply for the division which is
contemplated in the Act of 1888 as to the amount
chargeable for station, though without dis-
tinguishing each of the four items into which
the rate is divided.
Nów if I follow the grievance that my learned
friend desires to provide for it is just this : that
a trader, whose traffic is sent or delivered at a
siding, and who makes no use of the station either
for station purposes or for service, may find that
a trader who uses the station and avails himself
of
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
331
29 April 1891.
of the service is charged the same rate that he is
at the siding. If he does so find that, then I
venture to submit that any such finding would
entitle him to raise the question under the form
of undue preference. I will deal in a moment
with that. My learned friend says: “Well,
even if that be so,” and he quotes certain cases
to show his contention to be correct, “even if
it be so, the railway company can practi.
cally defeat me, because, if the rate which
is charged to the station equally with
that to the siding, is within the maxi-
mum conveyance rate authorised, the railway
company can say, ‘There is no station terminal
charged in the station rate at all; it is all for
conveyance, just as your rate is all for convey-
ance.’” That is what I understand to be the
grievance that my learned friend desires to pro-
vide against. Now, obviously primá facie one
would suppose that to provide a station, or to do
a service without payment for one class of similar
traffic would be a preference of that traffic over
that for which that service is not performed or
that station provided ; one would hold that primá
facie that was an undue preference ; and I do
not care to discuss, or ask the Committee to
discuss, is
Howard’s case, or of the other two cases which is
have been suggested as bearing upon the matter;
they
Act of 1888. I do not agree with my learned
friend's view as to the effect of those cases. I do
not think they do in any way decide that such a
state of things would not have been, and is not
under the existing law, undue preference. But
the position is a little altered by Section 27 of the
Act of 1888. Now, Section 27 I do not contend
to be intended or to have the effect of altering the
law of undue preference, that is to say, as making
that an undue preference which was not undue
preference before, but it professes to, and is
intended to throw upon the railway company the
onus of justifying any inequality of rate upon the
ground that it is not an undue preference ; it shifts
the onus from the trader to the railway company.
Now let us look at the section, and see whether
there can be any doubt that in such a case the
railway company could be called upon to justify.
Section 27 runs thus: “Whenever it is shown that
any railway company charge one trader or class of
traders, or the traders in any district, lower tolls,
rates, or charges for the same or similar merchan-
dise, or lower tolls, rates, or charges for the same or
similar services, than they charge to other traders
or class of traders, or to the traders in another
district, or make any difference in treatment in
respect of any such trader or traders, the burden
of proving that such lower charge or difference
in treatment does not amount to an undue pre-
ference shall lie on the railway company.” Now,
I pause just there for one moment to apply that
section to my learned friend’s grievance. He
finds that the railway company is doing at the
same rate more for one trader than for another;
that at the same rate he is providing a station
and services in a station for the traffic of one trader,
which he is not doing for the traffic of another.
Can any reasonable man doubt that that is a differ-
ence in treatment in respect of such two traders,
and that if complaint be made of such difference
in treatment, then the onus of justifying that differ-
technically the precise effect of
were both of them, all of them before the
ence in treatment in each particular case is thrown
upon the railway company ? The effect of Section
27 is to make mere inequality, unless justified in
equality of treatment, not of rate only, but ill-
equality of treatment primá facie ground for an
application for undue preference ; and it throws
upon the railway company the necessity of dis-
charging themselves from that primá facie diffi-
culty by justifying the sameness or inequality
or equality of the rate. It is just the same
thing whether the rate is unequal or the service
is unequal, so far as the different treatment of
the companies is concerned. I say, therefore,
that now, at all events, I could not justify an
inequality of treatment of traders in that respect
by saying that it is all within my maximum
conveyance rate.
Earl of Camperdown.] But you have said it,
have you not ?
Mr. Pope.] It has been said, both with regard
to conveyance and terminals certainly, and it
was in Howard's case so said ; that is plain
upon the finding. But it struck me, when we
were discussing it on Friday, that although that
might be stated by the railway company, the
mere circumstance that it is within the con-
veyance rate, ought not to be allowed to
remove it from the domain of undue preference.
Of course every case of undue preference must
depend upon the circumstances of that particular
case ; but I venture to think that the vice of my
learned friend's original suggestion, as well as of
the amended suggestion which has been placed
before me, is this: that instead of leaving the
Commissioners to decide in each case of complaint
whether circumstances of justification might arise
or exist, he would forego the conclusion of the
Commissioners by enacting that there shall be a
deduction from his rate if the inequality is simply
proved. That is obviously not what ought to
be. It could only be dealt with as undue pre-
ference if we failed to justify either the equality
or inequality of rate.
Let me just go a single step further. It might
be also that although services were rendered the
equality of the rate, that is an addition of some-
thing to the conveyance rate, might be justified
by the difference of the treatment of the traffic.
Let me just give an illustration of what I mean.
I do not desire of course to pledge those who
represent these interests as acquiescing in what
I say ; I am far from saying that it might not
require investigation before a tribunal before
my view of that particular rate might be sus-
tained. But take the case of Huntley and Pal-
mer at Reading; that has been suggested as one
of the cases where the Great Western Company
deliver in a siding. Supposing, as is the case
I believe, that Huntley and Palmer's (at all
events it would require to be proved before a
tribunal before justifying the equality of rate),
that the rate to Reading Station is, we will say,
the same as the rate to Huntley and Palmer's
sidings; it may be that if Huntley and Palmer's
sidings were before you come to Reading Station
you could not justify the equality of rate. But
inasmuch as that traffic is taken into Reading
Station and then taken out upon a siding of our
own to be delivered to Huntley and Palmer's
(81.)
T T 2 - works,
332
MINUTES OF EVIDENCF, TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
ass-
works, the question for the tribunal would be,
not the equality of rate, not whether we were
charging to Reading Station terminals or service
for those who use them, but would be whether
we justified the equality of the rate by reason of
the difference of the service which we rendered
to Huntley and Palmer, And that, of course,
must depend upon the circumstances of the
individual case ; it cannot be defined by any
absolute litigation such as I will call the attention
of the Committee to in a moment. What, there-
fore, I suggest would entirely meet this question
is this: Would you kindly now look at Clause A,
which is that which I submit would meet this matter
entirely 2 I should be obliged if any member of
the Committee, to whom I have not made my
previous part of the contention clear, would
kindly interrupt me, because I am only anxious
that we should be at one upon the real conten-
tion.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I then just on
that point out to you the way in which this
proposal appears to meet the case of Huntley
and Palmer, which you mentioned just now, and
in which the distance is greater, no doubt, than
into Reading Station. They propose to insert the
words, “with a just allowance for any difference
in mileage.”
Mr. Pope.] I will deal with that in a moment.
I am anxious, if the Committee pleases, first of
all to deal with the principle which lies at the
root of any clause, and then I will deal with the
phraseology of my learned friend's clause, and
point out where I think it is improper and un-
fair.
Now, what I suggest is this draft Clause A :
“Any trader receiving or forwarding merchandise
at or from a siding connected with the company’s
railway, may apply to the Railway Commis-
sioners under Section 27 of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act of 1888, to hear and determine
the question whether any rate charged by the
company to or from such siding is fair.” I pause
for a moment there. Not in itself as a rate,
because that would be to clothe the Railway
Commissioners with the power to make a rate.
Nobody claims any right to interpose and say
that the Commissioners should say, “Your rate
ought to be less.” It is the question of undue
preference that we are dealing with ; it is the
question of a comparison of the rate charged at
the siding with the rate charged for the same
traffic to a neighbouring station where the ser-
vice is rendered. *
Mr. Hambury.] But there is a preliminary dif-
ference, because you go to the Railway Commis-
sioners instead of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] That I will discuss when we come
to the phraseology of our section. Let me say
that the Arbitration Act, under which the Board
of Trade acts, enables them to appoint the Rail-
way Commissioners for their arbitrations, which
they constantly do. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But the Board of
Trade have nothing to do with undue preference,
and your clause is for undue preference.
Mr. Pope.] Clearly not ; and, therefore, to
refer the question of undue preference to the
JBoard of Trade would be to introduce a new and
conflicting jurisdiction with that which exists for
that particular question. But it will be time
enough to discuss that when we come to discuss
the wording of the clause. I only want at present
that the Committee shall understand the principle
for which I am contending. I say that a differ-
ence of treatment is undue preference, and that
we ought not to defeat it by saying that it is
within our maximum conveyance rate, that we
are not bound to charge anything, and therefore
we include the services gratuitously ; that is to
say, we are not to bind ourselves as was done in
Howard’s case.
But we will go on, please : “whether any
rate charged by the company to or from such
siding is fair as compared with the rate charged
by the company for similar merchandise received
at, or forwarded to, their nearest station from or
to the same place of origin or destination, not-
withstanding that such rates, or either of them,
may not exceed the authorised maximum rate for
conveyance.” In terms, therefore, I exclude the
defence that it is within our maximum rate for
conveyance. The Commissioners will proceed
to discuss the question. Is it a fair rate as com-
pared with the rate to a station ; is it fair to
charge this siding owner the same rate you
charge at the station, where you give station ac-
commodation, and do services P. That is the
question, and I expressly exclude from the con-
sideration of the Commissioners the circumstance
that both rates it may be, or one of them, or the
station rate, is within our maximum power to
charge for conveyance. I venture, therefore, to
submit that that clause meets the whole difficulty.
I should have been prepared to contend that there
was no difficulty to meet, because my learned
friend is not entitled, in a case where we are
dealing simply with the question of maximum
rates, to ask this Committee to make a change in
the law of undue preference. If the law of
undue preference is insufficient to meet such a
case as my learned friend suggests, the proper
place to amend that would have been when we
were discussing the Act of 1888, to amend the
general law by general legislation. Although
this proviso to a certain extent (if my learned
friend is right in his contention about those par-
ticular cases) may be held to vary the general
law, I do not think it does vary the general
law. I am, at all events, prepared to come under
the disqualification that I shall not be entitled to
defend myself from such complaint of undue
preference upon the ground that the rate is
within my maximum authorised rate for convey-
ance. That is the principle I venture to submit.
Upon the words of my clause, I may say that
they have been carefully framed to meet as far
as possible the exact necessities of the case. We
appeal to the Railway Commissioners under
Section 27 because that is the tribunal, and the
only tribunal at present, which has any seizing of
the question of undue preference, and if, in deal-
ing with this question of undue preference you
were to institute an arbitration by the Board of
Trade, you would institute two jurisdictions,
both dealing with the same question, and there
would be a conflict of jurisdiction which would
be highly inconvenient. And therefore we pro-
pose not to alter the tribunal to which appeal
IS
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
333
29 April 1891.
is to be had, but simply to apply Section
27 of the Act of 1888 to the circumstances
of the grievance of which my learned
friend complains, and to enable the Commissioners
especially to deal with that and to settle whether
the rate is fair.
Now I will tell you in one moment, when I
come to discuss my learned friend's suggestion,
what the efiect of leaving it with the Railway
Commissioners is. An order made by the Com-
missioners is an order to cease from unduly pre-
ferring ; and it leaves of course upon the com-
panies the choice of remedying the undue
preference, either by reducing the rate of the
complaining trader, or by raising the rate of the
competing trader, who gets the benefit of the
services. The order of the Board of Trade
being to cease unduly to prefer the station traffic
to the siding traffic, that order would leave it in
the option of the railway company to make such
charge in addition to the station rate as would
redress the inequality or, in their option, to re-
duce the siding rate if they could not increase
the other. That is fair, because, the question
being a question of comparison, it ought to leave
in the hands of the person who is to redress the
inequality the mode of applying this redress.
It does not follow that the rate to the siding is
too high ; it does not follow it is an unfair rate;
it does not follow that it is a rate that he cannot
afford to pay. What he has complained of is,
not the amount of his rate, but that somebody
else, who gets more for his rate, is preferred to
him. The inequality would not exist if that
person were to pay more. And as a matter of
practice, although of course the Commissioners
have no power to order rates or to order
a reduction from rates, they always intimate
what in their judgment is required as the differ-
ence in order to redress the inequality. I have
no doubt that the Committee thoroughly under-
stand what point I am making : that there should
be an alternative, either to raise the one or reduce
the other ; and that any clause which deprives
the companies of that alternative is a clause
which legislates for the circumstances of each
particular case in favour of the trader, and in
every case against the company. You will see
in one moment how important that is in the con-
sideration of what my learned friend says.
Well, now, I do not know that it will be
necessary for me to discuss the clause as intro-
duced by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
or as it appears upon Messrs. Colmans' paper,
because, having forwarded this clause to my
learned friend as what we suggest should be in-
serted to provide against the grievance, he has
exchanged with us a modification of it, which I
presume he will by-and-bye bring up as his
suggested amendment of his original suggestion.
Have you got that?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This follows the form of
my learned friend's clause.
Earl of Belmore.] Then you withdraw Messrs.
Colmans' amendment?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, in favour of this.
Chairman.] But do not you see this; there is
Some irregularity in this, because the discussion
took place upon this clause on April 24th. This
is what we were discussing. That discussion
was adjourned, and now, as I understand, it is
proposed to withdraw it; but how can you with-
draw it because we are seized of it? *
Mr. Pope.] Then your Grace we will go on
discussing the clause that was before the Com-
mittee at the time of the adjournment.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask a question.
There is one clause which is for the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board that has just been
placed in our hands, but the other clause is Mr.
Colman’s clause and there is a difference between
those two clauses. A triangular duel is always a
very difficult thing, and the question is which
clause shall we take.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] For
which clause are you arguing P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] When we got this
clause of Mr. Pope's we tried as far as we possibly
could to follow this form, and to introduce modi-
fications into his clause that would carry out our
ideas and therefore we are dealing with Clause 1
now in substituting this clause which hugs the
shore more closely than the other, and I think it
will raise the point possibly better than going
back to the old clause.
Chairman.] No doubt it is an extremely
irregular clause, but whether by adopting
it and shutting our eyes to the irregularity of it,
we can save time is a question. Probably it
would be better to do so.
Mr. Pope.] I think if the Committee permit
the withdrawal of Mr. Colman's clause and the
substitution of another, it will shorten the dis-
cussion.
Chairman.] Then we will shut our eyes to the
irregularity and go on with the other clause.
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases. Now I
have already read to your Grace the clause
which I bring up and suggest as abundantly
sufficient to meet my learned friend’s grievance.
Although it is not in the same words as Mr.
Colman’s clause, it possesses all the inherent vice
of Mr. Colman's clause which I have already to
some extent pointed out, but I will read it and
criticise it : “Where merchandise is received or
forwarded at or from a siding or branch railway
not belonging to the company ” the words are
inserted there “ or branch railway.” Those are
awkward words. A siding means a siding. A
branch railway may mean not a siding but a part
of the system which is simply going to a small
town and called a branch. I do not like the
word, but we will not pause to discuss it.
“Where merchandise is received or forwarded
at or from a siding or branch railway not belong-
ing to the company or not occupied or used by
the company, the amount charged by the com-
pany to or from such siding or branch railway
shall not exceed an amonnt which is fair, as com-
pared with the rate charged by the company for
traffic of the same class received at or forwarded
from their nearest station at which such traffic is
received or forwarded.” Now the vice of that is
this, that it sterotypes that in no case must the
rate to the siding exceed the rate to the station.
It is perfectly conceivable that it would be quite
fair to charge a rate to the siding greater than
(81.)
T T 3 the
334
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
the rate to the station. It might be that we
could justify a larger rate to the siding than is
complained of to the station, but this would
legislate for the arbitrator, that in no case is the
rate to the siding to exceed the rate to the station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It does not say so.
Chairman.] Order, order
Mr. Pope.] I think it does say so. I will read
it again : “the amount charged by the company
to or from such siding or branch railway shall
not exceed an amount which is fair as compared
with the rate charged by the company for traffic
for the same class received at, or forwarded from,
their nearest station at which such traffic is
received or forwarded after,” not adding anything
in case of excess, but “after making adequate
reductions therefrom in respect of the station
accommodation and any services included in that
rate which are not used by the trader or per-
formed by the company for him.” That legis-
latively assumes that the siding rate must be
reduced because it is to be an amount which is
not merely fair as compared with the station
rate, but after deducting from the siding rate
something for the station accommodation ; that is
to say you are to prejudge the whole question of
the individual case of undue preference, and
legislate that in no case is the siding rate to
exceed the station rate, but the amount of the
station services must be deducted from the
siding rate. That is liable to the same vice; in
fact to both vices, which I pointed out in my
introductory observations. It provides that no
increase of the siding rate could be justified, and
it provides that in all cases there must be a small
deduction from it, “ after making adequate
deductions therefrom in respect of the station
accommodation and any services included in that
rate which are not reſidered by the trader.”
Now I say the vice of this clause is that it fore-
closes, so to speak, the whole question of undue
preference. It says not only that the inequality
shall be an undue preference, but it says that the
inequality one way shall be an undue preference,
and that there must be a deduction from the
siding rate. I do not know that that is my
learned friend's meaning, but that is the phrase-
ology of his clause. My clause, on the contrary,
would leave it open entirely to the arbitrator to
say whether the rate as compared with the
station rate is a fair rate. That is all my learned
friend can ask, although it may be covered by
the maximum rate for conveyance.
Mr. Wodehouse.] With regard to your clause
I should like to ask you one question. All the
clause down to the last two lines is merely de-
scriptive, is it not, of the existing law 3
Mr. Pope.] According to our contention.
Mr. Wodehouse.] The only point that is intro-
duced is that it shall not be a justification of a
question of undue preference that the rates do
not exceed the maximum.
Mr. Pope. Yes.
Mr. Wodehouse..] But let me suggest that the
fact of the rates not exceeding the maximum
even would not make any difference.
Mr. Pope.] That is the whole of my learned
friend's grievance.
Mr. Wodehouse.] Then we are simply re-
enacting the existing law.
Mr. Pope.] If you will excuse me for saying
so, that is exactly what I have been contending
from the commencement, that in point of proof
my contention would have been that the existing
law of undue preference was abundantly suffi-
cient to protect my learned friend, and that he
needed no such clause as he has suggested; but
in order that there may be no contention with
regard to the effect of the cases he quoted and
which certainly he quoted in order to show that
his application for undue preference might be
defeated by our saying that this rate is within
our maximum conveyance rate, and that there is
no, terminal in it at all. I say also, in my
judgment that is covered by the existing law.
If it is not it ought to be, and I will make it
abundantly clear, and therefore I have inserted,
so that there shall be no doubt about it, these
Jast words in the section, not that we declare, as .
the honourable member declares, the existing
law, but we declare it in a form which shafi
render it indisputable for the future, and of
course the honourable member will put any other
questions to me when I have concluded just an
observation which I have to make upon the
remainder of the clause.
Mr. Wodehouse.] That is the only question I
have to ask.
Mr. Pope.] Very well, Sir. Now let us look
at the second sentence, and this is even more
vicious than the first : “Any trader receiving or
forwarding merchandise at or from a siding or
branch railway may apply to the Railway Com-
missioners to hear and determine the question
whether the rate charged by the company is
fair.” Substantially that is of course involved
in my own section, but it goes on, “and the
Commissioners may on such an application
disallow any part of the rate charge.” Now
that would clothe the Commissioners with a new
authority. You will remember I described
to the Committee the mode in which the
Commissioners would make the order, and its
importance to the railway company. This
would enable the Commissioners to fix the rate
which should be charged at the siding, not to
redress the inequality of undue preference, but
to disallow a portion of the siding rate. We
ought to be allowed, and we claim to be allowed,
under the ordinary proceedings of undue pre-
ference, the option either to raise the station
rate or to diminish the siding rate as may be
found the more convenient, having regard to the
whole of our traffic, and the whole of our
system, and the whole of our rates. It might
be that the reduction of the siding rate might
dislocate the rates of 50 other traders, because,
of course, if we were bound by that decision to
reduce the siding rate to anyone complaining we
must be bound to put all other traders under
like circumstances upon the same terms, and it
might be that we should find it much easier to
say to a trader using the station, you must pay
an equivalent for the services rendered, which
the Commissioners would have intimated in their
judgment the amount of, or we musi reduce the
siding rate accordingly ; but this would give no
Option
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
33.5
29 April 1891,
option to us to increase the station rate to cover
the services so rendered. It would simply enable
the Commissioners to fix the rate which they
have no power to do at present, and that is a
power which, although it has been sought more
than once at the hands of the Railway Com-
missioners, has been uniformly denied to the
Railway Commissioners. A public tribunal is
not the tribunal to fix the rate; the people to fix
the rate are the people who control and manage
the traffic, and although it is quite right that that
discretion, which resides in the company, should
be under the control of the public authority, to
prevent inequality and so on, that public authority
should not be clothed with a power to make an
actual rate which this clause would give it. I
say, therefore, that my learned friend's sugges-
tion is vicious in three particulars. It makes no
provision for a possible increase in the siding rate
or for the siding rate being justifiable upon other
grounds than that of mere inequality with the
station rate. It provides nothing to enable the
company to redress the inequality by raising the
station rate, and it seeks to clothe the Railway
Commissioners with a new jurisdiction which has
uniformly been denied them by Parliament.
When it has been suggested, and I say uniformly
refused, notably in the discussion on the very
Bill of 1888, which is the origin of our proceeding,
the power to the Commissioners to fix the rate
was absolutely and distinctly negatived. So that
Iventure to think my learned friend’s clause can-
not be acceptable to the Committee on either or any
of those three grounds, but that the clause which I
have brought up, subject of course to any verbal
criticism which may suggest itself either to the
Committee or to my learned friend, honestly and
fairly does what I promised to do. I believe the
existing law of undue preference to be sufficient
for my learned friend. If he is right in his
statement of a grievance that he may be defeated
upon his undue preference application by any
such statement as that the rate complained of is
within the maximum conveyance power, and
therefore contains no terminal, and we are not
bound to charge for the terminal, as was the
answer in Howard's case, and in, I think, one of
those other cases in connection with the Midland
—in order that that may be put beyond question,
although I agree with the honourable member
for Aberdeen, that the clause itself in my judg-
ment would simply declare the existing law, but
my learned friend thinks otherwise—
Mr. Wodehouse..] Surely it is futile ; if the rate
exceeds the maximum rate there can be no ques-
tion of undue preference, because without undue
preference you can stop it upon the ground that
it exceeeds the maximum rate.
Mr. Pope.] The grievance is not that we
exceed our maximum power as a power,
but that in equalising the rate we do other
service which ought to be charged in the
rate, but which we say is not charged in
the rate, because we are within our
maximum rate. I meet it, however, by say-
ing that I do not think that is the law. I agree
that I do not think we could shelter ourselves
against undue preference upon that; but without
troubling the Committee with arguments with
regard to the real effect of those rates, primá
facie it does seem to point a little in that direc-
tion, and, if I remember, the honourable member
called my attention on Friday to one of those
cases against the Midland Company which
seemed to carry Howard’s case no further than
that, and I say we ought to be able to say that
the station rate and the siding rate are both of
them charged for conveyance only where we do
all the services for nothing. The arbitrator may
have the power of saying : I do not care whether
primá facie it is within your maximum convey-
ance rate. I will ascertain whether, considering
what you do for one description of traffic as
compared with the other, it is a fair rate, and
the equality is fair, or whether a difference
between the rates is fair. That seems to me to
meet exactly the position which I undertook to
supply, if there is such a defect in the general
law, by disqualifying myself in such a case by
defeating the application of the trader in respect
of undue preference, by making any such plea,
unless it is absolutely within my maximum
conveyance powers. Therefore, I venture to
say that the clause which I brought up is a fair
and reasonable clause, that it will do all that the
trader is entitled to ask, and that my learned
friend would seek by his amendment to get
something that would be unjust to the company,
unfair to other traders, and which would clothe
the tribunal with an authority which Parliament
has not thought proper to give.
Earl of Camperdown.] With regard to one of
your contentions, I think it was the first upon
draft Clause A of Mr. Balfour Browne's, you say
in the first paragraph there are words which pre-
vent you from increasing the charges.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would you point out
to me what those words are, because I just want
to make this remark, that, as far as I can under-
stand the clause, and having listened to every
word which you have said, the impression that is
left upon my mind is this: that there is the word
“fair” which is qualified and described “after
making adequate deduction,” and so on. Reading
it in that way, I cannot myself see which are the
words which prevent you from raising both
charges 2
Mr. Pope.] The enactment, my Lord, is that
in no case shall the rate from the siding exceed
the rate charged at the station.
Earl of Camperdown.] An amount which is
fair 2
Mr. Pope.] “Shall not exceed an amount
which is fair as compared.”
Earl of Camperdown.] As described after-
wards? •
Mr. Pope..] Yes; “afterwards making ade-
quate deductions.” Your Lordship must read the
whole thing together.
Earl of Camperdown.] Certainly ; but, “after
making adequate deductions” is a limitation or
description of the word “fair” ”
Mr. Pope.] If your Lordship pleases. If my
learned friend’s clause said simply “fair as com-
pared with the rate charged by the company ”
down to the words “as received or forwarded,”
(81.)
T T 4 there
336
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
there will be no substantial difference between
that and my own clause, but reading the two
together it is to be fair after making deductions
from it.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes; but that is taking
all the circumstances into consideration; but what
I cannot find is this——
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there are any words
in the section, my Lord, to warrant my criticism
of it. But it is inferentially fair. The word
“fair” there is limited and controlled by the
subsequent words; it can only be fair after mak-
ing deductions. Then I say if it can only be
fair after making deductions that excludes the
consideration that it may be fair by making any
deduction.
Earl of Camperdown.] But supposing that after
making these aforesaid deductions for the station
charges in Case A, we will suppose that Case
A is the traffic that runs to the station, and Case
B is the traffic that runs to the siding, after
making deductions in favour of B in respect of
station terminal, what is there to prevent, the
railway company or the Railway Commissioners,
as the case may be, from raising both the
charges.
Mr. Pope.] The Commissioners cannot raise
any charge. s
Earl of Camperdown.] Let us leave the Com-
missioners out; what is to prevent the railway
company making the charges.
Mr. Pope.] They cannot, because the clause
says that it is not to exceed a certain amount
after deducting the terminal.
Chairman.] We had better hear what Mr.
Balfour Browne has to say with regard to it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My Lords, my learned
friend’s clause practically does nothing, and the
very clear and perspicuous decision with re-
ference to the meaning of the Traffic Act of un-
due preference has absolutely nothing to do with
it. This is not a question really of undue pre-
ference. It is really a question of terminal, and
my learned friend has not, from the beginning,
mentioned the word “terminals '' to you. What
we want to get is that we are not to be charged
terminals when we provide our own station. How
we are baulked is that they say we do not charge
anything for station ; it is all under the convey-
ance rate. Now, that is not undue preference.
It is merely that we demand a different rate from
a man who does use the station, and we want to
give the Railway Commissioners the power to
say what that difference shall be. Instead of
that being contrary to the spirit of legislation, I
can show your Lordships that the Railway Com-
missioners have the power just now. They have
the power to fix what shall be paid for terminals.
Is there anything improper in our asking to say
how much shall be disallowed if we do not use
the station ? Nothing. Iłut my learned friend
has all along argued on the idea that we are de-
manding similar treatment to the person at the
station. We are not. We are demanding dis-
similar treatment, because we supply the station
and do not use the company's station. It is not
a question of undue preference at all; it is a
Question really under Section 15 of the Act of
1873.
Mr. Hanbury.] Would you provide for a case
where there was no competition ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly, I want to.
I want to provide for a case where there is no
competition, and my learned friend's words,
“similar merchandise,” simply bar us. It must
be a matter of comparison, and I will show you
how it is done. This is Section 15 of the Act of
1873 : “ The Commissioners shall have power to
hear and determine any question or dispute
which may arise with respect to the terminal
charges of any railway company, , where such
terminal charges have not been fixed by any Act
of Parliament, and to decide.” Now, here is
what my learned friend says has never been
granted to the Railway Commissioners, “to decide
what is a reasonable sum to be paid to any company
for loading, unloading, covering, collection, de-
livery, and other services of the like nature.
Any decision of the Commissioners under this
section shall be binding upon all courts, and in
all legal proceedings whatever.” We could
catch them if they charged a terminal at all, but
the difficulty we have always been in is that
when we go to the railway company and say,
“How much of this rate is for covering and un-
covering 2* They say, “Nothing.” Mr. Findlay
told us distinctly, and we have letters of his in
our possession just now ; and when he was asked,
in cross-examination, “Why did you say nothing
was charged?” said, “That was a technical
answer, we were advised by counsel.” Very
likely; but we are barred from claiming any-
thing under those circumstances, and it is in
order to meet that precise case, and not equality
of treatment, that we are here to-day.
Now, my Lords, let us see if there is any ob-
jection to our clause: “Where merchandise is
received or forwarded at or from a siding or
branch railway,” there can be no objection to
“branch railway,” because branch railway is
used in several Acts of Parliament to mean
“siding.” -
Chairman.] If “branch , railway ”
“siding,” why is not “siding ” sufficient?
In 62,]].S
Mr. Balfour Browne.]. For this reason, your
Grace : for instance, in the case of Mrs. Tomlin-
son, she got power under the Act of Parliament
in express words to make a branch railway, and
it might be held that this was not covered by the
word “siding.” In the Act of Parliament
it is specially mentioned as a “branch railway.”
It is to all intents and purposes a siding, but it
was under the Act of Parliament mentioned as a
branch railway, “not belonging to or not occu-
pied or used by the company, the , amount
charged by the company to or from such siding
or branch railway shall not exceed an amount
which is ſair as compared with the rate charged
by the company for traffic of the same class.”
Now I will tell your Lordships why in the first
place the rate is not to “exceed an amount
which is fair as compared with the rate charged
by the company for traffic of the same class.”
You must get something to compare it with,
and that is why we put this in here.
It
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
337
29 April 1891.
It is not because it is a question of
undue preference, but you must have some
standard to go by, and what do we put in 2 “as
compared with the rate charged by the company
for traffic of the same class.” You are going to
fix that all articles in a certain class are to be
carried at the same rate, and I do not want
“ similar merchandise”; because I would say
that there is no such merchandise carried from
the Thorpe Station, which is the nearest station
of the Great Eastern Railway Company to
Messrs. Colmans’ works. Therefore the clause
would fail; but if you put “merchandise of the
same class” (take mustard or starch) then there
are a large number of articles in the same class,
and you have got something to compare it with,
and it is to be fair as compared with that. And
then we go on, “received at or forwarded from
their nearest station at which such traffic is
received or forwarded after ’’ (and this is what
my learned friend objects to very much) “making
adequate deductions therefrom in respect of the
station accommodation and any services included
in that rate which are not used by the trader or
performed by the company for him.” That, my
Lords, is the whole gist of the clause. From the
total rate something must be deducted because
we do not get the services, and that is why
we are here ; something must be deducted
because we do use not their station. It is
not a question of undue preferences, it is
a question of how much is to be deducted,
how much is to be allowed to the company for
terminals under Section 15. Then we go on :
“Any trader receiving or forwarding merchandise
at or from a siding or branch railway may apply
to the Railway Commissioners to hear and deter-
mine the question whether the rate charged by
the company is fair '' (so far, these words are
absolutely in my learned friend’s clause, so he
cannot object to them, that we are to apply to
the Commissioners to see whether the rate is fair),
“ and the Commissioners may on such application
disallow any part of the rate charged,” that is
fixing the question of terminals. The Railway
Commissioners would, of course, have to consider
what was a fair amount to be taken off. Here is
a total rate, say, of 10 s., and the railway com-
panies say “it is under our conveyance rate ’’;
but the Commissioners would say, “But your
station must be worth something,” and they
would come to the conclusion pcssibly that it was
worth 1s., and they would say, “Off the man’s
rate who does not use the station we disallow the
shilling.” That is not undue preference; it is
not equality of charges at all; it is absolutely
inequality of charges, but it comes under the
powers of Section 15 of the Act of 1873, which
gives the Commissioners full power to fix what
shall be charged for terminals.
Earl of Camperdown.] But have you not got
a clause that definitely fixes, not by the Railway
Commissioners but by the Act of Parliament,
the division into service terminals and station
terminals, which are mentioned in the schedule 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, my Lord; but
that is only if they charge the maximum. Just
take this schedule. They say that the maximum
for conveyance for one class is a penny per ton
per mile; and, supposing this is carried 24 miles,
they might charge under that 24 pence; suppose
they are only charging 1s., then they say, “we
charge nothing whatever for terminals,”
although they have power to charge for
terminals, and we would be debarred from
going before the Railway Commissioners and
Saying, “Split this up”; because, as in Mrs.
Tomlinson's case, they went to the Railway
Commissioners themselves, and said, “We are
charging absolutely nothing for station accommo-
dation, and we would be debarred from getting
the relief that Parliament distinctly intended we
should get under Section 15 of the Act of 1873.”
Now, my Lords, my learned friend said that
there was some objection, because the word
“fair" was limited by the last words “making
adequate deductions"; but that is the case that
you have to meet. It is the case of a merchant
who does not use a station, and on the face of it
it would appear under these circumstances that
he should be charged less than the man who did.
Mr. Hambury.] What Mr. Pope wants is to
have an alternative either to deduct the amount
of station accommodation from the man who does
not use it, or to add a little more on to the man
who does use it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But he can do that to-
day; that is in his own power; he can always add
on to the man at the station, but our complaint
here is that he will not.
Mr. Pope.] Your complaint is that you want a
deduction from your rate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So long as they convey
from the station at inclusive rates they gave the
trader the benefit of the station for nothing.
Mr. Pope.] I understood you to say that you
can compete for this traffic.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Yes, because in this
sense it is competitive. There is a gentleman,
who, we will say, comes and uses the station ; by
hypothesis that is worth something and he ought
to pay, for it. I do not use the station and you
have all along admitted that if I do not use it, I
should not pay for it ; but you catch me by say-
ing “You charge the one man nothing for the
station.” We do not believe it; we know it is
not the fact ; we know the man is charged for
the use of the station who does use it, but at the
present time we cannot catch them ; and under
this clause of my learned friend's we could not.
Earl of Belmore..] You ask that if a man is in
a different trade he should be able to claim a de-
duction but he is not your rival at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not my rival at all, my
Lord, but we must be equally treated.
Earl of Camperdown.] Justice is what you
ask.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is it, my Lord. It
is not at all because I am being beaten out of the
market by another trader that I want to com-
plain, but I say here I do not use your station
and therefore I should be relieved from the rate
charged. With regard to this clause of my
learned friend's, I think the first part of it limits
the law if anything. He has confined our appli-
cation to Section 27 of the Railway and Canal
(81.)
U U - Traffic
338
MINUTEs OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
Traffic Act, although there are many other
sections that deal with undue preference;
and with regard to terminals and other mat-
matters he cuts them all out by that. Why are
we not to be able to complain of terminals?
“No,” he says, “I have limited you to Sec-
tion 27,” absolutely confining our power. Instead
of carrying experience to the legitimate conclu-
sions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, he
cuts it down by putting in one section.
Earl of Belmore.] Supposing a man dealing in
toys at Norwich gets a rate of 1 l. because the
business can live with that man, you claim that
Mr. Colman shall only be charged 19 s, for his
mustard.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, if toys and mustard
happen to be in the same class; and they are in
the same class, because, as you will hear from
the Board of Trade, the circumstances of the
transit are practically the same.
Earl of Belmore.] Then supposing the man
comes and says, “I cannot do a business at l l ;
you must meet me by charging me 19s.” Then
Mr. Colman may possibly come and say, “Give
me l8 s.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so, certainly ;
and I may mention that the Railway Commis-
sioners have reduced the rate for coal from South
Staffordshire, because the South Staffordshire
coal, they thought, was admirably suited for
London, and the South Staffordshire people said:
“ Unless you give us a very low rate we cannot
come into the London market.” And it was
held in that case that that was illegal, and that
they must treat everybody alike. g
Mr. Pope.] And another trader who wanted
to send his coal to the London market came
and said: “The rate granted to the South
Staffordshire people is an undue preference.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That was so in that
particular case, but in this case it is not a case of
undue preference at all. My learned friend's
clause cuts it down, and therefore the words at
the end of the clause, I submit, are illusory.
The question about under or over the maximum
has to do with terminals, and that is why we
brought it up. Nobody ever said whether it was
under or over the maximum ; undue preference
would not lie.
Mr. Pope.] You said so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon ; I
never said so. -
Mr. Pope.] It is the whole of your argument.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I said we could not
with regard to the minimum, and I admitted the
other day that if you could prove the absolute
inequality probably an action for undue prefer-
ence would lie ; but what we are here upon is,
as our clause shows, to get that dissected and
shown whether it is under or over the maximum,
for the purpose of getting terminals disallowed.
Now the terminals are to be fixed by the
Railway Commissioners in every case, but we
cannot get them fixed because they say it is
under the maximum for conveyance ; and my
learned friend has twisted this discussion entirely
away from its point by going on undue prefer-
ence. It is not undue preference ; it is a question
of rebate for terminals; that is to say, that we
should not be charged a terminal when terminal
accommodation is not used by us. We would
have that power at the present time under the
Railway Commissioners Act, only we are barred
from getting that remedy by reason of the rail-
way companies, that they are absolutely charging
nothing for the station, although a man uses it.
Mr. Carver.] My Lords, I would first begin
with this remark, that the railway companies do
admit that there is a defect which is to be
remedied; and, your Grace, I do submit that we
must have made it clear to the Committee that
there is a defect which requires dealing with.
Then I say this, that the Clause A which they
have submitted really does nothing whatever to
meet that difficulty ; and I say also that Clause
A really does nothing more than give to the
trader the power which he already would have.
Let me put a case: suppose the trader to the
siding is charged a rate of 18 S., and suppose the
trader to the station is charged a rate of 16 s., let
me take that case ; I put it where it is charged
higher, of course he could perfectly well now go
to the Railway Commissioners and complain of
that as being an undue preference, because the
two rates, as compared with one another, are not
fair. That is all that this section says he may
do in the future. Then they say that they add
to the existing law by putting in those last two
lines; but those last two lines, I submit, do not
add anything. Supposing the 18.s. rate which I
have just given as an illustration was within the
maximum conveyance rate, and that the 16 s.
rate was within the maximum conveyance rate,
is it to be suggested that he could not now,
under the existing law, go to the Commissioners
and say, “They are unfair as compared with one
another.” Why, there is no doubt about it. It
does not matter for the purpose of going to the
Commissioners at the present time one jot
whether the charge that is made to one trader
and the other is within the maximum rate for
conveyance, or is not within the maximum rate
for conveyance; and, therefore, your Grace,
these two lines which appear to introduce the
only new element are purely delusive. -
Now, your Grace, let me examine this draft
Clause A a little further. They say that we
may apply under Section 27 of the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act, 1888. Well, one would sup-
pose, seeing that Section 27 gives some powers
to the Commissioners, that, therefore, we were to
apply under that section to ask them to exercise
their powers. If you refer to Section 27, it does
not do anything of the kind. Section 27 does
not confer any power upon the Commis-
sioners. It has three sub-sections. The first is
that under certain circumstances the burden
of proving that the lower charge or difference in
treatment does not amount to an undue preference
shall lie on the railway company; the second
sub-section is that in deciding this question the
court having jurisdiction in the matter, or the
Commissioners, as the case may be, are to take
into consideration certain matters; and the third
sub-section limits their powers: it does not
increase them, it limits their powers and says
that
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
339
29 April 1891.
that the court or the Commissioners shall have
power to direct that no higher charge shall be
made to any person for services in respect of
, merchandise, I think I am wrong in saying that
it does not give them a power. It does give
them a power, but it is a power that is against
us. It says, “The court or the Commissioners
shall have power to direct that no higher charge
shall be made to any person for services in
respect of merchandise carried over a less distance
than is made to any other person for similar
services in respect of the like description and
quantity of merchandise carried over a greater
distance on the same line of railway.” There-
fore, my Lords, that Section 27 does not give
the Commissioners any power which we could go
and ask them to enforce in our favour; but then the
reference to Section 27 although it has no positive
effect has a most injurious negative effect as
against the trader; and I say it has a most pre-
judicial and negative effect as against us in this'
way : By referring to Section 27, it is in effect
saying to the Commissioners, You have got to
consider the question of whether this rate is fair
on the footing of undue preference or not.
Therefore, by referring to Section 27, they bring
in all the old considerations about undue pre-
ference and so bring in, as I submit again and
with confidence, notwithstanding my learned
friend Mr. Pope's remarks, the whole effect of
Howard’s case. ,
Chairman.] Do you mean to say that under
Clause 27 you have no power to go the Commis-
'sioners to get a remedy for any grievance that
you may have 2 .
Mr. Carver.] I submit, your Grace, that Sec-
tion 27 does not give the Commissioners any new
power.
Chairman.] But under Section 27 you said
that you as a trader had no power. to go before
them.
Mr. Carver.] I did not mean to say that, your
Grace. I say that Section 27 does not give the
Commissioners any new power which they could
exercise in our favour. They merely have a
general power under other sections of dealing
with questions of undue preference. But Section
27, however, prescribes certain rules when they are
dealing with that question ; it prescribes the rule
that the burden of proving the matter shall be
upon the railway companies; and it also provides
that the Commissioners shall take certain things
into consideration in determining it ; but it does
not add to the powers of the Commissioners.
And therefore this is my point, that all this
merely lands you back in the old law of undue
preference.
Earl of Belmore.] And prevents you from
evading it, or the railway company from evading
it 2
Mr. Carver.] With great deference, I think
that is not so, my Lord.
Earl of Belmore.] You are asking for more
than that ; you are asking that they should be
prevented from evading the law, but that they
should have further powers; is not that so?
Mr. Carver.] We are, my Lord, in this diffi-
culty —— -
Earl of Belmore.] But as I understand, Mr.
Pope offers you a clause to bar the companies
from doing what he says is unfair, that is to say
evading the law ; and you are asking that the
Commissioners should have the power to go
beyond that, and give some further benefit to the
traders. * r
Mr. Carver.] If we make out that this draft
clause A did enable the Commissioners to do that
we should be very glad to get rid of this unfair-
ness; but the difficulty, my Lord, is, and this is
my contention, that it merely lands you back in
the old position under the Commissioners.
Mr. Pope.] I distinctly told the Committee
that in my judgment, Section 27, did not extend
the existing law of undue preference, but simply
shifted the onus of justification, and I cffered
that in order that we might meet what I thought
was the contention that we could avoid that
responsibility by saying that we do not charge
station terminals.
Mr. Carver.] There is no word of that sort in
here. But my point, my Lords (and I think it
is a perfectly plain point), is that this clause only
lands you back in the old state of the law, and
that state of the law is shown by Howard’s case,
and by Beeston Brewery case, and our object is
to have what seems to be the state of the law put
right. In Howard's case they were not allowed
to have a rebate in respect of the station accom-
modation which they did not use, and the Com-
missioners put it upon a quite clear ground,
which was that they had the opportunity of
using that station accommodation, and it being
more for their convenience to use that siding
they had no right to complain, and could not
therefore have any remedy. Now it is that that
we want to get rid of, because we submit (and
as I say it is written all over the face of this
Bill) that your Lordships’ Committee are going
to establish the principal that a man shall pay for
that which he has, and shall not be obliged to
pay for that which he does not have ; and
that is the principle which the Commissioners
under these cases that I have mentioned did not
recognise, and in fact said was not the law ; and
therefore, my Lords, we have that grievance,
and this clause, by throwing us back upon the
old law, leaves us exactly in as bad a position as
we were in before, and does not touch the
grievance which we submit, with great deference,
to your Committee. Therefore, my Lords, on
that point, that is the criticism which really
attacks the whole of Clause A, and I cannot see
how Clause A can be amended in its present
form so as to make it operative to cure the
traders' grievances. We have, by re-casting our
section, tried to avoid what we understood was
objected to by my learned friend Mr. Pope that
our language was objectionable ; and therefore,
in re-casting thal, clause, your Lordships will see
that we have tried as closely as possibly to use
the operative words used by the railway com-
pany. Of course, the important words in our
clause are, “shall not exceed an amount which
is fair as compared with the rate charged by the
company,” and so on. We have taken those
words from the middle of my learned friend's
clause, because that seems to be the form in
(81.)
U U 2 which
340
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
which llley seem to prefer them, and in that way
we have modified them. But what we are seek-
ing to do is to lay down the principle that a
rebate shall be allowed, and they do not offer any
substitute for it. We ask for a principle and
they give us a procedure. They do not touch
that grievance which we have at all, and they do
not provide any kind of remedy.
Now, with regard to the criticisms which my
learned friend, Mr. Pope, made upon our clause,
I should like to make one remark upon that. His
first criticism is this (he has three); he says first
that it would give no opportunity of making the
siding rate higher than the station rate. I say
that that is not so ; that if adequate reason were
shown to the tribunal who had to determine this
matter, he could under this clause quite well
make the siding rate higher than the station rate.
Because what is the clause It says that you
must determine whether the siding rate is fair as
compared with the station rate which is being
charged, because it is to be the rate which is
being charged after taking out of that station rate
the station terminal, or rather the charge for
station accommodation and for services at the
station. You have got to take out of the station
rate those items when they have been estimated
by the terminal ; that is the only way in which
they can be estimated ; and, having taken that
out, you are to compare that station rate with the
siding rate, and say whether they are fair :
and if there are special circumstances attaching
to the siding, it is quite possible that the siding
rate might then properly be put higher than the
Stat 101) rate.
such a case.
haulage. In the first part of our clause, your
Lordships will see we have provided for that by
putting in words.
Mr. Pope.] We are not discussing that.
Chairman.] We will not go back to the
clause.
Mr. Carver.] I am not going back to the
clause. I say this : that we have provided for
that by allowing for a difference in mileage.
But here it becomes unnecessary ; and that is
why we did not repeat the words, because it is
to be fair as compared with that railway rate;
so that there is nothing, I venture to say, with
confidence, nothing whatever in that first criti-
cism of my learned friend Mr. Pope.
The second criticism was, that under our pro-
posal there would be no opportunity given to
the railway company (and this was his great
point) to alter the inequality by raising one
instead of depressing the other. Why, they
have that opportunity every day of their
lives. They had it before they ever came
into Court at , all. It is they themselves
who have fixed the two rates : nodody has fixed
them for them ; and it is because they have fixed
the two rates that we asked to have redress. To
say that we have no opportunity is merely to say
that when we have been obliged to pay this rate,
which we will suppose the Commissioners find to
be improper, that they shall not then, in order to
prevent us getting our money back, be allowed
to adjust the inequality in a different way.
But all the time they have been at liberty to fix
It is quite possible to conceive of
There might be a small length of
the rates as they choose. Therefore, again I say
that there is nothing in the second point that was
made against our clause.
And what is the third point P The third point
was that this is going to give a new jurisdiction
to the Railway Commissioners. Says my
learned friend, the Commissioners never have had
power to fix rates. I think my learned friend
Mr. Balfour Browne has given some instances,
let me suggest another. The power to fix through
ratesis expressly given to the Railway Commissions
in the Act of 1888. But what is given in this
Bill? In every clause of this Bill, almost we
have a power to somebody to adjust rates.
Let me take the case of station terminals.
Those station terminals are to be flxed not
by the Railway Commissioners, because your
Grace and the Committee preferred, I think,
the Board of Trade as the tribunal. But there
is the same power, there is no anomaly in it; it
is only giving them the power to fix the rebates
in the same way that somebody else or the Com-
missioners themselves are given the power to fix
the charges. The station terminal is to be fixed
by an authority, and we ask that the rebate shall
also be fixed by an authority. Therefore I
really fail to see in regard to any one of the three
criticisms which have been launched with so
great force no doubt, and ability and power by
my learned friend, that there is anything sub-
stantial in any one of them.
Now, your Grace, it may be that our clause is
an imperfect clause ; it may be that it goes a
little too far, as has been suggested by one of
your Lordships, in relating to non-competitive
traffic. May I point out this for the moment :
that my clients, the Mersey Docks and Harbour
Board, and also Mrs. Tomlinson, are not traders :
they are people who own railways, and on their
behalf, they own the station which is being or
may be thwarted and warped by the way the
work is done on the railway companies’ system;
they are not merely traders. But as I say it
may be that the clause goes too far possibly
in relating to non-competitive traffic. If so, I
would ask that it might be adjusted so
as to get rid of that objection, if your
Grace and the Committee think it is an objection.
But that something ought to be done and that
that something is not done by the draft Clause
A submitted by the railway companies, I do
with confidence submit to your Grace.
Mr. Woodfall.] Your Grace, this is a new
amendment brought up by the railway companies,
so perhaps I may be heard on behalf of the
Marquess of Bute and the Monmouthshire
freighters, to say that we have a strong objection
to this railway clause. I do not want to repeat
the arguments that have already been advanced,
but to adopt them. We desire to oppose the
railway clause, and we desire as well to support
the clause put in on behalf of the Mersey Docks
and Harbour Board.
Mr. Pope..] Is there anybody else who wants
to support the clause in the same way ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are all with us.
Mr. Carver.] The Corporation of Preston
also support the clause, your Grace.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
341
29 April 1891.
Mr. l'ope.] Your Grace, my learned friend
Mr. Carver must forgive me if I have failed to
follow his argument upon this clause I have
not understood him, and so I will not attempt to
reply to him. But my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne I did understand, and I will just
say a few words in reply to what he has
advanced. I confess I did think that
if anything was clear it was that this was a
question in the nature of undue preference. I
remember the words which my learned friend
used, and he is reported to have used them :
“My learned friend Mr. Pope will say that this is
a question of undue preference, and is iſ et by the
law of undue preference. I say, No"; and he
gave two reasons for his No ; one was that we
could defeat the application by reason of saying
that there is no terminal charge in the rate; and
the other was that he sought to go beyond undue
preference by including in the purview non-com-
petitive traffic. Those are the only two reasons
which he gave why the ordinary law of undue
preference would not suit him. Let me just deal
with those two matters separately for a few
moments, and only for a few moments. I always
like to use my learned friend's own phraseology
when I can. Said he to the Committee : “We
could catch them if they did charge terminals.”
That is to say that, if it turned out in the
examination of the rate by the tribunal which has
to decide whether it is fair that the statement
that it was all included in the conveyance was
not accurate, but that it did include something
for terminals; them says my learned friend, We
could catch them. The very object of the intro-
duction of my clause is exactly to provide for
that ; that we shall not be able to avoid my
learned friend’s catching us by saying that there
is no terminal in the rates, because, whether we
say there is or there is not, the clause that I pro
pose would enable them to proceed for undue
preference, although the gross rate might in the
same case include in one case terminals and not
in the other. The very object of it is to prevent
my learned friend's first grievance, namely, defeat
in consequence of our declaration that there is no
terminal in the rate. And that, I venture to
think, I have satisfactorily provided for.
But now just let us look how absolutely my
learned friend is seeking, as my Lord Belmore
said, for something far beyond the question of
undue preference. He seeks to obtain an allow-
ance if the arbitrator finds that there is or ought
to be any sum chargeable for terminal in the one
rate, whether it affects his interests or whether it
does not. Let me take an illustration.
becomes ludicrous when you look at the thing in
the light of what my learned friend asks. He
asks that it should be compared with the rate
charged at the station for any article in the same
class. Now mustard is in Class 3, and a
certain rate (it may be a special rate, a
low rate, or a high rate, I do not know),
but a certain rate is charged for mustard
to Messrs. Colmans’ sidings, or to anybody
else's sidings. My learned friend's claim is this :
that if somebody who sends a consignmennt of
Jews’ harps or of road-scraping machines (for
they are all in Class 3), gets his traffic conveyed
without the charge of a terminal, Mr. Colman is
feating any claim for undue preference.
It really
entitled to come and say “Reduce my rate for
mustard.” That is absolutely without paraphrase,
or without any endeavour to make appear ridi-
culous what my learned friend is asking; that if
he can produce a rate to a station, say at Reading
or Norwich, a rate for Jews' harps or road-
scraping machines, the owner of which gets the
advantage of Norwich station, Mr. Colman is to
come and say : “You must deduct from my rate
for mustard that which the arbitrator says is a
fair station terminal for a road-scraping machine.”
What on earth has Mr. Colman’s trade in mus-
tard got to do with it; what interest has it in
the mode of treatment or the rate which is
charged for either of those other commodities 2
And yet that is exactly what my learned friend
is pressing you to do. I provide that which he
is entitled to, namely, I prevent myself from de-
I con-
ceive that there can be no undue preference
of the road-scraping machine man over
Mr. Colman's mustard, because there is no
competition ; the one has got no relation to and
nothing to do with the other at all. Therefore,
it is perfectly plain that if you do extend my
learned friend’s clause as he asks, you do that
which I venture, with the greatest respect, to
call a ridiculous thing ; you will enable a man
who trades in mustard to regulate his rate by
the rate of the man who trades in Jews' harps.
There may be two rates. I quite agree that if
there were two rates for road-scraping machine
makers, the one road-scraping machine
maker, if he did not get the same rate
as the other, might complain. But how
on earth is it possible to make it applicable
to the entire of the class when the re-
sult of it would be the absurdity I have just
pointed out to your Grace 2 Now observe it
may have been that one road-making machine-
man has come to us and has got a special rate, by
reason of some circumstances of his traffic. So
the manufacturer of Jews’ harps may have got a
special rate from us in order that he may be able
to do his trade. According to my learned
friend's clause, the rate for mustard to a siding
must be fair, not only as compared with the
general rate of the class, but as compared with
the rate for those particular instances in the
class. One cannot conceive anything more
absurd than the suggestion which my learned
friend makes. What we say is, let the whole
question remain open ; let the arbitrator, the
Commissioners, decide when they come to the
question whether the rate is fair, and if it is
unfair, taking all the circumstances into account,
let them then say that is undue preference,
although either of the rates may be covered by
the maximum rate for conveyance.
Only one other word and then I will leave the
clause in the hands of the Committee. My
learned friend says that Section 27 does nothing.
It does a most important thing. It relieves my
learned friend's clients from the necessity
of proving anything but inequality or differ-
ence of treatment in order to raise a
primá facie case of undue preference. I quite
agree that before the Act of 1888 my learned
friend could not have brought his action of
undue preference, unless he proved the inequality,
(81.)
U U 3 and
342
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
and proved the charge of terminals, or proved
that a service was given, and so on.
need not do that now. The onus is shifted by
Section 27, and if he complains either that the
rates are equal, or the services different, or the
rates unequal, the onus of justifying lies upon
me, and I must show some reason why we are
entitled to charge in, one case the same rate as:
I must do that, the railway com-
panies must do that. Therefore Section 27
makes all the difference. It does not extend the
iaw of undue preference, I admit; but it does
extend the machinery, by means of which the
law can be enforced, and 'most importantly ex-
tends it; because it makes inequality or differ-
the other.
ence in treatment a primá facie case of undue
preference, unless justification can be proved to
justify it. º 3. t!
I venture to submit that my learned friend's
demand would land the Committee in hopeless
confusion, and, to some extent, in ridiculous
absurdity. I am not prepared, of course, to say
my clause is a necessary clause; it may be
that the Committee may come to the conclusion
that no clause is necessary at all ; but if you say
a clause is necessary, then I say that mine
fairly supplies all the want which until to-day we
understand was the want my learned friend is
suffering under, namely, that I should defend
myself, and defeat his application by the state-
ment that there was no ferminal included in the
rate. That is our contention ; you have heard
the defence ; and I submit that what I have
done is sufficient. *
Earl of Camperdown.] Why do you mention
Section 27 specifically 4 -
Mr. Pope.] I do not care for that. I only did
it because Section 27 is the section in the Act
of 1888 which shifts the onus upon me. I do
not want Section 27 in it. My real object was
to include the latest legislation upon the
subject. &
Chairman.] I should like to hear anything
that Mr. Courtenay Boyle has to say upon this
subject.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Grace, in any-
thing that I say to the Committee to-day I speak
entirely in accord with Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
who cannot be here at the present time ; we are
perfectly agreed as to what we should say to the
Committee with regard to this clause. We sub-
mit that there is a preliminary difficulty with
regard to the clause suggested by the Mersey
Dock and Harbour Board and Sarah Tomlinson,
the one that has been the subject of discussion
to-day ; and the preliminary objection is this,
that Section 24 of the Act of 1888 provides for
the settlement of maximum rates and charges,
and this clause carries the functions of the Com-
mittee under the section a little bit further, it
asks the Committee to fix, a priori, certain con-
ditions, to be observed in making actual rates
and charges.
Now the Board of Trade have very consider-
able experience under the conciliation clause
(Section 31 of the Act of 1888) and other clauses
of the extraordinary difficulties and the numerous
complicated questions that arise with reference to
the making of charges and actual rates; they
{{ut he
are extraordinarily difficult and extraordinarily
complicated, and extraordinarily intricate.
The Committee have a gigantic task in
fixing maximum rates. If Parliament goes
beyond that, and attempts to lay down the con-
ditions of actual rates, it will attempt a task the
stupendousness of which I shudder to contem-
plate. We have only at present nine Provisional
Orders before the Legislature; there are ahead
of us certainly 80 other Provisional Orders relat-
ing to railway companies alone, and all the other
Provisional Orders relating to canals. If the
Committee agreed to insert a clause dealing with
actual rates in this Provisional Order we are per-
fectly certain that they will be asked hereafter
to insert other clauses dealing with the questions
of actual rates; and such an enormously compli-
cated and intricate series of questions will be
submitted to the Legislature as I firmly believe
it is not possible for any aggregate body of men
to determine a priori. For those reasons we are
of opinion that the clause submitted on behalf of
the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board goes
beyond the functions of Section 24, and is outside
the scope of the Provisional Order altogether.
If, however, the Committee should be of a different
opinion, and should be inclined to think that the
law, I will not say the law of undue preference,
because whether or not it is an undue preference
which is attempted to be dealt with under this
clause is a moot question, but the law of discrimi-
nation of charge, requires alteration, and that
they can properly introduce into a Provisional
Order technically dealing with only one railway.
company, although I admit that it will be adopted
in the case of other railway companies, a provision
affecting the whole law of the land, then I think
that that clause should be submitted for even
further advice than can be got by the Legisla-
ture from the extremely able Counsel who are in
this room; it should be adopted by the Govern-
ment (and remember that this is a Government
Bill after all), and it should be adopted on the
fullest possible advice of the highest legal autho-
rities that can possibly be obtained. Probably
the President of the Board of Trade would wish
to consult the Attorney General, and possibly
the Lord Chancellor, upon the proposal to alter
the law of discrimination. But if the Committee
are of opinion that the law does require alteration,
and that they can properly undertake to alter it,
we are perfectly ready to get such advice and to
place it at their disposal.
With reference to the clause of the railway
companies, Mr. Pope admitted that the clause,
in his opinion, did not do very much, and that is
clearly the opinion of the Board of Trade; the
Board of Trade's opinion about this clause is that
it ieaves the law exactly as it was before.
Mr. Hunter.] Are you dealing with Mr. Pope's
clause 2. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes. If it was held on
this side of the room that the clause did make
the law more clear, that it explained the mean-
ing of the Legislature in any way, the Board of
Trade would offer no opposition to the clause
whatever ; they would see no reason whatever
why it should not be inserted. But the opinion
of the Board of Trade clearly is that the clause
does nothing whataver, it leaves the law exactly
where
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
343
29 April 1891.
where it is. For these reasons the Board of
Trade venture to submit that not sufficient
grounds have been shown for the adoption of
either one of these clauses. -
Earl of Camperdown.] With regard to the
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board clause, you
said to us that that clause sought to lay down
specific charges for certain services, and that if
the Committee or the Legislature were to adopt
that clause, they would be taking upon them-
selves a superhuman task, a task of superhuman
difficulty. I do not see, as I read the clause, that
the clause proposes to fix any specific charges.
As I read the clause it proposes to entrust to the
Railway. Commissioners the duty of enquiring
what charges are fair in respect of certain things.
The Committee does not decide anything, and
Parliaroent does not decide anything, but simply
says that the Commissioners shall hear certain
Ca,S6S.
Mr. Hanbury. And make a certain rebate.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I did not say that the
clause had the effect of fixing actual rates. If I
went so far as that, I made a mistake ; I do not
think I did. What I did say was this: that the
clause lays down the conditions of actual rates,
certain conditions will have to be made out in
making the actual rates.
not observed, then the complainant may go before
the Railway Commissioners, and have the matter
remedied in a particular way. The clause, does,
I say, unquestionably lay down and attempt to
stereotype certain conditions under which actual
charges may be made. That is the point I wish
to make. t
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I point out (I do
not want to add anything of course), that you
have already laid down a condition under which
the actual charge for terminals is to be made ; so
that there can be no objection on principle; you
have done that.
Chairman.] Yes, we have done that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Therefore you can do
this too.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the clause proposed by Mr. Pope, and
they have decided not to insert the clause pro-
posed by Mr. Balfour Browne.
On CLAUSE 10.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We propose to with-
draw our amendment, your Grace, for the Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Conference and the Mansion
House United Association to omit this clause; it
is on page 26 of the paper of the 21st of April.
Chairman.] Then we come to the amendment
of the Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Associa-
tion, page 5, Clause 10, line 18. Omit from “on
or at ” to the end of the clause inclusive, and
insert “which from the nature of the merchan-
dise the company are required by law or by any
regulation of the Board of Trade to carry in one
truck, the company may charge as for a reasonable
If those conditions are
siding to take the load 2
minimum load, having regard to the nature and
classification of the merchandise.”
Mr. Poyser.] I appear to support this amend-
ment, your Grace, and, in doing so, in dealing.
with this matter, I must appeal to the Committee
for, at all events, their sympathy to this extent,
that I am appearing for a body of independent
traders, and that I am perfectly convinced that
the coalowners, and those who have dealt with
the large bodies of traffic that we have had before
us within the last two or three days,
are quite able to take care of themselves in this
matter. We know how they have arranged with
the Midland Company on another matter, and
they are able to take care of themselves to a
great extent with regard to a matter of this
kind. But it is when you come to the small
manufacturers of the country that it becomes
absolutely necessary that we should appeal to
this Committee to protect them from new powers
such as are given by this Section 10, new powers
which the railway companies have never had
before, so far as I know, throughout the whole
course of legislation. I should like to call your
Grace's and the Committee's attention to the
clause itself. I may say that I represent here
some million tons of manufactured manure.
That is a question of course that not only affects
the manufacturers but also affects the agricul,
tural interest to a very great extent, because they
have to pay eventually whatever is put on those
manures in the shape of railway rates and other
matters. With regard to the clause itself it is a
new clause : I do not think there is any case of
an Act of Parliament which contains any clause
of this description ; and I say this, I will read
the clause and ask the Committee whether it is
possible to follow and to realise the position of
affairs that this clause suggests: “For any
quantity of merchandise less than a truck load
which the company either receive or deliever in
one truck, on or at a siding not belonging to the
company, or which, from the circumstances in
which the merchandise is tendered or the nature
of the merchandise, the company are required to
carry in one truck, the company may charge as
for a reasonable minimum load, having regard to
the nature of the merchandise.” Now take the
first point here : “ for any quantity of merchan-
dise less than a truck load.” We do not know
what a truck load is. Is it a standard truck
load, an assumed seven tons or eight tons; or is
it the capacity of a particular truck put upon a
That is not deter-
mined by the words of the section ; so that the
first line pins it to a truck load, without know-
ing what a truck load might be. It may mean,
I hope it does, the consignment provided for in
the classification hereafter; that is to say, two
tons in one class, and one in another. That is
clearly not the meaning of a truck load ; I
should suggest here, and the railway companies
want to treat it in that way; and I could only
take it that “truck load” there means the capa-
city of the truck put upon a siding to receive the
merchandise, not a standard truck load, but that
particular truck which is put upon a siding. And
the result of that would be that if I have two
tons of merchandise to send away and the com-
pany choose to send me a 10-ton truck for that,
(81.)
U U 4 instead
344
MINUTES OF EVIDEN CE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINE COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
instead of a 4-ton truck, the 10-ton truck would
be the capacity upon which we are to be charged
according to this schedule.
Mr. Pope.] Not at all.
Mr. Poyser.] By-and-bye I know I shall have
a great deal to answer when my learned friend
comes to deal with me.
Mr. Pope.j The reasonable minimum is what
you have to get.
Mr. Poyser.] I am trying to find out now what
the clause means by saying “any quantity of
merchandise less than a truck load.” We have
to find out what a truck load is.
Chairman.] “Less than a truck load" is
governed by the end of the clause, which says,
that it shall be charged “as for a reasonable
minimum.”
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace sees, first of all,
that you have to determine what is the quantity
of merchandise that is going to pay; it is to be
“any quantity of merchandise less than a truck
load"; but you must know what is a truck load
or you would not know what is less than a truck
load. That is what I suggest with regard to
that. Then again, “which the company either
receive or deliver in one truck.” The word,
“deliver” there, is a pitfall again, for this
reason : supposing I am sending out three con-
signments of two tons each from my siding, and
the first consignment is to be delivered at sta-
tion A, the second at station B, and the third
at a siding, when you come to the third consign-
ment, which is to be delivered separately, and is
far less than a truck load, because it is only a
third of a truck load, then the third consignment
has to pay the whole truck Joad. Then there
come the words which are, in their breadth,
almost beyond conception ; you will judge from
reading them : “ or which from the circum-
stances” (that has nothing to do with the siding
now, we have got rid of the siding clause), “ in
which the merchandise is tendered,” that is
whether at the siding or whether at the station.
What does that mean * Supposing that I take a
tom of merchandise to Station A, and I want to
send it to Station C, it may be that the com-
pany have no other merchandise going to Station
C on that day. Then they can say: “Under
the circumstances we have got no other consign-
ment going to Station C, we shall have to send a
truck specially to Station C, therefore we must
charge you under those circumstances for a full
truck load or at least a minimum truck load,” as
they say. Then come the next words, “ or the
nature of the merchandise.” Who is to deter-
mine what the nature of the merchandise is? I
represent here the Chemical Manure Manufac-
turers’ Association. The companies will at once
say, “From the nature of your merchandise we
shall never take a two-ton consignment from
you,” although it is perfectly possible, as I think
I shall show your Grace by-and-bye, that there
is not a single other article in Class B, that can-
not be packed in the same truck with manure.
Yet the company may say (because it is left
absolutely at large) : “From the nature of your
merchandise we do not care about it ; we will
charge as for a minimum truck load.” Then the
company may charge us “as for a reasonable
minimum load having regard to the nature of flie
merchandise.” “Having regard to the nature of
the merchandise,” that can only mean, I suppose,
(it is rather difficult to follow, this), the
nature of the loading of the merchandise;
that is to say, supposing that you have got
material which, when you put it into a five-ton
truck, will weigh five-tons in the truck, and you
can get it into a five ton truck, then that is a
minimum load of that particular merchandise
from its nature. But supposing that you put
into it a lighter material, such as hay, or what-
ever it may be that you load into that truck, then,
of course, that being light material, the truck
would probably only hold three or four tons;
and under those circumstances they would say a
minimum load is three or four tons as the case
may be with regard to that truck. But if it
means anything, the word “nature * there must
mean the loading of the truck ; that is to say,
that if it is heavy stuff, the truck will contain its
full quantity; so that if you have a 10-ton truck
and load into it packed manure, which is heavy
stuff, it will hold from the nature of the merchan-
dise, ten tons, and therefore the minimum load
will be a ten-ton load. Therefore, your Grace
will see that this section is so wide that it is
absolutely putting this upon the traders whom I
represent: that the company shall be able, I do
not say they will do it, but shall be able in each
instance to chaage as for a minimum truck load;
and the result of that is this: It is no use of our
arguing about tonnage rates, and things of that
sort hereafter, when we come to the rates
schedules, if the Company can say: “We want to
put your rate up to a certain point.” We may
say “it is beyond the class rate,” and they will
say, “’Yes, but remember here is a clause in our
Act which enables us, if we wish, to exercise the
power to charge you as for a minimum truck
load.” The result of that will be that they will
be in a position to say, “ Pay the rate we demand
from you.”
Now I should like, as showing the injustice of
this to this particular trade, to point out this :
that sending, as I say, about a million tons per
annum over the railway, 50 per cent., and over
50 per cent., of the consignments that we send
out from our different sidings are consignments
of less than four tons. I take four tons as being
the minimum load in Class A, so that more than
50 per cent. of the consignments in our trade
would be caught by this section, and would be
penalised by this section. Now, dealing with
this, in order to show your Lordships the prac-
tical result of it, I Would point out that at the
present time the trucks that are sent for the
packed manure to the different sidings (and it is
almost altogether a siding traffic; almost every
manufacturer has his own siding), are six-ton
trucks and seven-ton trucks on the London
and North Western Railway, on the Midland
Railway six to eight-ton trucks, on the
Great Northern eight to mine-ton trucks,
and on the Great Eastern seven to nine-ton
trucks, so that the minimum truck load we
should have to deal with would be a very
penal amount indeed if our consignments
are two-ton consignments. What are the facts
at
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
345
29 April 1891.
at the present time * Your Grace will hear,
because I shall call a witness upon the point,
that at the present time on every railway in the
country there is a two-ton rate quoted to us for
the carriage of these packed manures; so that
there is no hardship so far as the practice goes
in doing away with this clause when you come
to deal with this particular material. That is to
say, at the present time the railway companies
do take two tons from our sidings, and, as I have
already said, over 50 per cent. of our consignments
are taken in that way by the railway companies,
and within their proper rates for conveyance. At
the present time what is the rate for this packed
manure ?' I will just refer to the section of the
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway
Company, because in that it is set out in more
detail than some of the other railway companies.
I will read the section there as to goods The
first section deals with alkali, alum, bones for
manure, bullets, cannel, cement, chalk, clay,
composite cement—I am only reading some of
them—fire-clay, fuller's earth, guano, limestone,
and manure of all sorts, metalling for roads,
nitrate of soda, oilcakes in casks or bags, po-
tatoes, pollard, sand, and salt for manure. The
charge authorised by that Act for the conveyance
of those articles at the present time is 1; d. per
ton per mile. Now, my Lord, that runs through
every Act of Parliament almost that is in existence
at the present time. Where you have provisions
for manure there is a low rate for carriage : in
many instances it is 1 d. a ton, in many other
instances 13, d., and in some cases it rises to as
much as 2 d. per ton. But in every one of those
cases the maximum fixed by the Act of Parlia-
ment is for a single ton ; only one ton is pro-
vided for, and if we send one ton at the present
time, to almost any system in the kingdom (I
think the North Staffordshire is an exception;
there there is a five-ton rate, but then it is only
2 d. for five tons) we are entitled to send a con-
signment of one ton at the tonnage rate. What
this section does for us is to do away with that
altogether. First of all, by the new classification,
we are put up to a two-ton consignment as the
minimum ; we are penalised in other ways there.
But beyond giving them that two tons now by
this particular section before the Committee, we
are punished to the extent of having to send a
minimum truck load or to pay for a minimum
truck load as if it had been sent. I think that
when your Grace comes to realise what that
means you will see how tremendous it is in our
case at the present time. As the schedules exist
now, packed manure is in Class C. For the
first 20 miles under that class we have to pay
1-8 d. per ton per mile for conveyance ; that is to
say, instead of 13; d. per ton, which it is in this
Brighton Act, we shall have to pay 1-8 d ; that
is a rise ; our position is altered for the
worse there. In addition to that we have to
pay a terminal of 1 s. a ton for each ton
we send, Now your Grace sees this : that if it
were a truck of coal, I say this section would
apply perfectly. They have a 3 d. terminal,
with all their influence behind them to bring it
down to 2 d. and I d., as they have done in the
Midland case, and in almost every case they send
out a full truck-load ; so that so far as the coal
trade is concerned, this section would not, as I
understand it, injure them in any way, and the
amendment I have drafted, I think, in such a
way as to obviate dealing with those goods in
Class A.
With regard to the amount. I was dealing
with the amount you have, 1.8 d., as the charge
for conveyance; but then you have a terminal
of 1 s. per ton at each end of the traffic if the
station is used, or some payment if only the siding
is used. But there would no doubt be a station
at one end, so there would be one terminal cer-
tainly of 1 s. per ton. The result of that is that
if I send a consignment of two tons I have to pay
on that consignment of two tons a terminal of 5 s.,
taking it as five tons; but according to the
trucks we receive it is generally six or seven, or
Seven or eight tons; so that my terminal for two
tons would be raised to 3 s. per ton, because I
have to pay on the minimum truck load a 6 s.
terminal on my two tons of manure sent out
from a siding. Is that right? Is that a
new power that this Committee wishes to confer
upon the railway companies, because it does not
reproduce any power that they have at the
present time ; it is giving them something they
have not got. And therefore i venture to bring
before the Committee as forcibly as I can, I am
sorry I have not a body of witnesses here to
come and point out all this, but the witness whom
I shall call represents 19-20ths of the chemical
manure manufacturers of the kingdom ; and I
could bring other members here, but I thought
that if the Committee would hear from one
member of the association how this affects them,
the Committee then will say that we have a real
grievance here ; and I shall ask them, and I
trust they will protect this body of traders from
what seems to us to be a new power of an extra-
ordinary nature that would almost be destruction
to our trade.
I have put in an amendment on the paper.
I did it many days ago, and before I knew that
the coal traders did not object to this clause,
Now their objection is withdrawn, I have slightly
re-worded that amendment, and if your Grace
thinks that this meets an objection that might be
raised to it in some particulars, and you would
rather that I should adopt the better form. I
propose my amendment in these words: “For
any quantity of merchandise less than a truck
load which the company receive in one truck on
or at a siding not belonging to the company,
when such merchandise is specified in Section 2,
Sub-section A., of this Act.”
Earl of Camperdown.] What is this?
Mr. Poyser.] I will point out to you what that
means. Section 2 does this : it includes the
whole of Class A, and goods that have to be
carried in one truck are lime, lias lime, and
things of that description; or if your Grace
perfers “goods specified in Class A,” perhaps
that would be simple, “Class A of this order or
when it is by law or by any regulation of the
Board of Trade required to be carried in one
truck, the company may charge as for a reason-
able minimum load having regard to the nature
and classification of the merchandise.”
(81.)
Chairman.]
X X
346 MINUTES OF
EV II) EN C E TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.
Chairman.] It strikes me that in the first part
of that clause you describe a truck load.
Mr. Poyser.] I adopt the term.
Chairman.] What are your words 2
Mr. Poyser.] I put a truck load.
Chairman.] But you told us just now that no-
body knew what a truck load was.
Mr, Poyser.] That is why at the end I put in
“having regard to the classification of the
goods,” that it may be met by that. But if
there are other words that can define a
truck load, I shall be happy to adopt them.
What I have tried to do has been to alter the
wording as little as I possibly could ; and of
course I do not want it to be thrown over be-
cause my words do not define the matter as
strictly as they should do; I shall be very glad to
put the best words to deal with the principle, it
is the principle I want to deal with now before
the Committee, and I am certain that if I estab-
lish the principle your Grace will give me the
indulgence to make the clause fit that principle,
as has been done in many cases up to the present
time with other amendments.
Chairman.] You are bringing up now an
entirely new clause from what we have on the
paper.
Mr. Poyser.] No, your Grace, it is only
amended by putting in Class A ; that is practi-
cally the difference.
Chairman.] The wording is very different.
Mr. Poyser.] The wording is different because
it has been considered since and I consider it
better,
Chairman.] Then am I not right in saying
that it is very different from what we have on the
paper ?
Mr. Poyser.] Some of the words are different
but not the principle ; the principle is the same.
Chairman.] Very well, go on.
Mr. Poyser.] And it is the principle I wish to
establish before your Grace. Now I think I
have gone over the ground. Might I hand this
amendment in to your Grace so that you may
have it in writing there before you, and see
what I suggest (handing in the same).
It leaves the position of Class A, the coal
interest and those things, unaffected, because I
see by their subsequent amendments that they
only care about a reduction of seven-tenths or
something of that kind; so that their interests
are not at present touched.
Earl of Belmore.] This 10th Clause goes a
great deal beyond Class A.; that will affect
things in other classes. --
Mr. Poyser.] This clause as it stands now
affects every class in the Provisional Order;
whatever merchandise you may send from your
siding, whatever it may be, is affected by this
clause. And now under this clause you must
send either a truck load, or at all events what-
ever you send you must pay for what they call
a minimum truck load, and that seems to me to
be imposing upon the trader a new liability
which he has never had before, and it is multi-
plying the rate to such an extent as to render
any question afterwards utterly immaterial. I
shall have an opportunity of replying if anything
arises after having heard what is said on the
other side. I shall now call a witness before the
Committee and you will hear from him the facts
of the trade; and I think it would be better that
you should have them now.
Chairman.] What facts is your witness going
to be called to prove 2
Mr. Poyser.] To show how this section affects
their trade, if it stands as it is printed.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] This shows the extra-
ordinary inconvenience of having no promoters.
The learned counsel has attacked the Provisional
Order, a clause which is not the Clause of A at
all, but something totally different.
Chairman (to Mr. Poyser).] We will hear your
witness now if you will call him, and as shortly
as possible.
MR. CHARLES THOMAS MAC ADAM, is called in ; and, having being sworn, is Examined, as
follows: -
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace, Mr. Courtenay
Boyle thinks I have not explained the meaning
of the clause.
Earl of Belmore.] It is very inconvenient
having it in manuscript when we have a
print.
Mr. Poyser.] The printed amendment is suffi-
cient to raise the principle as it stands.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Do I
rightly understand you to say that what the
learned Counsel has been now addressing himself
to does not apply to this clause 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The observations that
the learned Counsel has made do not apply to the
clause, because he omitted to notice the main
words of the clause, which are these : “The com-
pany are required to carry in one truck.” The
whole essence of the clause is that it is only in
cases where the company are required to carry
a small consignment in one truck that they may
charge as for a minimum truck load. Of course,
it is not fair that Mr. A should consign one ton of
goods to the company and that the company
should for their own convenience put the goods in
one truck and say “for our own convenience we
will not put anything else into that truck,” and
charge him for a whole truck load. That is not
the case at all. It is only in cases where they
are compelled to carry one small consignment in
one truck.
Mr. Poyser.] By whom 2
Mr. Pope.] Either by the nature of the con-
signment or by nature of the article.
Mr.
ON RAILwAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
347
29 April 1891.]
Mr. MACADAM.
[Continued.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] If the learned Counsel
thinks that additional words are wanted “for the
convenience of the trader,” he can argue that ;
but it is only where it is required to be carried
in one truck that the clause applies.
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to that, if it is re-
quired by the trader.
Mr. Pope.] No, the requirement is specified in
the two previous sections. ---
Chairman.] You had better examine the wit-
ness as shortly es possible. -
Mr. Poyser.] May I say this to your Grace—
Chairman.] No, you have put your witness in
the box.
Mr. Poyser (to the witness).
1585. You are the general manager of Old-
ham's Chemical Manure Manufacturer's Com-
pany ?--I am. -
1586. Are you the representative of the
Chemical Manure Manufacturers’ Association
here to-day ?—I am.
1587. Does that association represent about
nineteen-twentieths of the manufacturers in the
country 2–It does.
1588. Does the traffic of that manufacture
amount to over a million tons per annum ?—
About that roundly.
1589. Is the general run of the trade carried
from the traders’ own sidings —Chiefly.
1590. And at the present time do the manu-
facturers receive a two-ton rate practically
throughout the country 2––From all the railways.
1591. I think you have taken out of your own
company the number of consignments in a single
year?—For a few months upon three lines.
1592. On the London and North Western ?—
The London and North Western, the Great
Northern, and the Great Eastern.
1593. And taking the totals, how many con-
signments altogether have you dealt with ?—One
thousand four hundred and seventy-one consign-
ments; 780 consignments being under four tons,
and 691 consignments of four tons and upwards.
1594. That is more than 50 per cent. under
the four-ton rate 2–Yes.
1595. Dealing with the term “a truck load,”
what are the trucks that are supplied by those
companies as a rule to take away these consign
ments from your works 7–We find the London
and North Western trucks six and seven tons,
the Midland six and eight tons, the Great
Northern eight and nine tons, and the Great
Eastern seven and nine tons.
1596. With regard to this clause, I do not
know whether you have got the words of the
clause there, I will hand it to you (handing the
same to the Witness). Is it your opinion and the
opinion of your association that that clause
leaves it to the railway company to say whether
the nature of your goods is such that they must
charge a truck load for it 2-—We think so.
1597. It is left completely in the hands of the
railway company to decide that ?— We think so.
1598, And what you want to do, as I under-
stand, is after that word “required,” to put in
some words that would limit it to a requirement
of law, or at all events, to put some limit upon
that requirement 2–Yes. We should like to be
left as we are ; but if not we should like some
words introduced to carry that.
1599. With regard to the Acts of Parliament
generally at the present time, is the maximum
rate fixed on a one-ton consignment 7–That I
Cannot answer.
1600. You have not gone into that ?–No, we
have never received it, not on the rails running
out Cf London. -
1601. But you have a rate quoted for two
tons from every railway in London 2–Yes.
1602. With regard to this packed manure,
may it be loaded with other things, in your
opinion ?—I think that most of the articles in
Class B. could be loaded with packed manure.
1603. But take a case now. Supposing that
you have got a siding two miles from a station
and you put into a truck two tons of your
packed manure, would there be anything to pre-
vent the railway company, if that truck were
going on a journey, say of 40 miles, from pack-
ing other articles in class B. with that manure,
in it 2–Not if they found it to be convenient to
themselves; they could fill up if they found it
convenient to themselves to do so.
Chairman.
1604. What do you call packed manure ?—
Manure packed in bags, packed in 2 cwt. bags,
generally.
1605. Is it guano, generally 3 – Superphos-
phate, guano, nitrate of soda.
Mr. Poyser.
1606. By the technical term, “packed man-
ure * mean a mixture generally sold as packed
manure ?–Yes, it means manure in casks or
packages; in this case in bags.
Chairmam.
1607. Guano is sent out in bags 2–Yes.
1608. It has rather a high flavour, has it not?
—Yes.
1609. Very high 2–Yes.
Mr. Poyser.
1610. The other pack manures have a flavour
which would just enable the company, on
acconnt of its flavour, to say that it is within this
section ; is not what you are afraid of that the
company may say that because there is some
little smell attached to packed manure, from its
nuture, they must charge on the whole 2–Yes;
but there is nothing to injure hardware, and
goods such as are in Class B.
1611. I was going to ask you to deal with this
point. Supposing there is a consignment from
a factory two miles from the station, going for 40
miles,there is nothing in your judgment to prevent
other articles in Class B from being put into the
same truck when you get to the station two
miles off?—No.
1612. But according to this clause for the
whole 40 miles you may be charged a full truck
load 2–Yes.
Mr. Poyser.] I do not know whether your
Grace followed that. *
Chairman.] Perfectly.
(81.) -
X X 2 1513. (To
348
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.]
Mr. Poyser.
1613. (To the Witness). So that practically
that would multiply your rate by the number of
tons your truck would contain —They would
have the power to do that under that clause.
Chairman.
1614. You say that the company would have
the power to do that ; but what would be the
inducement to the company to do it?—I have
not the least idea. They might increase the
rate ; I do not think they would do all that they
might do ; but they might very materially
increase the rates.
Mr. Poyser.
1615. And you refer to this as a thumbscrew,
they might say: “We have got the power to do
more, but we are only charging you an increased
rate’?—That is the way we are afraid it would
be.
Mr. Dickson.
1616. In what class are packed manures at the
present time, in Class C 2–Yes.
Earl of Belmore.] The learned counsel told
us Class B, I thought. -
Mr. Poyser.] No. Class C.
Mr. Pope.] The witness said that anything in
Class B might be packed with it.
Earl of Belmore.] That misled me. There is
only one thing in Class B that might be so; but
in Class C there are several things. -
Mr. Dickson.] Will you make it clear with
egard to the classes.
Mr. Poyser. .
1617. I will make that clear. (To the JPit-
mess). With regard to this classification you are
put in Class C at the present time 7–Yes.
1618. And what I understand you to say is that
having got the consignment of packed manure
under Class C there is nothing to prevent their
filling up a truck with goods under Class B?—
Clearly.
Earl of Belmore.] That is what he meant.
Mr. Poyser.
1619. Yes; that the goods in Class B are
practically of the same nature, plactically of the
same sort of loading as your manures which are
put in Class C 2–Yes, and Class B is where we
ought to be.
Chairman.] But do not let us get into
classification, we shall have plenty of that
later.
Mr Poyser.
1620. I do not wish to do so. I am afraid you
will (to the Witness). But what you say is, that
having got a small consignment of packed manure
into a truck there is nothing to prevent the com-
pany putting in with it any of the articles speci-
fied in Class B 2–Nothing, with regard to most
of them ; I did not say all: there are one or two
exceptions. -
1621. Yet, if they do that, after it has started
from your siding, your goods having been received
Mr. MACADAM.
[Continued.
Mr. Poysey—continued.
into the one truck, they can charge you for the
whole journey as for a truck load if they should
be so disposed, under this clause ?—We think
SO.
Chairman.
1622. Although the truck is filled with other
articles 2–Yes. The truck load we take it would
apply to the goods we put into the truck, not to
anything else which the railway company might
afterwards put into the truck. -
Mr. Pope.] Will Mr. Poyser kindly hand to
the witness his copy of the Provisional Order ?
I want to ask him a question or two upon the
clause.
(Mr. Poyser does so.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
1623. Just look at the section. You will
agree with me that that section is divided into
two parts, is it not ; one relating to goods loaded
at the siding, or delivered at the siding, and the
other not delivered at the siding but which, from
the nature of the merchandise or the circum-
stances under which it is tendered, have to be
carried in one truck 2–Yes.
1624. Now, follow me. For any quantity of
merchandise less than a truck-load which the
company either receive or deliver in one truck
only at a siding not belonging to the company,
where the company send a truck into the siding
to receive the load, who loads it P---We do.
1625. And you can control the quantity you
put into the truck 7–Only to the extent of the
order that we have to execute.
1626. But if you have sufficient orders you
can load the truck up to whatever may be the
reasonable minimum ?–And do.
1627. Do you then propose that the company
should be compelled to send a truck into your
siding to pick up a little load, although you
cannot fill up that truck to the minimum load 2
—Yes, that is the practice now.
1628. And you propose that you should occupy
a truck with the small quantity that you propose
to put into it, and that they should be only en-
titled to charge for that minimum quantity ?—
The two tons.
1629. It may be a quarter, you know. It
need not be two tons; it may be anything under
two tons?—No, I do not find that in practice.
1630. Now, when you put those two tons
into the truck, it is taken from the siding right
away to its destination, is it not *—I do not
know.
1631. Seriously, you do not know !—I do not
know. There must be a stop for marshalling the
trucks.
1632. I have no doubt ; but how are they to
complete the loading when they are marshalling
the trucks 2–I did not say that there was no
other stoppage ; there may be a stoppage for the
loading of the truck.
1633. But if there is not ; suppose there is not ?
Supposing your chemical manure is taken from
the siding, and is sent straight away, collected by
the luggage train and sent straight away to its
destination,
ON RAI LWAY RATES AND CHARGES PBOVISION AL OR DER BILLS,
349
29 April 1891.]
Mr. MACADAM.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
destination, where could the loading of that truck
be eompleted, unless it was taken into a station
and detached from the train 7–Only at the station.
1634. Unless the truck went into the station
there would be no power to complete the loading
with anything, would there 2–Certainly not.
1635. Have you the slightest notion of what
would be involved in completing the loading of a
truck which had been partially loaded at your
siding 2—I am not suggesting that. We shall be
quite content to be left as we are ; that is to say,
to have a minimum two-ton rate, loading up a
six or eight or nine-ton truck when we have orders
to do so.
1636. Iłut I am asking you what your sug-
gestion is. You say that if you only put two
tons into the truck, although they may not have
an opportunity of completing the loading, they
are to charge only two tons, and the truck is to
be used for that only 2–That is what they do at
present.
1637. What you really mean, I take it, is this:
That in your judgment two tons ought to be
considered a reasonable minimum for chemical
manures 2–At the rates charged, certainly.
1638. Would not that be a much simpler
thing to propose than what you are proposing,
namely, that for chemical manures two tons
should be considered a reasonable load 2–We
are willing to take that.
1639. Now let us look at the rest of the sec-
tion : “Or which from the circumstances in
which the merchandise is tendered, or the nature
of the merchandise, the company are required to
carry in one truck.” Then you shall pay as
though you had a minimum load. Does that
seem to you to be unfair?—Yes.
1640. Why?—If the two tons are to be treated
exceptionally——
1641. I understand you desire that two tons
should be the reasonable minimum load for
chemical manures. That is another matter. I
do not quite see how we are to fix that for every
commodity throughout the whole classification ;
but, however, why is it not reasonable that where
from the circumstances under which the traffic is
tendered, or the nature of the commodity, it can
only be loaded in one truck, or the company are
required to load it in one truck, why should not
the reasonable minimum apply to that case also º
—The practice for 35 years has been to take two
tons at certain rates.
1642. Do disengage your mind for the question
of the amount of the reasonable minimum. Why
should not the minimum, whatever it is, apply in
the case where, from the circumstances of the
traffic or the nature of the goods, they are re-
quired to be carried in one truck –I cannot see
that if we load two tons of manure in a truck
that we should be made to pay for six, or eight,
or nine tons,
1643. You know the difference between the
amount of the minimum and the principle 2–I
cannot possibly admit that it would be fair for us
to pay for six, or eight, or nine tons if we only
load two. *
1644. Under any circumstances 2 – Packed
manure I am speaking of.
1645. Under any circumstances P -- I
speaking of packed manure.
all]]
Mr. Pope—continued.
1646. Under any circumstances P—I can only
give you the same answer. º
J647. Suppose you require them to be loaded
in one truck P –If we required, by a special
request, some small quantity of any particular
article to be loaded, any article that was objec-
tionable, that would be a matter of arrangement,
I should say, with the railway company.
1648. Are you not to pay them for the reason-
able minimum ?—We are dealing with an article
which has been perfectly well known for the last
40 years. We are not dealing with anything
fresh or new, we are dealing with an article of
commerce of great extent, and we object to a new
clause, which apparently, in our humble opinion,
gives the railway companies a power which they
ought not to possess.
1649. Is not the whole thing that what you
desire is, that there should be legislation to say
that the reasonable minimum load for packed
chemical manure should be two tons 2–We
want to be left where we are. I think it would
do if we had a provision of that kind.
1650. Suppose it is not packed, what is a
reasonable minimum load for manure that is not
packed 2–We are speaking of packed manure.
1651. We are speaking of all kinds of things
in this section.—We do not deal in anything but
packed manures.
1652. Let us deal with another matter. What
is a reasonable minimum load for agricultural
implements 2–I have no knowledge of that busi-
Il CSS.
1653. But do not you see that somebody may
come and claim another minimum ?--Then they
must give good reasons for doing so.
1654. Will you kindly extricate me from the
difficulty 2–-If you cannot extricate yourself,
Mr. Pope, it is quite hopeless for me to try to
do it.
1655. I dare say I can manage it in most
cases, but in this particular case, would you
kindly assist me. Supposing we were to agree
in the case of two-ton loads, the reasonable
minimum for packed chemical manure, and the
next witness is an agricultural implement manu-
facturer, what minimum are we to agree to for
him, and how is it to be fixed and defined for
every commodity ?—I must leave the agricul-
tural implement maker to answer for himself.
l656. You are proposing an amendment of the
clause which in itself you admit is a reasonable
clause ; I want to know how you propose to
extricate the Committee from the difficulty of
defining in all instances what is a reasonable
minimum ?—I cannot possibly. If you will leave
us where we are, we shall be perfectly satisfied.
Chairman.] But I think the difficulty which
the witness is under is this : that your amend-
ment to this Clause 10 would apply, and must
apply to everything in that clause.
Witness.] I do not know whether we should be
justified in asking that there should be any special
legislation with reference to this business.
1657. But what would apply to one, would
apply to every article in the class, because you
do not specify packed manures, it is of universal
application ?—I should be very glad to have that
inserted if it were possible to have it inserted in
(8]. 11.)
X X 3 - regard
35() MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 April 1891.]
Mr. MACADAM.
| Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
regard to packed manure, and to leave other
people to fight their own battles.
1658. Then in point of fact, what you wish is
a special clause inserted in this Bill which is to
deal with packed manures, and packed manures
only 2–That would be the effect of what I have
just been saying ; but I say again that we should
be perfectly satisfied in regard to our trade to be
eft as we are.
Re-examined by Mr. Poyser.
1659. You have been asked about distinguish-
ing between the minimum loads of implements
and things of that kind ; would there be any
reason for that distinction if this clause had not
been sought to be put upon us?—I date say
In Ot.
1660. It is the railway companies that raise
the difficulty by putting the clanse upon us, is it
not ?—Yes.
Chairman.] This is a Bill which has been
drawn by the Board of Trade. I do not know
what the railway companies have had to do with
it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has been very much
modified since the railway companies have dealt
with it.
Chairman.] But the learned Counsel is wrong
in saying that this is a claase inserted by the
railway companies.
Mr. Poyser.] I quite follow your Grace, but
at all events it is a clause that renders these
refinements necessary between minimum truck
loads.
Mr. Dickson.
1661. I confess I do not understand the griev-
ance which the Chemical Manure Association
has put forward by you in objecting to this
clause. You are under Class C at present?—
Yes.
1662. Under Class C for any quantity over
two tons you are in Class C P –Yes.
1663. Supposing now that Class C is the
class that will be adopted, what would there be to
complain of, if for consignments of two tons and
over, you are still in Class C 2–We are afraid
that this would over-ride Class C.
1664. You are under Class C at present, and
you want to be in Class B, but suppose you
remain in Class C it is provided at the end of page
24, that the “merchandise comprised in Class B
if sent in quantities of less than two tons,” you
cannot be taken out of Class C if you forward
from your sidings in your waggons two tons.
That is all that is provided for.
Mr. Poyser.] Might I interpose for a moment 2
The result of it is this: that we should be charged
the Class C rate; but instead of being charged
for two tons we should be charged for six tons,
because that is the minimum truck load.
Mr. Pope.] Nobody says anything in the
section about truck load. It is a reasonable
minimum.
Mr. Poyser.] A reasonable minimum load,
that is for the truck if we have it defined, and
Mr. Poyser—continued.
that is why I have introduced into my amend-
ment the word “classification.”
Mr. Dickson.
1665. (To the Witness.) let me carry this a
little further. If you sent from your sidings two
tons of chemical manure you would pay the rate
under Class C –Yes.
1666. You have not to pay for that two tons a
waggon load of five or six or eight tons. You
have to pay for two tons, not for eight tons, and
if you send less than two tons you come into
Class 1 ?—Yes.
. Mr. Dickson.] Then I cannot see where the
grievance comes in, I confess.
Mr. Poyser.] We are charged for four or six
tons.
Chairman.] Perhaps you will go on with your
witness, Mr. Poyser.
Mr. Poyser (to the Witness).] The danger
which you are anticipating under this section is,
that giving the railway companies the power to
charge a minimum truck load, although you are
in Class C they may charge you Class C rates,
but for the quantity of a minimum truck load.
Mr. Dickson.] Will the learned Counsel look
at the end of Class C and read it, “merchandise
comprised in Class B, if sent in quantities of less
than two tons.”
Mr. Poyser.] I follow that, Sir.
Mr. Dickson.] So that if the chemical manure
manufacturers forwarded from their sidings two
tons and over, they remain in Class C., and have
not to pay for a truck load.
Mr. Poyser.] Will you kindly read the sec-
tion, Sir ; you will see it does not limit itself in
that way, because having regard to the end of
the clause the company may charge as for a
reasonable minimum load, having regard to the
nature of the merchandise, but not to the classi-
fication; and that is why my amendment seeks
to put in the words, “the classification,” in order
that we might get that limitation which you have
just suggested, namely, that we should only be
charged the minimum load applicable to that
class.
Mr. Dickson.] The Board of Trade have fixed
it at two tons.
Mr. Poyser.] Not for a load. With all re-
spect, it does not say that. It says the classifi-
cation is fixed to determine the rate per ton at
which the goods are to be carried. If you send
two tons you are charged at the rate of Class C,
and if you send one ton you are charged at the
rate of Class 1 ; but if we send two tons in a
separate truck from a siding ——
Chairman.] I think, if you would finish the
re-examination of the witness, it would be better.
This is somewhat irregular.
Mr. Poyser.
1667. (To the Witness.) That is what you fear
under the section, is it not, that this Clause 10
will override the amount of minimum put in the
classification ?—Yes, by reason of the nature of
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
35 l
29 April 1891.]
Mr. MACADAM.
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
the article or the circumstances under which it is
received.
1668. And with regard to the nature of the
article, is it left by the section entirely to the
company to be judges in the matter 2—We think
SO.
Chairman.] Supposing you have these two
tons, and they are put into a truck, and it is not
a full truck load, do I understand you to say that
you would be charged six tons, because the truck
would hold six tons if it was filled 2–They would
have the power to do so, we think, your Grace,
under the words of the clause.
Mr. Poyser.] And it is the company who are
to determine that. .
Chairman.
1669. (To the Witness.) That is what you
are afraid of ?—Yes. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] Are those all the witnesses you
propose to call, Mr. Poyser.
Mr. Poyser.] Yes; and now, might I just finish
answering the questions that the honourable
Member, Mr. Dickson, put to me with regard to
the effect of this classification.
Mr. Dickson.] What is in my mind, and what
I want to direct your attention to, is this : The
Board of Trade, under Class C, have fixed the
minimum load at two tons.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, that is not the
case, Sir, indeed. I assure you that is not the
case. It is only fair to Mr. Poyser that I should
explain that that is not the case. The classifi-
cation is fixed at certain consignments. Class A,
four tons; Class B, two tons ; and Class C,
two tons; but that does not affect this class.
This class is intended to provide for a case
where a trader sends a consignment of goods
and from the essence of things those goods must
be conveyed in a truck, and no other goods can
be put into it. Mr. Pope has examined the
witness about two tons, but we heard a good deal
about traffic in which one cwt. might be put into
a truck, and that the company could only charge,
although they had got to take that whole truck
100 or 150 miles, for 1 cwt. ; that is not fair to
the railway companies. The intention of the
clause is that if the traffic is conveyed in one
truck, and no other merchandise is put into that
truck, the company should have the power to
charge as for a reasonable minimum load.
Earl of Belmore.] What do you call a mini-
mum load P
Mr. Pope.] That would be settled by the
Railway Commissioners.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is not fixed for
this very reason, that the trucks vary so much in
size, so that what is a minimum load in one truck
would not be a reasonable minimum load in
another.
Mr. Poyser.] It would depend upon the com-
pany what sort of trucks they might send to us.
They might send us a 10-ton truck for two tons.
Mr. Pope.] It is not so ; and if your Grace
will follow me for one moment, I think I shall be
decide to be legal.”
able to make it perfectly clear. As far as the
:ailway companies are concerned we should have
no difficulty whatever in fixing two tons of
chemical manure as a reasonable minimum load,
using the words of the section; but the difficulty
is this: You cannot define one article without
going through the whole classification, and
defining every one ; because that which is a
reasonable minimum load for packed chemical
manure might not be a reasonable minimum load
for agricultural implements in Class C ; there-
fore, unless you go through the classification and
fix a reasonable minimum load you must leave it
Open to some discretion.
Now, first, that reasonable minimum load is
practically, though not legally, fixed by the
quotation of the company. The company under-
takes to convey two tons at a certain rate, and
sends a truck for them ; but that which is really
the primary question is this: how is reasonable
minimum to be fixed 2 Now, then, that is the
question. Supposing a charge were made, as my
learned friend Mr. Poyser suggests, that on a two-
ton consignment, we having quoted for two tons,
some railway company were wicked enough to
charge at the rate of eight tons, what would
happen P Under the 10th section of the Act of
1888, the gentleman against whom that charge
was made would complain that it was not the
right charge, and that it was not authorised as a
reasonable minimum. By Section 10 of the Act
of 1888 it is provided that: “Where any question
or dispute arises, involving the legality of any
toll, rate, or charge, or portion of a toll, rate, or
charge, charged or sought to be charged for
merchandise traffic by a company to which this
part of this Act applies, the Commissioners shall
have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same,
and to enforce payment of such toll, rate, or
charge, or so much thereof as the Commissioners
They could only charge
for a reasonable minimum. If they charged
what my learned friend Mr. Poyser's clients
thought an unreasonable minimum, they would
dispute the claim, and instead of an action being
brought to enforce it the Railway Commissioners
would have jurisdiction to say whether the com .
pany were justified in saying that was a reason-
able minimum.
Mr. Poyser | That deals with the legality, and
not the justification ; it is the legality of the
charge. .a.
Earl of Belmore.] Just take an instance.
Supposing Mr. Macadam got an order for a
small quantity, say one ton of manure from a
person to the south of his works, and another
order for one ton from a person to the west of
his works in a totally different direction, so that
different trucks must be used, if the company
send two trucks to execute those two orders, and
one truck was a four-ton truck and the other
truck was a five-ton truck, how would they de-
termine what was the minimum load 2
Mr. Pope.] It would be with regard to that
which is in practice, the reasonable minimum
load of that truck.
Earl of Belmore.] Of that particular truck.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
(81. 11.)
X X 4 Earl
352 *.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Jorn.T committ EE
29 April 1891.”
Earl of Belmore.] And that would vary with
the accidental size of the trucks. -
Mr. Pope.] The average load, my Lord, of
a truck is about two-thirds of its capacity. That
is what Mr. Findlay has always been in the habit
of saying.
Mr. Poyser.] There is nothing about that in
the section ; there is nothing about average in
the section.
Mr. Pope.] But that would be your estimate
of a reasonable minimum. It practically comes
to what I was saying, that what the company
would consider a reasonable minimum is what the
company do in their own practice in loading
. with similar articles.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is in law a reason-
able minimum ? - -
Mr. Pope.] There is no reasonable minimum in
law. * *
Earl of Belmore.] It seems to me that in a case
of the sort I have put, there would be a different
charge for the one ton of manure going perhaps
fifty miles, varying with the accidental size of the
truck. -
Mr. Pope.] It would not be so in practice cer-
tainly, my Lord. And let me say this: that
under that Section 10 the Commissioners have
made special regulations to facilitate inquiries
into disputed rates and into disputed charges
with the greatest possible fe ºility.
Mr. Poyser.] That is only with regard to
legality, as my learned friend must know per-
fectly well.
Mr. Pope.] The parties may concur in stating
such a question or dispute where it arises in the
form of a joint application.
Mr. Dickson.] Will you explain to me, on be-
half of the railway company, what do you under-
stand by the footnotes to each class : “Merchandise
comprised in Class B, if sent in quantities of less
than two tons.” Surely the Board of Trade in-
tend there, if I understand the meaning of this,
to fix the minimum load at two tons? If it is
under two tons it goes into Class 1.
Mr. Pope.] No. They intend to fix the rate
at which the traffic is to be conveyed in quantities
of less than two tons, and the maximum rate or
charge is different between the consignment of a
quantity of less than two tons, and more than two
tons; but whatever the rate chargeable for the
consignment is, this clause is intended to operate
totally independent of the article, it is intended
to deal with the question of an inadequately
loaded truck at the siding. You will observe
that it relates only to siding traffic, or to traffic
which, from the nature of it, prevents the truck.
from being loaded to a reasonable minimum.
Mr. Dichson.] Supposing the rate from Bed-
ford to London for packed manure is 5 s. a ton,
and that the chemical manufacturer loads two
tons of chemical manure at his siding, has the
consignee to pay more than 10 s. when it arrives
at its destination ?
. Mr. Pope.] Certainly not, as a matter of prac-
fice. t
Chairman.] Then I think we will hear Mr.
Poyser in reply. *
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I be allowed to say,
your Grace, that the other traders do not agree
with the propriety of this amendment.
Mr. Poyser.] That is the unkindest cut of all,
your Grace ; but I do not mind that, for this
reason, that Sir Alfred Hickman represents a
trade where these two-ton rates do not affect him
One single jot or tittle.
Chairman.] Never mind, Sir Alfred Hick-
man, take your own case.
Mr. Poyser.] Very well, your Grace, I will
deal with my own case. It does not apply to
these ten-ton lots that Sir Alfred Hickman deals
with. But now your Grace has heard the argu-
ment of my learned friend Mr. Pope. First of
all, he feels a difficulty as to who is to regulate
these matters, and he refers to the Act of 1888,
which says that if the charges are illegal than we
are to have a remedy by going to the Commis-
sioners; but when your Grace and the Commit-
tee have enacted this section you take that
remedy away from us, because you make the
charge a legal charge, and we have no right to
go to the Railway Commissioners after that
to upset it. In addition to that, your Grace, my
learned friend Mr. Pope says this. In every
instance when he is asked to define what is a
minimum load he said the practice is this and the
practice is that, and the practice is the other
thing. We are quite content with the practice ;
and if the section leaves the practice alone that is
all we want ; and I ask your Grace to say that
this section shall not stand as it does at present,
but that the company would be able to take care
of themselves by the practice as it exists A
question has been asked about a consignment to
Bedford. Supposing there are two tons being
consigned to Bedford, I do not know whether the
honourable Member caught the answer that my
learned friend Mr. Pope gave, that they would
be protected by the practice, not by the section
or schedules in any way, and we are being left
entirely to practice, because if they send a con-
signment of 5 s, it goes to Bedford, and they can
charge us the six tons. I do not say they will,
but what they will do is to use that clause to
screw up our rates on the general mass of our
business over 50 per cent, by saying, We can
charge you that if we like, and the minimum
charge or maximum charge fixed in the rates
becomes absolutely useless to over 50 per cent.
of the trade that we deal with.
Sir Joseph Bailey (to Mr. Pope)]. You say
you are unable to define what a fair minimum
would be, and you suggest two tons in the case
of one class of goods. What I want to know is,
would two tons be a fair minimum load for all
classes of traffic.
Mr. Pope.] No, sir.
Chairman.] The Committee do not accept the
amendment.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 353
29 April 1891.
Mr. Woodfall.] In order to save time, perhaps Mr. Poyser.] And the same remark will apply
I may be allowed to say that I am going to with- to the two amendments to Clauses 12 and 13, on
behalf of the Chemical Manure Munufacturers.
draw the two next amendments on this clause,
because I think they are pertinent to the rates, Chairman.] You had better withdraw them at
and I shall move them when the rates come up. the proper time.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at 11.30 o'clock.
(81.) Y Y
( 354 )
( 355 )
Die Lunae, 11° Mail, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIs GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).] I
"THINK you were going to give us some explana-
tion on Clause 10 as to the use of the word
‘required ” for carrying one truck 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] What is the pre-
cise point? -
Mr. Hanbury.] The Board of Trade seem to
think that the word “required ” was not quite
the correct word there.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No ; we think it
is the correct word.
Mr. Pember.] If used at all it the word should
be rather “ obliged ” than “required.” I think
that is what it means.
Earl of Camperdown.] If you look at the
clause you will see it is by the persons in one
case and by the circumstances in the other; and
“required" by circumstances is not English.
Mr. Pember.] “Required " by circumstances
is good Latin-English but not good English ;
“ obliged "is better, but I do not think “obliged "
is right. Take the case Mr. Beale, of the Mid-
land Company, has suggested, of a prize animal
going to a show ; we are not obliged to carry it
but it is as well we should. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you might be
obliged by the consignor; he might say, “I
insist upon it ’’; that is the other side. Both
things ought to be represented.
Mr. Pember.] Yes; I believe myself that the
best way would be to put it in the shape of the
phrase, “ the company are bound at the request
to carry.” -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That was not the in-
tention.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, that is not the
intention of the clause. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle
explained that it was all subject to the require-
ments of the trader, and it is not a question of a
railway company finding at request.
Mr. Pember.] Might I venture to suggest that
you should ask Mr. Courtenay Boyle. Take
the case of the show animal, which is a mere
illustration, going to a show, I suppose the
animal is very valuable ; it may be even that
that animal
Earl of Camperdown.] But if you say “are
obliged or réquired,” would not that do?'
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is a good sugges-
tion.
Mr. Pember.] I think that is a good sugges-
tion to put them both in.
Chairman.] Very well then, we will put them
both in, “are obliged or required.”
No we go to Clause 11.
On CLAUSE 11.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I think, your Grace,
my amendment comes first.
Chairman.j What paper is it on ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Your Grace will find it,
I think, on the top of the page.
Chairman.] What is the date 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Page 27, at the top of
the page of the 21st of April.
Mr. Pember.] For the South Staffordshire,
Worcestershire, and Warwickshire Corporate
Bodies and Associations of Traders.
Mr. Hambury.] Is that to omit the clause 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I propose to omit it, or,
as an alternative, to amend it; the alternative
you will find lower down the page.
Chairman.] What is it that you now propose
to do P -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Either to omit the
clause or to amend it.
Chairman.] You must first of all amend the
clause, and then when amended, it can be
omitted or stand part of the Bill. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then with your Grace's
permission I propose to amend it. -
Mr. Pember.] Then does Sir Alfred Hickman’s
amendment come first 2 The Marquess of Bute's
(81.)
Y Y 2 amendment,
356 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.
amendment comes next.
looks the Marquess of Bute's amendment is to
line 23, whilst Sir Alfred Hickman's is as to
lines 24 and 25.
Mr. Hanbury.] But the Marquess of Bute's is
to omit the clause altogether.
Mr. Pember.] Still his amendment comes first.
Chai, man.] Clause 5, page 11, line 23; the
first amendment we have to deal with on the
paper is by the railway companies in line 23, to
omit “three hundredweight,” and insert “five
hundred pounds.”
Mr. Pember.] Then I may say, your Grace, at
once, and I am glad of an opportunity of doing
it (very likely it may be clear one point from
your Grace's mind) that we do not insist upon
that amendment.
Chairman.] Then Sir
amendment will come next.
Mr. Shaw.] I am for the South Wales and
Monmouthshire Colliery Owners. I have also
an amendment somewhat similar to Sir Alfred
Hickman's, and perhaps it would be better that
his should be taken first.
Chairman.] What is your amendment?
Mr. Shaw.] My amendment is to omit the
words as put down by the Board of Trade, and
to put in other words : “For a fraction of a ton
in respect of consignments exceeding a hundred-
weight in weight, the company may charge ac-
cording to the number of hundredweights, and a
fraction of a hundredweight shall be deemed a
hundredweight.”
Alfred Hickman’s
Chairman.] But you first propose to omit the
clause.
Mr. Shaw.] To omit and insert.
Chairman. You propose to omit one clause for
the purpose of inserting another?
Mr. Shaw.] Certainly.
Chairman.] Then we will not deal with that
till we come to the question of omitting the
clause.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] This clause, your Grace,
appears to be designed for the purpose of facilitat-
ing account making and simplifying it so that
very small sums shall be accounted for. There
is no objection to that in principle, but the objec-
tion is that it is not fairly carried out as regards
the trader. The effect of the first part of the
clause would be, it is obvious, that the average of
a fraction of a quarter of a hundredweight
would be 14 pounds; that is to say, there would
be as many consignments of between 14 and 28
pounds as there would be between nothing and
14, leaving the average at 14 pounds. The effect
of it, therefore, would be to add 14 pounds to
every consignment. Now, on a consignment of
four hundredweight, to add 14 pounds would be
to add 34 per cent. ; 33 per cent. for nothing;
3} per cent. that has not been carried at all. In
the latter part of the clause, the latter section of
it, the average addition would be two and a-half
hundredweight; that is to say, that the railway
companies may charge two and a-half hundred-
weight on every consignment that is on every
truck, practically more than they carry. Well,
my Lord Duke, the effect of that would be on a
If your Grace kindly
truck of six tons to add 2% per cent., and in my
individual case it would be to add 7,000 tons a
year; they would be able to charge me with that
which they had never carried at all. I venture
to propose this amendment to make it fair be-
tween the parties; that is to say, that when
the fraction is under 14 pounds it shall not be
charged at all; when it is over 14 pounds 28
pounds shall be charged; and in the same way
when the fraction is over two and a-half hundred-
weight a quarter of a ton shall be charged ; but
when it is under two and a-half hundredweight
nothing shall be charged. The effect of that will be,
taking the average of consignments, fair to the rail-
way company and fair to the trader. The clause
would read as I propose it, “Where a consign-
ment by merchandise train is over three hundred-
weight, and under five tons in weight, a fraction
of a quarter of a hundredweight, if exceeding
fourteen pounds, may be charged for as a quarter
of a hundredweight, and if less than fourteen
pounds it may not be charged, and where a consign-
ment by merchandise train is over five tons in
weight a fraction of a quarter of a ton, if exceed-
ing two and a-half hundredweight, may be
charged for as a quarter of a ton, but if less than
two and a-half hundredweight may not be
charged.”
Mr. Pember.] Do you call any evidence 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I do not think it is
necessary to call any evidence; I think it is
self-evident.
Mr. Pember.] I think, your Grace, almost
before I said anything, might I venture to
suggest to your Grace, as this is a clause con-
structed by the Board of Trade, that you should
ask Lord Balfour of Burleigh's opinion upon it.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the present
practice of the railway companies in these
matters; how do they settle them now Ż
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The practice is in large
consignments not to charge for small fractions,
such as these ; they are not entitled to charge ;
they cannot charge for more they carry.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Oh, yes.
Mr. Pember.] That is not accurate.
Chairman.] They do not charge for more than
they carry.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The ordinary practice
is not to charge for more than they carry.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Let me hand your
Grace this book ; it is the maximum rates and
charges Blue-book, and it gives the various Acts
of Parliament (hamding in the same); there are
a large number of them there.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I be allowed to say
in that connection that a trader has the choice
generally of three or four railway companies,
and if one railway company has got this clause
enabling them to charge for a quarter of a
hundredweight when it is less, other railway
companies that have not got it can be chosen by
the trader, and the practical effect is that the
trader having the choice chooses the one that is
not ; so that the other assimilates his practice to
the one that has not the clause ; the one that has
not the clause governs the two in point of fact,
or the three, as the case may be in practice.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES
357
AND CHARGES PROVISION AL OR DER BILLS.
11 May 1891.
*–
Chairman.] What have the Board of Trade to
say upon this matter?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I do not think the Board
of Trade have very much to say about this clause ;
I differ from the learned gentleman opposite; it is
not a Board of Trade clause, it is a modification, and a
small modification, of the railway companies’ clause.
We had observed in a very large number of Acts
of Parliament for account-making purposes, we
believe, clauses of various kinds are in, pro-
viding for the abolition of fractions, but in the
present Acts the clauses, as Sir Alfred Hickman
put it, are all one way; that is to say, the rail-
way companies may charge for something less
than a quarter of a ton as a quarter of a ton. Sir
Alfred Hickman's proposal is that if it is less than
a certain proportion the level is to be downwards,
and if more the level is to be upwards; just as
sometimes 10 s. 6 d. is considered to be 11 s. and
10 s. 5 d. is considered to be 10 s. That is the
principle of Sir Alfred Hickman's amendment.
It is an equitable one, and it is entirely for the
Committee to decide whether that modification
shall be made. The Committee will remember
of course that the trader has the option of load-
ing, and therefore he may so load at his own
option as a rule, as to get the benefit of the
clause proposed by Sir Alfred Hickman.
Earl of Camperdown.] But have all the com-
panies got clauses with a similar effect to this
clause, or some of them only.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, some of them only.
I have handed to the Chairman a statement of
the companies; you will see that they are very
multiform and very various. If your Lordship
looks down the list you will see it.
Mr. Pember.] It seems to me that most of them
have. Then I have very little to say, your
Grace, I think upon the matter beyond this.
Looking down this list I think it bears out a
remark which has just been made to me by the
solicitor to the Midland Company, that he never
heard of any case of a company who had uot
such a clause ; and I confess it looks very much
as if they all had. Looking down the list I see
company after company, “a fraction of a quarter
of a ton to be deemed a quarter of a ton,” in
every one I think, if you look, I cannot see a
single company that has not got that clause.
No. I turn over page after page and I find it
invarable. Far be it for me to say that you can-
not find any such ; but I cannot see one.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] There are some.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There are certainly
SOD(162.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The London and North
Western 1846 Act, practically the London and
North Western Railway.
Mr. Pember.] Let us see ; that is an impor-
tant exception, no doubt ; that is not in my book.
I see in the model Bill the regulation “As to
tolls: for a fraction of a ton the company may
demand tolls according to the number of quarters
of a ton in each such fraction, and if there be a
fraction of a quarter of a ton, such fraction shall
be deemed to be a quarter of a ton. That is in
the model Bill as it stands now as amended for
the year 1890; that is the model kept in Parlia-
ment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is only a precedent
for drafting, it is nothing more.
Mr. Pember.] It is a little more than a prece:
dent for drafting, excuse me; it is a precedent
for what ought to be.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Indeed it is not.
Mr. Pember.] So far as that goes, I am of
course aware that Parliament need not accept it ;
but do not tell me, at least tell me if you like,
but you will have great difficulty in persuading
me that when a department puts into the model
Bill “for a fraction of a ton the company may
demand tolls according to the number of quarters
of a ton in each such fraction, and if there be a
fraction of a quarter of a ton such fraction shall
be deemed to be a quarter of a ton,” they mean
nothing by it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The model Bill is not
made by any department.
Mr. Pember.] Perhaps the model Bill does not
exist.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes it does.
Mr. Hanbury.] What are the facts as to the
London and North Western Company ?
Earl of Camperdown.] The London and North
Western Company have got these arrangements
in most of their Acts.
Mr. Pember.] It so happens that in the par-
ticular list handed to me the London and North
Western does not appear.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] You will find it in the
book I handed to the Chairman.
Mr. Pember.] At all events some of the London
and North Western Acts have it, and nearly all.
The London and South Western have it I see,
and the London and Brighton have it.
Chairman." In the London and North Western
South Staffordshire Act it exists, does not it?
Sir Alſred Hickman.] The South Stafford-
shire section of the London and North Western
Railway is of a very unimportant character
indeed.
Chairman.] But it is in that section, is it
not ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am not aware ; but
the London and North Western Railway practi.
cally is the railway governed by the Act I have
ventured to hand in to your Grace.
Chairman.] That is the 9th and 10th of the
Queen P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Yes; that is the Lon-
don and North Western Railway between Lon-
don, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds,
and Crewe; in fact, it is practically the London
and North Western Railway for all intents and
purposes.
Mr. Pember.] But one of the funniest things
is, that the Stour Valley section, the South
Staffordshire section, which covers Sir Alfred
Hickman's district from which this amendment
comes, has got the clause in.
Earl of Camperdown.] But Sir Alfred Hick-
man’s contention is now that the main Act of the
London and North Western Railway has not
got it.
(81.)
Y Y 3 Mr.
MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN PE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.
Mr. Pember.] That is perfectly true; but that,
as a matter of fact, is not the Act that affects his
district. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] His traffic may go over
that line. *
Chairman.] The London and North Western
Act was passed in 1846.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, it was passed in 1846; but
numberless Acts have been passed since, and
apparently all of them have got those powers in.
It seems to me, your Grace, if I may venture
to say so, that the weak point of Sir Alfred
Hickman's position is this. that he is asking for
this as a general proposition affecting all rail-
ways, and that in a general way it is true that
the railway companies have got the powers that
he seeks to repeal. It is perfectly true that you
have got a certain Act of the London and North
Western Railway, namely, the Act of 1846, and,
if you like, including a very large section of the
London and North Western line in which that
clause does not appear, but on a section of the
London and North Western system which covers
the district from which the amendment comes,
there is a clause; there is the power. So that
you come to this : Here is some one asking, as
against all railway companies, legislation which
would be only based on one particular excep-
tional condition of one section of one of the large
railway companies, which section does not apply
to the traffic primarily which comes from the dis-
trict represented by Sir Alfred Hickman, who is
asking for the amendment. Then you must not
forget this: That although it is true that in 1846
there was an Act of Parliament that did
not contain the powers, any deduction you
may draw from that is nullified by the
fact that there have been countless Acts
of Parliament since 1846, which give the
go-by to that principle of legislation in a con-
trary direction ; and, in the third place, we
must also remember what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
has just mentioned, and which is present to my
mind, that, although there is a seeming equity,
namely, that if there is a certain fraction above
a ton nothing should be charged, if you
get beyond a certain point that fraction
should not be charged, but a higher amount
should be charged (that is to say, if it
under half the fraction, you shall not charge it,
but if it is over you shall); the packing is not
in the hands of the railway company; it is in
the hands of one of the parties to the legisla-
tion, who will always take care that there is a
certain amount of surplusage; that it shall be
always under rather than over a quarter of a ton.
This is obviously a compromise. We, the railway
companies, under the clause as modified by the
Board of Trade, lose a great deal.
Earl of Camperdown.] What was your original
proposal P
Mr. Pember.] The proposal was to maintain
a quarter of a ton all through : to maintain the
existing legislation. There is a very serious
drawback upon us in the clause as proposed by
the Board of Trade, because the 13oard of Trade,
instead of giving us in all cases the power to
charge as we have now (except in one isolated
instance of the London and the North Western
Railway) for a quarter of a ton whenever there is
a fraction over, limit it to where a consignment is
over 3 cwt. (that is reducing our small parcels
limit from 500 lbs, down to 300 lbs. to begin
with), and under 5 tons a fraction of a quarter of
a hundredweight is to be charged as for a quarter
of a ton. We cannot charge, in fact, for a frac-
tion of a quarter of a ton, as for a quarter of a
ton ; and it is not until we get to over five tons
in weight that we are then to have our old
powers, I say the powers of all the companies, I
have seen enough to say that the London and
South Western, the Great Western, and the
London and Brighton, all have it. Then we
may have our old power of charging as for a
quarter of a ton. Now there must be give and
take in these matters, and it seems to me that in
submitting to that clause of the Board of Trade
there is a very considerable amount of give on
the part of the railway companies. 1 do not
think I can add anything more.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] If I may be allowed to
say one word in answer to Mr. Courtenay Boyle's
suggestion that the consignment is in the hands
of the trader, that is absolutely inapplicable, be-
cause if you get an order for goods you must
send the goods that are ordered ; you cannot
regulate the weight of them to 28 lbs. or 28
quarters; it would be absolutely impossible to alter
the practice in the way suggested. Then with
regard to the particular point that Mr. Pember
took of a consignor from the South Staffordshire
district sending goods for example to Liverpool
or London there would be six miles on the
Stour Valley line where they would be entitled
to charge an extra quarter of a hundredweight,
and 120 miles on the London and North Western,
where they would not be entitled to charge it;
and precisely the same thing applies to all con-
signments going to all parts of the country. The
Stour Valley line is a very unimportant line, and
it is a matter of little importance whether they
charge it or not. But with great respect I
would venture to say to your Grace that the
Committee are not bound by old Acts of Parlia-
ment at all : The object of this Act is to do
just and reasonable between the traders and the
railway companies; and it certainly never can be
argued that it is just or reasonable between the
traders and the railway companies; for therailway
companies to charge for more than they carry.
A shopkeeper if he charged for an ounce more of
sugar in weight would be fined for it, and prac-
tically railway companies have never been able
to do that. I submit it is neither just nor
reasonable that the London and North Western
Company should charge me for 7,000 tons a year
that they do not carry.
Chairman.] I am afraid the Committee think
the clause is both just and reasonable; therefore
they do not alter it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My Lord, the next
amendment seems to be less reasonable than Sir
Alfred Hickman's, therefore, I do not propose to
proceed with it; I refer to the amendment by the
Mansion House Association, in line 27, to omit
“ quarter of a ton,” and insert “ half of a hundred-
weight.”
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
359
11 May 1891.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman.) Then
do you propose to admit the Clause.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] After what your Grace
has said, I shall not take up the time of the
Committee by so doing.
Mr. Shaw.] My amendment, your Grace, is
simply to insert the unit, one ton instead of five
tons; but after what you have just said I shall
not proceed with it.
On CLAUSE 12.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The amendment that I
have handed in on this Clause raises precisely the
same question, and after what your Grace has
decided I will not take up time by discussing it.
Mr. Pember.] There appears to be no amend-
ment on Clause 12.
On Claus E 13.
Chairman." The South Wales and Monmouth-
shire Colliery owners propose to omit the
Clause.
Mr. Shaw.] I withdraw that your Grace.
On CLAUSE 14.
No amendment is proposed to this Clause.
On CLAUSE 15.
No amendment is proposed to this Clause.
On CLAUSE 16.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I beg
amendment my Lord.
Chairman.] That is for South Staffordshire
Traders.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Yes, your Grace.
Mr. Pember.] Then the railway companies
have a small amentment here your Grace which
is simply a question of fact I think, or rather
depends upon a question of fact. We propose
after the words “green heart” to insert the
words “ash, elm, and birch,” that is simply a
question of fact whether they come under the
denomination of heavy timber or not ; and I
think on the whole I had better put someone into
the box to make a statement as to the weight of
them. Does anybody serionsly object to “ash,
elm, and birch " ?
Mr. Whitehead..] On behalf of the Mansion
House Association we object to the proposed
amendment by the railway companies with
regard to elm and birch.
to withdraw the
Chairman.] With regard to ash, elm, and
birch 2
Mr. Whitehead.] Not with regard to ash, your
Grace, but with regard to elm and birch.
Mr. Penber.] Tben I will call Mr. Light.
Chairman.] You need not touch the question
of “ash,” it is not disputed ; it is “elm and
birch' which is in dispute.
Mr. JABEZ LIGHT, is called in ; and, having been sworn ; is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
1670. YoU are the Goods Manager of the
South Eastern Railway are you not?–Yes.
167 l. You know that it is proposed by the
railway companies to insert the words “ash, elm,
and birch,” among the varieties of heavy timber
in this clause 2–Yes.
1672. Between the words “green heart” and
“hickory.” Take ash first; what is your reason
for that.
Chairman.] Ash is agreed to.
Mr. Pember.
1672". I beg your Grace’s pardon, elm. (To
the Witness.) What is your reason for putting
elm among heavy timber 2—That the elm timber
accords pretty well as regards the square foot
measurement with the other timbers which are
now at 40 cubic feet.
1673. That it does as a matter of fact weigh
in comparison with other timbers among the
heavy class 2–Quite so.
1674. Then as to birch 2—The same thing
applies. I do not know that birch is quite as
heavy as elm, but it is in that category of heavy
timber.
1675. Is there any great difference between
the two 2–I should say not.
Lord Belper.
1676. Are you speaking of all sorts of elm ;
there are great varieties of elm, are there not ?—
Yes.
Lord Belper—continued.
1677. Do you make your amendment appli-
cable to all sorts of elm ?—Yes; the average
weight would accord pretty well with the timber
included in the 40 cubic feet per ton.
1678. Are not some sorts of elm much lighter
than others?—Some sorts of elm would be lighter,
and the weight would vary according to the time
that the tree had been felled.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
1679. At the present time in the Railway
Clearing House classification at what weight
is elm carried per ton ; do you find it
among the 40 feet class. (The Clearing House
classification is handed to the Witness.) I think
you will find it at page 99 °–It is not specially
mentioned. You will find elm in column A at
Article 8 in the Railway Clearing House classifi-
cation, page 99.
1680. Could you look at page 99, paragraph
4 –Posts and rails, do you mean P
1681. I am afraid you have not the same copy
as I have 2–Mine is the 1890 edition.
1682. It is on page 100; I beg your pardon ;
paragraph 4 ; will you follow me there, “unless
otherwise stated the charges as per classification
are in all cases at measurement weight, and the
measurement must be computed as follows: oak,
teak, mahogany, beech, birch in bogs, ash, green
heart, hickory wood, ironwood, and bay wood
40 feet to the ton ; all other timber 50 feet to
(81.)
Y Y 4 the
360 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TH E JOINT COMMITTEE
TAKEN BEFORE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
the ton’’; so that, I think you follow me ; elm
at the present time is carried at 50 feet to the
ton P – Not being specially mentioned, elm would
come into the 50 feet to the ton.
1683. And is carried according to the Railway
Clearing House classification at 50 feet to the
ton 2–Yes.
1684. That is the arrangement made by all the
railway companies for their own convenience 2–
It dous not apyly to all the companies; it does
not apply to the South Eastern, or the London,
Chatham, and Dover.
1685. But amongst the greater number of the
railway companies that classification does apply P
Yes.
1686. Do you dissent from that rule of the
Clearing House ?—There is no formal dissent
here. It is understood between the companies
themselves; and the public of course know it
because they pay the different charges.
1687. But in practice at the present time
you are carrying elm and birch
Chairman.] No, you read birch out of the 40
feet.
Mr. Whitehead..] Birch in logs, your Grace.
(To the Witness.) But other birch and all kinds
of elm are carried at 50 feet to the ton 2–Yes ;
come into “all other timber.”
1688. And you are appearing here, as I un-
derstand, on behalf of all the companies 2–I am
speaking on behalf of the companies. We all
consider, looking to the character of the timber,
and the weight of it, that it should go into the
40 feet class. * -
1689. Has there been any change in the char-
acter of this timber since this classification was
made by the railway companies 2–Not that I
am aware of. I do not see how the timber could
alter in character. --
1690. Then substantially the same reasons
would apply now as applied when the classifica-
tion was made. If you asked me that question,
reply is, that I believe it was a mistake alto-
gether that elm was not included.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
Was that question raised before the Board of
Trade 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes, your Grace;
and in the first draft of the Provisional Order
laid before Parliament in August we had both
ask and elm in this class where it is now proposed
to be inserted by the railway companies. We
struck them out: and apparently we were wrong
about ash ; but, as your Grace sees, elm is deci-
dedly controversial ; and the reason we struck
out elm in the autumn was this : that we were
assured, and we believe it to be the case, that it
is one of the properties of elm to vary much
more than any other wood between the time
when it is first felled and when it has lain for
six or seven months; we believe it is one of the
woods that varies more in dry weather after
having been cut than any other, and gets much
lighter after it has lain some time. Therefore,
if it is not mentioned, it becomes a question of
fact under this clause whether the wood is a
heavy or light wood ; and we would assume, in
consequence of its being struck out and not men-
tioned at all, that if it was freshly felled and was
heavy wood, it might as a question of fact be
determined to go with the heavy class, and if it
had lain some time and become light wood it
might go into the lighter class. But considering
the great importance of many questions to be
decided, I cannot think that this timber matter,
which is really a question of fact, is a question
that this Committee is quite competent to judge
of.
Mr. Pember.] Might I venture to ask Lord
Balfour of Burleigh a question ? Did I rightly
understand him to say that it would become a
question of fact whether elm would become light
enough to go into the light class or heavy enough
to go into the heavy class 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It was our under-
standing that it would be so ; but I went on to
say, that even if it was not so I cannot think
the matter is one of very great importance.
Chairman.] I was going to ask you this:
Supposing that elm is cut and when it is cut is
heavy because full of water, and that that elm is
sold and sent off immediately after it is cut, it
would then be heavy timber 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We thought so.
Chairman.] But then it would not be under
this clause. - *
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes; I think it
would, because the words are, “when timber is
charged by measurement weight, 40 cubic feet of
oak, mahogany, teak, beech, greenheart, hickory,
ironwood, bay wood, or other heavy timber,” and
in that case we think elm would be a heavy tim-
ber; in the other case the clause runs on, “and
50 cubic feet of poplar, larch, fir, or other light
timber. One of the members of the Committee
asked the question whether some elms are not
heavy timber and some light timber apart from
the question whether it has been a long time or
a short time cut, so that if you put elm into either
part of the clause you must prejudice somebody.
If they are dealing in heavy elm you prejudice
the railway companies if you put it into the list
of light timber. If the elm happened to be light
elm the prejudice would be the other way.
Chairman.] Then who is to decide whether it
is heavy or light? -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I should hope if
it was very contentious the only decision would
be a refusal to pay the charge on the part of the
trader, in which case the railway company would
have to sue him before a county court judge;
then it would become a question of fact for the
county court judge to decide, whether the par-
ticular traffic that was carried was properly
charged as heavy or light timber.
Mr. Pember.] Then who is to say what is the
proper definition of heavy timber or light
timber 2 -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace sees that
this really is a matter of evidence, and I should
like to call some evidence before you upon the
point, whether elm is heavy traffic or not.
Chairman.] Whom do you appear for ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I appear for the Man-
- sion
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
361
11 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
*
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
sion House Association, which represents really
the timber trade of the whole country.
Chairman.] Do you propose an amendment?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We are opposing the
railway companies' amendment.
Mr. Pember.] I had better call Mr. Staniforth
to see what he says.
MR. GEORGE WILLIAM STANIFORTH, having been re-called;
is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
1691. YoU are the Goods Manager of the
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway ?—
I am.
1692. I had better put it to you at once. In
the principal Act of the Brighton Company, I
believe the following is the classification of
timber; I will just read it to you; at 40 cubic
feet to the ton, “ oak, mahogany, teak, beech, or
ash ’’?—That is the classification.
1693. And at 50 feet to the ton “any other
timber * 2–That is so ; those are the words.
1694. I suppose we may assume that the in-
tention was to put heavy timber into the low
measurement per ton, and light timber into the
higher measurement?—I have always understood
that that was the intention of the Act classifica-
tion ; one class for heavy sorts of timber, and then
putting in the lighter timbers into another class.
1695. It does not need one to go very far to
see that at all events that clause does not carry
out such intention ?—Some of the heaviest goods
are omitted altogether.
1696. Then they would come under
definition of “any other timber'?—Yes.
1697. For instance, greenheart, hickory, and
other very heavy woods would come under the
definition there of “ any other timber " ?--- Yes;
including lignum vitae and other of the heaviest
woods.
1698. I merely asked you that question about
your own Act to dispose of it in that way; now
ash I need not ask anything about ; that is agreed;
but what have you to say about elm ?—I have
always looked upon elm as heavy timber ; I never
understood it in any other light except as heavy
timber; compared with fir and some other light
timbers, it is double or treble the weight of many
of the light timbers that we carry.
1699. Some suggestion has been made as to
the variation in the weight of elm. In a general
way is the elm brought to you fairly soon after
it is cut”—I do not think we carry any elm that
is not green elm; that is, shortly after it has been
Cut.
1700. You scarcely ever carry anything but
green elm ?—I never heard of any light elm
being carried; it is very little elm we carry
after it has been cut for any considerable time.
the
Earl of Camperdown.
1701. What settles whether the timber that
you carry is heavy or light 2–It is only by the
denomination ; we look upon oak, teak, and all
those timbers as heavy ; we can only judge in
that way.
1702. But you said just now, in answer to a
question, that hickory, although not mentioned
in your classification, would be included as
“other heavy timber " ?—
Mr. Pember.] He cannot help himself, on
account of the Statute.
Earl of Camperdown.
1703. It would be included. Then what is
to prevent elm being included in the same way
if it is heavy timber?—I believe it was merely
the careless drawing of the Act. The Act says:
“oak, mahogany, teak, beech, or ash ’’ at the 40
cubic feet measurement ; “any other timber " at
the 50 feet measurement.
Mr. Pember.] The witness does not say that
although hickory, ironwood, greenheart, hay
Wood, find elm are not mentioned, they would be
charged as heavy timber ; what he said was that
in consequence of their not being mentioned it
the heavy timber, though being heavy timber, in
has to be charged amongst the light timber.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1704. In your view, elm is a heavy timber?—
Yes; I have always considered it so.
1705. Have you tried to charge the timber
merchants on your line for it at 40 cubic feet,
and have you ever succeeded in doing so?–By
a special arrangement with the timber merchants
made some years ago, upon a more precise
system of measurement than had been previously
in force, we got an agreement with the merchants
that they should pay at the rate of 33 cubic feet
to the ton.
1706. For elm ?—For elm.
1707. That is to say, treating it as the light
timber 2
Mr. Pember.] No, very heavy.
Witness.] Treating it as very heavy timber.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1708. Have you succeeded in getting payment
for that from any timber merchants in your
hands?—Yes.
1799. You say that you never carily elm unless
it is fresh cut –I am not aware that we do.
1710. Do you know Mr. Stenning, a large
timber merchant on your line 2–Very well.
1711. Have you carried timber for him that
has been cut and lying seven, eight, nine, and
10 months?–Mr. Stenning is a very large timber
merchant, who has a considerable store at East
Grinstead, and it is quite possible that he does
occasionally send timber which has been in his
place for a considerable time ; it must be in
small quantities; it has never come under my
In Otloe.
1712. Does not elm dry very rapidly 2—I am
not, aware that it dries more rapidly than other
timber.
(81.)
Z Z 1713. Perhaps
362 MINUTES OF
EV IIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*=--—
11 May 1891.]
t
Mr. STANIForTH.
—s
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
1713. Perhaps you are not an expert in tim"
ber ?–No, I do not profess to be.
1714. I think you do not adopt the Clearing
IHouse classification for timber 2—No.
1715. Therefore both yourself and Mr. Light,
for the South Eastern Company, are outside the
Clearing House Regulations for timber 2–We
3, T62. -
1716. In the Clearing House classification is
not elm treated as light timber 2—I do not
recollect that it is; if you tell me that it is I will
accept it.
1717. You will find it on page 100 of the
Clearing House classification. If it is light on
the northern lines, I suppose it is light on the
southern lines too —I taka it that it has arisen
only from imperfect descriptions in the Acts of
Parliament than from anything else, as in our
OWI), Ca,SC.
1718. Then I will call evidence upon that.
When you made that arrangement with the
timber merchants, to carry at 33 feet to the ton,
did you at the same time largely reduce your
rates?—No.
1719. Not at all ?— No. The rate at that
time was increased if I remember about that
period.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We have got to an issue
at any rate, and we shall have to prove it.
Re-examined by Mr. Pember.
1720. Apparently, although elm is not among
your heavy timbers, and according to your Act
you might be forced to carry it at 50 cubic feet
to the ton, as coming under the denomination of
“any other timber,” you have made an arrange-
ment (we will see what the circumstances were
presently), which absolutely brings it below
the cubic feet measurement of the heaviest tim-
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON,
Mr. Pember—continued.
ber 2—Brings it down to 33 cubic feet to the ton.
One of the difficulties of timber measurement is
the manner of ascertaining the measurement.
The measurement we are entiled to carry un-
doubtedly is that which would be ascertained if
the timber were plunged in a tank of water and
the displacement found. That is what we are
entitled to carry at by our Act of Parliament.
But the timber merchant's measurement is some-
thing quite different, which causes us to carry in
many instances from 30 cwt. to the ton.
Earl of Camperdown.
1721. Do you happen to know whether the
rates on the southern line are different in this.
respect from the rates on the lines north of
London?—We do not use the same classification;
but rate for rate our rates are quite as low as
those of the northern lines.
1722. I do not know enough about railways
quite to understand that answer. Do they charge
no more or as much for carrying elm as you do?
—I think that a comparison of our own rates
with those of any of the northern lines would
show that they are lower generally than the
rates on the northern lines are. That I think is
the answer to your question.
1723. Even for elm ?—Even for elm. The
class rate under which timber comes is generally
lower than the same rate on the norther lines.
That is brought about I believe chiefly by this
unfortunate mistake, I cannot look upon it in any
other light, in the Brighton Company’s Act of
Parliament.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pember.] I want just to ask Mr. Wilkin- .
son, of the Great Western Railway Company,
a question. *
is called in ; and, having been sworn, is
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
1724. YoU are the Goods Manager of the Great
Western Railway 2–Yes.
1725. I believe you have actually weighed,
have you not, some ash, elm, and birch, over your
weighing machine at Swindon, for the purpose of
seeing what their relative weights are 2–That
1S SO.
1726. Is it the fact that the elm worked out to
38 feet to the ton, and the ash and birch worked
out to 37 feet 2—We took the wood just as it was
in condition for being worked up into our car-
riages and wagons. The elm worked out to 38
feet to the ton, and the other two woods worked
out to 37 feet.
1727. Then that would be dry elm ?–Yes, dry
elm, just as it is used for the construction of
coaches and wagons.
1728. And compared with dry ash and dry
birch 2—Yes.
Mr. Pember—continued.
1729. And there was a difference of one cubic
foot to the ton between them 2–Yes.
Chairman.
1730. English elm, do you mean 7 — Yes,
English elm.
Lord Belper.
1731. The small-leaved elm ?—Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1732. How long had it been cut 2–I cannot
tell you.
Mr. Pember.
1733. It was ready to be used ?–It was quite
dry.
The Witness is directed to with raw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not going to
address your Grace upon this, but I will put a
witness into the box who will tell you exactly
the whole story.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
363
11 May 1891.
Mr. WILLIAM W. K. STENNING, is called in; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1734. YoU are Chairman of the Committee of
the Midland Counties and South England Timber
Trade Association ?—Yes.
1735. And you are an Alderman of the
County Council of East Sussex, and you know
the proposal of the railway companies to insert
after “greenheart,” “ash, elm, and birch " ?—
Yes. t -
1736. I understand that your association has
no objection to the insertion of ash and birch 2–
We have no objection to ash. -
1737. Do you object to birch 2—We object to
any alteration.
1738. But the insertion of ash is an alteration,
is it not ?—No, it is not.
1739. Why do you object to elm and birch
being added ?–We maintain that the Railway
Companies’ Acts of Parliament were based upon
the old Canal Acts; they have always had to
carry elm at 50 cubic feet to the ton,and we see
no reason for making any alteration now.
1740. Is it at present carried at 50 feet to the
ton?—Yes, everywhere I know of.
1741. Is it or is it not true that you made an
arrangement by which it was to be carried at
33% feet to the ton P-I have never made any
such arrangement with regard to elm. -
1742. Have you sent elm over the line of the
London and Brighton Company ?—Yes.
1743. At various times?—At various times.
1744. Is it a wood that dries rapidly 2–There
are different kinds of elm, but the common elm,
the Wych elm (and by far the greater proportion
is the common elm) dries rapidly.
1745. Have the railway company at any time
tuied to charge you at 40 feet to the ton -—
Yes.
1746. Have you ever paid at 40 feet to the
ton up to the present time !—I have always
resisted it.
1747. Have you as a matter of fact had your
elm carried at 50 feet to the ton ?—I am doing it
at the present moment on the London and
Brighton line.
1748. Now that you are here, Mr. Staniforth
has mentioned that arrangement that was made
with certain traders as to certain timbers being
carried at 33 feet to the ton. What was the
nature of that arrangement?—It is rather a long
story; if his Grace would allow me to explain it
I should be very pleased to do so.
1749. I think you are bound to explain it 2–
Chairman.] If he can speak of his own know-
ledge.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1750. He is one of the timber merchants with
whom Mr.
carried it out with Mr. Light, in his office,
who was then the manager for the London
and Brighton Company. At that time the
Question of measurement of English timber was
being discussed, and a system was adopted in the
North of England, particularly at . Liverpool,
from time immemorial.
Staniforth said it was made 2—I
Mr. Balfour Browne–continued.
which was called the Customs measurement,
whereby they took the divisior of the foot cube
at 113 instead of 144. The Brighton Railway
Company made some representations to us; when
I say “us,” I mean as timber merchants, that.
they would not be any longer bound by Hopper's
measurement, Hopper's measurement having
always ruled the measurement of English timber
We held a consultation
in London, a meeting of timber merchants ; but
We were no match for the great railway com-
panies, we could not afford to fight them ; and it
was decided that the matter should be com-
promised; and I, with another gentleman who
has long since retired from the English timber
trade, were deputed to arrange matters with the
representatives of the railway companies. The
gentleman whom we met was Mr. Light, who
was in this chair a few minutes ago; and in view
of that decision we decided to allow the 40 feet
of oak, mahogany, beech, and ash to be reduced
to 33 feet of our Hopper's measure; because we
buy our timber and sell it and carry it, we do
everything by measurement ; and it would be
most inconvenient to us to have to measure this
timber by a new system of measurement. So we
wished to arrive at some quantity which would
be represented by Hopper's measurement which
worked out at 33 feet instead of 40 feet,
and the same proportion for 50 feet class
would be 41 feet. The Brighton Company,
at that time very materially reduced their rates
and they are carrying things for me now at
3 s. 6 d. that I know about that time, in the
year 1868, they were charging 6 s. 7d. for.
Since that time many decisions about the
measurement of timber have been given in the
courts of law, especially one on the Great
Western Railway, the title of which was
Lowe v. the Great Western Company, or the
Great Western Company v. Lowe, I am not
clear, which. That has been tried and never
appealed against ; and in our case Hopper's
measurement ruled the day. They were bound
to take the 40 feet and 50 feet of Hopper's
measurement. I know as a fact that after those
decisions I can make the Brighton, or any other
Company, carry for me at 40 and 50 feet res-
pectively, but seeing the handsome and proper
Way in which the Brighton Company, I am glad
to say, have always treated me, we have thought
it advisable to let the arrangement continue in
force, because of the great reduction in the rates.
1751. Has that affected the question of the
carriage of elm at all?–In no way.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
1752. I understand you to say that the
arrangement you came to reduce what you call
40 feet timber to 33 feet and reduced 50 feet to
41 feet 2–Yes.
1753. Then after all said and done, if elm
were in the 50 feet time timber category under
your arrangement, it would be brought down to
(81.)
Z Z 2 4l
364
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. STENNING.
[ Jomtinued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
41 feet?—Forty-one feet. I think a rule-of-
three sum would work out as 40 is to 33 so is
50 to 41.
1754. Then there is not much difference
between us?—But we do not admit it.
1755. You may not admit it, but that looks
uncommonly like it. But what I am instructed
to ask you is this: because it is denied very
positively that at the time you made that ar-
rangement which, as you say, would reduce 40
feet to 33 feet, and 50 feet to 41 feet, at that
time and as part of the arrangement, as I under-
stand you, the Brighton Company made a reduc-
tion in their rates ?—About that time.
Chairman.] Not as part of the arrangement 2
Mr. Pember.
1756. Not as part of the arrangement ?—Not
as part of the arrangement.
Chairman.] I did not understand him to say
SO.
Mr. Pember.
1757. I understood him to say it was in conse-
quence. (To the Witness.) Was it before or
after they made that reduction ?--That I cannot
say; they have not raised it since ; that is the
thing that affects us.
1758. I am told that the reduction took place
some years after that, and was quite independent
of this alteration of the measurement?—I could
look into my railway books, but I have not one
here. I produced one before the Board of Trade
inquiry.
Chairman.] I distinctly understood that it was
not part of that arrangement.
Mr. Pember.
1759. I am told it was some time afterwards.
(To the Witness.) Is it not a question of fact.
Are birch and elm, and ash much about the same
weight 2—I cannot say that I have had very
large experience of birch; it is wood that is very
little carried. Of course birch is foreign wood
more than English.
1760. Is it not the fact that ash and eim are
about the same weight 2–Ash and elm, they
may be immediately they are cut down.
1761. That is one step, at all events, that they
are about the same weight when they are cut
down. But you heard what Mr. Wilkinson
said as to dry elm ready for use, you know in
their carriage shops, dry elm, birch, and ash
working out to within one cubic foot to a ton
the same ; are you astonished to hear that ?—I
did not hear him say it was dry and ready for
UlSC.
1762. That is precisely what he did say, in
the state in which he said we should convert it
into our carriages 2—I am sorry to say some
people use very green timber now-a-days.
1763. Not when they are making things for
themselves, I fancy. When they are making
things for others I can understand it; but not
when they are making things for themselves 2–
I do not know what the Great Western Com-
pany do at Swindon.
1764. Perhaps you will kindly answer me this
question without any reference to old Acts
Mr. Pember—continued.
which you object to see altered when they are
so far in your favour; but independently of that
would you kindly answer me this question: is
elm a light or a heavy timber 2 – The old classifi-
cation has always been between hard and soft.
Elm is a soft wood.
1765. But I did not ask you about the old
classification. I ask you whether elm is light or
heavy timber; forget all about old Acts of
Parliament 2–I do not know that I can say more
than I have said. It is heavy when it is first
cut, but it lightens very rapidly, and is a light
timber a few months after it has been cut.
1766. But when it is cut, is it a heavy or light
timber 2—I do not think it is as heavy as many
woods.
1767. Is it as heavy as ash when it is cut 2–
It depends very much on the soil. Ash varies
very much in weight on the different soils on
which it is grown.
1768. So I suppose does oak 2 – Oak varies
according to the difference of soil.
1769. Still I cannot get any distinct answer,
I am afraid, from you. I will just ask once more
if you can give your mind to it. Is elm, looked
at fairly and independently, a heavy or light
timber 4–Taking the average of the time it is
cut it is light timber.
1770. It is heavy when cut?—It is heavy when
Cut.
1771. When is the most of it sent by railway;
you heard what Mr. Light said 2–It is very
difficult to answer that question.
1772. Mr. Light did not seem to have any
difficulty in answering it?—I will venture to say
with regard to Mr. Light's and Mr. Staniforth's
evidence that on the Brighton and on the South
Eastern Railway systems there is comparatively
a very small quantity of elm. Elm is much more
carried in the Midland districts on the London
and North Western, the Great Western, and the
Great Northern Railways.
1773. I ask you so far as your experience goes
is it more often carried when it is fresh cut, than
when it has laid eight or nine months 2–There
is no rule on the point.
1774. I do not suppose there is a rule; what
is the practice 2–As soon as we can sell it we
send it away.
1775. If you do not know I will not ask you?
—I will not say that.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1776. I understand you to say that elm is more
carried on the northern lines, and that there the
Clearing House classification of 50 cubic feet to
the ton would apply 7–I believe so.
1777. I understand that since the case of Lowe
v. the Great Western Railway Company, you
have believed that they were instructed that you
were to have it carried at 50 cubic feet to the
ton 7–Yes.
1778. But because you have got light rates
you have not at certain points insisted on all the
woods being carried at 50 cubic feet to the ton 2
—Just so.
1779. So far as elm is concerned, you say that
it always has been so carried?—I only know what
I am doing now ; 50 cubic feet to the ton.
1780. Even at the present time, notwith-
standing
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
365
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
standing that arrangement to competitive points,
do they carry all woods at the 40 and the 50
feet to the ton ?—Yes; the Brighton Company
never altered at competitive points. They have
always carried at 40 feet and 50 feet to the ton
at competitive points.
1781. I understand you to say that the proper
distinction is not between heavy and light wood
but between hard and soft wood 2–Yes.
1782. Is elm a hard wood, or a soft wood 2–
A very soft wood ; common elm is very soft.
Mr. Pember.] It is called English mahogany.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Stenning says it is
a soft wood.
Chairman.
1783. Do you buy a good deal of elm ?–Not
very largely ; we have to import it.
1784. Do you cut it yourself? –Yes.
1785. You cut it down 2–Yes.
1786. You buy it on different estates ?—
Yes. {º
1787. And you have men to cut it down?—
Yes.
1788. Do you leave it there, or take it home *
—It all depends upon circumstances. If we
have got a ready sale for it it is moved quickly,
and sometimes it is not removed for years,
1789. If you have a ready sale for it, it would
be heavy 2–Yes, it would.
Mr. STENNING.
[Continued.
Mr. Wodehouse.
1790. Do you contend that the greater part
of the elm which is carried by the railway com-
panies, as a matter of fact, weighs less than a ton
to the 40 cubic feet?—I do not quite understand
the question. -
1791. You say it is a light timber when it is
carried, as a rule 2–Yes.
1792. Then 40 feet do not weigh a ton 2–I
do not think 40 feet, when it is dried, would
weigh a ton ; 40 feet of fresh-felled elm would
probably weigh a ton.
1793. Then, you say that the greater part of
the elm carried is dry elm ?—Yes.
Mr. Pember.] He did not say that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, he did ; he said
the average was light, distinctly.
Mr. Pember.] I certainly asked him whether
the greater amount carried was heavy or light.
Mr. Wodehouse.
1794. What do you say now ; is the greater
part of the elm that is carried heavy or light elm ?
—I say the great proportion could be classed as
light elm.
1795. And should be classed ?–Yes.
1796. Do you say the same with regard to
birch 2—I have not sufficient knowledge of
birch.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. HAROLD OWEN, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
1797. YoU are a member of the firm of Joseph
Owen and Sons, Limited, of Liverpool P-Not
limited. I am a member of the firm.
1798. Your firm are timber merchants and saw
mill proprietors?—That is so.
1799. Do you come to give evidence with
regard to birch and the carriage of birch 2–
And elm.
1800. At the present time at what rate is it
carried ?—Which.
1801. Birch 2–Fifty feet to the ton.
1802. Will you give your reasons for object-
ing to the proposed alteration of that measure-
ment in the Provisional Order 7—For this reason:
that the distinction as between the 40 feet and
the 50 feet is a question as between hard wood
and soft wood; it is not a question of the actual
weight of the timber, because I admit that elm
is one of the heavy soft woods. On the other
hand baywood is one of the light hard woods,
and frequently baywood weighs lighter than
elm.
1803. But although baywood is thus treated as
a heavy wood, and put with the hard woods, you
are not raising objection on that ground 2–We
do not raise any objection for the simple reason
that bay wood is a hard wood in the technical
sense, and elm is a soft wood in the technical
S6D SC.
1804. And you wish existing statutory practice
to be continued 2–Undoubtedly.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
1805. Would you mind telling me what soft
and hard has got to do with it. You will admit,
I suppose, that the object of legislation is to keep
up the habit of the trade of selling by measure-
ment, and at the same time to give the railway
company something like a fair tonnage rate for
the weight they carry 2–At the time the dis-
tinction was, made
1806. Never mind about the time the distinc-
tion was made, that is the object. Is not the
thing to go by what the timber weighs and not
whether it is soft or hard 2–No, I do not think
it is fair to take elm as an instance.
1807. I am asking you to forget elm for a
moment. You say that the distinction ought to
be between soft woods and hard woods. If a
soft wood weighs heavy, why should it not be
carried as heavy goods, simply because it happens
also to be soft 2–Because we take the soft woods
on the average. You happen to have selected a
heavy soft wood,
1808. Exactly, I am selecting a heavy soft
wood for the purpose of showing that being
heavy it ought to be charged by the small
measurement. Why should it not be 2–At the
time the distinction was made the various soft
woods were taken as separated from hard
woods.
1809. We are legislating now, his Grace and
the Committee are, and we have nothing to do
with what has been done. What has the “soft'
got to do with it 2 If a wood is heavy, why
(81.)
Z Z 3 should
366
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN. BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Ow EN.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
should we not charge for it as a heavy timber 4–
Because the distinction had to be made
1810. Why if the wood is heavy should it not
be measured according to heavy timber 2–1
cannot answer you directly, because another
answer comes out of the question, the distinc-
tion——
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If that will bear ex-
planation, you had better. explain it.
Chairman.
1811. Yes. Do you first really understand
the question ?—I understand the question.
1812. What is your answer?—That all the
different kinds of timber vary in specific gravity,
and the distinction is made as between soft woods
and hard woods, All the different soft woods
vary in weight; but they are separated from the
hard woods. Some of the hard woods weigh very
light, and some of the soft woods weigh very
heavy. Taking elm as an instance, I admit that
it weighs heavy; and on the other hand some
hard woods, as for instance, bay, weigh very
light. But I do not object to pay at 40 feet to
the ton for bay, because it is a hard wood; and
for that reason I object to pay for elm as a hard
wood although it is heavy.
1813. But you are drawing a distinction, as I
gather, between hard wood and soft wood. I
thought we were drawing distinction between
light wood and heavy wood P--
Mr. Pember.] The words of the clause are
“When timber is charged by measurement
weight, 40 cubic feet of cak, mahogany, teak,
greeheart, hickory, ironwood, bay wood, or other
heavy timber, and 50 cubic feet of poplar, larch,
fir, or other light timber, may be charged for as
one ton.” The distinction is between heavy
wood and light wood.
Chairman.] That is what I thought.
Witness.] The words have been altered.
Chairman.] But we are dealing with this
Provisional Order.
Mr. Pember.
1814. I will just ask you this one question, if
I may : I am told here by a gentleman, a Mr.
Riley, who is a good expert of timber, is he not ?
—I am not aware that he is.
1815. Mr. Riley of Cardiff?—I have only
heard of him in connection with the evidence he
gave at the Board of Trade Inquiry.
1816. Quite so. Now, as a matter of fact (I
can put him into the box if it is wished) I am
told that newly cut elm weighs about from 27
cubic feet to 32 cubic feet to the ton, according
to circumstances, according to accident. Are
you prepared to deny that?—No, certainly not ;
I daresay it is quite probable. It varies very
materially. I don’t know any timber that varies
so much.
Earl of Camperdown.
1817. That is English elm, you mean 7–Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
1818. Newly cut elm ?—Yes.
1819. How long would that be before it be-
omes light; how many months after cutting 2–
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
I think the water or sap evaporates very quickly
in elm. *
Mr. Pember.
1819°. How long would it be before elm
that was from 27 to 32 cubic feet to the ton
when it was cut, speaking fairly (we do not want
it to be absolutely accurate) before it got above
40 feet to the ton 2–A very short time. º
1820. But some people might think five years
a very short time 2—A month or two.
Mr. Hambnry.
1821. Would it ever reach 50 feet to the ton
in lightness 2–Yes, if it were kept 12 or 18
months it would. -
Mr. Pember.
1822. Now I speak with some reserve, and
ask the question with some reserve, in the pre-
sence of a great number of gentlemen ; but is it
not the object of everybody who has his elm cut
down to get rid of it as quickly as possible 2–
Not necessarily. *
1823. I mean, I do not like to suggest it
myself, but if you were to go and cut down 100
elms for anybody, would they not like to get it as
quickly as possible off the ground 2–Yes.
1824. Does not that lead to the fact that the .
majority of elm is carried off the ground on
which it lies very shortly after it is cut 2–It is
taken off the ground undoubtedly; but I do not
not know that it is sent away from the railway
station.
1825. Surely you would send it away as soon
as you could P−Not necessarily. -
1826. The railway company would not like to
have it lying upon any ground of theirs?—As a
matter of fact, it is left for some time at some
country stations, -
1827. That is a concession made by the rail-
way company to the wishes of the trader 2—It
does not follow, because sometimes you are
unable to get the cranes there and to load the
timber up.
1828. But it would uot take a month or two
to get the cranes to load the timber up 2–Excuse
me, it does frequently.
1829. Then, now with regard to the bulk of
your business, how long would you say as a rule
it was before the elm was carried by the railway
after being cut. Is not the bulk of it carried
very soon after it is cut?—A large proportion
undoubtedly is.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1830. Although the person who sells the wood
may want to get it away from his ground as
quickly as he can you do not always have a ready
market P – No. -
1831. Have you to store it sometimes?–Yes.
1832. And even it seems at times at the railway
sº it may be kept a considerable time 2–
€S.
1833. During all that time the timber which
was heavy is becoming light?—Yes.
1834. Looking at this clause which my learned
friend has read, it says: “When timber is charged
by measurement weight, 40 cubic feet of oak ’’; is
Oak a hard timber 2—Oak is a hard timber.
1835. Is mahogany hard?—Frequently it is
very light; it is a hard wood.
1836. First
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILI S.
*367
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
1836. First I am dealing with hard wood.—
Mahogany is a hard wood.
1837. Is teak a hard wood?—Yes.
1838. Is beech hard 2–Yes.
1839. Greenheart, hickory, ironwood, and bay-
wood ; are all those hard wood 2–They are.
1840. And 40 cubic feet to the ton is treated
as hard wood P−That is so.
1841. Now the others that are mentioned,
“ poplar, larch, and fir, and other light timbers,”
are they all soft woods?—Yes, they are soft
woods.
1842. would bay wood be a lighter wood than
elm ?—Undoubtedly, very frequently.
1843. And would it be a lighter wood than
some of those in this clause, “ poplar, larch, fir,
and other light timbers”?—Very frequently.
1844. As I understand, you say that if you
pay for a hard wood like bay wood, although it
it is light wood, at a higher rate, you ought to
have the benefit of a light rate for the elm ?—
Yes.
1845. Do soft woods dry much quicker than
hard woods, as a rule 2–Yes, I think so.
Mr. Pember.
1846. Would you mind telling me, is bay wood
carried in very large quantities?—Yes.
1847. What
is baywood – Baywood is
mahogany. -
1848. Honduras bay ?—Not necessarily ; there
are several kinds of bay; but bay wood is a kind
of mahogany.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. OWEN.
* [Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose, your
Grace, to call any further evidence. I submit,
, although I have not said it, that elm should be
carried, as it has always been, at 50 feet to the
* . ton tº
Mr. Pember.] Your Grace will observe that
there has been no evidence about birch.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon, this
last gentleman came to speak about nothing else,
and he said distinctly that it was always 50 feet
to the ton,
Mr. Pember...] I am bound to say, if so it was
absolutely an oversight by myself, but it seems
to have been shared by persons who are cleverer
than myself.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I assure you Mr. Owen
came to speak to birch, and it was the first
question asked him.
Chairman.] I understood one gentleman to say
that birch was a foreign wood.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Stenning told you
that he did not know anything about birch.
Chairman.] One gentleman told us it was a
foreign wood, which I could not consent to.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I hope Scotland is not
treated as a foreign country. Your Grace, Mr.
Owen came distinctly to speak of birch and
nothing else, and if you like you can have him
back.
Mr. Hanbury.] No, he has been speaking of
elm. - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I assure you the first
question asked him by my learned friend Mr.
Whitehead was, “You come to speak of birch,”
and he said, “Yes.”
Mr. Pember.] He may have come to speak
about it.
MR. HAROLD OWEN, having been re-called, is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1849. Do you know about the character of
birch and the carriage of birch 2–Yes.
1850. Did you speak about it in your evidence
in chief?—That was the first question asked me,
1851. How is birch carried ?–Fifty feet to
the ton.
Lord Belper.] That is not the question. We
want to know whether it is a light wood or a
heavy wood, and he never gave us that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Is birch a light wood or
a heavy wood, a soft wood or a hard wood, the
first thing.
Chairman.] No, put it light or heavy.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No doubt ; but I was
going to ask both questions.
Chairman.] Let him answer the first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1852. Is it in your view a light wood or a
heavy wood —A light wood. -
1853. A soft wood or a hard wood 7–Soft.
Mr. H.anbury.
1854. How many feet to the ton does it
measure ?—There are two descriptions of birch;
Norway and American, and they vary.
1855. What is the average weight of Norway
birch 2-— I have known it come to as much as 50
feet to a ton actual weight.
1856. And English birch 2–No, not English,
American. American would vary according to
its condition. When it has come over here it has
been cut down for some time, and is very light;
I should think it would weigh, I do not know
what exactly, but certainly very light.
Further Cross-Examined by Mr. Pember.
1857. What does English and Scotch birch
weigh ; home birch we will call it 2–There is so
little of it that it is scarcely worth considering.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is a foreign wood
after all, your Grace.
Witness.] English birch is not one per cent. of
the other kinds of English timber.
Mir. Pember.
1858. Perhaps you will just kindly tell us this,
it may be instructive ; I notice in this classifica-
(81.)
Z Z 4 tion
368
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Owen.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember.—continued.
tion of the Clearing House that birch in logs
is carried among the heavy timber, “oak, teak,
mahogany, beech, birch in logs, ash, greenheart,
hickory wood, ironwood, and bay wood, 40 feet
to the ton " ?—I understand it is so in that
classification, but that is not in the Act of Parlia-
ment.
1859. Would you mind listening to the ques-
tions I ask you; I asked you to notice that it
was in that classification, and that birch in logs
was there; would you tell me what is the reason
for making a distinction between birch in logs
and birch otherwise ?—I am not in a position to
say.
1860. Does not all American birch come in
logs 7–No, certainly not.
1861. The greater part of it does, does it not?
—A large proportion of it.
1862. By a large proportion, as you used the
term before, do you mean the greater proportion?
—At the present time I should think half and
half, because the import of planks is on the
increase very materially. Until recently un-
doubtedly the logs came in predonderance.
1863. Do you know anything that has brought
about this change at the present moment 2–No,
I do not; it is a question of manufacture more
than anything else I think.
1864. For the purpose of railway classification
would birch in planks be treated as birch in logs,
I suppose it would ; I see it is opposed to round
timber?—Yes.
1865. How would birch in planks be carried ?
—The same as logs, 50 feet to the ton.
1866. Excuse me, the logs are 40 feet to the
ton 7 -I understand it is so; but it is carried at
50 feet to the ton.
1867. It would be carried the same as birch;
in logs 2–I should think so.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1868. As a matter of fact are they both car-
ried at 50 feet to the ton —Undoubtedly they
&ll'C.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee decide to insert
“elm,” but not to insert “ birch.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The next amendment,
your Grace, raises a very important question,
still for the timber trade. I do not think you
need bother about the words of the amendment.
I will tell you what it is to do.
Chairman.] Which is it 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is for the Mansion
House Association, on page 31 ; you will find a
good many amendments. On line 39 omit
“when ‘’; omit, “is '' and insert “shall be "; on
line 4l, omit “may be * and insert “being ”; on
line 42 omit “may be " and insert “being ”; and
on line 43 omit “charged by measurement
weight.” The effect of the amendment is to make
the railway companies carry in the future as they
have in the past by measurement weight; that is
to say, what you have been hearing is at so many
feet to the ton instead of by actual weight of the
timber carried. Now the grounds for our asking
this are these –––
Chairman.] First of all what is the amend-
ment that you propose to insert, that we may
know what we are dealing with ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is in the first line on
page 39, omit the word “when ;” on the same
line omit “is '' and insert “shall be.”
Chairman.] Then how would it run if your
amendment were carried, “timber shall be
charged by measurement weight.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That it so, “shall be
charged by measurement weight;” and the
grounds for our asking that (and I would have
to call some evidence before you) are these :
that it has been the invariable practice of Parlia-
ment to make measurement weight the criterion
of charge for carriage. In all the Acts we find
clauses to this effect. I will just read one as a
Type : “With respect to stone and timber " (this
is from the London and North Western Act,
1846, which you had in your hand this morning
when Sir Alfred Hickman, handed it to you)
“ with respect to stone and timber, 14 cubic feet
of stone, 40 feet of oak, mahogany, teak, beech, or
ash, and 50 cubic feet of any other timber shall
be deemed to be one ton, and so in proportion for a
smaller, quantity.” . Now I do not know a single
Act of Parliament that has not got that clause init
with regard to the carriage of timber. When we
went before the Board of Trade the railway
companies propºsed to make an entire change in
the system, and they proposed that all timber
should be carried at actual machine weight in
Class I, of the classification. The Board of Trade,
however, reported that they were not prepared to
make that large change, and they said that under
the circumstances they were not prepared toº
make this serious alteration in the habits and
practices of an important trade, and they amended
it in this way. Your Grace, with the intention
of providing that the option of conveying timber
at actual weight should not rest with the railway
company, but that the trader should have the
option as to whether he sends his timber by
actual or by measurement weight. So far, my
Lord, we have succeeded; that is to say, we have
taken away the power from the railway company
to charge by actual weight; and I dare say that
the Board of Trade thought they had done all
the trade required. But you will hear that that
option will be exceedingly detrimental to the
trade, and for one or two reasons. First, it will
do away with the uniformity of rate ; it will
add enormously to the difficulty of competition,
because in competing one has to tender for the sale
of timber, and you never know upon what Weight
to tender, whether to tender upon the machine
weight or upon the measurement weight. It also
will be impossible for a man to find out whether
his neighbours, his competitors, timber is lighter
or heavier than his own. Besides that, you will
find from the evidence which we will put
before you, that in a great number of cases
it is impossible to apply the actual weight
to timber, because at a great number of
stations the railway companies have no
appliances for weighing timber at all. Our
objections to actual weight being taken even as
the option are these : it makes fraud quite easy;
for weight once having been tested at a railway
station can never be changed hereafter, because
CVCI).
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
369
11 May 1891.
even if the railway company has the means of
weighing these heavy baulks of timber other
people have not, and therefore once weighed
there would be no means of checking it.
Besides, as you will hear, the weight of timber
varies immensely, and supposing that it has been
weighed, when it goes to the station you will
hear that the wood lies at the station for some
months sometimes. It is weighed when it goes
to the station : they will not weigh it again
before it goes, so that we will be paying actually
for the conveyance of sap and water which has
evaporated during the interval from the time the
timber was weighed to the time it was carried.
Chairman.] But have we any evidence that
the timber lies some months at the station ?
Mr. Balfour Browne..] You will have it.
Chairman.] I thought you were alluding to
evidence already given.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] One gentleman said he
thought it was a couple of months.
Chairman.] A month or two.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It may have been so :
but even that would make a very considerable
difference in the weight of timber, as you will
hear. Therefore, we object to it on this other
ground further, that it is a most difficult thing
to weigh timber at all. There is no machine
that the trade will absolutely rely upon, and
even if there were, sometimes the baulks are so
long that it is absolutely impossible to find out
really the actual weight of the timber. Now in
favour of having one uniform form of carriage,
that is by measurement weight; let me say this,
it is always employed ; up to the present time it
has been employed universally on railways; it is
applicable on canals to-day ; it is applicable to
the carriage of timber by sea; timber is felled on
the principle of measurement weight ; it is hauled
on the same principle ; it is bought and sold
always by measurement.
Earl of Belmore.] No, I have sold hundreds of
tonS.
Mr. Balfour Browne] By weight?
Earl of Belmore.] By weight; weighed at the
railway stations, that is in Ireland.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is possible, my
Lord. I am informed that it is the universal
custom in this country. Personally, I do not
know anything about it ; but I am speaking from
instructions, and the gentlemen will tell you that
it is the universal system in this country.
Earl of Belmore.] These conditions will apply
to the United Kingdom ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is possible. Then,
my Lord, the question of measurement has been
the Courts, as your Lordship heard in the case of
Lowe v. the Great Western Railway Company.
There a question arose as to what was the right
method of measurement. The Company’s Āct
of Parliament contained this : “ The cubic
contents of the timber shall be ascertained
by the most accurate mode of measurement in
use for the time being,” and the question in
Lowe v. The Great Western Railway Company
was as to what was the most accurate method of
arriving at the measurement of timber; and two
justices of the High Court, Mr. Justice Grove and
Mr. Justice Smith, held after discussing the case
at very considerable length, that string measure-
ment with an allowance for bark was the right
method of measuring timber under the Act of
Parliament.
Earl of Belmore.] I must correct what I said.
I do not mean that all the timber I was speaking
to was going to railway stations; but some was
on the turnpike road ; you must deduct the
measurement of the cart. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is possible; it
may be a rough estimate, and it is possible it
may be done in your country; but it is quite
exceptional here. Although it may be done,
and for obvious reasons, because you see that up
to the present time the Acts of Parliament are
all upon measurement weight and there would
be practically no good in weighing. But there
are, of course, at certain stations of the railway
companies, and there is no question that there
are means of weighing, although at most stations
those means do not exist; and in those cases we
should be at a disadvantage because we should
have to have it measured instead of having it
weighed.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do I rightly understand you
to contend that the trader should have the
choice of whether it should go by measurement
or by weight 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so.
Mr. Hambury.] That is the intention of the
Board of Trade ; but these clauses do not seem
to carry it out. -
Chairman.] You conclude your observations,
and then we will hear what the Board of Trade
have to say.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will just read half-a-
dozen words from what Mr. Justice Smith said:
“ that the words ‘to be deemed a ton’ showed
that the intention ” (that is in the same clause that
I have read) “ of their legislation was that it was
on the cubic measurement, and not on the weight
of the trees that the carriage was to be charged.”
That is his interpretation of the clause which I
have read to your Lordship ; and, therefore, we
say that inasmuch as our trade is such that even
this option, if it is made perfectly clear that it is
given, would materially injure the trade, we want
to go back to the old system of measurement
weight. Of course you can make it right when
you come to the question what we are to pay for
it ; but we desire, with your Grace's consent, to
have the same system that has existed on all
railways up to the present time continued, that
is to say, carriage by measurement. Now we
will call some evidence.
Mr. Pember.] If it necessary to give the
option it can be made clear. If there are two
rates, one rate for timber in Class C. by actual
weight, and another in Class I. if measurement
weight is taken, it is right for the trader to choose
in which class his timber should be sent.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] At all events, we are
all agreed that if it is not so it should be so.
(81.)
3 A.
37 () MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.
MR. WILLIAM ADAMS, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne,
1869. YoU are managing director at Glouces-
ter of the firm of Thomas Adams and Sons
Limited 2–1 am.
1870. Do they carry on the business at
Gloucester of timber merchants 2—Yes.
1871. And how long have you been in the
trade 2–Over 50 years. I have been there
about 26 years. -
1872, 1 believe you are not here representing
your own firm merely, but a very large number
of other firms associated with you in this matter?
—That is so.
1873. And I believe you represent and ex-
clusively deal with foreign timber 2—Entirely
with foreign timber. -
1874. 1 think the two classes of merchants are
very well distinguished in the trade 2–Yes;
there are hardly any points of contact.
1875. And you import timber, and I believe
in many respects the trade differs very much
from that of the home timber trade 2–Yes, in
many important matters.
1876. What is the foreign trade; how much
does it amount to in a year; is it a very large
trade 2–The total import into the country is
about seven million loads or tons.
1877. Where does it principally come from ?
—From America, Russia, Norway, Sweden, and
Germany.
1878. Have you to purchase the goods often
months before they arrive 2–Yes, frequently
many months before.
1879. You enter into charter parties with
shipowners to bring them to this country 2–
That is so.
1880. And you enter into contracts with
various customers all over the country 2–Yes.
1881. The railway companies are themselves
large buyers ?—Yes, undoubtedly.
1882. Are the goods sold to customers some-
times often long before they reach this country
—Yes, in large quantities.
1883. 1 believe at a certain price per St.
Petersburg standard 2 – Yes, that applies to
deals, battens, and boards.
1884. Does the price include delivery where
the customers require delivery 2—Sometimes.
Yos, where the customer requires it.
1885. Foreign timber is bought, I think, prin-
cipally in two forms, in the shape of logs, as my
learned friend was mentioning, is that one form 2
—Yes.
1886. What is a log 2–A log is a tree of
timber hewn or sawn into a square form, or
nearly square.
1887. And the other form is when it is cut up,
sawn up into deals –Planks, deals, battens, and
boards.
1888. Up to the present time have you bought
and carried by sea and had it conveyed upon the
railway exclusively by measurement weight –
Exclusively; and before railways existed by
canals in the same Way.
1889, And of course the canals if you did
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
carry by canal now 2–We do ; and entirely by
computed or measurement wait.
1890. Does the square form of timber, that is
the log form, lend itself readily to the system of
carriage 2–Yes, naturally.
1891. Which is the system adopted in your
foreign timber trade 2–Yes.
1892. What is the system of measurement in
the foreign timber trade, if you will just tell us?
—In the foreign timber trade the almost univer-
sal rule is that the timber on arrival is measured
by the Custom House Bill of Entry Office, and
we accept their measurement, and sell upon it
and consign to the railways upon it. Of course,
in the case of deals, battens, or boards, they are
sawn to exact dimensions, and are specified by
their respective dimensions.
1893. So that there is no difficulty about it?—
No, there is no variation.
1894. In your opinion is it of importance to
the trade that they should continue to be carried
by the railway companies at computed or measure-
ment weight?—-It is so important that any de-
viation from that will amount to a positive
disaster. **
1895. To the trade 2–To the trade.
1896. Would you tell me the manner of com-
puting weight 2–I suppose you refer to the St.
Petersburg standard 2
1897. Yes, I do? — The St. Petersburg
standard is an arbitrary term which represents
16.5 cubic feet.
Mr. Pember.] Are you not going beyond that
first bundle of amendments rather ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I am only going
upon that one question. I said : “Carried at
measurement weight.”
Mr. Pember.] Then I think he is rather going
into the specialty on the next amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not; besides it
is a pity to recall Mr. Adams.
Mr. Pember.] You had better keep them
separate, it is much better.
Chairman.] I think you had better keep it to
the distinct question. Do not let us mix up two
things.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1898. Very well. (To the Witness.) Let me
ask you, is there anything unfair to the railway
companies in the computation in the way you
have described 2–-No, we are able to show that
it is essentially in favour of the railway companies;
but if it be not, we are perfectly willing to adopt
any scientific proof to make it fair to the railway
companies. The one important and absolutely
necessary thing for us to have js computed
weight, and thereby uniformity in the trade.
1899. You have mentioned the word “uni-
formity,” how is uniformity so important 2–Our
trade is a trade where there is exceedingly keen
competition, and the freight is an important
item
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
37 I
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMS.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
item. The goods are heavy, and if the goods are
consigned, or if we have the option of consign-
ing goods by measurement weight or by machine
weight, there will come into the trade an immense
deal of irregularity and want of uniformity, be-
cause our timber varies exceedingly, according
to age and condition and exposure; that is to
say, the very same timber under different cir-
cumstances weighs a very different weight. We
have no question of weight; it never enters into
our business at all ; we buy and sell, and con-
sign the freight entirely by measure. We are
quite ready to make the computation of measure
fair to the railway companies, but we must have a
computed system in order to carry on our trade.
1900. And the introducing of this element of
weight for its own purpose and for its own pur-
pose only, would be of great inconvenience to
you because you do not know weight in your
trade at all 2–Yes, and more than inconvenience,
it would cause us a great loss, if I may enlarge
upon that. At present it is greatly to our in-
terest that traders with whom we do business
should pay the carriage themselves; we like to
sell our goods in the port ea ship, or from our
yards, and our customers pay the carriage. But
if there is to be this kind of variable weight of
timber brought in in the question of consigning
of goods, our customers who after all have the
whip handle, will say, “’No, you shall have this
difficulty and everything you sell to us shall be
sold delivered.” The consequence would be a
very increased expenditure of capital unremuner-
atively to us. In trades like my own it would
make some 10,000 l. or 15,000 l. a year extra
capital employed to no adequate return. Fur-
ther than that, our trade, one section of it at any
rate, is a very risky trade; we have to sell to
men who are not substantial men ; and the ad-
dition of the carriage to the invoice would mean
a very large increase in our credit to them, and
therefore a large increase to our risk.
1901. As I understand, there is nothing to be
gained by the railway company in this charge 2
—No ; I believe I could positively show that it
is to their interest to continue the computed
weight.
1902. As I understand, you have said that the
computation is reasonable 2–I can show that it is
already in their favour.
1903. IIave you any figures to show that ?—
Yes, I had a number of deals weighed; I am
speaking now of the St. Petersburg standard ; I
had a variety of timbers weighed, dry and heavy,
Baltic and American ; and the result was that in
7 cases the weight came out, 2 tons 7 cwt. 14 lbs.
We had been in the habit of computing them
(that is the past arrangement) at 2 tons 10 cwt.,
so that it was 3 cwt. in favour of the railway
companies. In Bristol, the merchants with whom
I am acting weighed some 19 cases, and they
made it come out a cwt. more than I had; but
still, 2 cwt. below the present computation by
which we consigned the goods. And I believe in
Liverpool they weighed some 760 tons, and the
result there was still more in favour of the rail-
way companies.
1904. So that under the computation at the
}resent time the railway companies are actually
i. treated more than fairly ; there is a little
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
margin in their favonr?—Yes, I am prepared to
show that, and at the same time to say, that if it
could be shown otherwise we would adopt a
computation still more in favour of the railway
companies, though I think it is unnecessary.
1905. If your calcalation is wrong, and it
should be on the wrong side for the railway com-
panies, you would rather give them more if you
had uniformity and measurement weight 2–Yes,
and avoid inconvenience. With regard to that
inconvenience may I say that we possess no
weighing machines; we never could weigh as
against the railway companies, We never sell
by weight. The railway companies in other
goods are checked by the invoices, because the
invoices will show the weight of the goods, but
our invoices are all measure ; we have no check
on the railway, so that either we should have to
accept their measure or to send up a competent
man to wait the convenience of the railway com-
pany. If all these goods were weighed, and in
the time of heavy trade when ships are arriving
and the trade is more or less congested, they
never could weigh the goods, even short timber ;
and a system would spring up of accepting some
measurement from the merchants which was
neither machine weight nor computed weight.
Mr. Hanbury.
1906. But the railway companies cannot force
you to go by weight because you have the
option ?—Yes.
1907. It is somebody else who must object to
this, not the railway companies?—But we object
to the option; we object most distinctly to the
option.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1908. Will you just tell me why, because that
is what we have to face; they will say on the
other hand “your are not bound to go by weight,
you can go by measurement” 2–In the first
place I object to this because the fact that the
option is left to us will bring us into great
difficulty with our traders; they will insist, be-
cause of the difficulty of it, that we shall sell
everything delivered. All that argument I
have already said comes in. Then supposing
they did not. Supposing they left it to us, and
we were allowed to consign the goods as we
pleased, there would be constantly springing up
a difference of opinion with our customer, “Oh,
these goods were all at the lower rate; you
ought to have sent these by machine weight,” or,
“ these goods are very heavy ; why did you not
send these by measurement weight?” . Another
objection to the option is this: that we contend,
and I hope I may be allowed to speak of classifi-
cation for a moment, I am not going into it largely,
that they penalise the Class C. where we ought
to be by inflicting this inconvenient machine
weight upon us, and they penalise measurement
weight, which we ought to have, by putting it
in the higher Class I., and, so that the two being
brought in, materially acts against the interest
of the trade.
1909. May I ask you this: supposing you
had to make a tender for the supply of wood
for some person who was going to purchase,
would it introduce a difficulty having this option ?
(81.)
3 A 2 —Thank
372 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMs.
[Continued.
*-
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
—Thank you for the suggestion. Whenever we
are tendering for a large job, sometimes of
course involving many thousand pounds in a
single tender, then in competing with our neigh-
bour we should have to take into consideration
the condition of our neighbour's goods, whether
he was able to avail himself of Class C. and
machine weight, or whether we could take advan-
tage of it, knowing his goods to be heavy,
adding and bringing in a fresh source of diffi-
culty to a trade which is already a very difficult
one and a very competitive one.
1910. And that option, you say, would work
out disadvantage all round F-All round to the
trader, and 1 believe it would ultimately tend
very much against the railway companies them-
selves. But there is yet another argument.
1911. I think we may come to them all in
time. Is the extreme variableness of the weight
of timber another reason why weight should be
left out of consideration altogether ?—Yes, I
think so, distinctly ; because the same classes of
goods do vary very much. With the railway
companies it is unimportant because they carry
the whole trade and the thing will average itself;
but to the trader it would be very difficult in
tendering and would work very unfairly against
him.
1912. Seeing that you sell before the goods
arrive in England, could you form any concep-
tion beforehand of the weight at which they
would be carried ?–No, we mever can tell in
what condition the goods will arrive ; and where
we have sold goods months ahead, before the
goods came, we should be in that position that
the goods might arrive very heavy and we should
incur a serious loss in consequence.
1913. If you had tendered by weight you
would then have to lose 2–Yes.
1914. On the other hand, if you had tendered
by measurement, the measurement does not
vary 2 -
Chairman.] Would you explain, how would
he lose if he sold by weight !
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Adams will ex-
plain it to your Grace.
PPitness.] I sell by measure, and if the goods
came heavy, and I had arranged and given a price
delivered upon machine weight, I should lose to
that extent, because they would be heavier than
I had computed for.
1915. Further, you said just now that you had
no means of checking the railway company’s
weight because you had no weighing machines for
weighing the long timber 2—We have no weigh-
ing machines for weighing the long timber, and
the railway companies are quite unable to weigh
long timber accurately.
1916. How would they manage to charge by
weight for long timber 2—I believe the plan is,
when timber is using four or five trucks, that
thay run one truck over at a time and weigh that
one truck, and I believe they make some reduc-
tion for variation, and so arrive at some conclusion
about it ; but it is not the accurate weight.
1917. If it is carried by measurement, and
string measurement is the method adopted, of
course you have the means of checking and can
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
at once check the company’s charges?—Yes, if
they charge by measure, independently of the
system ; but in our case it is still easier, because
it is simply adopting the Custom House measure-
ment. But if they accept the measurement
weight, not only can it always be shown
to be correct, but it can be shown to be
correct at any period after the goods have been
delivered; whereas by machine weight they never
can be weighed again; when they have been
once weighed and left the weighing machine, they
never can be weighed again as against the rail-
Way company.
1918. Is it not the fact that timber does some-
times lie for a considerable time at a station ?—
I presume that you are speaking of English
timber 2
Chairman.] The witness has told us that he
has entirely to do with foreign timber.
Witness.] That is so ; but our timber lies in
our yards, so that it amounts to the same thing;
we hold it in stack for a long time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1919. True; but it does not touch the point I
was on, and I will keep that for the English
timber merchant. Would the difficulty you have
been speaking of make it most difficult to ascer-
tain any fraud or incorrectness in a consignment
of timber 2—We never could detect any undue
preference by the railway company, and no fraud
could ever be detected afterwards if such a thing
happened ; whereas, the computed weight can
always be checked by reference to the invoices
at any period after the goods have left the rail-
way company.
1920. Have you discussed this matter with
timber merchants at all the ports in the United
IGingdom –I think at almost all the ports in the
United Kingdom, and I have only found one
man who ever disagreed with me on the point.
1921. That was the gentlemen, I believe, who
came and gave evidence before the Board of
Trade, Mr. Riley —That was so.
1922. I see you have more of your proof upon
other matters; but is there anything upon this
main point that you want to add to what you
have already said 2–May I ask whether the
point would be involved here that the railway
companies omit altogether the computed weight
of the St. Petersburg standard?
Mr. Pember.] That comes
amendment.
in the other
Chairman.] We confine ourselves to each
amendment as it is raised.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
1923. As I understand it, you admit that it is
possible that some of your customers might wish,
under certain circumstances, to have their tim-
ber sent by actual weight?—I do not know that
I admitted that. If so, I never meant to ; but I
see no reason to dispute it.
1924. Then why should they not have the
option. Why should you decide the option
against them ; for your convenience, you wºuld
say :
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
373
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMs.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
say ?–Yes, and because it would work ultimately
to their disadvantage. -
I925. That is their look out; but if it works
out to their convenience and their advantage,
why should they not have the option of having
it sent by weight?—I am speaking for myself.
If they thought it important they would be here
to represent the other side of the question.
Chairman.] I do not see how they could be
here to begin with.
Mr Balfour Browne.] The railway companies
could call them. They did call their own man,
Mr. Riley.
Mr. Pember.
1926. I propose to call Mr. Riley again. (To
the Witness.) Now, in the next place, is the
custom of sending by measurement universal at
all points 2–It is universal at all points that I
know except the Taff Wale; as far as I know.
1927. That means Cardiff 2––That means
Penarth. -
1928. Do you mean Cardiff?—No.
1929. Do you mean to say that there is none
sent except by weight from Cardiff?—When it
is going on the Taff Vale. What I meant was
that it does apply to Penarth entirely ; I believe
it does not apply to Cardiff, only when it is
going on the Taff Vale ; that is to say, so far as
my information goes.
1930. Does not that involve a very large per-
centage of the South Wales import trade of
timber 7—I should say a very small proportion.
1931. What proportion ?—The proportion that
goes upon the Taff Vale. *
1932. A small proportion ?—Yes. I am only
giving my opinion, but I should think so.
1933. At all events it is done at Cardiff and
at Penarth to some extent at the present time 2
—It is a very small matter in relation to the
whole trade of the country.
1934. But it is done to some extent at the
present time !—Yes.
1935. Therefore, there are some persons who
at the present time like to have the option of
having their goods taken by weight 7–No ; it is
the railway companies who insist upon it.
1936. Who tells you that ?—I should be sur-
prised if it should be disproved.
Chairman.
1937. Why?—I believe that it is the railway
companies who insist upon its being carried in
that way ; it is not done at the option of the
traders.
1938. But how can the railway company insist
upon its being carried in one particular way if
the consignor wished it to be carried in another ?
I am speaking of a trade which is not distinctly
my own. I am at Gloucester; but I believe I
am correct in saying the Taff Vale Company do
insist upon all timbers being carried at the correct
weight.
Mr. Pember.
1939. Have they the power of so insisting 2—
I cannot say. I have not studied the Act.
1940. Are the timber merchants at Cardiff a
very powerless class of men 2–Not that I am
aware of.
Mr. Pember—continued.
1941. At all events on the supposition that it
may be the wish of a trader at Cardiff, as you
admit yourself, to have all his timber carried by
Weight, why should he not have the privilege if
he likes of doing so *—I think I can show that it
would work very disadvantageously to the
trade.
1942. That is quite another pair of shoes.
Some people are foolish, but like to continue
in their folly; why should not these people have
their timber carried by weight, if they choose?
There may be an exception made by the Taff
Vale as there has been in the past, but it is
nothing compared to the general trade of the
country.
1943. If any trader throughout the country
chooses to prefer that his timber should be sent
by Weight, why should he not have that option if
he likes?—I know no reason why he should not ;
but from my knowledge of the trade he does not
like it; and the sole exception to that rule is
the man who gave evidence before the Board of
Trade.
1944. You admit that your customers from
Gloucester might prefer to have it sent by that
Weight; why should they not?—I do not say they
might prefer, but I said they might complain
that we had not sent it by weight.
1945. That is much the same thing as saying
they preferred to have it sent by weight ? My
point was that they would Jay hold of the Oppor-
tunity of making difficulties sometimes, and it
Would bring difficulties into the trade which do
not exist and have not existed before this arrange-
ment. - b
1946. I will, put it in another way. You see
that timber when charged by actual weight
comes under the rates of Class C.; you under-
stand that, do you not ?—Yes, certainly.
1947. Under the 12th Schedule?—-Yes.
1948. When charged by measurement weight,
it comes under the classificatiou in Classiº
Yes.
1949. At a higher rate 2–Yes.
1950. Why should not a person, if he pleases
have the choice of sending his timber charged ai
actual Weigut, and therefore get the lower rate
under Class C – My contention is that it ought
to be Class C. and measurement weight. c
1951. Let us leave out the words “under Class
C,” and say, If there be a rate for timber
carried by actual weight which is in a lower
class and at a lower rate consequently than
timber carriod by measurement weight, why
should not a person if he pleases take advantage
of the distinction and get his timber carried at
the lower rate -I see no reason for the change,
Why should the railway companies seek "to
impose another rate and bring us into all these
difficulties.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
1952. Is there no advantage, so far as you can
see, to the railway companies in this 7–I see none
whatever.
1953. There is a clear disadvantage to the
trade 2–Yes.
1954. And that the whole trade are unanimous
in thinking so 2–Yes.
(81.)
3. A 3 1955. And
374
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMS.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
1955. And you see no reason why it should be
introduced at all ?—No.
Chairman.] When you say the “whole trade *
what do you include in that, because you say
there are a number of timber merchants all over
the kingdom.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I shall call some more
witnesses from the trade.
Mr. Hanbury.] There are two parties, the
buyer and the seller.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1956. The seller is not usually called a trader
in this respect, but still this is important. (To
the Witness.) Could the buyers, do you think,
get any advantage by having this option con-
tinued, and if so, what?—No further than that.
I have taken great trouble to ascertain from all
our customers their views, and I have received
many spontaneous letters of thanks from my
customers for the evidence I gave before the
Board of Trade inquiry in favour of the con-
tinuance of computed weight. I have not the
slightest hesitation in saying that our customers
are entirely at one with usin seeking to prevent
this inconvenient innovation proposed by the rail-
way companies.
Lord Belper.
1957. I understand that you and all your
other competitors are agreed, and I understand
that you and all your customers are agreed 2–
Yes.
1958. Then would it not come to precisely the
same thing if you put a notice upon all your
papers that you send out, you and all the other
timber sellers, that you would simply do business
on measurement weight 2—No, I think not, be-
cause on measurement weight we have to go into
Class 1 ; then comes in the question of classi-
fication as well.
1959. But we are not on the question of clas-
sification; I understand you object to the alter-
native 2–I object to the alternative.
1960. Then why cannot you and all the other
timber dealers say to all your customers, We will
have no alternative, ye will only deal on measure-
ment weight?–May I put my answer in this
way, No trade ever did combine satisfactorily.
The result would be this: that certain men when
they happened to have a very light article would
avail themselves of the machine weight and send
it by weight, and that would bring in all sorts of
irregularities and a lack of uniformity.
1961. Then I understand you are qualifying
your statement, that you are all agreed 2–We
are all agreed at present that we prefer computed
weight and computed weight only ; we are abso-
Jutely agreed upon that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1962. Suppose the option introduced ; then
when any man had an exceptionally light load, a
load which he could send at a lower rate by
weight than by computed weight, human nature
would make him choose the lower rate 2–Yes.
Mr. Pember.] Why should he not?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend says,
why should he not ?
Chairman.] We must not go into what your
learned friend says. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
1063. Your answer was that you thought it
would introduce great difficulties in tendering and
the carrying on of trade 2–Yes, and it would
necessitate the employment of extra capital,
because the customers would have all goods
delivered in that way, and the credit to our
customers would be very largely increased
necessarily.
1964. You have told me that the computation
works out at reasonable rates to the railway
companies?—Yes.
1965. If that is so, the persons who buy the
timber from you would get no advantage 2— No,
not on the whole.
1966. Except on particular consignments, when
the difficulty would be introduced of want of
uniformity ?—That is so.
Earl of Belmore.
1967. You are aware that this clause is to
make a uniform condition for the whole of the
United Kingdom ?—Yes.
1968. I have no doubt, although it is not in
your particular branch of the business, you are
aware that there is a very large business in some
parts of England and Ireland in making spools
for the thread manufacturers ?—Yes, ſ know
that. -
1969. Also you are aware, probably, that for
that purpose they buy birch down to very small
sizes 2–Yes.
1970. Would it be possible to carry on that
trade and send these small sizes of whatever the
wood might be, by measurement?—Yes, it is
already done so ; only this week I was offered a
large consignment of birch squares for that very
purpose, or for a similar purpose, and I should
have bought and sold them by measure; and if
I can buy and sell by measure I can of course
consign them by measure ; there is no difficulty
whatever in it. -
Mr. Hunter.
1971. I wish to see if I understand your
point. The present practice, I understand, is
that the consignee pays the conveyance?–Not
invariably, but we wish it to be so as much as
possible of course; it is more generally so than
otherwise. -
[The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
375
11 May 1891.
Mr. WILLIAM BERNARD PARTRIDGE, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
1972. YoU are manager to Messrs. Bryan,
Pºiº and Bryan, Limited, of Leadenhall-street?
- L. 62.S. -
1973. They are foreign timber merchants, are
they not ?—Yes.
1974. Is it the fact that London is the largest
foreign timber port in the United Kingdom ?—
It is. *
1975. Do you represent here the views of the
timber trade section of the London Chamber of
Commerce P--I do.
1976. Your firm are largely engaged, are they
not, in the foreign timber trade 2–Very largely
indeed. .
1977. You have heard the evidence given by
Mr. Adams here 2—I have.
1978. Generally, do you confirm the views he
has expressed ?–Yes.
1979. And you are here opposing on behalf of
the London timber merchants an alteration in
that schedule with regard to the question of
actual measurement?—I am.
1980. Do you concur with Mr. Adams in the
views he has expressed as to the inconvenience
and derangement of the trade to which the alter-
ation would lead P—I do.
1981. What, in your opinion, is the fairest
method of arranging for the weight of timber ?—
By computation, all timber bought and sold by
measurement ought to be carried by measure-
melºt. -
1982. Do you consider that is a fair system,
in the interests both of the railway companies
and the traders ?– Yes, I do.
1983. You are here to oppose this change in
the interests of the timber trade 2—Yes, I am
here to oppose this change.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
1984. I think certain of the more valuable
woods, like ebony and mahogany, and so on, are
now actually sold by weight, are they not ?–If
they are sold by weight they had better be
carried by weight.
Chairmam.
1985. But are they sold by weight 2–I do not
say they are. -
- Mr. Pember.
1986. I asked you the question ?—My idea is
that they are not sold by weight, but generally
by measurement.
1987. Ebony, for instance 2 – Ebony is a
special wood of which there is a very small
quantity sold.
1988. Would you mind saying yes or no 2–
Ebony is, I think, sold by weight.
1989. Are the other woods all sold by weight?
—There are some other fancy woods that are
sold by weight. -
1990. And you admit, as I understand, that
whenever wood is sold by weight it ought to be
carried by weight?—Yes, I admit that, when it
is bought and sold by weight it should be carried
by weight.
Mr. Pember—continued.
1991. You perhaps have not noticed that
these amendments you are supporting would
prevent its being carried by weight at all ?—I do
not think so; I do not quite follow that.
Earl of Belmore..] Mr. Balfour Browne's amend-
ment certainly would go to that. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think the wit-
ness follows my learned friend’s question.
Mr. Pember.
1992. Are you aware that the amendments
you are now supporting are practically these :
timber shall be charged by measurement weight
only 2—That is intended to be all timber bought
and sold by measurement.
1993. That is your view of it?—Yes; and that
is the view of the London Chamber of Com-
I06]’Ce.
1994. I see you gave evidence before the Board
of Trade 2–Yes, I did, -
1995. You are here, in the official index, de-
clared to have said that no trader should be
allowed the option of having his timber charged
by actual weight, except in the more valuable
woods; that is to say, except in the case of ebony
and mahogany, which are sold by weight 3–Not
mahogany.
1996. That is what you are said to have
stated ?–I may have said so, but I do not
remember it.
1997. I want really to find what is your posi-
tion. Supposing a man in competition with his
colleagues in the trade thinks it to his advantage
to have a consignment of timber sent by weight,
why should he not have the option ?—I have not
myself seen anyone that we trade with who is in
favour of actual weight.
Chairman.] But that is not an answer to the
question.
Mr. Pember.] It is not an answer to the ques-
tlOn.
Chairman.] We should get on much better if
you would listen to what the learned counsel says,
and then give a distinct answer.
Mr. Pember.
1998. I do not mind prefacing it on
this occasion by saying that we have already
heard that a certain person might, in competition
with the rest of the trade, apply to have a small
consignment of timber sent to him by weight.
Now I ask why should he not have the oppor-
tunity of sending that timber by weight if he
likes?—I think it might tend to create preferences.
What we want is uniformity, and we think our-
selves after a long experience, taking the London
timber trade for instance, that it would do great
harm to our trade if we were obliged to quote by
actual weight.
1999. You are not obliged to quote by actual
weight?—But we do not know ; we have our
competitors. If you have the two classes that is
actual and the option of measurement weight in
London at the present moment, we will be con-
signing perhaps from seven different points; we
(81.)
3. A 4 wharf,
376
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
might be consigning from Poplar, Angerstein's
wharf, Battersea, and several other points. If
we wished to check the weights of the railway
company we would require to have a clerk at
every point. - -
2000. But you need not send by weight?—
But if we have others quoting against us we
would never know whether a man was sending
heavy timber or light timber, or what it was.
2001. But if he was a cute gentleman and on
a particular occasion saw his chance to get an
advantage over you by sending by weight, why
should he not ?—But I understood all along the
object of this was to do away with preferences.
2002. Where does the preference come in 2
When a railway company is asked by you to send
a consignment of timber by measurement it
quotes its rate and sends it. The cute gentle-
man comes forward and says: “I want you to
send a consignment by weight 2'-He does not
ask the queston. - .-
2003. He asks the railway company. You
must listen to the question. You ask the rail-
way company to send, as you can do, a consign-
ment of timber to a certain place by measure-
ment, they are bound to do so, are they not ?—I
Suppose so. -
2004. Then we will suppose you do it. Now,
suppose somebody else, a competitor of yours in
the trade, thinks it worth his while to have his
consignment sent by weight, where does the
question of preference come in, how can a railway
company prefer him to you, they are bound to
quote the same rate to you if you ask them 2–
You are in a different class. *
2005. But where does the question of pre-
erence come in 2–You are in a different class.
I do not know what the rate of his timber would
be. -
2006. But you have suggested this, and al-
though you may not see the importance of it,
you will pordon me for saying that I do. You
have suggested that the fact that one competitor
in the trade should have the option of sending
his timber by Weight instead of by measurement
would give the opportunity for undue preference,
now how is that P--I will give you one or two
instances. For a long time in consigning stuff by
the Midland Railway, we could not understand
how it was that we were under-quoted in Bir-
mingham ; it turned out that at Cardiff or in the
Bristol Channel, somewhere, they had a very
large quantity of dry timber which had been
there for two or three years; we found we were
under-quoted by a firm from Cardiff, and we
could not understand it; by some chance or
other we got to the ear of one of the railway
officials and the difficulty was explained; I said
we will do the same.
2007. How is the difficulty to be accounted
for ; what was the explanation ?—That they were
carrying from Cardiff this dry stuff at actual
weight; we had our stuff in London all the time
and could not sell it, the Cardiff people had been
under-quoting us.
2008. Why should they not?—I say it is
giving Cardiff a preference. -
2009. But the railway company would have
quoted the same thing to you if you had asked
Mr. PARTRIDGE.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
them 2–But we do not want to be placed in the
same box again, not knowing what they are
quoting against us. What we think is that if we
had one system all over the country we would
not be laid open to that sort of thing.
2010. But where is it undue preference on
the part of the railway companies; I cannot see
it yet 2—I look upon it that it is an undue pre-
ference upon the part of the railway companies,
because as I understand railway companies under
old Acts of Parliament, have not got the power
to charge by actual weight.
2011. Not by agreement 2–I did not say
that. - -
2012. You want to coerce the trade upon cus-
tomers and competitors alike into sending their
goods by measurement and not by weight !—We
do not want to coerce the trade. With the ex-
ception of the Cardiff people, for reasons best
known to themselves, whenever I have had an
expression of opinion it has always been in
favour of the computed weight. We say let the
question of weight stand as it is to-day in the
Railway Clearing House classification and we
will get along very well, but do not let us have
two classes, one class being computed weight and
one class actual weight.
Chairman. -
2013. But if the whole country want to trade
by computed weight no option of to trade by
weight would induce them to do it if they thought
the other would be the best for them 2–The
merchant would have had the opportunity of .
consigning his stuff at actual weight, and there
as I take it upon the present classification the
rate would be something like 75 per cent. higher
than in the other class. -
Mr. Pember.
2014. Cardiff does something now which you
do not like ; that is so, is it not ?–It does some-
thing that we do not like. -
2015. You want to prevent them doing that in
future?——We do not wish to do the same as
Cardiff; we want to be all placed upon the same
level. &
2016. Cardiff is doing something, I say, which
you do not like 2–Yes. -
2017. And you want to prevent Cardiff from
doing that in the future ?—Yes.
2018. So far as that goes, that is a coercion of
Cardiff, is it not ?—I do not think so.
2019. I am told as a matter of detail, I do not
know whether it is true or not, but you will be
able to tell me, that at this moment you are
yourself sending deals charged by actual weight
to Birmingham P – We are, so long as our
competitors are sending in that way ; but we do
not wish to do it, we only do it to save our-
selves. -
Re-examined by Mr. Clifford. º
2020. I gather that in your opinion the
general interests of the timber trade, both as
regards consumers and merchants, would be best
met by uniformity ?–Yes, certainly.
2021. You have been asked with reference to
the special class of wood which now goes by
actual
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVIS 1 ONAL ORDER BII, LS,
377
11 May 1891.]
Mr. PARTRIDGE.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
actual weight. I would ask you is not that
entirely confined to fancy woods 2—Entirely to
fancy woods, I should say.
2022. Have you any notion of what proportion
such woods bear to the whole timber trade of the
Mr. Bolton—continued.
country in respect of tonnage?—It would be an
infinitesimal quantity.
2023. Practically it does not count in this
matter ?—It does not.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. JAMES HARRISON, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as follows :
Mr. Clifford.
2024. YOU are a timber merchant carryingou
business at Canada Dock, Liverpool, are you
not ?—That is so.
2025. You are concerned in the foreign tim-
ber trade, I think?–Entirely.
2026. Are you here representing the Liver-
pool timber merchants?—Yes, I am; doing about
800,000 to 1,000,000 loads a year.
2027. Do they form part of the Liverpool
Chamber of Commerce 2–They do.
2028. Does Liverpool rank next to London in
importance as a foreign timber port?—Yes, it
does.
2029. On the part of the timber trade of
Liverpool are you here objecting to the altera-
tion proposed in the Schedule 2–We object in
Liverpool to being raised from Class C, in which
we have always been, and being put in Class I.,
which is of no use to us.
Chairman.] That is another point. You are
now getting to Classification. The amendment
is that all timber shall be carried by measure-
ment, and none by weight. That is what we are
now upon.
Mr. Clifford.
2030. What you were upon was the proposal
in the Board of Trade Schedule to put your
timber in a higher class if sent by measurement
weight 2–That is so.
2081. Is it that you object to ?–Yes.
Chairman.] But that is not what we are dis-
cussing. We are discussing whether all timber
shall be sent by measurement, or whether some
timber shall be sent by measurement and some
by weight, at the option of the consignor.
Mr. Clifford.
2032. You have heard His Grace's question.
What is your view upon that point?—We only
want one definite mode of consigning timber; we
think that any duplicate mode will lead to irregu-
larities such as we have heard the last witness
speak of, when carried by actual weight, when
the Act of Parliament says the railway com-
panies are to carry so many feet to the ton. By
this means the railway companies can give pre-
ferences between one trader and another, and we
think that the only fair and reasonable mode is
the present one of charging by measurement,
that any duplicate mode would be used by the
railway companies in times of competition, to
give preference to a particular port or to particu-
lar traders. If there was only one classification,
and one mode of dealing with it, we should not
have these irregularities of which we have heard
to-day.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
2033. I will not take you through the evidence
which has been given by Mr. Adams upon this
and other points, you have heard his evidence
here. As you concur generally in what he stated
as to the views of the trade, and as to the
injury to the trade which would be caused
by this proposed change?—Yes, I do. ... We
emphasise very much his statement of the
difficulties which would be caused. One reason
of our objection to weight, would be that whatever
the goods were heavy the railway company would
have the disadvantage, whenever they were
light the customer would probably complain, and
the railway company would probably be damaged.
The average per standard is about right, but
rather in favour of the railway companies. I
have here a paper - *
2034. You are now speaking of the standard
of two-and-a-half tons 2-—Yes. .
Mr. Pember.] That belongs to the next amend-
ment.
Chairmam.
2035. That is the St. Petersburg standard 2–
Yes, the St. Petersburg standard.
Chairman.] We want to deal with one thing
at a time, and the question now is whether the
charge should be partly by measurement and
partly by weight, or whether it should be alto-
gether by measurement.
Mr. Clifford.
2036. Is your view in favour of a uniform
method depending in many respects upon the
variation of the weight of timber at different
periods?—It should be measurement weight,
inasmuch as timber at one period of the year
would weigh about two tons, whereas the same
timber at another period of the year might weigh
two tons 15 cwt., but the average would be
about right. If we were going to make arrange-
ments about the carriage of wood that we had
not seen it would be quite impossible for us to
consign on actual weight, we should never know
what it was, although we should know that the
average throughout the year would be right.
2037. You could not carry on your business
with your customers properly and to advantage
without knowing what the method of charging
for the wood was 7–That is so. I wish to em-
phasise what Mr. Adams said most particularly,
that it would be most disastrous to us, and that it
would end in our having to bring about one-
fourth more capital into our business in order to
pay for the carriage.
2038. You would have to carry your timber
by one system of weight and you would probably
(81.)
be
378
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford-continued.
be selling upon another ?–Yes; we only sell by,
measurement weight.
Chairman.
2039. I suppose you would charge your
customers the carriage if you did pay it?—The
rule in Liverpool is not to pay the carriage.
2040. But if you did pay the carriage you
would charge your customers with it?—If we
did pay the carriage we should have to charge it,
but the proportion of freight upon timber, is
something like one-fifth of its entry cost, and
that would necessitate our bringing in a very
much larger amount of capital for which we
should get no return if we had to prepay the car-
riage on all the goods. We do not want to begin
that system. We think that having two modes
of charging would have a tendency in that
direction.
2041. When you say you would want to have one-
fourth more capital introduced into your business
iſ you had to pay carriage, as I understand for .
special customers, you would charge that to them,
would you not ?--- As I say, the freight is as a
rule about one-fifth the value of the wood, and
if we had to pay the carriage to the railway com-
panies and only get it back at the end of six
months from our customers, which I am sorry to
say is the rule in our trade, we should want to
bring in that additional amount of capital in order
to pay the carriage, •
2042. But you would get your money back 2
—Yes we should, but at the end of six months;
we could not carry on the trade at all with the
same capital. - w
Mr. Clifford.
2043. Under all the circumstances, are you of
opinion that the obligations upon the railway
companies to carry at measurement weight should
continue 2 – That is the opinion in Liverpool.
Before I came here I sent papers round to the
trade, and every merchant signing expressed his
wish that the timber should be carried as before,
at measurement weight.
2044. Then your view would be that there
would be a great derangement in the trade by
the adoption of the amendment now proposed?—
That is so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
2045. Will you mind telling me what you
characterize as irregularity, which was the phrase
you used just now ; you said that it would lead
to the irregularities of which we have heard just
now ; what did you mean by those irregularities?
—We had heard the railway company have been
carrying by weight from Cardiff to Birmingham.
2046. And why should they not ?—Because as
I understand it is laid down in the Act of Parlia-
ment that timber should be carried by measure-
ment.
2047. That means they should be compelled to
carry by measurement 2–Otherwise one railway
would give preference when the other cannot.
2048. But you can do it however you like,
can you not 7–No.
2049. Why not ?—As I understand, the Act
says that they are to carry by measurement
weight.
2050. Supposing these Schedules become law,
Mr. Pember—continued.
then there would be power for Cardiff to do
legally what you call an irregularity, and power
for you to do it if you like; then where would be
the room for what you call undue preference 2—
If the railway company agree to do that which
they ought not to have done before -
2051. Do not take me as agreeing with you in
the statement that they ought not to have done it
before ? — If the railway companies gave pref-
erence to one customer in the past they could do
it more easily in the future, because under the
two systems of actual weight and measurement
weight the competitor could never find it out.
We could never check it, whereas now there is
our invoice to show, and there is the purchasers’
invoice to show, so that you can always know
exactly what the consignment is ; each party can
check it perfectly.
2052. Would you mind answering this question.
Where is the opportunity given to the railway
company from Cardiff to give an undue preference
to the trader simply because it would have the
opportunity of carrying by weight?--I will take
your own instance. -
2053. I gave no instance; I simply took the
instance given by yourself. I said I understood
the Cardiff people at present had their timber
carried by weight. Now I pass from the possi-
bility that you might get your timber carried by
weight by some other railway company. But,
supposing there is a possibility to the trader in
London to get his timber carried by weight if
he chooses, where is there room for undue pre-
ference between him and the Cardiff trader if the
Cardiff-trader has the same option ?—-If the rail
way companies in the past did that which was
wrong in carrying by actual weight, I am afraid
they will do it in the future if they have the
opportunity. g * 3.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2054. My learned friend, Mr. Pember, puts it
that certain people in Cardiff have their timber
carried to Birmingham by actual weight?—
Yes. .
2055. That, according to the last witness, was
at so low a rate that London could not compete
with Birmingham 7–That was so.
2056. Where this undue preference occurred
it was a preference to Cardiff?—Yes.
2057. And preference which the London
people only found out wben they got the ear,
according to one of the last witnesses, of one of
the officials of the railway company. Now, do
you know any other article in the Clearing
House book which is carried in two different
ways 2–I am not aware of it.
2058. Would it be possible after consignments
had been carried by actual weight to check what
the weight of those consignments had been 2–It
would not be at all possible.
2059. Would that in your view introduce a
great difficulty in the way of anybody who was
complaining of undue preference –There cannot
be a doubt of it.
2060. On the other hand, if it were carried by
measurement, you could always test the pro-
priety of the charge that was made !—Certainly,
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILwAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
379
11 May 1891.
Mr. WILLIAM v. K. STENNING, is again called in; and further Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Clifford. -
2061. YoU are an English Timber Merchant,
are you not ?—Yes. -
2062. Carrying on business in London 7–In
H.ondon, and at East Grinstead, in Sussex.
2063. Are you the Chairman of the Joint
Committee of the Midland Counties and the
South of England Timber Association ?—I am.
2064. You have heard the reasons that have
been given by the last witnesses who have been
examined with respect to measurement and
actual machine weight; can you give any other
reasons than those assigned against this change 2
—As regards English timber we object entirely
to any option in the mode of measurement on
the part of railway companies.
Chairman.
2065. But the option is on the part of the
traders, not on the part of the railway company 7
—The railway company take the option or
power now ; there is an option given to some-
body now, and we object to that.
2066. I believe the object of this clause is to
give the traders the option of sending either by
measurement or by weight ; is that your view P
—We object to that because it would lead to un-
fair competition. .
2067. Will you explain why?—Because there
would be no means of testing it; one trader
might be favoured to the disadvantage of
another. . . -
2068. From that point of view, do you think
that uniformity is essential in the matter of the
transport of timber 2—I think uniformity is abso-
lutely necessary to enable us to carry on our
business.
Chairman.] How could it give one trader a
benefit over another.
Mr. Hanbury.
2369. Cannot you give a concrete illustration
of how that would be brought about 2–By
charging one man five tons and another 10 tons.
The man who was charged 10 tons would be at a
very great disadvantage with regard to a quan-
tity of timber. If I contract to supply so much
timber to a customer, and I am charged 10 tons
for that weight of timber, and supposing
my competitor is charged five tons for that
weight of timber, the rate being the same, I ain
obviously at a great disadvantage.
Chairman.
2070. That is a different thing altogether ?—
We say that there are no means of checking the
weight, whereas the measurement always can be
tested.
2071. Why cannot the weight be tested?—
There is no means of testing it, We receive the
timber to-day, and cut it up to-morrow, and three
months hence we would get the railway com-
pany’s account, and be unable to check it.
I should be sorry to say that, but
Mr. Hanbury.
2072. Is it your argument that railway com-
panies deliberately mis-weigh the timber 2—No,
we find very
great discrepancies.
Chairman.
2073. Do you mean now 2–In the weight of
the articles that are weighed. &
2074. Do you mean that they weigh light to-
day and heavy to-morrow 2–This last winter the
trucks were half full of snow, or it may rain in
the night, and the truck is run on to the weigh-
ing machine and weighed as it is.
Earl of Belmore.
2075. Do you mean to say that the railway
companies charge you for a half truck load of
snow 2–We think so, because we have no means
of testing the weight.
Mr. Clifford.
2076. What you mean to say is, that your
difficulty arises from the fact that you have
no means of checking the weight 2–We have no
means of checking the weight. +
2077. Of course the timber would have to be
weighed with any amount of snow or rain water
which might have been absorbed by it?—In the
case of actual weight that would happen.
Chairman.
2078. The timber would have not much snow
upon it when it was put into the truck 2–During
the past winter I saw trucks half full of snow,
and the timber would be weighed when it was in
the truck.
Mr. Clifford.
2079. Would it be possible to have an agent to
check the weight 2–No. * -
2080. Why?—Because if you send the timber
to the station to-day, we cannot afford to keep a
man there until it is weighed.
2081. You could not check it when the crane
came up 2–We could not keep a man to wait
there until the crane came up. In these country
stations there is no facility for the checking of
the weight or the weighing; in these little country
stations you have no facility for it.
Chairman.
2082. Then at a station where there is no
facility for weighing there would be no weigh-
ing 2—That is part of our argument.
Mr. Clifford.
2083. And the option so-called would be an
illusory option ?—Yes.
2084. In practice, I think I understand you to
say that sometimes this timber is a considerable
time in the station yard before the companies can
conveniently load it 2–Yes.
(81.) r
3 B 2 Chairman.]
380
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*=–
11 May 1891.]
Mr. STENNING.
[Continued.
Chairman.] We have had this already, and
even our own experience will enable us to say
that timber is sometimes kept a short time and
sometimes longer before it is loaded up.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
2085. I should like to ask you one question
about this undue preference, for I confess I am
unable to understand it even now ; as I under-
stand your fear, it is that if you send a consign-
ment of goods by measurement weight you might
be charged say 10 tons for that, whereas, if
another gentleman sent the same amount, and
was charged by actual weight, he might be
charged for five, or six, or seven, or eight; is
that what you mean P-It is possible. -
2086. If there were the two modes of charge,
and he availed himself of one and you of the
other, why could not the same thing be done now
when there is only one mode of charge. For
instance if you had a certain amount of timber
sent by measurement weight, and you were
charged 10 tons, you could not then tell that a
certain other person had not 10 tons sent to him
and was charged 8 tons for it?—Yes, we could,
because we can always keep the record of the
measurement. -
2087. But suppose that be the case and the
record of the measurement kept in each instance,
why could not that record be falsified ?–Because
it could be tested. -
2088. How would the record be tested when
perhaps the timber would be sawn up and built
into house by that time —That is why we say it
Mr. Pember—continued.
should be tested, and it can be tested in the case
of measurement.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2089. You were comparing two consignments
sent by actual weight; if one was charged 10
and the other 5 tons there would be no possi-
bility afterwards of finding out the true weight of
those two consignments 2–That is so.
2090. Because it might be built into a house ?
—Yes.
2091. Now with regard to the measurement;
all timber which is grown has been sold by
measurement 2–Yes.
2092. So that there would be records of the
measurement and length of the timber 2–Yes.
2093. If there were any dispute the measure
ment could be called for 7–Yes.
2094. On the other hand, seeing that the
weight of every piece is only given by the
company’s machine, no record would exist for
that ?—That is so. -
Earl of Belmore.
2095. Do you always buy by measurement?—
Yes. :
2096. When you buy a tree, how do you deal
with the lop and top of the branches; do you get
that thrown in 7–That is not timber.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I want with your
Grace's permission to recall Mr. Adams.
MR. WILLIAM ADAMS is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2097. YoU have been called before, and I am
only going to ask you upon this question of pre-
ference 2– I am very glad to have this opportunity
of speaking again on the question of undue pre-
ference because it is a very vitally important one,
and has been the reason for our arguments
up to this time. So far as I have been able
to follow, there has been an endeavour
to show that our contention has been against the
preference which might come between measure-
ment weight and actual weight; that is not our
contention. Our contention is this, that the
trade has been suffering for years by wholesale
undue preference by the railway companies,
which by the Act of 1888, section 27, we can stop.
May I recall Mr. Pope's very able explanation
of that section the other day on the question of
undue preference. .
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] I think
this is very irregular, because you are recalling
the witness for the purpose of contradicting
something other witnesses have said.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2098. No, it was to explain something that
was understood by my learned friend, Mr. Pem-
ber. (To the Witness ) You have had to com-
plain more than once of what you call undue pre-
ference, have you not *—Yes.
2099. Under the Act of 1888, as it stands, you
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
can remedy that and put a stop to it?–Yes; we
can put a stop to it ; we never can by actual
weight.
2100. If this option is introduced and actual
weight is made one of the means of carriage,
could yon stop that undue preference 2–Never;
we never can weigh against the railway company.
Earl of Camperdown.] If they find that one
method of carriage is better than the other they
will adopt it. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But they can stop the
undue preference of one trader over another,
For instance, supposing a railway company
carries timber which ought io be carried at five
tons at the same rate as that at which they carry
the 2% tons, they can stop that and they have the
evidence in their own hands at the present time.
If, on the otder hand, it is carried by weight they
will defy us to stop it because the evidence is all
in the hands of the railway company.
Mr. Hanbury.] A customer may have bought
it by weight.
Witness.] The point is this: that where a
railway company are competing for one traffic at
present they do give undue preference in order to
get that traffic. In the case of the Taff Vale
which was raised, that company from Penarth
only brings traffic a short distance, four miles,
and it is then handed over to the Midland, the
Great
on RAILway RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
381
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMS.
–-smº
[Continued.
Great Western, or the London and North-
Western.
Chairman.] This is going back to the whole
question. We have had this gentleman examined,
cross-examined, and re-examined.
Mr. Pember.] If you will allow me to say so, I
cross-examined him upon the railway question.
Earl of Belmore (to Mr. Balfour Browne).]
Your witness told us just now that the lop and
top which I was asking him about was not
timber. I do not see in the classification any
provision for its being separated from timber. I
will take it that it is what the witness says. I
have dealt very largely, not directly with the
railway companies, but with the merchants,
and I want to know where this lop and top
will come in the classification? -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know, where
lop and top is carried under the classification.
Most timber in England will be carried under the
definition of round timber or plank or logs, but
lop and top certainly would not come under the
definition of round timber.
Mr. Pember.] I think it is very likely that a
great deal of the lop and top your Lordship
asked about would come under the definition of
“firewood in bundles.”
Earl of Belmore.] I think not.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to insert the words. Then the question is
whether, the word “charged " should not be
“ consigned.”
Mr. Hambury.] The fear of the Committee is
that this does not give the option to the traders
which the Board of Trade intended.
Chairman.] Where it is “charged ” and not
“consigned,” it gives the trader the opportunity
of consigning it. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think the word “con-
signed ’’ is an improvement. -
Mr. Pember.] I think perhaps it might be right
to have the two words in. I would suggest it
ought to be, “When timber is consigned and
charged,” ought it not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I think not.
Lord Belper.] The “charged “ comes after-
wards.
Mr. Pember.] Very well, the third “charged *
should be “consigned.” -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now we come to
“deals, battens, and boards shall be charged at
two and a-half tons to the St Petersburg standard
of 165 cubic feet, except Pensacola or pitch-pine
deals, which shall be charged at three tons to the
same standard.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2101. What do you say to the addition of
these words, “deals, battens and boards " ?—It
has been the custom to carry at that weight, and
it is satisfactory to us, and it is not at present
inserted in the schedule. I do not know that it
was the intention to omit it, but it is not in.
foreign timber ?—Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
2102. The manner of computing the weight
upon the basis of two and a-half tons at St.
Petersburg standard is 165 cubic feet for
2103. How are deals, battens, board and log-
timbers dealt with ?—Deals, battens and boards
are all carried at 2 tons 10 cwt. to the standard,
that is 165 cubic feet.
2104. It is convenient to make that appear
upon the face of the schedule 2—Certainly, or we
might be charged 3 tons 6 cwt. instead of 2 tons
10 cwt., because it would be soft wood and go at
50 feet to the ton.
2105. I find this in the Clearing House Clas-
sification, “the standard hundred contains 165
cubic feet.” “Pensacola or pitch pine deals
3 tons per standard hundred ; deals or battens
other than above 2 tons 10 cwt. per standard
huudred ”?—Yes. -
2106. That is your proposal, is it not?–Yes,
that is in the schedule.
2107. That being the practice in the Clearing
House ?—Yes.
2108. You have already said I think that in
carrying under it you have tested it and found
it a fair standard in favour of the railway com-
panies?—Yes, I have.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
2109. I wonder whether it occurs to you that
that clause is compulsory P – Compulsory to
whom P
2110. Compulsory to the railway companies
that deals, battens, and boards shall be charged
at a certain rate by measurement 7–Yes.
2111. It would prevent the possibility of
carrying deals, battens, and boards by actual
weight? — There is no provision by measure,
although in Class 1 we have the right to carry
deals, battens, and boards by measure ; there is
no insertion there of the Clearing House Classi-
fication of the 2 tons 10 cwt. to the standard.
2112. But as the thing stands it would be
compulsory upon the railway companies, and
everybody, to carry deals, battens, and boards
by measurement at this certain charge 2–I think
it would.
2113. That is what you wish 7–That is what
I meant in my past evidence.
Chairman.
2 Il-1. That is what you wish, is it not ?—I
have already given evidence, your Grace, but I
think you decided against me.
Earl of Camperdown.] Supposing we inserted
the words, “ deals, battens, and boards when
consigned by measurement weight.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would do, and
that would not sin against the decision you have
already given.
Mr. Pember.] Even supposing that is dome,
why should a hard-and-fast rate be fixed for
(81.)
3 B 3 deals,
382
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
Mr. ADAMs.
[ Continued.
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
deals, battens, and boards any more than for any
other commodity? - - 3.
The Witness.] But there is a hard-and-fast
limit in the way of 50 feet to the ion.
21:15–6. That is the maximum, but with that
maximum why should deals, battens, and, boards'
be treated differently to any other timber?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This leaves the maxi-
mum untouched.
* * Mr. Pember.
2117. I want to know if the other light
timbers are left at the maximum of 50 feet to
the ton, why should not deals, battens and
boards be left in the same way ?—If you wished
that you would be getting 3 tons 6 cwts. to the
standard instead of 2 tons' 10 cwt. that you have
always calculated it at hitherto.
21 18. That is actual weight, but the rate in
Clause 16 is the maximum rate, and you know
the difference between actual rate and maximum
rate, I take it?—Yes.
2119. If other timber can be left at the
maximum rate, why should not deals, battens,
and boards be left at the maxin, um rate, leaving
the companies to charge what they like within
that limit, subject to competition ?—I think it is
necessary to define what the rate should be.
2120. But why for deals, battens, and boards
more than for anything else ?—I only wish the
rate to be specified the same as with log timber,
the one being 50 feet to the ton, the other
2 tons 10 cwts. to the standard.
2121. It is 40 feet of heavy timber or 50 feet
of light timber ? — Do I understand that you
wish to know why the light timber should not
be charged 50 feet to the ton
2122. No, I do not. Now I will ask you this
again, that is maximum rate 2–Yes. -
2123. Why should not the companies be left to
charge within their rate as they may think them-
selves advised with regard to deals, boards, and
so on, as they may with regard to any other
ti;nber 2—I am afraid I do not understand the use
of the word maximum there. I can understand
the word maximum rate, but this is a question of
charging the rate, it is not a question of charging
the maximum rate, it is a question of charging.
2124. Is there anything in any Act of Parlia-
ment at present of the nature of what you pro-
pose here 7–Yes.
2125. In what Act of Parliament?–By the
Clearing House classification, which I under-
stand to be based upon your rates under Act of
Parliament
2126. That is to say, with the Clearing House
classification which exists at present, that has
been possible under a certain Act of Parliament?
—Yes.
2127. What I understand you to admit is that
it is not the case that anything like what you are
asking now. Do you know any Act of Par-
liament which contains anything like this?—I do
not know of any.
2128. When you admit that, if we suppose the
measurement of timber to be a certain number of
cubic feet to the ton, if that be so, if the railway
companies think it to the advantage of themselves
and the traders to do so, why should it not be as
Mr. Pember—continued.
possible for them to carry out such a regulation
as you propose here under the new Act as it was
under the old one P-I must, I am afraid, be
made to understand. If I understand that 50
feet to the ton is to be chaged for deals, because
they are soft wood, then I say that the railway
companies would be very much overpaid, because
it has been necessary in the interests of the trade,
as proved by the Clearing House Classification, to
give 2 tons 10 cwt. to the standard.
2129. Will you answer this question. I
suppose you have done your best to find out
what charges the railway companies can make
now *—Yes. - w -
2130. May I take it from you that at present
I should be describing the railway companies’
power of charge in, every case accurately if I’.
described their power as a power to charge all
light timber at 50 cubic feet to the ton ?–No,
you would not, because deals, battens, and
boards are light wood, and they are carried at
165 cubic feet to the 2 tons 10 cwt.
2131. You really do not trouble yourself to
bear my question in your mind. I ask you,
therefore, once more, is it not the fact that the
charges of the railway companies with regard to
timber are in effect this: that at the present time
the maximum charges (in their Act of Parlia-
ment, mind) are that they may charge heavy
timber at so many cubic feet to the ton and light
timber at so many cubic feet to the ton 2–You
asked me to accept that and I do so. w
2132. You do not see the proper meaning of
maximum charges. At the present time they
have, as a matter of fact, agreed to the actual
charge which you have read out of the Clearing
House Classification ?–Yes. . . .
2133. That I suppose is because they have
found it to the mutual advantage of themselves
and the trade 2–Yes, to be fair. -
2134. That I take it is a synonym for “mutual
advantage " ?—Yes. -
2135. If that has been the case up to now
under snch maximum charges as these, why
should it not continue to be the case under such
maximum charges as these ?–Because I think it
should be defined now that there is the oportunity
of defining it. - e/
2136. You want to stereotype for ever a cer-
tain actual charge for railway companies?—
Because that has been proved to be better.
2137. That is what you want to do?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2138. When timber is carried by measurement
you have to find out how many cubic feet go to
a ton 7–Yes. g
2.139. And that is defined in this clause, so far
as heavy log timber is concerned 2–Yes.
2140. In the same way you want the same
definition with regard to deals, battens, and things
of that sort 2–Yes.
2141. This clause gives the definition, it does
not give the maximum rate at all ?–No.
2142. If it does not do so, deals and battens
would either come in under the 50 cubic feet or
the 40 cubic feet 2—The railway companies
would have the power, as I understand.
2143. In either case do you think the charge
would
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
383
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMS.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
would be fair to us 2–Certainly not, it would be
3 tons 6 cwt. as against the 2 tons 10 cwt.
Earl of Camperdown. -
2144. That would be the maximum charge 2–
S
Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne. .
2145. Now my learned friend asked if there
is any Act of Parliament in which this is done.
As he said just now, we are here legislating ; do
you see any reason why a reasonable maximum
should not be introduced for deals, battens, and
boards 2—I do take it as highly important that it.
should be.
2146. In the Clearing House they have taken
this 165 cubic feet to the 2 tons 10 cwt. ; how
long has that been in existence 2–Longer than
I can remember ; I can remember it for 26 years.
2147. All those are carried under it at the
present time 2–Yes, invariably. -
2148. Would there in your view be anything
unreasonable in asking them to continue carrying
at that rate P – No, because I have already
proved that it is in their favour now. -
2149. That is what you have stated in your
cvidence, that you have tested it and found that
165 feet to 2 tons 10 cwt. was rather in favour of
the railway companies 2–Yes. -
2150. And gives them a considerable margin P
—Yes. -
2151. Margin of what ?–Of
three cwt. - * -
2152. Therefore the actual weight in the
Clearing House gives them a margin –Yes.
Chairman.] The Committee will not insert
these words. . Now with regard to the words that
“the railway company may charge as for one ton
per truck.” Do you propose that?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We had to propose this
as an amendment. If we did not put in some-
thing of this sort here we would be under the
exceptional class which is further on in the
schedule, and they would be able to charge for
timber of that length anything they chose ; it
comes in on page 14; you will find there that any
articles “ of unusual length, bulk, or weight, or
of exceptional bulk in proportion to weight.”
Then read such reasonable sum as they may
think fit in each case, and if we had not such a
limitation as this “a maximum charge as for one
ton per truck may be made in the case of all
timber requiring more than one truck,” we would
come in under that exceptional class, and they
would charge whatever they chose.
Mr. Pember.] I would suggest that this amend-
ment, which is a perfectly fair amendment to
discuss, had much better be taken on the excep-
tional class, Class 1, on page 14.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I quite agree with my
learned friend that it would be better to postpone
it, and I will move it upon the other part without
notice. - e
Mr. Pember.] Then the Brighton
amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is withdrawn, and
the amendment of the Westry of St. Mary, New-
ington, is withdrawn.
Corporation
from two to
-->
Chairman.] Now at page 6, Clause 19, line 14,
after “receiving ” insert “charges.”
Mr. Pember.] I was going to ask your Grace
to postpone that Clause 19. The truth is that
Clause 19 depends a good deal for its wording
upon two or three decisions which your Grace
gave a few days ago upon one of the earlier
clauses with regard to amendments not in writing.
I do not think that at the present moment the
railway companies are in a position to discuss it.
Chairman.] Then we can postpone it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So far as I see, the
Mansion House proposal is to carry out your
decision, but we have no objection to postpone it.
Chairman.] Then Claue 19 will be postponed.
Now we will take Clause 20.
Mr. Pember.] Now there is an amendment by
Lord Bute upon Clause 20.
Chairman.] Does Lord Bute appear upon
that.
No person rising,
Mr. Pember.] Then we may consider Clause 20
disposed of.
Chairman.] There is no appearance upon if.
Then Clause 20, line 23, to add at the end of the
clause. “But where such charges are not specifi-
cally fixed, they shall be such reasonable sums
as shall, in case of difference between the com-
pany and the person liable to pay the charge, be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] In this, clause there is
something more than the charges which are fixed
in the case of the schedule, the charges here are
“in respect of accommodation or services pro-
vided or rendered by the company, at or in
connexion with docks or shipping places,” but
that leaves it absolutely general, and the effect of
that might be that where a service was partly in
respect of a railway which ended in a dock which
was in the hands of a railway company, it might
introduce very great confusion and difficulty, and,
therefore, what we say is, without altering any
case where it is specifically fixed, where it is not
specifically fixed there ought to be some means
of ascertaining it in case of differences, and upon
that, following the course which has been sug-
gested in so many cases, there should be an ar-
bitrator appointed by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Pember.] Do
this point? - º
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I do not for this
reason. Of course one had no right to speculate,
but I was told this morning that there was no
immediate likelihood of its coming on, and I
believe that impression existed upon the other
side. - -
Mr. Pember.] I do not think I shall have
much trouble in disposing of this. The fact is that
these dock charges have always been considered,
and I believe rightly considered, to be outside
the purview of the Act of 1888 and the duties
which have devolved upon your Grace's Com-
mittee; and the consequence is that a very proper
saving clause as to the dock and shipping charges.
has been inserted by the Board of Trade, which I
you call any evidence upon
will venture to read.
(81.)
3 B 4 Chairman.]
384
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEIE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMs.
[Continued.
Chairman.] Which clause is that ?
Mr. Pember.] Clause 20. “Nothing herein
contained shall affect the right of the company
to make any charges which they are authorised
by any Act of Parliament to make in respect of
any accommodation or services provided or ren-
dered by the company at or in connection with
docks or shipping places"; and that is done for
the reason 1 allege, namely, that the interference
with the dock and shipping charges was not in-
tended by the Act of 1888 and is outside your
duty. Thereupon immediately my learned
friend, instructed by a logician whom I admire,
begins to affect these charges, and in this way,
“But where such charges are not specifically
fixed, they shall be such reasonable sums as
shall, in case of difference between the company
and the person liable to pay the charge, be deter-
mined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
|Board of Trade.” In other words, with one
hand it is decided to leave these dock charges
alone, and with the other it is proposed to bring
these dock charges into the question. That is
all I need say upon that.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The answer to that,
shortly, is this: that if my learned friend's view
prevails, them, of course, his whole position under
the Bill, I mean to say, the whole groundwork
for interference which this Bill makes with the
authorised charges of the railway companies is
unsound.
Mr. Pember.] Not at all.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] The whole essence of
the revision, as I understand it, is that the
charges shall be reasonable, I mean to say, the
essence of the Bill as a whole is that the charges
shall be reasonable.
Earl of Camperdown.] This clause only relates
to dock charges.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens,] I am aware; but the
groundwork of the Bill of which this is a clause
and only a clause, is that it is desirable to make
the charges reasonable as between the railway
companies and others; and for that purpose, as
we have been told more than once, the whole of
the charges of the railway companies, notwith-
standing that they are authorised by Statute,
are subject to revision under this Bill. There-
fore there is nothing in point of principle un-
reasonable in bringing those charges under
review any more than any other charges belong-
ing to the railway companies. And what you
have done is this. You may have the whole of
the charges under review conceivably brought
down from any place further inland down to the
docks; you have revised the whole of the rates
down for 150 or 200 miles, and then you have
the remaining miles into the docks, the docks
and sidings, and so forth, with regard to which
no provision is made. What we say, is that
there ought to be some provision, at all events
where the matter is left in blank, where there
is absolutely no provision in any Act with
regard to that: , and this would only operate
there. Where the charges are not specifically
fixed, it ought not to be left absolutely in the
discretion of the railway companies, but there
ought to be ––
Chairman.] The Committee are not prepared
to insert those words. . Now, then, the Lanca-
shire and Cheshire Conference, and then we go
on to Lord Bute. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Under your Grace's
ruling, that comes after the amendment, I under-
stand.
Chairman.] It is reasonable that you should
amend a clause first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And knock it out after-
wards 2 It saves time, I think, if you knock it
Out at Once.
Mr. Pember.] What is your amendment 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The first on page 35.
The Marquis of Bute apparently does not appear,
so I suppose you go on to the next.
Chairman.] We will go on to the next, there-
fore we do not accept his amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well. Now, your
Grace, the next amendment is for the Mansion
House Association, and I am bound to say that
as it stood originally it did not appear to us quite
reasonable. I will tell you exactly how it was.
This is a new subject altogether ; the return of
empties; and as it stands here you will see
“returned empties” (this is in the Schedule) “if
from the same station and consignee to which
and to whom they were carried full, to the same
station and consignor from which and from whom
they were carried full shall be deemed to be
included in the same class of the classification as
comprises the merchandise which was carried in
them when full, but the maximum rates and
charges in respect of such returned empties shall
not exceed 75 per cent. of the maximum rates
and charges for the said class of merchandise.”
It is rather a difficult thing for a trader to follow
that out. In the first place you have to find out
what was in the hamper when it went, and the
same rate is to be applicable for that hamper
going back; only that instead of charging the
full, 75 per cent. is to be charged upon it. . But
that is not nearly all the calculation that is in
this section, when you come to understand it
thoroughly ; because most of those returned
empties would be only smalls, and you need to
turn over to the Schedule upon page 16 to find
out what you have to add to the maximum rate,
and you will find there “Part VI., Carriage of
small parcels by merchandise trains, for the
carriage of small parcels not exceeding in weight
3 cwt.” (and most of those returned empties, I
think, we can show you would be under that).
“The company may charge, in addition to the
maximum rates for conveyance, and the maxi-
mum station and service terminals" (so that you
have got to add both the maximum rate and the
service terminal before you can find out the
charge for smalls at all), “authorised in respect
of Classes 1 to 5 of the classification which rates
and charges are in this part together referred to
by the expression, the maximum, tºnnage
charge”; and then there is a scale of charges
down upon that page which enables you to.find
out what you are to charge for the smalls. Then
you have to turn back and find out what after
you have got it; and there is a doubt in our
minds, I think, that perhaps might be cleared up
very readily; whether it is to be 75 per º
O
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
385
11 May 1891.]
Mr. ADAMs.
[Continued.
of the total charge so made up or merely
75 per cent. of the tonnage rate, and then
the small rate to be added to the 75
per cent. Now all that is so absolutely com-
plicating and complicated that I do not believe
any trader could ever, manage it unless he had
an enormous staff of clerks. And what we pro-
posed at the hearing before the Board of Trade,
was to split the difference and to throw every
returned empty into Class C., which is half-way
down the classes. But we found out, my Lord,
after proposing that amendment, which you find
on page 35, by careful calculation, that if they
were all put in Class C., at certain distances they
would not get as much as they would be getting
under the present charges; so that we have
altered it, and I think you will find this at any
rate makes it simple and certainly fairer, accord-
ing to our point of view. I pass over the words,
omit “the ” and omit “ same * ; that is only to
make the clause read, and after “class "insert
“C,” and after “classification ” insert “herein-
after contained in respect of traffic conveyed for
any distance not exceeding 150 miles of Class I.,
for traffic conveyed for any longer distance
exempted nevertheless from the operation of the
two-ton minimum consignment provided by the
classification in respect of Class C.” (I think this
is really easy enough), “ and also from the pro-
visions” (this is the important matter), “ of Part
VI. of this schedule ’’ (that is to take it out of
the smalls), “in respect of the carriage of small
parcels by merchandise train, the minimum weight
to be half-a-hundredweight with a minimum
charge of fourpence for any distance up to one
hundred miles, and sixpence above one hundred
miles. That minimum charge of fourpence, I am
bound to say, is more than they are actually
charging by 100 per cent. upon the Southern
lines; but we find upon the Northern lines that
fourpence is their minimum charge, and we
thought it fair to give them a minimum charge
even if we were putting it to the smalls rate, and
if we gave them Class I., when the distance was
over 150 miles.
Earl of Belmore..] Why do you confine it to g
carriage by merchandise trains? The schedule
does not confine it to carriage by merchandise
trains. -
Mr. Balfowr Browue.] I think it does.
Earl of Belmore.] Does it?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that is the
intention.
Earl of Belmore.] I have nothing about mer-
chandise trains in the schedule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is intended to be by
merchandise trains.
Earl of Belmore.] But these hampers are very
constantly carried by passenger trains. -
Mr. Balfour Brºwne.] Then I think they
would be under the parcels rate, and not under
this at all. At any rate, my Lord, we think
that that is a fair proviso. What we did originally,
as I say, was to put it all in Class C., and exempt
it from smalls. Then we found out that that
would not do, because there would be some
charges to give under Class C. That is why we
have to complete it by putting in “for any
distance not exceeding 150 miles '' (that is Class
C), “ or for traffic conveyed for any longer
distance.” Still I think that is a great deal
simpler than the method suggested by the Board
of Trade, and one of the most important matters
is to keep empties out of smalls. Now, your
Grace, I see there is another amendment of the
company’s that comes between, but perhaps it
will be best to deal with one amendment at a
time ; that will make it clearer.
Chairman.] Do you call any witnesses 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, I call a witness;
I think it is important.
MR. FRANK IMPEY, having been re-called ; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
2153. YoU have already given evidence before
the Committee ?—I have. -
2154. With regard to the question of returned
empties, is that a question of importance to
traders ?—Very great importance. -
2155. What is the desire of the traders upon
that subject?—That the schedule should provide
maximum rates for the conveyance of empties
approximating to the charges hitherto made with-
out upsetting the system of calculating more than
is necessary.
2156. Have you examined the proposal con-
tained in the draft schedule and compared the
rates that would be authorised by the proposed
schedule with the actual existing rate P-I have.
2157. Have you got with you the results of
any calculations you have made?–Yes, I have a
table here giving those results.
The same is handed in, and is as follows] :
“RAILWAY (RATES AND CHARGEs)
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Re amendment proposed to Clause 21 by the Man-
sion House United Association on Railway
Rates.
TABLE A.
Returned Empties Provisional Order Scale.
Comparison of the actual cost of consigning
2 cwt. of returned empties for 25 distances, be-
ginning at 10 miles and increasing by steps of 10
miles to 250 miles, with the cost, under the rates
proposed in the London and North Western Pro-
visional Order. -
A deduction at the rate of 5 s. per ton has been
(81.)
3 C made
386
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
sº-
13 May 1891.]
sº-
made from the actual charges
to represent cart-
Mr. IMPEY.
age.
- ºf tº sº
Actual Cost, Cost under Provisional Increase. Increase
less Cartage. Order. per Cent.
£. s. d. £. 8. d. £. s. d.
1 16 10 Class C. - - 2 – 9 — 3 11 10
1 16 10 , I - - 2 11 3 – 14 5 38
1 16 10 ,, II. - - 3 1 – 1 4 2 65
1 16 10 , III. - - 3 9 – 1 12 2 87
1 16 10 ,, IV. - - 3 19 9 2 2 II 116
] 16 10 , W. - - 4 18 – 3 1 2 166
PETURNED EMPTIES.
*-*-* *-*
TABLE B.
MANSION HOUSE AMENDMENT.
CoMPARISON of ACTUAL SCALE with SCALE
PROPosBD by the MANSION HOUSE ASSO-
CIATION.
wº-
Actual Rate per Tom
Rate Proposed, Rate Proposed,
Yer
|
Clearing House
Miles. Viz., viz.,
less 5 ºutage. | Class C. Class I.
f. s. d. S. d. £. S. d.
10 – l 8 4 2
20 – l 8 5 8
30 — 5 — 6 11
40 – O – 8 4
50 – 5 — 9 9
60 – 10 – 9 11
70 – 10 – II 2
S0 – 10 – 12 4
90 — lö – 13 6
}00 – 10 – | 4: 9
I 10 – 15 — 14 9
120 – 15 – . 15 2
.30 – 15 — .16 3
140 – 15 — 17 3
150 – 15 — 18 4
*º- ºgº 8 18 3
160. I — — *m-º: I 3 6
170 1 — — ------ 1 3 6.
180 1 — — --- 1 3 7
190 1 — — - 1 4 8
200 1 — — --- J 5 9
21() 1 5 — * 1 6 10
220 1 5 — * 1 7 11
230 1 5 — - 1 9 –
240 1 5 — --- 1 10 1
250 1 5 — - 1 11 2
:C. 18 S 4 perton. £. 22 4 3 per ton.
£. 1 16 10 per 2 cwt. £. 2 4 5 per 2 cwt
Difference in cost per ton, 31. 15 s. 11 d.
Margill of 20 per cent, over actual rates.
[Continued.
RETURNED EMPTIES.
*=s* *
TABLE C.
RAILWAY COMPANIES’ AMENDMENT.
Comparison of Actual Cost of consigning 2 cwt.
of Returned Empties for 25 distances, begin-
ning at 10 miles and increasing by distances
of 10 miles to 250 miles, with the Cost under
the Companies’ Amendment.
(A deduction at the rate of 5 s. per ton is
made from the actual rate for cartage.)

Actual Charge, Cost under Companies’ Increase. Increase
less Cartage. Amendment. per Cent.
£. S. d. - . £. S. a. £. S. d.
I 16 10 Class C. - - 2 14, 5 – 17 7 47
1 16 10 ,, I. - - 3 8 5 1 11 7 85
1 16 10 , II. - - 4 1 4 2 4 6 120
I 16 10 ,, III. - - 4 11 11 2 15 1 149
1 16 10 ,, IV. - - 5 6 4 3 9 6 188
1 16 10 , V. - - 6 10 10 4 14 — 255
Mr. Pember.
2158. Will you give me a copy of that, kindly
—Yes (handing the same to Mr. Pember).
Mr. Whitehead.
*2158. Does that table consist of three parts,
Table A, Table B, Table C. P-It does.
2159. In Tabie A. there is a calculation of the
actual cost of consigning 2 cwt. of returned
empties for 25 distances?—That is so.
Mr. Pember.
2160. What do you mean by actual cost, to
the company or to the sender 2–The actual cost
according to the company’s present scale.
Earl of Camperdown.
2161. Actual charges or maximum charges?—-
The actual cost according to the scale laid down
in the Clearing House Classification, less a deduc-
tion for cartage; because, of course, none of the
propossd rates include anything for cortage.
Mr. Pember.
2162. By cost do you mean charge 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Brown.
2163. It is what it costs the trader, you mean *
—Yes.
Mr. Whitehead.
2164. Those 25 distances you have chosen
gives 10 miles, and increase by steps of 10 miles
up to 250 miles – Yes, that is so. -
21 65. And you have compared the rates under
the proposed schedule with the rates in the
London and North Western Provisional Order *
—I have.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
387
11 May 1891.]
Mr. IMPEY.
--sº
| Continued.
Mr. Pope.
2166. Maximum rates ?–Maximum rates in
the London and North Western Order.
Mr. Whitehead.
2167. But you have made a deduction in re-
spect of cartage 2–I have.
2168. Will you explain to the Committee
your justification for making that deduction?—
In taking the cost for the conveyance of empties
at the present moment I deduct 5 s. per ton in
instituting the comparison between the present
charge or cost and the maximum rates under this
Provisional Order, because the present cost or
charge for empties includes the cost of collection
and delivery, which is of course not in any of the
figures provided for in the rates under the Pro-
visional Order.
2169. The present charge includes the charge
for collection and delivery 2–Yes.
2170. Why should you take that charge to be
5 s. 2–I based that upon the general statement
made by Mr. Findlay in the course of the inquiry
before the Board of Trade, that the cost of collec-
tion and delivery at all country stations would
average 2 s. 6 d. per ton. -
217 1. Under those circumstances you con-
sider the deduction is a proper deduction to
make 2–I consider it is a reasonable one ; and I
do not think it is at all excessive.
Chairman.] Do you go on with your amend-
ment as to Class C !
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, Class C and Class
I.
Chairman.] You have dropped that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have dropped the odd
one that confined them all to Class C. I pro-
pose to put in “hereinafter contained in respect
to traffic conveyed for any distance not exceed-
ing 150 miles,” (that is class C), “ and for
traffic conveyed for any longer distance.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, I see now.
Mr. Whitehead.
2172. Making that deduction of 5 s, from the
actual rate at present charged, and comparing
the proposed rates with that actual rate minus
5 s., what is the result with regard to Class C.
traffic 2–I find this : that the cost of consigning
two cwt. of empties for distances of from 10 to
250 miles, and then taking the average, would
cost 1 l. 16 s. 10d. I find that under the proposed
Class C. if those empties were carried at Class
C. rates, that is two cwt. under the provisions of
the Provisional Order, they would have cost
2 /. O s. 9 d.
2173. Showing a margin –That will show an
increase on those goods of 10 per cent.
2174. Taking empties which go under the Class
I. scale, according to the proposals the existing
actual rate would be 1 l. 16 s. 10 d. 2–Yes, that
would remain the same.
2.175. But the proposed rate would be
2. l. 11 s. 3 d. 2–Yes, that is so ; and that would
give an increase of 38 per cent.
2176. A margin of 14 s. 5 d. 2–A margin of
14 s. 5 d.
Mr. Pope.
2177. Between the actual and the maximum ?
—Between the actual and the maximum.
--ms
Mr. Pſ' hitehead.
2178. It goes up in an ascending scale as the
classes go up, reaching in the case of Class 5 a
margin of 166 per cent. —That is so, 166 per
Cent.
Chairman.
2179. Are you calculating those figures 11, 16 s.
10d. upon the maximum charge or with the actual
charge?–The I l. 16 s. 10d. is the actual charge in
9peration at present under the Clearing House
Classification Scale,
2180. Not the maximum ?—Not the maximum.
2181. Then the 2 l. 11 s. 3 d. which you have
taken as well, is that the maximum ?--That is
the maximum.
2182. So that you are comparing the maxi-
mum they are able and empowered to charge
with the sum they are now charging 2—With a
view to show that it is not a reasonable maximum.
2183. Then you are assuming for the purposes
of your calculation, as I understand it, that they
will always charge in future the maximum ?–No";
I am showing what they would be entitled to
charge.
2184. You are assuming that they are going to
charge the maximum ?–I am assuming it for the
purpose of arriving at a figure.
2185. And comparing it with what they do
charge P-Yes, that is it.
2186. What was the old maximum !—They
had none so far as I am aware of.
Mr. Pember.] If it was smalls.
Mr. Whitehead.
2187. Your object by that calculation is to
show whether or not the margin which is now pro-
posed is reasonable -—That was the object.
2188. And looking at those figures which are
given in the last column of Table A., those fignres
of increased percentage, does the margin which
appears to come out upon your tables seem to
you to be reasonable 2–No, it strikes me as being
excessive. - Q->
2189. Increases of 65, 87, 116, and 166 per
cent. 2–Yes, those are the figures.
2190. Now if you will take the next table,
Table B., that is a comparison of the actual charges
made at the present time under the Clearing
House Classification with the maximum rates
that would come into operation if the Mansion
House amendment was accepted 7–Yes; that is
to say, we find the same cost per cwt., 1 1. 16s. 10d.,
that we used in the previous table ; and I com-
pare that with the cost which would be general
if the calculation was made under the Mansion
House amendment, which I find to be 2 l. 4 s. 5d.,
which would give a margin in the maximum pro-
posed by the Mansion House Association over
the actual cost in operation of about 20 per
Cent.
2191. Do you think it reasonable that the rail-
way companies should have a margin for maxi-
mum over existing actual rates ?—Yes.
2192. But you think that the margin of about
17 or 20 per cent. proposed by the Mansion
House Association is more reasonable than a
margin of 166 per cent.”—Certainly.
2.193. Now Table C, the third table of those
three, is a comparison of the actual cost; again
taking the same instances and the same consign-
(81.)
3 C 2 ments
388
MINUTEs OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
ments, comparing the actual cost with the maxi-
mum cost under the company’s amendment?—
That is so.
2194. Will you follow me in the final column
of that comparison. There the margin is con-
siderably higher than the margin proposed by the
Board of 'Trade 7–Considerably. -
2.195. The increased amount the increase of
maximum beyond actual would be 47 per cent,
in Class C., empties 7–1t would be so. -
2196. 85 per cent. in Class I. 2–Yes.
2197. 120 per cent. in Class II. Ž–Yes.
2198. 149 per cent, in Class III. '—Yes.
2199. , 88 per cent. in Class IV. 2–Yes.
Chairman.] We have not got to that yet; we
have not got to the railway companies.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Lordship pleases.
Chairman.] When the railway companies pro-
pose their amendment, then this gentleman's
evidence might he good as against that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly ; but seeing
that he has said that, it will not be necessary to
recall him.
Mr. Whitehead,
2200. Does the margin which will be allowed
o the railway companies under the proposed
schedule seem reasonable 2–20 per cent. appears
to me to be quite reasonable ; the margin of 20
per cent. that the Mansion House Amendment
would give over the actual rates appears to me
quite a sufficient margin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
2201. May I venture to ask (there was a dis-
turbance going on during your evidence in chief)
what your position is 2–I am secretary of the
Birmingham District Railway and Canal
Freighters’ Association.
2202. How long has that association been in
existence 2–Six or seven years.
2203. How long have you been secretary 2–I
have been connected with it during that time.
2204. You are not in trade yourself?—No.
2205. And you have no experience?—No, I
am a chartered accountant.. -
2206. What I wanted to ask you first is, where
do you get this 1 l. 16 s. 10 d. from ; you calculate
the actual cost of consigning empties for 25 dis-
tances beginning at 10 miles, and increasing by
steps of 10 miles to 250 miles, with the cost under
the rates proposed in the London and North
Western Provisional Order P-Yes.
2207. Having made a deduction of 5 s. for
cartage 2–Yes.
2208. Take the last point first ; of course al-
though the average charge for cartage all over
the country may be 5 s., cartage does vary in
cost at different towns, and varies very largely
indeed?—Yes. t
2209. Now leaving that, I notice that you have
only got one actual cost less cartage,
1 l. 16 s. 10 d., and you make it refer to all
classes 7–Yes.
2210. If that is so do you mean to say it is
1 l. 16 s. 10 d, whether the two cwt, goes for 25
miles or 250 °–No, that is the average cost of
sending one consignment of 2 cwt. for the 25 dis-
tances, assuming that you send off the 2 cwt.
Mr. Ixpex.
| Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
parcels, one for 10 miles, one for 20 miles, and so
forth. w -
2211. The average charge 2–No, that would
be the cost.
2212. Then why could you not have given us
instead of this average (which may or may not
be eminently illusive), the actual charges; I see
they were quite accessible; here we have on
page 100, to which you have already been
referred, the railway classification. I find re-
turned empties: the following is the general scale
of charges for the conveyance of empties to and
from all stations except London, and it is appli-
cable between any pair of goods stations (Lon-
don excepted), irrespective of whether rates for
goods are or are not in force, viz., not exceeding
25 miles 4 d. per cwt. ”; and then up to 50
miles 6 d., between 100 and 150, 1 s. ; between
150 and 200, 1 s. 3 d. ; and between 200 and 250,
1 s. 6 d. per cwt., and then we go up to a larger
number of miles, till at last we get 3 s. per cwt.
for 600 miles. Why did you not take the actual
charges 2–1 was bound to get some figures off
which I could take the cost of cartage. It would
be almost impossible to deduct the cartage from
such small figures. -
2213. But why not; supposing that you go up
to 250 miles; let us take the highest mileage to
begin with ; for 250 miles the charge would be
1 s. 6 d. per cwt. 2–Yes. - -
2214. In other words, 250 miles for 2 cwt.
would be 3 s. 2–Yes, that would be so.
2215. Then there would be cartage 2–Yes.
2216. What relation would that bear to this
1 l. 16 s. 10 d. 2–You mean that particular
figure.
2217. Yes; I cannot see for the life of me; I
daresay there may be something in it, but here
is a charge of 1 l. 16 s. 10 a.
Chairman.
2218. Would the cartage in that particular
case amount to 1 l. 13 s. 3 d. 2–No. I think I
might perhaps explain how that I l, 16 s. 10 d.
was arrived at.
Mr. Pember.
2219. By all means?—For the cost of sending
for those distances.
Chairman.
2220. But taking 2 cwt, for 250 miles; can
you explain how that is made out 2–If Mr. Pem-
ber asks me to deal with a definite figure I can
deal with it; but I can hardly state the relation
of any figure he gives.
Mr. Pember.
2221. I will ask you what is the present cost
of an empty in Class C. for 250 miles, including
cartage first, and then exclusive of cartage after-
wards 2—We will suppose it to weigh a hundred-
weight.
2222. No, 2 cwt. ; I will take your own figure
—It will be 3 s. +
2223. For 250 miles minus cartage 7–No, we
should have to allow a proportion off for the
Cartage. -
2224. Then according to that, minus 5 s. for
the cartage, it would be minus 2 s. ?–No, I take
off 5 s. a ton for cartage.
2225. Then
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
389.
11 May 1891.]
*—
Mr. Pember—continued.
2225. Then you take off a tenth part of 5 s. 7
—Yes, 6 d. *
2226. Very well, that is 2 s. 6 d. Now we
are a far cry front 2 s. 6 d. to 1 l. 16 s. 10 d. 2–
The l l. 16 s. 10 d. is the cost not of sending
2 cwt. 250 miles, but for sending 2 cwt. 25 dis-
tan CeS. - - . -
Mr. Pope.
2227. Sending 50 cwt. varying distances 2–
No, sending 2 cwt.
Mr. Pember.
2228. But unless you had intended to make an
attempt on our lives, why did you do such a
complicated thing as that ?–Because I propose
to show the effect of the average on all the dis-
tances, not to take any one particular dis-
tance. -
2229. Would you mind telling me this : I am
sorry to say that I must discard that part of your
tables as being beyond me?—I should like to try
and make it clear.
2230. Would you mind doing a simple thing
for me. At the present moment we have made
out that to take a return empty in Class C. 250
miles, minus cartage, would be 2 s. 6d. ; would
part of that be under Clause 212–That is the
Board of Trade proposal P
2231. Yes?—I am afraid I do not happen to
have my table worked up to 250 miles; it will
take me a minute or two.
2232. Is there any number of miles you can
take —Two hundred miles.
2233. What is your natural distance 2—One
hundred and fifty miles from Birmingham ; it is
merely a matter of making a calculation.
2234. Now tell me what the actual charge at
the present moment would be for 150 miles?–It
would be 1 s. per cwt. ; 2 s, for 2 cwt.
2235. And are we to take off 6 d. for cartage 2
—Yes. - -
2236. That would be 1 s. 6 d. 2–Yes.
2237. That I can do. Now what will it be
under the Board of Trade Clauses. That is
actual ; now let us see what the maximum would
be under the Board of Trade Clause 2–Suppos-
ing the empty to be in Class C.
2238. Supposing the empty to be in Class C. :
supposing it to be exactly an empty returned for
1 s. 6 d. under existing circumstances, as my
learned friend Mr. Pope says 2–It would com
to 2 s. 2 d. -
2239. Now, come along, we are getting rather
near. Does that include cartage 2–No.
2240. Now then it really comes to this, that
there is an actual charge for a particular mileage
which you have chosen yourself at 1 s. 6 d., on
the supposition that 6 d. is a fair thing to deduct
for the cartage, and you say that the actual
charge, the maximum, is 2 s. 2 d. 2–Yes.
2241. Is there any other distance that you
would like to give 2–Take any distance ; take
100 miles. -
2242. Then let us try 100 miles; how do I
know to begin with, how am I to be certain, by-
the-bye, that this return empty is in Class C.
that is actually charged 1 s. 6d. now 2–Do you
mean at the present moment?
2243. Yes.—The charge for the return empty
Mr. IMPEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued. -
at the present moment will be the same, what-
ever class it is in.
2244. Very well.—I should be most glad to
give the comparison if you take one in Class 5.
2246. Quite so ; but you were going to do 100
miles, were you not ?--I was. (The Witness .
makes a calculation.) I think I shall have to
correct the figure I gave you ; it would he
1 s. 9 d. for Class C.
2246. Ah, 1 s. 9 d. ; so that the maximum
would be 1 s. 9 d. against the actual 1 s. 6 d. 2–
That would be so.
2247. I am glad you have made the correction,
because I have just had it worked out for me by
a gentleman who left me a moment ago. You
had forgotten the 75 per cent.”—Yes.
2248. So that as a matter of fact for that 150.
miles which you mention, the Board of Trade
proposed maximum as compared with the actual
charge made by the railway companies at this
moment is 1 s. 9 d. against l s. 6 d. 2–That is so.
2249. Now you would like to give me 100
miles, I daresay ?—Yes. -
2250. What would 100 miles work out at 2–
One hundred miles would come out to about
1 s. 8d.
2251. 1 s. 8d. maximum ? Yes.
2252. And what would be the actual charge
for 100 miles; 1 s. 6 d. would it not ?–1 s. 6 d.,
less the cartage.
2253. No 2 –Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, that includes cart-
age.
Mr. Pember.
2254. Now then, supposing it went by the
railways at the present moment at their present
charge for 101 miles, it would jump immediately
from 1s. 6d., minus the cartage, to 2s., minus the
cartage 2. —Yes.
2255. So if it went for 151 miles it would
jump from 2 s. 6 d., minus the cartage 2–From
2 s. minus the cartage.
2256. Two shillings, minus the cartage, to
2 s. 6d. minus the cartage 2–That would be so.
2257. Now then, does the Board of Trade's
jump in the same way : I think you will find not ?
—I think the Board of Trade endeavour to go
by gentler methods.
2258. So that you have got to take this into
account, that the saltation of the railway com-
panies, according to their present charges, is
upwards and against the trader; but the Board
of Trade maximum is the other way, and against
the railway company’ is not that So?–No, I do
not think so.
2259. It may remain stationary perhaps, the
charge proposed by the Board of Trade for the
greater number of miles?–It would in certain
places,
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2260. Just let me see if I can understand.
You did not want to take certain individual rates
and compare them —No.
2261. "You wanted as far as possible to get the
average 2–Yes.
2262. And in the first column you got out the
(81. 12.)
3 C 3 average
390
MINUTES OF Ev1DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT CoMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne–continued
average of the actual cost of conveying 2 cwt.
for various distances, 25 different journeys 2–
That is so. -
2263. Have you in the same way compared
that with the cost of similar journeys under the
Provisional Order 2–Yes.
2264. My learned friend puts upon you Class
C. as 1 s. 6d., and 1 s. 9d. I think it comes out.
Can you give me a similar working out for any
article in Class 5 2-—Yes, 150 miles. e
2265. Take 150 miles, what would that beat
the present rate 7——
Chairman.] Are you speaking of empties?
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2266. An empty, yes. (To the Witness.) What
would that be 2–(After making a calculation)
That would come to 3 s. 2 d.
2267. What would the actual rate at the pre-
sent time be?—On 150 miles do you mean P
2268. Yes 2–1 s. 6 d.
2269. So that there you have a little over 100
per cent. on that, have you not, increase ?—That
IS SO.
Chairman.] Are you not taking maximum and
actual?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Chairman.] I do not think that is a fair com-
parison, -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2270. It is the only comparison you can make
with great respect your Grace. What we want
to see is how much margin they should have
beyond their actual in order to make the maxi-
mum, and what we suggest is that 150 per cent.
or 100 per cent. is too much, and that 20 per
cent. is an ample margin. (To the Witness.) In
your view, is that margin you have just men-
tioned, over 100 per cent., too high a margin 7–
Certainly.
Earl of Camperdown.] Can you prove that
upon any one single concrete instance. My head
will not carry the 25 distances at one time. Can
you prove it on any one single distance 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have got the whole
set of tables here, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown.], Łet us have one of
them.
Mr. IMPEY. .
one question ?
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne, J, I do not want to put it
in just now, because it is on the Brighton Com-
pany’s amendment, but I will put it in through
another witness. ... * *
Earl of Camperdown.] This l l 16 s. 10 d. is
absolutely incomprehensible, and if you will give
us one figure as we had through Mr. Pember, we .
could understand it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will do that ; but this
witness has not done it in that way. Another
witness has, and I prefer to put it in through the
witness who has done it.
Mr. Pember.
2271. Would you allow me to ask the witness
He has given an instance of
Class 5. (To the Witness.) Will you give me
some instances, or as many instances as you can
of any empties under Class 57–Do you mean
where an empty would come back under the
designation of Class 5 ° * -
2272. I want to know what articles in Class 5
there are which involve sending back empties. I
will tell you why, because you have been quite
frank with me and I wish to be quite frank with
you. I am told that there are practically no
empties in Class 5, except hat crates ?—I take it
that barometers would hardly go out unpacked,
and this class of goods going out in large quanti-
ties, beds and bedding, would want packing, and
pictnre cases.
Mr. Balfour Browne] Chandeliers and gaseliers
would necessarily be packed 2–There are a good
many more I think. -
Mr. Pember.] I see those are charged double
the ordinary rates those last crates; “Peturned
empty hat crates, bicycle crates, tricyle crates,
china crates, and earthenware crates must be
charged double the ordinary rates, No less
charge than as for 3 cwt., with a minimum charge
of 1 s., except for returned empty earthenware
crates for distances not exceeding 25 miles for
which the minimum charge is 8 d. ”; so that the
charges would not be the same as those we have
baen dealing with.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Have you another witness?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, my Lord.
MR. JOHN INNES ROGERS, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, &S
follows: *
Mr. Clifford.
2273. YoU are Chairmau and Managing Di-
rector of Joseph Travers and Sons, Limited, of
Cannon-street?—Yes.
2274. Wholesale grocers, drysalters, tea dealers,
and wine and spirit merchants?—Yes.
2275. And you represent on this point of
returned empties the London Chamber of Com-
merce as well as your own firm 2–I do.
2276. What is the nature of the business of
Messrs. Travers and Sons?—They supply retail
grocers and other traders throughout the country
Mr. Clifford–continued.
with goods for retail to the public, as the business
is entirely wholesale.
2277. Is it a fact that a considerable portion
of your goods are sent in packages, which are
afterwards returned empty?—That is the case;
they are sent packed.
2278. There is a good deal of difficulty under
any circumstances, is there not, in the charges to
be made and allowed for in respect of returned
empties?—There is nothing at present which
leads to so much confusion and difficulty in the
trade
on RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
391
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Clifford—c ontinued.
trade as charges for returned empties; they are
already exceedingly high, and they lead to con-
stant dispute and litigation.
Chairman.
2279. Dispute and litigation ?—I do not mean
in the way of law; what I meant was exagge-
ration of dispute, exaggerated disputes.
Mr. Clifford.
2280. Is that because the charge is at present
too heavy —The charges already are extremely
high ; they are prohibitive in many cases for long
distances.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2281. That is to say, they prevent the empties
from being returned 3–They prevent empties
being returned.
Mr. Clifford.
2281. What do you say as to the effect of the
Provisional Order upon that?—I say the effect
of the Provisional Order would be very largely
to exaggerate the rates already charged, and make
them very much heavier.
2283. Have you prepared tables showing the
effect of the rates proposed upon your traffic or
portions of it?—I have.
[The same is handed in, and is as follows :-l
2ND CALCULATIONS.
Empties.
Present actual rates for empties in Clause 3 to
12 typical towns selected by Mr. Findlay, com-
ared with the maximum rates proposed by the
Board of Trade in their Provisional Order.
NoTE.—As the present rates for empties to
the 12 towns in question include collection and
delivery, 5 s. per ton has been added to the
Board of Trade maxima for comparative purposes.
An addition has been made to these maxima of
the additional charges for smalls proposed by the
Board of Trade. The 75 per cent. named by the
Board of Trade (as the proportion of the original
rates to be charged on emptics) has been assumed
to be 75 per cent. of their maxima for carriage
and terminals only. The proposal of the Board
of Trade for the North Western Railway is taken
as the basis for the rates.
Mode of Calculation Empty Rates.
Calculate the maximum tonnage rate plus
terminals of the merchandise originally contained
in the empty. Take 75 per cent, thereof = the
empty rate per ton. ~!
Ascertain the proportion of weight which the
empty bears to a ton and take such proportion
of the tonnage rate. Add “additional charge for
smalls” based on the maximum tonnage rate for
the empty.
Mr. ROGERs.
J
ſcontinued,
Mr. Clifford—continued.
Add proportion of 5 s, per ton to represent
C. and D.
PRESENT and Proposed Rates for Empties.

Consignments of
28 lbs. 56 lbs
Mileage. STATION. ; ## # # 3 # ## | #:
É5 £3 5 § £5 i. 3 || 3 #.
S. d. s. d. 3. d. s. d.
194 | Bolton - - - – 9 || 1 4 77% – 9 || 1 0 || 1335
48 || Bedford - - , , – 8 – 11 37% – 8 || 1 2 75
96 || Foleshill - - – 8 1 - | 50 | – 8 || 1 4 | 100
12 | Harrow - - - - 6 - 8 || 33}|- 6 – 10 | 663
80 Ringscliffe - - – 8 || 1 - 50 | – 8 || 1 3 87%
99 Nassington tºº {- - s' 1 – 50 – 8 || 1 4 || 100
141 Newport, Salop- - || – 8 || 1 3 87% – 8 || 1 7 || 1373
64 | Northampton - - | – 8 1 - || 50 | – 8 || 3 | 87%
63 Oxford - - - || – 8 || 1 - || 50 | – 8 || 1 3 87%
211 | St. Asaph - - -|-11 || 1 || 484 |-11 || 9 || 30H
177 | Wilmslow - - - || – 9 1 3 | 663 – 9 || 1 8 1223
125 wolverhampton - || – 8 || 1 3 || 87% – 8 || 1 7 || 137%
- Average - - - || – * 1 1 || 573.3 – 8+ 1 4}| 10335
Consignment of
84 lbs 112 lbs
• A # 3 | ## : '3 × | }:
Mileage. STATIONS. ; # # : § i # # # ; §
#5 #5 | # #5 | #5 | E £
- - S. d. ( s. d. 8, d. | S. d.
194 | Dolton - - || 1 2 2 2 | 85; 1 6 || 2 6 | 663
48 || Bedford - - - – 8 || 1 5 | 1.12% – 8 || 1 7 || 137%
96 || Foleshill - - - | – 9 || 1 8 || 1223 || 1 - || 1 II | 013
12 Harrow - sº - || – 6 || 1 – 100 | – 6 || 1 1 || 1163
, 80 || Kingscline - - - 9 || 7 |in}|1 - || 9 || 1s.
99 Nassington - - | – 9 || 1 1223 || 1 - || 1 11 913
141 | Newport, Salop - |- 11 || 2 - | 118ril 1 3 || 2 3 | 80
64 Northampton - - || – 9 || 1 6 || 100 || 1 - || 1 -8 663
63 | Oxford - - - - 9 || 1 6 || 100 | 1 - || 1 8 | 663
211 | St. Asaph - - - || 1 4 2 3 | 68% | 1 0 || 2 7 || 473;
17 | Wilmslow- - - || 2 || 2 || 78, 1 0 |2 5 || 31,
125 || Wolverhampton - | – 11 || 1 11 | 100& 1 3 || 2 2 | 73%
Average - - - || – lº 1 8# 97}}| 1 14| 1 1%. 74°,

2284. Do not elaborate these results, but give
two or three instances?—Shall I give the
average 2 s
Mr. Pember.
2285. Would you mind giving me a copy of
that, so that I can look at it 2–(The same is
handed to the learned counsel.)
Chairman.] Is this London 2–Yes, London.
Mr. Clifford.
2286. Will you just explain in your own way
the basis of your calculation, and the results you
have tried to show 2–I take twelve towns, which
I believe have been selected by Mr. Findlay of
the LOn on and North Western Railway as repre-
sentative towns: Bolton, Bradford, and a number
(81.)
3 C 4 of
392
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Clifford – continued.
of others: Foleshill, Harrow, Kingscliffe, Nas-
sington, Newport, Salop, Northampton, Oxford,
St. Asaph, Wilmslow, Wolverhampton. -
2287. Then you have taken the mileage for
each of those places 2—I have taken the mileage
for each of those places, and calculated the result
in the three classes in which classes our empties
chiefly go for weights of 24 lbs., 56 lbs., 84 lbs.,
and 112 lbs., I have assumed that the empties
would be liable to extra charges for smalls, and
at the full of the extra charges, not three quarters.
I have taken three-quarters of the mileage rate,
and then calculated extra charge for smalls in full.
I have brought out that for 28 lbs. to those 12
towns; the average increase in the charge is
57 per cent.
2288. You mean the increase upon the present
actual charge 2–The proposed maximum as com-
pared with the present actual charge.
Mr. Pember.
2289. The margin?—That the maximum pro-
posed is in excess of the present existing charges
on the average by 57 per cent. For quantities
of 56 lbs. in the same way I find that the average
increase is 103 per cent. For quantities of
84 lbs. I find the average increase is 97 per cent.,
and for 112 lbs. I find the average increase is
74 per cent.
Chairman.
2290. Is there a present maximum ?—That I
am not aware, but I have taken the average
existing rates and compared them with what the
companies might charge under the Provisional
Order.
Mr. Clifford.
2291. What do you say as to the effect upon
your charges, if they are increased in your
particular trade 7–lt would simply be disastrous
for packed goods. Empties cannot be returned.
The cost of empties would be largely exceeded
by the cost of carrying them.
2292. You have a great many bags at present,
have you not 2–Yes. I have taken this calcu-
lation for cases, which is much more favourable
to the railway company than for bags.
2293. What would happen in the case of bags 2
—The new tariff would tell very much more
against the trader than the tariff of cases I have
calculated.
2294. Are the bags in which at present
you pack coffee P-Coffee and other goods, seeds
and other goods, mainly coffee and seeds.
2295. Do you use them very largely in the
course of your trade 2–Very largely.
2296. Would there be a difficulty, or would it
be easy to ascertain under what class the charge
should be made for returned empties 2–It
would be absolutely impossible; groceries are
consigned, in five classes and there is to indicate
in the packages with what class of goods they
were originally packed. The railway companies
would have to depend entirely on the honesty of
the trader in the claim he made for the class in
which the goods had gone out.
2297. So you see that there is practical diffi-
culty in carrying into effect the proposed
schedule?—I see great practical difficulty in that
respect.
Mr. ROGERs.
[Continued.
Lord Belper.
2298. How have you got your own figures?—
I have taken them in the third class.
2299. All in one class 2—All in the third
class. I take it as an average class and fair to the
railway companies.
Mr. Clifford.
2300. What would be the effect upon the
return of wooden cases?—I think it would be
impossible in a great many cases to return wooden
cases at all; it would add to the cost of the
goods.
2301. In that case they would practically be
of no value at all except for firewood ?—They
would be valueless except for firewood.
Earl of Belmore.
2302. And you would have to charge the cus-
tomers with the cases if they were not returned?
—We have at present to do so.
2303. That is added to the cost of the goods?
—That is added to the cost of the goods. *>
Mr. Clifford.
2304. And that would be a considerable pro-
portion, would it not ; take for instance a ton of
mixed goods?-I have made some calculations.
I think it would add 23 per cent. to the cost of
goods we packed if we had to give away the
empties; or else the retailer in the country
would have to lose the value of the case and in
that case, in many cases, he would be prevented
from coming to the chief centres at all, he would
be driven to buy locally, and that would be a
considerable interference with the present course
of trade.
2305. And the increased cost would fall ulti-
mately upon the consumer of course ?–Yes, the
cost would fall ultimately upon the consumer.
2306. Can you give the Committee an instance
of what would happen in the case of aerated
waters?—I believe that the value of empties in
the aerated waters is considerably larger than the
value of the goods. I think every one is aware
that a bottle of soda-water and the case in which
it is packed is worth much more than the soda
water in it. Therefore, if the aerated water
maker had to lose the value of his package and
his bottles it would be a very serious consideration.
2307. Under the schedule the charge would be
for a case of empties, consisting of the bottles and
the case, 75 per cent. off the original cost of the
filled package 2–Plus the charge for smalls
which is of the utmost importance. 5
2308. Practically, would not that be a System
of double rates for such packages?—I think so.
2309. What would be the effect upon buyers
in the country; would they be able to, or would
they in fact buy from first hand as at present, in
your opinion ?-I think it would prevent them in
a great many cases from buying at first hand be-
cause of the extra cost of packages.
2310. Take the case of wine and spirit empties 2
-Wine and spirit empties cost 1s. 6d. a dozen :
that I s. 6d. a dozen if the cases and bottles were
not returnable would have to be added to the cost
of the wines and spirits consumed by the public
ultimately.
2311. Would that be a serious addition to the
charges upon the consumers?—So serious indeed,
I make
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BIT,LS.
393
11 May 1891.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
I make it on the average wholesale cost of wines
and spirits, that it would be an addition of 73
per cent. -
2312. What do you say about the long dis-
tance rates for empties 7–I say that the long
distance rates are already ones where the greatest
difficulty occurs; because they are already so
high, and the charge for long distance empties
would be raised disproportionately as compared
with short distance empties.
2313. What about the empties rates as regards
provisions and vegetables 2–I have no personal
experience of that; I only judge from the
Clearing House scale, but those rates are much
lower than empties in our trade.
Chairman.] I think that this gentleman tells
us he knows nothing about that.
Mr. Clifford.] He was only going to speak
about the comparison between the rates in those
cases and the rates in his trade.
Witness.] They are much lower than the rates
in our trade. There are special rates for them in
the Clearing House classification. .
2314. Does it not follow that if the charges
were made for empties according to weight, the
tendency would be to make the cases of a slighter
and more fragile character 2–Yes.
2315. What would be the result as regards
the companies 2–They would have a great many
more claims for breakage, loss, damage, and so
CI].
2316. There would be a greater risk of damage
to returns owing to the more fragile character of
the cases 2–Certainly.
2317. That would not be a result, in your
opinion, that would suit the companies?–No, it
would be adverse to their interests, I think.
2318. Will you tell the Committee, shortly,
what is the average weight of your empty cases 2
—The average weight of empty grocery cases is
26 lbs., and grocer's returned empties come back
in very small lots, generally a small case at a
time worth 6 d. or 1 s. Empty bags are sent
back, as a rule, in lots of about 20 at once, and
weigh about 18 lbs. ; seed sacks come back in
bundles of about ten and weigh about 30 lbs.
2319. As the result of the proposed charges
upon those empties so returned to you, what do
you say ?—I think that the proposed maximum
rates, if enforced, would be simply disastrous to
our trade, and I have attended meetings at the
Chamber of Commerce and am authorised to
speak on behalf of the chemical trade, the drug
trade, the textile trade, they are all most
seriously affected by this proposal, or would
be so.
2320. And you are authorised in this matter
to speak for them —I am.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
2321. The first thing that strikes me to ask
you is this on, the impossibility of a trader find-
ing out what he ought to be charged; you say it
will be very difficult, if not impossible?—I beg
your pardon, I think the railway company I said
could not find out what class the goods were sent
in, not the trader, the trader knows.
2322. But it was put at all events by your
learned counsel that the proposal of the Board of
Mr. ROGERs.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
Trade was so involved that it would be next to
impossible for a trader to find out what he would
be charged 2–I thought it was a prior witness
who said that; but I entertain the same
opinion. -
2323. How did you find out what the proposed
charge would be so as to put it in this table 7–I
had a couple of clerks on it about three days, and
had it checked and re-checked, a most difficult
operation. .*
2324. Still you have done it?—Yes.
2325. This occurs to me to ask you, take the
28 lbs. first ; what is the value of a bag which
holds 28 lbs. of coffee?—3 d. or 6 d.
2326. Then how then can it be worth while,
the present charge is 9 d. according to you ?—
They return a good many bags together; they
pack them together.
2327. That is a concession, I suppose, on the
part of the railway company ?—I do not think so :
I think it is according to the scale.
2328. Let us take a crate; what would be the
value of a crate containing a consignment of
your goods we will say ; take 112 lbs., let us go
to the biggest at once 2–One shilling.
2329. The present charge is 1 s. 1; d. 2–Yes.
2330. Do they charge 1 s. 1; d. for the crate
to come back 2–For what distance 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is an average.
Mr. Pember.
233l. For Bolton, 194 miles; the present
charge would be 1 s. 6 d. 7 – They would not
return it from Bolton. That is my contention,
that the rates are already too high and are pro-
posed to be raised.
2332. Does it not come to this : that the rates
are so high because the cases are so utterly value-
less that it is not worth while to send them back
any long distance 7–No, there is an enormous
trade in returned empties.
2333. I can understand that; of course you
admit that the railway companies must have a
fair charge 2–Certainly.
2334. It may well be that the empty is not
worth while sending back 194 miles at any cost
which would fairly repay the company for bring-
ing it 2–That might be so.
2335. Up to this time you seem to have got
on pretty well with the railway companies?
—We are not the sufferers; our customers will
be.
2336. Your customers have not come here in
legions to complain, you seem to baye got on
pretty well without any maximum at all ?–That
is so, but I do not see that that is any reason for
making it still heavier.
2337. Pardon me we will come to the still
heavier. What is there which enables you to
say that the maximum rates proposed by Clause
2i by the Boards of Trade are heavier than
what the railway companies could have charged
at the present moment if they had chosen 7–They
have not charged them in practice. I do not
know what powers they have to charge them.
2338. Then you have no reason for saying that
the maximum rates proposed by the Board of
Trade are heavier than the rates which the
railway company might have made?—I imagine
them to be so.
(81.)
3 D 2339. Why
394
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 May 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.
2339. Why should you imagine them to be so?
—Because I have calculated some of the maxi-
mum rates of the Board of Trade, and they are
considerably larger in many cases.
2340. Than what 7–Than the maximum rates
InOW al’e.
2341. How do you know 2–I beg your pardon,
I mean the actual rates.
2342. I said maximum ?—I beg your pardon;
I was confusing them.
2343. I should just like to ask you this: what
is the size ; you know probably better than any
of us; of a case of wine we will say that will
hold 5 or 6 dozen. Which is the most ordinary
size to begin with, 5 or 6 dozen 2–Three dozen
is the extreme size.
2344. What is the size of a case that would
hold 3 dozen of wine P – Do you mean the
measurement 2
2345. That is what I do mean ; the space it
takes in the waggon when it comes home 2 — I
should think it is about 3 feet long.
2346. How wide –18 inches.
2347. And how high 2–About a foot, I think ;
the height of the bottle, a little more.
2348. A good deal more than a foot, I know
that; I have packed a good many of them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2349. But you were going in for the larger
consignment of 5 or 6 dozen :
Mr. Pember.
2350. Let us put it this way, how mally cases
representing 3 dozen of wine do you suppose
would fill an ordinary truck 2–I have no idea.
2351. It would not take very many, would it?
—I cannot tell you.
2352. You have seen a waggon, I suppose ?—
I should think 40 or 50 could go in one.
2353. Forty or 50 °–Yes.
2354, Just think what is the number of square
feet in the truck now 2–They are not limited to
the sides of the truck ; they can go one above
another ; they are not subject to damage by
Water.
2355. How about the danger of tumbling over ?
—They can be tied or covered.
23:56. All of which costs money or labour P-
Yes.
2357. It is suggested to me that this could be
done when you have got enough at the time;
has it escaped your notice also that an empty
case takes Just as much space as a full one 2–
Yes, it does, of course.
2358. There is another thing; I wonder if it
has struck you ; you say that the value of the
crates and empty bottles that have held mineral
water, and (I should venture to think it might be
said of a great deal of wine, too, but take it to
be mineral waters) are more valuable weight
for weight than the crates were when the bottles
are full 7–I should imagine so.
2359. Then why should the railway companies
be paid less per ton for what is more valuable,
weight for weight you know, that when the thing
was full 2–They charge a high rate, originally,
on the aerated waters.
2360. They charge a rate, no doubt, but why
should I if I am carrying a tom of crates full of
Mr. ROGERs.
ſ continued.
Mr. Pember-continued.
Soda water bottles, and they are not so valuable
as a crate for a ton full of empty soda water
bottles be charged 25 per cent. less, or why are
you not content with my doing so 2–The rail-
way companies have hitherto taken cases and
crates, and all that kind of thing as part of the
exigencies of the traffic to be provided for in
their original rates. I think, not many years.
ago they did not charge at all for returned
empties.
2361. If they have thought it worth their
while to do it now when they are not regulated
by any maximum at all, but could charge what
they thought right, why should it not be equally
reasonable when they have got a maximum ?—I
object to giving them any maximum.
2362. But they have not got one now, and
they have behaved fairly well?—I say they have
not behaved well. I say that formerly they
treated empties as part of the exigencies of the
traffic and did not charge for them. Latterly,
they have charged for them in many cases pro-
hibitive rates.
2363. Did it not occur to you that that was.
because they found that they were losing 2–
Their dividends are pretty handsome.
2364. Perhaps that is in consequence of not
doing a losing trade. Does it not strike you.
that they found they were doing it at a loss an
ceased to do it?—I should imagine not.
2365. Just one case that I should like to put
as a typical case. I have a series of examples
here showing losses to one of the railway com-
panies, the Midland, upon returned empties, upon
comparing the present charges with the Board of
Trade schedule and the Mansion House petition.
Do you do business to Malvern ?—I believe so.
2366. It is a great place for mineral water ?
Mr. Balfour B, owne.] They will not send
mineral waters to Malvern, I should think.
Mr. Pember.] I am not clear about that. Just
see in the course of the evening whether I am
giving you incorrect figures or not, say, on a con-
signment of 9 cwt. 2 quarters, and the present
rate is 25 s., and the present charge for returned
empties is lls. 11 d. Under the Board of Trade.
Provisional Order we make it that the tolls and
terminals would be 15 s. 3 d., and the cartage
5 s. 9 d. Perhaps some one would take these
figures down for you, and the total rate would be
2 I s. 2d., and the charges possibly for returned
empties would be 10 s. 1 d. ; so that there would
be a loss of 1 s. 10 d. to the railway company on
such a consignment as that.—I have been taking
smalls throughout. Most empties would come as
smalls. You say 9 cwt. ; that is over the smalls.
2367. But we have to take both ; the clause
applies to both—But in our trade, and I suppose
in many other trades, they always come as smalls,
2368. You are doing what I do not think at all
blameable, thinking only of your own trade; but
this clause and your amendment would refer to all
trades?—Quite so.
2369. And all sizes of consignments?--Yes.
Would
2370. Now let us take a small one.
3 cwt. be a fair one 2–Under 3 cwt.
2371. I cannot find a smaller one than 3 cwt.
- 2372. What:
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
395
11 May 1890.]
Mr. RogFRs.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2372. What class of article are you speaking
of 2
Mr. Pember.] I will tell you directly; earthen-
ware Crates.
Witness.] That is not in our trade.
2373. You do not deal in earthenware at all ?
May I take it, then, that your evidence only goes
to smalls 2—My evidence only goes to smalls and
empties as smalls.
2374. And of course you know there is a
special rate for smalls 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] A specially high rate.
Mr. Pember.
2375. And for small empties, too, in conse-
quence 2–Yes.
2376. And the empties follow the full?—
Yes. -
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2377. Just half-a-dozen questions. My learned
friend suggests to you that empties are not
valuable at all ; in some cases are the empties
valuable 2–Very valuable.
2378. You said a case for a dozen of wine
would be equal to 1 s. 6 d. itself?—Yes, it would ;
7+ per cent, on the average, wholesale value.
2379. Just let me ask about this trade of
empties ; is it a trade that demands to be dealt
with at once, or can railway companies accumu-
late empties and deal with them at their leisure ?
—They can accumulate empties and deal with
them at their leisure ; they do so in some cases I
believe.
2380. Just looking at the table that you have
put in, could any ordinary trader find out what
rate he was being charged without the very
greatest difficulty 2–No it would be almost im-
possible for him.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
2381. And coming to the table, I find that the
margin, because that is the right word instead of
increased per cent., differs enormously 2–Yes.
2382. If 50 per cent. is sufficient margin at
Northampton why should they have 87.3 per
cent. at Wolverhampton 2–I do not know at all.
2383. Why should they have, taking another
instance, 137 per cent. at Wolverhampton upon
the 56 lbs 2—I say they ought to have been less,
because it is a greater distance; and the rates
are already too prohibitive for the distance.
2384. Does that show to your mind that those
margins are not proper margins to be allowed
between actual and maximum rates?—It shows
that they are too high.
2385. My learned friend says they have been
reasonable with you in the past; your complaint
is that they have not been reasonable in the past?
—It is.
2386. The charge for empties is too high to-
day ?—It is.
2387. And as maximum rates have to be fixed
you want them to be fixed at a reasonable
amount P−And do you think that something like
20 per cent, over the actual rate would be a fair
margin to allow 2–That is my opinion.
Mr. Pember.] I hope Mr. Rogers will be here
in the morning in case I find anything to ask
him. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Perhaps you will give
us that table that we may look over it.
Mr. Pember.] I have not the slightest objec-
tion (handing the table to Mr. Balfour Browne).
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven.
#81.)
( 396 )
(
397 )
Die Martis, 12° Mail, 1891
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPER DOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir Joseph BAILEY.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Clifford.] Wou LD your Grace allow me
to mention a matter which arises upon the sche-
dule 2 We seem now to be nearing the end of
the general clauses, and it would be a great con-
venience to many petitioners to know at what
stage your Grace would take those questions
which are domestic to the London and North
North Western Company ; for instance, those
questions referring to private agreements
between the traders and the London and North
Western Company, whether they should be
taken at the end of the general clauses or at the
end of the classification and rates questions.
Chairman.] I think we must go through the
Bill first, and then we will take the individual
Ca,SeS.
Mr. _Clifford.] If your Grace pleases, the
whole Bill to include, I understand, the rates
and classification.
Chairman.] Yes.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Your Grace, I
want to be allowed to mention a matter. The
Post Office have called the attention of the
Board of Trade to a rider which they wish in-
serted to Clause 5 of the Provisional Order, the
effect of which is contained in a letter from the
Post Office, written to the Board of Trade upon
the 17th of February of the present year, and
is as follows : “In Clause 5 of the schedule
applicable to the London and North Western
Railway Company (page 26), power is especially
given to the company to charge reasonable sums
of money to be agreed upon or settled by arbi-
tration for the collection or delivery of merchan-
dise outside the terminal station, and in the
Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and Mr.
Courtenay Boyle accompanying the schedule,
the insertion of this power is justified as neces-
sary to legalise the charges for the services in
question (see page 18). The Postmaster General
is not aware whether a clause similar to that
referred to will be contained in the schedules
which Parliament is now asked to confirm, but
assuming that it is, I am directed by him to
state that the provision of the schedules to
which I have referred has an important bearing
upon the question relating to the scope of the
free message privilege enjoyed under the provi-
sions of the Telegraph Act, 1868, by the
principal railway companies of the United
Kingdom. There is some doubt whether the
collection and delivery of merchandise outside
the terminal station are included in the general
powers conferred on railway companies by
Parliament, and it has accordingly been open to
question whether messages relating to the per-
formance of these functions are messages relating
to the business of the company (and therefore
entitled to free transmission) within the meaning
of the Telegraph Act, 1868 (Section 9, Sub-
section 6, paragraph G.), and the various agree-
ments between the Postmaster General and the
railway companies; ” and they then quote the
terms of a clause which I will read directly for
the purpose of having it put upon the notes.
The clause was only communicated to us at this
very late stage by the Post Office, too late for
the Board of Trade to take any action as to
inserting it before laying the Provisional Orders
upon the Table of Parliament. Since that time
we have communicated the clause to the railway
companies, and the railway companies have
amended it, and the Post Office say that they have
no objection to it in that amended form. The
amended form is in the following words:
“Neither the powers and authorities by this clause
given nor the repeal or abrogation of any pro-
visions in any Act of Parliament relating to the
matters aforesaid shall be deemed to prejudice
or affect the question whether the rendering of
the services described by this clause is to be
deemed business of the company within the
meaning of the provisions of the Telegraph Act,
1868, or any agreement between the Postmaster
General and the company in relation to the
transmission of telegraphic messages of the com-
pany over the postal telegraphs free of charge.”
Your Grace, the question of course arises
whether this clause should or should not be put
(81.)
3 D 3 into
398
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
into the Provisional Orders; probably it would
not be convenient under any circumstances to
put it in as a rider to Clause 5 ; but if it is put
in at all, it should be made a separate clause.
But the Board of Trade now feel that it is a
matter which has passed out of their hands, and
that it is really for the Committee to decide
whether the clause should be inserted or not.
Upon the one hand, we do not know whether the
railway companies have any serious objection to
it ; no serious objection has been transmitted to
us. Upon the other hand, it becomes just
a question whether or not this clause is
really within the scope of the Provisional
Order. We understand that the request
has been made by the Post Office to put a similar
clause into many of the railway Bills which are
passing through Parliament at the present time,
and that some negotiations are going on with the
Chairman of Committees at the present time,
who has delayed the stage of some Bills now be-
fore the House of Ilords for the purpose of
further consideration. We think if right to men-
tion the matter to the Committee at this time in
order that they may not be taken by surprise
when it comes up for decision. We venture to
suggest that the Committee should consult the
Chairman of Committees, and that whatever
action is taken by the House of Lords in
MR. JACOB EMERSON, is called in ; and,
Mr. Clifford.
2388. YoU are Traffic Manager, I believe, of
the Army and Navy Co-operative Society 2–
Yes.
2389. How long have you been in the service
of the society 2–About 19 years.
2390. What was your occupation previously
—On the railway.
2391. You were engaged upon the London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway, were you not ?—
Yes, for about 11 years.
2392. Is the matter of returned empties one of
great importance to your society 2–Yes, of very
great importance indeed.
2393. What is the average number of returned
empties you have a month —Sixteen thousand.
2394. Sixteen thousand a month 2–Yes.
2395. How are they divided, as between the
northern and southern companies 2–They are
about equally divided.
2396. What is the average weight of your
empties?—Twenty-eight pounds.
2397. What do you say to the proposed
system of charging empties on the basis of the
full outward rate 2
Chairman.] Before you go to that question,
would you ask him what empties he is speaking
of that weigh 28 lbs.
Mr. Clifford.
2398. Will you answer his Grace's question ?
—The empties in which the Army and Navy
stores are sent out are generally wooden boxes.
Chairman.
2399. An ordinary wooden box *—All wooden
boxes I am alluding to.
regard to other Bills should perhaps be held as
forming a precedent, which might at any rate
guide the action of this Committee in the matter.
Chairman.] I rather doubt whether it ought to
go into this sort of Bill, but that is only a matter
of opinion; it has come upon me by surprise now,
and therefore I do not give a decided opinion.
. Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, I am told that there
is a deputation upon this point from the railway
companies to meet the First Lord of the Treasury
this afternoon; that is, on the question of insert.
ing a similar clause into the various railway Bills
Without inquiry, that is to say, by the Lord
Chairman of Committees; and whether this
clause should go into this Provisional Order or
not I am not prepared to discuss for the moment,
but I think it had better stand over.
... Chairman.] Oh, yes, there is no proposal to put
it in now ; it must stand over until after the Re-
CCSS.
On CLAUSE 21–(continued).
Chairman.] We are in the middle of the re-
turned empties.
Mr. Clifford.] We propose to call another
witness, your Grace.
having been Sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Chairman—continued.
2400. Of what size?—Of various sizes.
2401. To weigh 28 lbs., what size would they
be 2––The average weight of the various sizes is
28 lbs. I have taken the various sizes and
weighed them separately, and then divided them
by the number of sizes we send out.
Mr. Clifford.
2402. Then your statement applies to the
empties, covering all the goods in which your
Society deals 2–Yes, all that are sent out in
packing cases.
2403. What do you say as to this proposed
system of charging empties on the basis of the
outward rate. Do you think, to begin with,
that it will be a convenient system 2–No, I do
not. I do not see how it is possible for anyone,
unless they have a thorough knowledge of rail-
way rates, to arrive at what the rate should be.
I think these tables which I have prepared
(handing in the same) show the various stages
which you have to go through in order to arrive
at the rate either for full loads or empties.
2404. Do you think that your customers could
conveniently check the rate upon any such
system 2–No ; I am positively sure they could
not.
2405. Now, the application of the smalls scale
would introduce another complication, would it
not ?—Yes.
2406. And would subject each parcel to an
extra charge 2–Yes.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] Would you let
the witness give us the evidence in his own
words; you rather lead him to it, and he only
says yes to what you say.
Witness.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
399
12 May 1891.]
Mr. EMERSON.
| Continued.
Witness.] The application of this system of
charging, so far as the Army and Navy empties
are concerned, assuming that they were charged
out at the full rate which they are sent out for,
when full that would mean a marginal power of
charging given to the railway companies, which
would be to our debit of 7,400 l. per annum on
our empty traffic.
2407. Will you tell us what you mean by
that; do you mean if the empty be charged the
same as when it went out full P – The same rate
returning empty as it is charged when it goes
out full, according to its weight when it comes
back.
2408. You are now assuming that the railway
companies' amendment to the schedule is
adopted 7–Just so ; that is what I am speaking
of.
2409. That is not the question before the Com-
mittee. Just tell the Committee first what the
effect of the schedule would be, that is the 75 per
cent. 2–The effect of the 75 per cent. would be,
as regards the northern rails, a 2,400 l. marginal
charging power, and on the southern rails 2,900 l.
per annum, making a total of 5,300 l. per annum
marginal charging power given to the companies
over and above their actual charge at the present
time.
Mr. Hambury.
2410. Can you not give us an instance from a
single parcel ?–Yes, I can give one. Take the
third class, that is the particular rate that our
goods go out in.
Mr. Clifford.
2411. You are now turning to your printed
tables, I think, copies of which are before the
Committee ?–Yes, if you take the southern
railways; I have taken here for illustration what
I considered four representative stations on each of
the southern railways, giving the mileage distance
of each station showing the working of the rate for
a 28 lbs. empty, for a 56 lbs. empty, for an 84 lbs.
empty, and for a 112 lbs. empty. The present
rate for a 28 lbs. returned empty is 2d. The
average rate at the 75 per cent. is 1 s. 3 d. for a
cwt., and 9} d. for 28 lbs. -
Chairman.
24.12. That is the maximum ?—That is the
maximum, 9} d. against 2 d.
Earl of Camperdown.
2413. The rate is invariably 2 d. 2–Yes, up to
84 lbs.
2414. For 28 lbs. it is 2 d., and for 28 lbs.,
under the 75 per cent, it would run from 8 d. to
1s. I have taken your own table?—It runs from
8 d. to 1 s. Yes, 1 s. is the highest.
2415. That is the first one?—Yes. Thus tak-
ing the average at the foot, you will find the
average under each column is 93 d. for 28 lbs.,
11 d. for 56 lbs., 1 s. 14 d. for 84 ibs., and 1 s. 3 d.
for a hundredweight, against 2 d. for 28 lbs., 2 d.
for 56 lbs., 2 d. for 84 lbs, and 4 d. for a hundred-
weight, actual charges at the present time.
Chairman.
2416. And what could they charge at the pre-
sent time -I am unable to answer that ques-
(81..)
Chairman—-continued.
tion ; I do not know what their powers are. I
only know what they do charge. I do not know
what the powers of the companies are to
charge.
Mr. Clifford.
2417. In this comparison you have been com-
paring station-to-station rates, have you not, with
station-to-station rates ?—Yes, I have.
2418. So that the comparison is precise in
that matter ?–Yes.
2419. Will you now turn to the northern
companies in the third class. There a different
system seems to prevail with regard to the actual
charges they make 2–The actual charges are
“C. and D.,” that is to say, that the collection and
delivery is included in the rate at present. The
proposed charges are all a station-to-station rate;
and therefore if you take the 28 lbs. column, in-
cluding ſhe collection and delivery rate, it is 84 d.
against 11 d, station-to-station rate at the 75 per
cent. charge.
Mr. Cripps.] Which page is this?
Earl of Camperdown.] “ Northern rails re-
turned empties, third class.”
Mr. Clifford.
2420. Will you go on with your comparison 2
-The 28 lbs. average for the northern railways
representative stations are 84 d. collection and
delivery, against ll d. for the same weight,
station to station. For the 56 lbs. it is the same
against 1 s. 2 d. station to station. For the
84 lbs., it averages 10% d. against I s. 4; d. For
a cwt. it is 1 s. 1; d. against 1 s. 7; d., station to
Stat! On.
2421. Does the bulk of
under the third class?—Yes.
2422. Then I will not ask you to go through
the other tables unless the Committee wish it.
Mr. Hanbury.
2423. Then the present charges which you
have mentioned include collection and delivery 2
-They include collection and delivery on the
northern systems:
2424. But the proposed charges do not include
collection and delivery 2–No, they are station to
station only.
your empties come
Earl of Camperdown.
2425. So that the difference is even greater
than would appear on your tables?–No. In
making out what the marginal charging power
would be, assuming the northern companies'
empties were station to station, I have deducted
3 d, for the delivery and collection, and worked
mine out at 5 d, to arrive at my figures.
Mr. Hanbury.
2426. But taking this first column of yours,
does the present actual rate include collection
and delivery 2–It does.
2427. Does this last column,” maximum charge
75 per cent,” include collection and delivery **
No, it is station to station.
Earl of Camperdown.
2428., Then the difference ought to be greater,
not smaller. Then in addition to the maximum
3 D 4 charge
400
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.]
Mr. EMERSON.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
charge of 75 per cent, you would have to add on
something, would you not, for bringing the empty
from the station to the Army and Navy Stores?
—Yes, there is the service to collect and
deliver. ©
2429. So that therefore the difference is even
greater to the extent of the delivery than appears
in these columns?– But I wish the Committee to
understand that when I have said that that is the
marginal charging power given to the companies
under this amendment, I have taken into con-
sideration the rate station to station and allowed
3; d. off of these charges here, off the 83 d... I
have charged it out at 5 d. per empty, allowing
3; d. for the collection and delivery service which
the companies perform.
2430. Then your heading ought to have been
“Maximum charge, 75 per cent, allowance being
made for collection and delivery ‘’?–No ; this is
the actual charge here; but in order to get at
my figure, which I said the Army, and Navy
Stores would have to be debited with, assuming
that these propositions here were adopted, I
should have had to take off the difference between
the collection and delivery and the conveyance
rate.
Mr.
Lord.
Witness.] There is a certain service performed
by the company, such as collection and delivery
of the empty, and for that service I am not aware
what would be the exact amount, simply because
I have never had the information.
Earl of Belmore.
2431. You add 3 d. to the 8+ d. 2–I deduct
3 d. from the 83 d., and it brings it to station
to station, 3} d. from 8% d., merely for arriving
at the amount, bringing the empty at 5 d. instead
of 8% d.
2432. Will it stand at 5 d. against 11 d. 7–
Yes.
Clifford.] That is the explanation, my
Sir Joseph Bailey.
2433. I understand that these tables are cor-
rect as they are printed, that is to say, the
first columns are collection and delivery, and
the remaining columns are station to station,
but that in making your calculation of profit
and loss, which you have given in evidence,
you have deducted 3 d. off the first columns :
Yes, that was it ; I allow the company
34 d, so as to bring, the empty to a 5 d. con-
veyance. But the difficulty in arriving at the
rate with regard to an empty is this: that if you
take the table you have to first ascertain the
mileage of the station, then you have to work
out the rate under which the goods were sent
out full, you have to work that decimal out, in-
cluding the charge for conveyance, and station
terminal and service terminal, and total all those
up before you can arrive at the actual tonnage
rate. When you have arrived at the actual ton-
nage rate, then you have to introduce the
system of smalls, and that actual tonnage rate
will show you what handicap the smalls is to be
debited with, according to the rate it is charged
to come under the head of small parcels.
Mr. Clifford.
2434. Let us try to get this quife clear; the
printed tables, as I understand, do not make that
allowance for collection and delivery 2–No, they
do not ; not in the present actual charge.
2435. But in calculating the total amount,
with which you would be debited in the Army
and Navy Stores, you have made such an allow-
ance 2—I have made that deduction.
2436. Therefore, this total calculation of yours
of increased charge to the Army and Navy
Stores represents fairly what will result under
the proposals of the schedule?—Certainly it
does.
2437. Now, having regard to the margin
between actual rates and maximum powers, do
you think that that is a reasonable margin 2–
No, I think not. I think it is a margin that
would annihilate the empty traffic entirely. I
do not see any possibility of its existing under
such conditions as those, because the charge for
the empty would cost equal to the value of the
empty in most cases.
Lord Houghton.
2438. Are you assuming that the maximum is
charged 2—I am assuming that it is charged.
Mr. Clifford.
2439. If the maximum powers were exercised,
the charge would in some cases, you say, be equal
to the value of the package itself?—Yes, in
many cases it would exceed the value of a pack-
age when new.
2440. Have you made any calculation as to
what effect the amendment proposed by the
Mansion House Association would have upon
this matter 2–It would give a minimum charge
of 4 d. for each empty within 100 miles.
2441. Have you considered the effect of that
amendment, and what view do you take of it?—
The effect of it, so far as the southern lines are
concerned, would be to give the companies 100
per cent. in three-fourths of the cases over what
they charge now. w
2442. The effect of the Mansion House amend-
ment would be to give the southern companies a
margin of 100 per cent. upon their present actual
rate 2–Three-fourths, say 75 per cent., because
three out of the four rates up to a hundredweight
are charged 2 d. ; therefore the minimum charge
of 4 d. would apply to those exceptions. The
charge is 2 d. at present, and the hundredweight
rate is 4d. ; therefore that would be giving them,
taking the hundredweight rate, as much as they
are having now on that particular charge.
2443. That, at any rate as regards the southern
companies, would not be an unreasonable pro-
posal” –I think it is rather too liberal.
2444. As regards the northern companies, would
it be a reasonable proposal 2–I think so, taking
into consideration that the rates in future would
be station to station. A 4 d. charge for an empty
for 100 miles I think is very reasonable, and I
think would pay the companies very well, too, for
all ordinary size empties.
2445. It has been suggested to one or two
witnesses by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the railway companies that the empty traffic is
not
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
401
12 May 1891.]
Mr. EMERSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford-continued.
not remunerative to them; do you agree in that
opinion ?–No, I do not. ę
2446. Will you state your reasons for dissent-
ing from that view 2–Some of it may not be
remunerative ; but I think that a great deal of it
is, taking into consideration the circumstance
that it is a traffic that is carried at the company's
convenience, principally.
Chairman.
2447. At the company's convenience 2–Yes.
Mr. Clifford.
2448. What you mean is, that it is not an
urgent traffic, and that the companies can carry
it when or as they please ?—I mean this, that
the companies very often allow empties to accu-
mulate at the stations till they get a certain
duantity; they do not return them every day, the
same as they would forward full goods,
2449. So that they can stop to fill up 2 --I
think so.
2450. Is it not also the case that empties as a
rule are prepaid 2–Yes.
2451. That is another element in the considera-
tion, is it not ? –It is. But there was a question
asked yesterday, I think it was Mr. Pember who
asked the last witness on empties, what the
capacity of the truck was for carrying empties.
I measured a 10-ton truck this morning, and I
can answer that question A three dozen wine
case was the point that was raised to the best of
my recollection, how many three dozen wine
cases would a 10-ton truck, or a truck, be capable
of accommodating. An ordinary 10-ton truck
would accommodate 67 three dozen wine cases,
and that brings it to a rate of 22 s. 4 d. for those
67; at 4 d. each those empties would pay for the
use of that truck, 22 s. 4 d. The same truck will
hold 220 one dozen wine cases, and they would
realize, at a 4 d. rate, 73 s. 4 d. That truck will
accommodate 93 two dozen wine cases, and at a
4 d. rate that would be 31 s.
2452. Now I know for a fact, that at stations
where there are a large number of empties re-
turned, where the mineral rate is 2 s. 1 d. a ton
for coals and manure, a load of empties to those
stations would pay a very great deal better than
the full goods as minerals and manures.
2453. So that in your opinion this empty
traffic is more remunerative than the mineral-
class traffic would be 2–In some instances; I do
not say it is in all, because I do not think for a
moment that it would be.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
2454. How often do you suppose there would
be a truck load of returned empties between the
same consignor or consignee 2–It would depend
entirely upon the output ; I cannot say if you
give us an isolated case. I know that the Great
Western Railway Company and the other
northern railway companies, and the southern
companies, so far as our own traffic is concerned,
deliver to us on the average per month 16,000
empties. -
2455. How many different consignors do those
16,000 empties come from ?—That is a question
I am unable to answer.
(81.)
Mr. Cripps—continued.
2456. I should think so. Now I will ask you
about your table, that is the real point here.
Will you take your first table with regard to the
northern rails, 3rd class, that is the table in which
you begin with the collected and delivered rate 2
—Yes.
2457. And as I understand you upon the tables
later on, when you are calculating the new maxi-
mum charge, you include the whole of the addi-
tional charge for smalls?—Certainly I do, because
each empty would be a separate parcel.
2458. I only ask you the fact at present; we
can discuss it by and bye. Then you work out
the maximum charge on the 75 per cent., after
adding the whole additional charge for smalls 2–
I have to arrive at a tonnage rate first, before I
can get to a smalls rate; then I take the 28 lbs.,
and, as I said before, the rate determined the
handicap which is to be attached to it as a small.
2459. Now let me put to you this. Take the
first line, take the case of Bolton ; you will see
your total tonnage rate before adding an addi-
tional charge for smalls is 36 s. 11 d. 2–That is
quite right.
2460. And 28 lbs. is about the 80th of a ton,
is it not ?—Twenty-eight pounds is the 80th of
a ton; yes. -
2461. Therefore, if we were working that
36 s. 11 d. out for 28 lbs., that is to say, dividing
it by 80, we should get a charge of under 6 d. 3
—You are assuming that it is charged a tonnage
Tate. *º-
2462. Yes, I am, if you would not mind follow-
ing me for a minute. If you divide 36 s. 11 d.
by 80 we should get a charge of under 6 d. 2–
Possibly.
2463. Now, then, would you go back to the
first first figure in your Bolton line, 9 d. 2–Yes.
2464. You take off 3} d. or 3 d. 2–31 d.
2465. Say 34 d., that would give you a present
charge as from station to station of 5; d. ; do you
see that ?
Chairman.] It cannot help being that.
Mr. Cripps.
2466. Then I want to ask you this. Taking
5; d. as the present actual charge (and we know
there is no maximum), should you think that 6 d.
would be unfair for the new maximum ? — I
should not object to 6 d. being the maximum, not
for that distance of 194 miles.
2467. Very well; now let me put this to you,
because your construction of this clause seems to
be different from ours—I am very pleased to
hear it.
2468. I dare say you may be ; but if on this
returned empty clause we are not entitled to add
an additional charge for smalls, as I understand
you would not object to that ?— I hat would
make a very great difference indeed. I could
not answer that directly till I have gone through
and worked out a table to see what it would work
out at. I do not want to sanction a thing that
l do not quite understand.
2469. I will take an instance in your own
figures; take the first instance : actual charge
(and there is no maximum now), 5; d. ; proposed
maximum 6 d. ; you would not object to that?—
No, not for that distance; that is, I believe, what
the *ion House people suggested; they say
3 E 6 d.
402
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
#
12 May 1891.]
Mr. Cripps—continued.
6 d. over 100 miles; they would give that as a
minimum charge for an empty.
2470. I need not go through these figures; I
will refer to the southern companies in a minute.
I take it that the enlarged margin is almost
entirely due to adding an additional rate for
smalls?—No doubt that is the primary cause.
2471. Now turn for a minute to returned
empties, 3rd class on the southern rails; I want
to ask you a question upon that for this reason;
take the first instance; you say that 2 d. is
charged at the present time for 28 lbs. 7–That
1S SO. -
2472. You know in that case, do you not,
what you are charged for cartage and delivery,
what is it?—We are not charged anything ; we
do the work ourselves.
2473. What is it 2–- We do the collection our-
selves in London.
2474. But if it is a returned empty, a package
coming back to you, do you do it yourselves
then 2–No; our members would return the
empties to London at their convenience.
2475. I am not dealing with packages going
out but with returned empties; is any charge
made to you for collection and delivery 2–No.
2476. None at all ?—Not that I am aware, not
in that 2 d., because it is a service not per-
formed.
2477. Do you not know what the southern
companies' charge is?—Twopence.
2478. And what is it for collection and
delivery when they do it?—So far as delivery is
concerned, the Great Western Company, I find,
when they come in competition with the South
Western Company, and get one of our empties,
charge me 3 d. for delivery only. I have got a
bill here which I can show you that will corrobo-
rate that very recently.
2479. Then just let me ask you the same
question, as I asked you upon the other table.
Earl of Camperdown.] Did you not say just
before, that the customer paid in that case, and
not you at all P
Witness.] We collect the southern railway
companies’ empties ourselves, because it is
much cheaper for us to do it than for the
companies to perform the service. But if by
chance the Great Western Company get hold of
a competitive station empty where the rates are
station to station, and if they deliver that empty
to us, they will charge us 3 d. for that service, for
the delivery service.
Mr. Cripps.
2480. Now let me ask you on the same peint,
do you see 10 s. 7 d. in the same line for your
tonnage rate 2–Yes, that is what it works out
to.
2481–2. We shall have to divide that again by
80, shall we not ?—Yes.
2483. That would work out the maximum,
would it not, at about l ; d., against the present
actual charge of 2 d. 2–We will assume that it
is so. -
2484. You would not object to that, would
you, a present actual charge of 2 d., and we may
go up to any maximum, and a new maximum of
l; d. ; do you object to that ?—A maximum
charge of 13; d. above the actual 2 d. 2
Mr. EMERSON.
| Continued.
Chairman.] No, in place of it.
Mr. Cripps.] No, the actual maximum charge,
now 1; d. ; do you object to that? 4
Witness.] No, I should not object to that.
Mr. Cripps.] I may tell your Grace, with re-
ference to this cross-examination, that the view
of the railway companies is that under that
returned empties, Section 21, we should not be
entitled to make an additional charge for smalls.
That is the ruling idea of that clause.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Is that
the view of the Board of Trade 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is doubtful as
drafted, it is a point that I intended to mention
to the Committee. Our intention was that the
additional smalls charge should not apply.
Chairman.] If that is the view of the Board
of Trade, and commends itself to the railway
companies, the clause might be amended to that
effect. ;
Nír. Courtenay Boyle.] The clause might be
amended to that effect, subject to what the rail-
way companies say hereafter.
Mr. Cripps.] We do not adopt the 75 per cent.,
but if we are allowed the whole amount on
returned empties, taking out the charge for
smalls, our charges would not be more than the
actual cost, and in many cases they would be less.
That question will arise presently, your Grace.
Earl of Belmore.] Do I rightly understand
that if you get the whole sum, and not the sum
minus 25 per cent., then the railway companies
waive the claim to smalls 2
Mr. Cripps.] We have always, my Lord, con-
strued this clause as not including the extra
charge for smalls in the way that Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has pointed out. There might be some
difficulty upon that, but if it is construed in the
way that I am now construing it, then on the
figures I have given, I have calculated it as if we
got the whole amount, not the 75 per cent., if we
only got the 75 per cent, then in many cases the
new maximum would be less than the present
actual charge. g
Witness.] What I understand, your Grace, is
this : that my empties, averaging 28 lbs. each,
whatever tonnage rate they go out at when full,
would each of them come back at the 80th part
of that tonnage rate.
Chairman.
2485, Well?—That is assuming four empties
of a hundredweight each ; four times 20 is 80.
Mr. Cripps.] No ; that is on the full charge.
Lord Belper.
2486. Do you contend that the railway com-
Danies ought to carry your empties at such a rate
as you think a reasonable one, even if it does not
pay the company to do it?—No, I do not.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] Perhaps you
will continue this question; you have got to re-
62X2, II) l In 62.
Mr. Clifford.] I did not propose to ask any
questions in re-examination. I need not say
your Grace, that this suggestion takes us some-
what by surprise. Ourº calculations have all
been
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
403
12 May 1891.
A-
been made upon the assumption that the small
scale would undoubtedly apply to this clause;
there is no exception in it; therefore the ordi-
nary operation of the clause would be to bring
all the empty packages under the smalls weight
into the category of smalls. We should like
some little time to consider what the effect of this
new proposal would be upon the rates, because it
really takes the form of a new proposal with
regard to us.
Mr. Cripps.] But the clause says “the same
class of the classification.”
Chairman.] Perhaps the Board of Trade
would be good enough to tell us what their view
of this clause is, as to how they imagine it would
work, and also how they would wish it to work;
what the intention of it is.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I understand your
Grace's invitation, or your Grace's command
rather, to be that we shomld explain the clause
in full now.
Chairman.] Yes, I think so : “invitation ” is
the better word, you know.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Grace, this clause
has given Lord Balfour of Burleigh and myself,
and the Board of Trnde, very considerable diffi-
culty, and I do not know that there is any other
clause in the whole Provisional Order which we
should not rather defend than the clause which
is now before your Grace. The method of deal-
ing with returned empties has puzzled for many
years those very able gentlemen whom you had
before you, and who, working in the Railway
Association and in the Clearing House, have
endeavoured, and I think I may say without at
all offending them, endeavoured without any very
great success, to find some proper, reasonable,
and fair way of dealing with this very complicated
question of returned empties.
First, let me tell you what a returned empty is
not. A returned empty is not, under the Pro-
visional Order, an empty truck. In the Bill, as
reported to Parliament, it was not quite clear whe-
ther the provisions applying to returned empties
would not apply to a trader's truck returned
without any merchandise in it; but as the
Committee will see by a subsequent clause in
the Provisional Order as now before Parliament,
that difficulty has been dealt with, and a returned
truck is not, we believe, an empty. What then
is an empty P An empty may be, and sometimes
is, a bag, a sacking bag; an empty sometimes is
a paper bag; an empty very often is a pianforte
case ; an empty very often is a band-box, a hem-
coop, a soda-water bottle, a carboy. Now we
in vain endeavoured to arrive at some perfectly
fair principle of providing maximum rates for
articles so widely different as those. The
principles, as you will hear later, underlying
classification, are weight as compared with bulk,
that is one value, damagability, and effect on
other goods. Take weight as compared with
bulk ; look at the difference between weight as
compared with bulk of a band-box, and a seltzer
water bottle. Look at the value of a seltzer
water bottle, a hen-coop, a pianoforte case, and a
crate. It is almost impossible to lay down a rule
which shall be absolutely good as regards all
those multifarious articles. Take a carboy; a
carboy is a vase, that, if you shatter it, it will
not be a scent of roses that will cling to it, but a
scent probably of petroleum oil or sulphuric
acid, or some weed killer, a few drops of which
will poison a consignment of sugar, as has actually
occurred in a case of experience lately. The
original proposal of the railway companies was
not this ; but during the course of our proceedings
the railway companies submitted a clause as being
on the whole fair, that returned empties should
be in the same class as the goods going out, and,
that the full rate should be charged for them.
We, after very great consideration, adopted that
proposal, but struck 25 per cent. off; the clause
provides that 75 per cent. of the outward rate is
to be charged for the returned empties. A very
influential deputation coming from a great
southern corporation, described the clause as
happy-go-lucky. I do not think either that
Lord Balfour or myself, or even the railway
companies, would say that that was a word that
was absolutely inapplicable to the clause as it
stands. I think there would be very great diffi.
culty indeed in ascertaining what was the out-
ward rate. Consignor A. might send a lot of
goods in packages to consignee B. Consignee
B. might return those empties either to Consig-
nor A. or to the same station ; but it would be
very difficult for the railway company to trace
what were the articles contained in the packages
when they went out. Therefore the clause is
not a satisfactory clause as it stands. We in
vain endeavoured to make it more satisfactory,
and to submit to the Committee a clause of
which we should be more proud, and which we
should defend more confidently. We asked the
wisest of the managers of the railway companies
to submit to us a classification of empties ;
we asked them even to do this : to classify
by name certain empties, and to say that all
other empties should be in a certain class of
classification. That they did not succeed in
doing. We asked the best representatives of the
traders that we could find to give us a better
clause, to give us something more reasonable,
more logical, and more fair. But we got nothing
better than this : 75 per cent. Of the outward
rates. It is a rough-and-ready way of dealing
with the difficulty, not a satisfactory way, but
the best that we could obtain.
Now as regards some of the points that have
been raised, we believe it is a matter of drafting.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh and I have not had an
opportunity of discussing it this morning, but
we believe it is a matter of drafting. It is not
quite clear whether what Mr. Emerson called
the smalls handicap, that is the smalls addition,
would not apply to returned empties under the
clause as it stands. But our intention was that
which Mr. Cripps has alluded to, the intention
that it should not apply, that the returned
empty rate should be merely the tonnage rate
and nothing else. If the Committee adopt the
principle of the clause, it will be in their
competence to insert an amendment making
that intention quite clear. But Lord Balfour
and I wish to say that unquestionably
the amendment which is before the Committee
(81.)
3 E 2 Il OW
404
MINUTEs or Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
cº-
now is a simpler way of dealing with the convey-
ance of the returned empties, that is the Mansion
House Clause as amended I think; I do not know
whether it was by Mr. Clifford or Mr. Balfour
Browne, yesterday, The provision is that
empties in respect of traffic conveyed for any dis-
tance not exceeding 150 miles are to be in Class
C., and for traffic conveyed over any longer dis-
stance in Class 1 exempted; nevertheless, from
the operation of the two-ton minimum consign-
ment, and also from the provision as regards
•smalls. That is a simpler way of dealing with
the difficulty; but neither of us can say, without
hearing what the gentlemen on the opposite side
of the room contend, that is an absolute fair way
of dealing with the difficulty. But if the railway
companies see their way now at this last stage
to adopt a fairer class or some two or even three
classes, into which empties might go, we believe
and firmly contend that that would be simpler and
better for the trade in the long run. Failing that,
ſailing the possibility of getting empties into one,
two, two or three classes, we have nothing better
to submit to the Committee than Clause 21 as
amended in the direction already pointed out.
Earl of Belmore..] Your intention was to include
empties without reference to what went out in
them? p
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] All empties, whatever
they were, would, according to the proposal, be
in Class C., or in Class 1, without any reference
to what they were or anything else.
Lord Belper.] I understand, that you are
generally in favour of the principle adopted in
the amendment, although you do not go so far
as to say that you think the effect would be a
fair or just one.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We tried in vain to
get one clause that would be a fair all round.
Lord Belper.] You seem to speak in favour
of the principle, but I do not understand that
you express any opinion as to the result, if that
clause were adopted, as to how it would affect
the railway companies, and how it would affect
the traders.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We believe if it could
be found that the Committee could adopt one,
two, or even three classes for empties, the result
would be simpler and better to work; but I cannot
pin myself to say decidedly that this is a fair pro-
posal.
Mr. Hanbury.] Which, on the whole, did the
Board of Trade prefer, their own clause or the
amendment 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] If we could get a class
that was fair, we would sooner have the class.
If the Committee are convinced that this par-
ticular class is fair, mind you have heard nothing
from the railway companies at the present mo-
ment, they have not spoken on the amendment,
but if they can get a class that is fair (and I
hope even now they may be able to say that they
can get a class that is fair), we would sooner have
the class.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] Have you
finished with your witness?
Mr. Clifford.] Yes, your Grace.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Clifford.] I do not think I need cali any
more witnesses. I only want to point out this:
Mr. Courtenay, Boyle has omitted a provision at
the end of our amendment, which practically has
been proposed with a view to protect the com-
panies so as to give both a minimum weight and
a minimum charge. That addition has been
added in the interest of the companies, and we
think, on the whole, it will be a fair proposal as
regards them. -
Mr. Waghorn.] May I say on behalf of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, your
Grace, that our object in asking to have the
clause omitted, was not, of course, that no rules
or regulations should be made with respect to
empties, but we did think very strongly——
Chairman.] But you are upon the omission of
the clause. -
Mr. Waghorn.] I wish to express the views of
the conference to confirm what. Mr. Courtenay
Boyle said, and other gentlemen have said here,
and to lay before your Grace our views upon
that particular point.
Chairman.] But you are for omitting the
clause. - -
Mr. Waghorn.] Omitting the clause for the
time, so that it may be considered as a matter of
classification afterwards. Mr. Courtenay Boyle's
last remarks were to the effect that he thought it
most desirable that returned empties should be.
put in one, two, or more classes. We should
have wished to contend before your Grace that
that was the very mode that should have been
adopted. We proposed the omission of the clause
at that particular stage because we considered the
discussion at this moment premature. We hardly
know what the rates are or what the classes are.
But your Grace has considered that a certain
concession has been made, so to speak, that the
charges for smalls are not to apply; you have
arrived almost at a feeling of unanimity upon
both sides, and I now suggest that if your Grace .
could see your way to adopt the suggestion of
Mr. Courtenay Boyle, and a little later on to con-
sider what class, whether in one or two classes,
those empties could be put, that would most
accurately meet the views of the Lancashire and
Cheshire Conference. , -
Chairman.] But we have not heard the railway
companies as yet; we cannot decide without
hearing them ; we have only heard one side.
- Mr. Waghorn.] Exactly, and I have taken the
liberty of saying that there seems to be great
unanimity of opinion on this side of the House
that the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference,
who represent a great number of traders, entirely
concur in that view.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, I shall have to call
some witnesses for the railway companies;
but I think it will be convenient first of all to
put our views forward in order that we may direct
the evidence to those particular points.
In reference to what Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
said, and in reference to the proposed amendment
of the Mansion House Committee, we have
worked it out in particular cases. It is very
difficult in a short period to work out entirely the
effect of an amendment of this character, but we
find
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
405
12 May 1891.
find in the instances we have taken that it would
work out practically in a considerable loss to the
railway campanies, that is to say, that the maxi-
mum under the Mansion House proposal would
be less than the actual charges which we are
making now. And in the instances that we took,
we did not take many instances, in the 14 instances
that we took, the loss to the railway companies,
even in a maximum as compared with the actual
charge, would be 2 l. That is of course a matter
upon which I shall have to call evidence.
Now, your Grace, I should like to say a word
or two in reference to the proposal which is in
the schedule put forward by the Board of Trade.
It has been suggested that it is difficult of appli-
cation, but practically it would work out in this
way, that the consignor, or rather the consignee
to whom the goods were sent, would know what
the charge was in respect of the class to which
the particular goods belonged, and, therefore, he
would have all knowledge of the proper charge
to be made in respect of the returned empties.
There might be some difficulty so far as
the railway companies are concerned; but the
consignee could have no difficulty; he would
know, for instance, that on a particular con-
signment he had been charged on Class 1, and he
would know that, as regards the returned empty,
the charge would be on the basis of the same
class, and therefore the full charge, in reference
to which it is not suggested that there is any
difficulty, would really give him the fullest indi-
cation of the principle or figure on which the
charge should be made for the returned empty.
Then, your Grace, as Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
pointed out, this Clause 21, which was adopted
by the Board of Trade in its present form, was
a clause put forward as regards principle by the
railway companies themselves; and it was a
clause put forward by them as the easiest way,
So far as the consignee is concerned, and the
justest way, so far as the railway companies are
concerned, of dealing with this complicated
matter; the difference being this, as between the
railway companies and the Board of Trade, that
we asked for the full charge on returned empties,
and the Board of Trade have inserted 75 per
cent. Only.
Now, your Grace, this of course must be a
matter of evidence ; but I pointed out in the
cross-examination of the gentleman in the box,
that even if we were allowed a full charge in
reference to the class as regards the returned
empties, we should in certain cases get less as
the maximum than the actual charge we are
now making; because, of course, as your Grace
will understand, apart from the discussion (and
we are really at one with the Board of Trade
that the additional smalls charge is not to be
introduced), this is a general clause, we have
always considered it so from the commencement,
not dealing only with the smalls class, but with
_*
all classes. Therefore, we never looked upon
this clause as liable to this additional charge for
smalls, which was suggested by Mr. Emerson to-
day. But I think your Grace and the Com-
mittee will find, when we give evidence upon the
point, that even if we are allowed the full
charge, altering the 75 per cent. So as to give us
the full charge, even then the maximum would
not cover all our actual charges which we are
now making ; whereas, as a matter of fact, at
the present time there is no maximum, and the
railway companies may charge what they con-
sider reasonable as regards returned empties. I
do not know, your Grace, that I need say more
upon the principle of the clause, except to call
our witnesses. The question really seems to me
to be whether, in working out this Clause 21 and
restoring the full charge, the railway companies
really get more than a reasonable margin for a
maximum as against the actual charge. In some
cases they get no margin at all ; in fact, they
have to charge less, they are bound to charge
less than they are actually charging at present.
Now upon that point I propose to call evidence
before the Committee.
Earl of Camperdown.] You are going to pro-
pose to adhere to the principle of the clause as
it stands in the Bill 7
Mr. Cripps.] To the principle, and instead of
75 per cent., to ask for the whole charge.
Earl of Camperdown.] And you are going to
say that the clause Mr. Courtenay Boyle sug-
gests is impossible.
Mr. Cripps.] Impossible in this sense : I do
not say that something of that kind might not
be adjusted ; but taking the present proposal,
and trying the figures and facts, we find that we
should be considerable losers. That is the only
way we can criticise the proposal practically.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yon could not devise a
system of classes under which you would not be
considerable losers.
Mr. Cripps.] I do not say that that could not
be done; but we think that on the whole the
proposal to charge the empty in the same class
as the full is not equitable all round, and that
there would be no great difficulty in applying
It.
Chairman.] You object to the 75 per cent.”
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] But the present amend-
ment before the Committee is an amendment to
classify.
Mr. Cripps.] As Mr. Courtenay Boyle points
out, it is an amendment in that form. We pro-
pose classification in the same classes as the full.
The proposal of the Mansion House Com-
mittee’s amendment is to classify in Class 1.
Mr. Clifford.] In Class C., or Class 1.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, having been recalled ; is further Examined,
- as follows:–
Mr. Cripps.
, 2487. JUST to follow up his Lordship's ques-
tion, I do not know whether you have had your
* particularly called to the Mansion
81.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
House amendment?—Yes, we have had an op-
portunity of considering it. ©
2488. Have you also had an opportunity of
3 E 3 working
406
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.]
Mr. Cripps—continued.
working out the figures to show how it affects
you as regards the charges you can make P-I do
not think we hove worked out the Mansion Honse
clause on the charges.
2489. It has been worked out ; I do not know
whether you worked it out 2–No, I have not
worked it out; I worked out the proposal of the
75 per cent.
2490. Would you just take that, because we
shall have the figures from another witness.
Would you state what your opinion is from
your experience of the Mansion House proposal?
—The result of the united wisdom of the goods
managers, as well as ourselves, was that on the
whole the proposal adopted by the Board of
Trade was the method most satisfactory to the
trade, because it charged the empties in exact
relation to the full goods that they carried, and
was not dependent entirely upon the class of the
crate itself. If you charged according to the
class of crate you might be charging a crate that
carried valueless articles, practically at the same
rate as that which carried full articles; and we
thought that making the charge for the empty in
fair relation to the article it carried, that would
be on the whole most satisfactory to the traders,
because it kept the two elements in the same
relation to each other. Of course there were
practical difficulties in working it out ; , but we
came to the conclusion that, assuming the prin-
ciple to be adopted, we could establish a table of
charges which could be made known to the
traders and circulated, so that they would have
full knowledge of what the charges were for the
empties in each particular class of goods they
dealt with.
2491. Do you think that a trader would have
..ny difficulty with regard to the amount of
charge —No, he could always ascertain it. Of
course he would not want to check each indi-
vidual crate that was sent to him ; but if he had
any doubts he would ascertain, by taking out
instances, what the scale of rate that he was
charged would be, and that would be his guide
in testing the railway company's accounts in
future.
2492. It has been suggested that the return
empty traffic is a very profitable one for the
railway companies; what have you to say on
that ?—It is most unprofitable; it is the most
troublesome and unsatisfactory business that we
can possibly have to deal with. First of all it is
very light, of course, in relation to its bulk. It
occupies a truck. Trucks are obliged to be
utilised for the purpose, and in large centres like
London (which is a consuming point, and
not an equally exporting point) we simply
have to bring those trucks loaded with those
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued
Mr. Cripps—continued.
empty crates to London, for the purpose of
sending the empty truck back; because, as a
matter of fact, about 25 or 30 per cent. of the
goods trucks brought to London are sent away
empty; so that really we are, in respect of this
unprofitable stuff, running double mileage. A
truck seldom contains more than 15 cwt., very
often it is only 12 or 13 cwt. They are now
carted by the companies in loads of from 10 cwt.
to 15 cwt. with one or two horse vans; they
cannot be delivered as they arrive because the
traders will not take them ; we must unload
them and store them until the days appointed by
certain traders to receive them ; they will not
take them at the same time as the full goods;
they limit the days, some houses have Tuesdays
and Wednesdays, others Thursday and Friday,
and most houses will not take them on Saturday.
So that every small complication connected with
the collection and delivery of traffic is, you may
say, centred or concentrated upon this very
unprofitable stuff.
2493. Reference has been made to the Clear-
ing House principle as regards returned empties.
Do you there, in some cases, charge the same
rate as you do for the full goods?—Yes, in some
cases we do ; especially in casks, ale and porter
casks, distillery casks, and many other classes of
empties, where their weight is well known and
ascertained. But there, of course, we can only
get a few cwts, in a truck as compared with ten
times the weight when the casks are loaded.
2494. Therefore, of course, applying this Sec-
tion 21 generally, as it will have to be applied
generally, with the 75 per cent. in it, you would
get a less maximum than you are now actually
charging?—Yes, very materially so ; in some
cases as much as 50 per cent. less.
2495. Could you give an instance where it
would be 50 per cent. less 7–We have worked
out a few. Here is one. Here is a distance of
126 miles from London to Swadlincote, on the
Midland line, for earthenware Crătes, the total
weight was 4 tons 2 cwt., the forwarded rate was
50s. ; the rate assignable to these crates would
be l l s. 3 d. Under the Board of Trade's 75 per
cent. we should only get 5 s. 9 d. ; on that con-
signment we should lose 5 s. 6 d., or practically
50 per cent. The next one is 29 miles; on the
charge of 7 s. 6d. we should get 4 s. 5 d., and
lose 3 s. 1 d.
Mr. Clifford.
2496. Is that an earthenware crate 2–That
was an earthenware crate ; the earthenware
crates appear to be the largest.
[The Witness hands in the following Table :-
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
407

6 6I I“?6 gI Iº?
Ø I - || I g — | I - I j f g | 6 # I — | z I - || I g — | 8 — I6 g | 9 fL – | 8 9 — | — g I || 0 0 g 0 | - - - syſseo o[\，- - Uopſto(I- [O]SȚI ȘI | ŞII
• №, º·s·s(quouTu3ĮSTIO O 1)|
- =*SºŞ•≡
— | z g g | II FI – | ts oſ ºs | II și — | g ; — | 6 8L 4 | 8 **º ſº T | z g g | II și - || 0 I 91 01 | - `-`ššņđań ory- - [o] ing |- ſoļsprq | 6 II
I I — | g 9 - | † [ [† g- 9 I - || I || — | g 9 - | † I I6 91, gI - || 9 || — | — g I0 0 9 ()-*- Sx{SBO LOQBĻmsuĮ«…»- UſopūOT- Kq„LOCI | 6ZI
‘S Oq * s
I — — | Ş Z | — | 6 † –*S*S6 † — | — I — | 6 I - || Z. 8 —*S*SZ 8 - || 6 Z — | - g --0 0 [I•– sõeq UūmsdK!)！，ULIOq.}t}FI- Kq IOCI | g[
I I –II 01 - || 1. ĢI —– † | 1, 6 — | z \! — | O Į OI - || 9 8I –– †9 6 — | — ZI — | — gĮ –0 0 91 0！••- SNĮSt30 ĮĮO- Ioſsº qou eIŲ- Kq IOCI | Zg
8 I - | - 9 I - || L ȘI — | — † | 1, 6 — | 6 I - || II gſ. — | 9 8I –– † | 9 6 - || S. LI — | — g I - || 0 g g I | - - - SĮ „tºo [[O- Iºņs0ųOUIBIU- KqTOCI | Zg
OI — — | Z 8 - || 1. ĢI —– † | 1, 6 — || II — — | I 9 — | 9 ĢI —– †9 6 — | — 6 — | — gĮ –0 0 ZI ()- - - syſseo [[O- 9 AOIÃsūIO IQI- KqTOCI | Zg
8 8 - || || 8 - || 8 6 I6 g | II & I | g 8 - || OȚ ȘI — | 8 8 @8 81, 6 I I8 LI — | — — g0 $ 9 0|-«…sºņBIO QEFI- 03pțIg oppriſ)- TIOptIOT | g9I
6 — — | € † - | † I If g | – 9 I — | 3 — — | # # - | † I I6 g/, g [ — ] — g — | — g I0 0 † ()æ- JOQBA I e.ſouȚIN«…KqTQGI- TIOpUIOT || 6ZI
8 II — | 6 8 - || II I I | f g | V, 9 I - | † 6 - | Ş OI — | 1, 9 IØ 9 | g – I | — — I | - OI I || 0 0 3 0 | - S048.10 0ī£Au0ųq.ī£5I•Kq (10GT- UIOQUIOT | ggĪ <H
ſae
9 — — | — † — || II 6 I - | † g | J. FI — | g — — | I † — | I — İ6 g | † †I - || 9 † — | 9 z I || 0 0 + 0 | - - syſseo Leñoup A- tuaeqõtųUULI 19I- ULODUIOT || III co
8 - † — | 8 8 - | † [ [ | f g | – 9 I - || I 9 — | g # – ſ OI g IZ 9 | 8 6 I - || 9 || — | — OI I || 0 0 g 0 | - S0ļBIO O IBADI@ųQIEGI- [IſIN Kø[āUIBT- TIOptIOTI | 6ZI
9 9 – | 6 † — | — | I† g$ gI -9 g - || 6 g – į g g I© 9 || 8 6 I - || 8 II — | — OI I() Z † ()– sºņt3.IO Q.I.B.\\u0ĻļĽ85||– 9400ūļĪpt} \\$- TIOptIOT || 9zI
II I - || — OI - || I I I† g | 6 gI - || OI I - || I OL – į Z I I(3 gg g I - || II II — | — g I0 & 6 0•- Tºqt}.\\ [3.10UĻIŲS[[OAA ULIÐA IBIN– UOptIOCI | ZgI
ºp*9*@ºp*ş?ºp*$'ºffſºp*Sºp*S* Ģºp*Ş“?ºp*ş*3;ºp*ş?ºp*&?)*S?ºp‘S·?ºp*ş?*$'},‘s.ob‘QQ20*SuoJ,
‘SI BUĻĻULILOJ,‘SIBUȚULILOJ,
ºsso"Iºsº? IBUIO | “IWLOJ, ['03b4 Leopūg•--◄»‘Ty LOJ, | -958),[80puſe-• •*. ^ ae ?OJ,UUIO.I J
SIIOJ,|„ | saïteſo | ſººſ
*SSOºnu 519'soundIO 9, Illºl'!3‘S0ȚIĀ
-TI|-qtiosarj | quºsº，QUĻõĮ0 A\S0ļņ(tūUIGI JO 9.Tuqe N
‘UIO! Qļņ9ā ºsmoEI UIO! SUBJŲ‘sºñIBLIO pºsodo.IÆ 9pt; II, ļo pleog‘S N O I J, V J, S
*~
‘uoſqņºq osno H uoſsueIN55
º~^
pue º[npoqoŞ apbūJ. Jo pīgoſ qļļAs95:teq O quasa Id æqų äuſſeduloo u odn. ºsº I LāINGI GIGIN （In）,3I ȘI UO
ĀNVāIÑO O AVAATI VYI OINVIGILIN
aqq 04 SGISSOTI ȘuțAoqs GITāINwx@I

408 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.j
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Lord Belper. -
2497. That is, as I understand, making the
comparison with the present actual rates?–Yes.
Then there is Guidebridge, with a mileage of
183 miles, the empties in that case being hat
crates. There the rate was 60s., and out of
17 s. 3 d., the present charge, we should lose
3 s. 5d. Then there is a case of 57 miles from
Derbv to Manchester, Manchester oil casks, in
which case our present charge was 12 s., and the
Board of Trade proposed charge would be 10s. 10d.,
and we should have a loss of 1 s. 2 d. In these
14 cases given in this Table we should lose about
1 l. 15 s. 9d, under the proposed Board of Trade
charges.
Mr. Cripps.
2498. I think you have also worked out what
the loss would be on the principle of the Mansion
House amendment 2–Yes, I have. I will take
them in the same way. From London to Malvern
Wells, mineral water, present rate 25 s, weight
9 cwt. 2 qrs., the present charges being 11 s. 11 d.;
on that we should lose 1 s. 11 d. by the Mansion
House scale. Then on the next item, on a charge
of 11 s. 3 d. we should lose 6 s. 6 d. Then the
third item, on a charge of 7 s. 6d. we should lose
4 s. 3 d. Then the fourth item, the present
charge is 4 s. 6d., and we should lose 6 d.
Mr. Clifford.
2499. Arc all these cases of mineral water 2–
No. * *
2500. Will you kindly specify what they are ?
—Yes. The last one which I quoted was from
London to Birmingham, vinegar casks; and on
that, as I say, there would be a loss of 6 d.
Then the next item is earthenware crates, where
the present charge is l l., and we should lose
11 s. 3 d. by the Mansion House scale. The
next item is mineral waters, where, on a charge
of 5 s., we should lose 9 d. Then the next is
hat crates, where, on a charge of 17 s. 3 d., we
should lose 8 s. 8 d. on the Mansion House scale.
Then oil casks, on a charge of 15 s., we should
lose 10 d. ; and again oil casks, on a charge of
15 s. we should lose 1 s. 8 d. Again, taking the
same item, oil casks, on a charge of 15 s. we
should lose 1 s. 1. d., the loss varying accordingly
to distances. Then gypsum bags, 11 cwt. in
weight our rate is 2 s. 9d., and the Board of
Trade proposed to reduce that to ls. 9d., and
the Mansion House would reduce it to 2s. 8d.,
and we should make a loss of a penny on
that. Then the next item is insulator casks.
Chairman.
2501. What are insulator casks 2–Casks for
the carriage of insulators for the electric tele-
graph. There, on a rate of 7 s. 6d. we should
lose l s. 1 d. on the Mansioun House scale.
Then, from Bristol to Burton, all empties, of the
weight of 10 tons 16 cwt. 1 qr., on the Board of
Trade proposed charge we should lose 4 s. 5 d.,
and on the Mansion House scale we should lose
nothing. Then, on ale casks from Bristol to
London, on a charge of 6 s. 3 d. we should lose
1 s. 2 d. in both cases.
Mr. Cripps.
2502. Would most of fliese instances be what
Mr. Cripps—continued.
you would call low class traffic 2–Yes; the
hat crates, however, would not be so.
2503. That is not a low class traffic, is it 2–
No ; it is very high.
2504. There the loss works out highest of
all proportionately, does it not ?–Yes, that is the
highest loss there is.
2505. The loss, according to the proposed
charge of the Board of Trade is 3 s. 5d., is it
not ?—Yes.
2506. And as regards the Mansion House scale,
it would be a loss of 8 s. 8d., would it not ?—
Yes. Then on earthenware crates there is a
heavy loss also.
2507. But the loss on the Mansion House
scale as compared with the Board of Trade pro-
posal, would be heavier in the higher classes,
would it not ?—Yes, apparently it would be in
the higher classes.
Earl of Camperdown.
2508. Do these figures fairly represent your
average loss over the whole of your empties?—It
is almost impossible to say, because the empties
are so multifarious; it would be difficult to work
it out.
Mr. Hanbury.] Although you say that your
empties are so multifarious, I notice in this table
you have chosen the same thing over two or three
times.
Mr. Cripps.
2509. Would the table give, according to your
view, a fair idea of what the general effect would
be as regards empties generally 7–I should
not like to answer that absolutely; it is not
possible to say. I look at it rather from
the practical point of view. We know
what these things cost us, and what they will
cost us under these proposed rates, and
we know that they practically cost us more than
we are now getting. It is essential, indeed, now
that this class of business must be paid for, be-
cause it is a class of business that is increasing
very largely indeed. The trade of the country
is not now carried on as it used to be, largely
centred and localised. All these stores and these
large warehouses supply the country universally,
and the amount of small consignments, that is to
say, consignments of under 5 cwt., or anything
like that, has so enormously increased of late
years, as the Committee will see when I tell you
that the delivery of empties from King's Cross
station for instance, and I may say we are not
by any means the largest, is something between
50 and 60 loaded vans every day. Then there
is another point which I may fairly bring before
the Committee, and that is that in 1870, or there-
abouts, we first began to charge for these empties.
Up to that time we did not recognise them as
being of any value, but we found the burden in-
creas ng upon us so rapidly, and it became so
serious a tax, that we were obliged to make a
charge, and with the charge came the
accompanying liability. Our losses for damage
and loss of
empties during last year
alone were upwards of 700 l., that is
what we had to pay to the proprietors of
the empties. I do not know whether it
would
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
409
12 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
—º
Mr. Cripps—continued.
would interest you, but I might ruention that in
the year 1890 we sent out from King's Cross
alone 14,511 van loads of empties for delivery in
London. It is perhaps burdening you unneces-
sarily to go into the minutiae of it; but I may say
we find that it is a most costly sort of delivery,
because of course all these consignments are not
consigned to one house, but they are consigned to
many houses, and the carmen, I may say, when they
bring empties, are not treated so respectfully as
when they bring goods, but they are made to
wait, and it is seldom less than five or six hours,
and sometimes seven hours, before a carman with
a load of empties will get back to the station ;
and he may have one or two horses, as the case
may be.
Mr. Hunter.
2510. That would not touch the question of
the rate, would it, but only the question of the
cartage P--That is so. I am only mentioning
that to show the nature of the class of business
that we have to deal with.
Chairman.
2511. I see by this Table which you have put
in, that in all these cases which you have
selected, you have shown that the company would
suffer either by the clause as proposed by the
Board of Trade or by the amendment proposed
by the Mansion House,in regard to the goods which
are there mentioned 2–Yes.
2512. Are there any other goods, and if so,
in what quantity, where would you benefit by the
change?—I believe not ; but without working it
out on a much more extended basis, I do not
think I could venture to speak with any accuracy
or positiveness on that point. But so far as we
have been able to ascertain it from our examina-
tion from time to time, not only by the Great
Northern Company but by other companies, the
universal conclusion appeared to be that a serious
loss would be entailed by this proposal of 75 per
cent. In fact, we doubt whether the full charge
would pay us; but with a view to a settlement,
we thought on the whole that that was a reason-
able basis which could be accepted.
2513. This clause proposes that the charges
should be reduced to 75 per cent. ; you, I under-
stand, want to have 100 per cent. ; what are you
charging, now as compared with what this clause
proposes 2–As your Grace must no doubt be
aware, we have no maximum now, and we have
arrived at, and established a scale of charges
varying with the distances.
Mr. Cripps.] Would your Grace take a copy
of this table, which will show you all the
charges.
Chairman.
2514. I would rather get it from Mr. Oakley's
own mouth. (To the Witness.) Can you tell
us what the present charges are as compared with
this clause 2–Ordinary empties are dealt with in
this way : for a distance not exceeding 25 miles,
4 d. per cwt. ; for a distance not exceeding 50
miles, 6 d. per cwt. ; and for a distance not ex-
ceeding 100 miles, 9 d. per cwt. ; so that there is
a minimum charge of 4 d. per cwt. up to 25 miles,
and 6 d. beyond. That is as between two country
(81.)
Chairman—continued.
stations where the enormous expense of the
London work is not added in. Those charges
include collection and delivery. In London the
charge is a little more : it is 6 d. for 25 miles, as
compared with 4 d., and 8 d. for 50 miles. There
is a minimum of 6 d. in that case up to 25 miles,
and 8 d. beyond. But then there are exceptions
as regards specially weighty or specially trouble-
some empties, and all the light class of empties.
For instance, for sacks and bags we charge 3 d.
per cwt., such as potato bags and flour bags, or
anything of that class; for those we charge 3 d.
per cwt. for any distance up to 100 miles. For
casks and crates containing straw, or earthenware
and china returned to the potteries, that is to say,
a lot refused, we charge in the fourth class with
a minimum of 1 s. Then as regards empty hat
crates, we make a minimum charge of 1 s. ; that
includes returned empty hat crates, bicycle crates,
tricycle crates, china crates, or earthenware
CrateS.
2515. What I wanted to get at was how much
you would lose upon the whole of your traffic.
You have given us what you would lose upon the
special articles mentioned in this table, and I
was asking whether you would be a loser upon
the whole of your empties ; because although
you may lose upon some, it seems to me (though
I confess I know very little about it) that it is
possible that you may gain upon others, and that
therefore on the whole, if you take your traffic
all round, you would not be very badly off by
this change 2–I am afraid, your Grace, we
should be very badly off. One cannot answer
that question with the precision I should always
like to answer every question which you put to
me, because it really would require us to work
out a very enormous amount of traffic, not only
on our own line but on every other line, as a
specimen to test it. If we took out a month's
traffic we could form an opinion; but that would
be such a gigantic job that we have not ventured
to do it.
2516. That would be hardly worth whiſe; but
would you say, speaking roughly, that upon the
whole you would be groat losers ? – Cer-
tainly ; I may say that although I cannot
submit a statement to you in figures to
prove it, our clear conviction, from our exami-
nation, is, that we should be very material losers,
and that our only hope, not of making a profit
but of saving ourselves from loss, is by being
allowed to charge the same rate as we charge for
the forwarded goods.
Mr. Cripps.
2517. I should like to ask you whether in your
answer to his Grace, as regards loss, you were
speaking of the 75 per cent, or of the same rate
as is charged for the full parcel ?—I was speaking
of the 75 per cent, in answering his Grace, i
say that the only hope we have of being saved
from absolute loss, not really taking into con-
sideration any question of profit, is that we should
be paid the same rate for empties as for the full
parcels.
Earl of Camperdown.
2518 How do your present actual charges for
empº compare with your present actual charges
for
4 l ()
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TA KEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.]
Earl of Camperdown—coutinued.
for the full; in what ratio do they stand to one
another ?—They do not compare, because we do
not treat it that way.
2519. They must compare in a certain ratio 2
—They can be worked out so as to compare, no
doubt; but there is no question of weight here
all round ; it is per cwt. for distance.
2520. I will put my question in another way;
in what ratio does your actual charge for an
empty stand to your actual charge for the full P
—I find that we have not worked that out. I
thought we had.
2521. But surely that is a vital question :
because you stated just now that unless you were
allowed to charge 100 per cent. for the empty
you would be a loser; and if you know that, you
must surely be able to tell us in what ratio the
actual charge for the empty stands to the charge
for the full ?–We have worked it out in spe-
cimen cases for our own guidance, but it has not
been worked out in such a form that I could give
it to you absolutely. I could have it done, of
course. We could very soon take out a few
typical gases.
Chairman.
2522. Taking, for instance, a crate of mineral
water from London to Malvern Wells, what is
charged for that ? That is the first item on the
table which you have given us? —The rate is
given there. It is charged full 25 s. a ton.
Mr. Cripps.
2523. What would be the return rate in that
case if the same rate were charged as for the
full parcel, supposing it were taken on that basis,
that you were charging for the returned empty
the same as for the full parcel, what would that
work out at 2–We could soon see that.
Chairman.
2524. The first item on this table which you
have given us is from London to Malvern Wells
for mineral waters?—Yes.
2525. The weight is put down here as 9 cwt.
2 qi's 2–Yes. -
2526. And the present rate, I see, is 25 s. ?—
That is the charge.
2527. That is empty —No, that is the full
charge.
2528. Outwards?—Yes, outwards.
2529. What would be the charge when that
comes back empty —That I cannot tell you
offhand. I will have it worked out. But I can
give you a case where I have the figures.
2530. Do I rightly understand from you that
what is put down here as the present rate in this
instance, 25 s., is the charge full ?–No.
2531. That is the charge for empty, is it not ?
—Yes. There is one case which I could give you
which would demonstrate at once what I under-
stand you to be asking about.
2532. Let us confine ourselves to this case for
the moment. From London to Malvern Wells,
as I understand from this table, the present rate
for empties of mineral water of the weight of
9 cwt. 2 (11's. is 25 s. ?–-Yes.
2533. What is the present charge from Ilondon
to Malvern Wells for that mineral water full ?—
I have not got the rate here; but if you will
Mr. OAKLEY.
ſ Continued.
Chairman—continued.
allow me I will point out one case where I can
give you the figures. If you will take the fourth
item on the list, vinegar casks, it happens that in
that case the vinegar casks are charged at the
same rate per ton as they are received fulf ; and
therefore that would be an apposite case.
Earl of Camperdown.
2534. But did you not tell us you charge 100
per cent. on vinegar casks at the present time?—
Yes.
2535. Then that is an exceptional case ?—They
are stated as exceptional cases; they are charged
at the full rate.
2536. But what we want is an ordinary case,
so as to test it?—I have not got the figures for
the first case which was asked about here, but I
think I can give them you.
Mr. Hanbury.] If the witness cannot give us
the general effect of this new clause over the
whole system, he cannot say whether it will
cause a loss or not.
Chairman.
2537. What I was asking was this, and I will
put it in general terms, and no doubt you will
quite appreciate it: what your loss would be
under, we will say, the Board of Trade Clause, or
under the Mansion House Clause, over your
whole trade, including empties of all classes; I
was asking, in fact, whether you might not win
more than you would lose, upon the whole ; and
I ask that question because, until we find that
out we cannot say whether this clause will affect
you injuriously or not ?—I quite see your
difficulty ; but while I may be convinced of it
myself, I have not got the material in my hand
to convince you, and I think that is a defect
which I must make good in some way.
2538. Perhaps you are more easily convinced
than I am —That may be so.
Lord Houghton.
2539. Would you be prepared to say that
your present charge for empties is anything like
100 per cent. all round, that is to say, the same
rate as for the full ?—I should not think it was
all round.
2540. Could you give us any idea of what it
is?—We find that the 75 per cent., in cases that
we have tested, does not pay us, and it varies
according to the distance; that in some cases for
a shorter distance the loss would be serious, and
that for longer distances we should probably
gain; but the difficulty in arriving at a clear
conclusion about it is that the proportion of long
distance traffic is not so great as the short
distance traffic, and therefore we cannot arrive
at a mathematical certainty unless we work it
Out.
Chairman.] Now perhaps we had better leave
the witness in the hands of Mr. Cripps.
Mr. Cripps.] This suggestion, your Grace, has
been made to me at the moment. I quite see
the extreme importance of the questions which
your Grace and the other members of the Com-
mittee have been putting, and the suggestion has
been made to me whether it would not be better
to let the question stand over until Mr. Oakley
Ol'
on RAILway RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 4ll
12 May 1891.] Mr. OAKLEY. [Continued.
or his assistants have worked out as nearly as
they can the information for which your Grace
and the other members of the Committee were
asking. . .
Chairman.] It would take a long time, would
it not ?
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I think we can offer some
assistance to your Grace on behalf of one trader.
We have already worked out a table which may
be of some use for cross-examining this gentle-
{{lan.
Mr. Cripps.
2541. (To the Witness.) You were pointing
out how, on the Railway Clearing House prin-
ciple, you have certain minimum charges, and
charges irrespective of the distance carried ?–
Yes. -
2542. Of course these charges you could not
compare directly with the proposal in the Board
of Trade clause, because they are on a different
principle altogether?--That is so, no doubt, we
can only compare them for varying distances.
2543. I understand the question which has
been put to you is this: I do not know whether
you can answer it. Taking the cases which you
have worked out, and speaking from your
knowledge of the Great Northern system, would
what we call the 100 per cent. principle make you
better of than now, or would it leave you in
about the same position ?–Ithink it would leave us
a margin beyond our present actual charges in
many cases; in other cases it would leave us
with an absolute loss.
2544. Taking both sides into consideration,
with perhaps a little loss on the one side and a
margin on the other, could you state to us what
the general effect would be, in your opinion —
I think I have stated that. The general effect
would be that that is the smallest rate or allow-
ance that would secure us from absolute loss;
because we think, or I will not say we think, but
we know, our charges at the present moment
really very frequently involve us in loss ; I do
not mean to say invariably, but to a very large
extent, especially in London, and probably in
other big towns, they actually involve us in loss.
2545. Again, as I understand, althoughit is
nothing like an exhaustive list of cases, you have
worked out in this table, and put before the
Committee what the result of this 75 per cent.
principle would be in the cases given there 2–
Yes, in that way. -
2546. And in the same way, in certain in-
stances you shew what the Mansion House pro-
posal would mean.?—Yes; we worked them out
only with a view to test them; not as an exhaus-
tive proof. -
2547. In your opinion do those instances
which you have taken shew a fair average of in-
stances?—No, I do not think they shew a fair
average of instances over the whole trade of the
country, because they refer especially, except in
one case, to the larger class of empties.
2548. But at present, apart from what you say
generally, those are the only actual figures which
you have worked out !—That is so ; those are
the only figures that we have worked out in the
form of a table, beyond what we may term the
*- Mr. Cripps—continued.
office tests of rates at various distances, in order
to see how we should be affected. -
2549. Would you kindly explain what you
mean by “office rests’?—Of course, in consider-
ing this question, we had to sit down with our
goods’ managers to test these rates and to see
whether they fairly covered us or not; and,
having tested them at various points, we came to
the conclusion that they were not sufficient to
cover us, that is to say, that they would very
materially reduée our present charges in some
cases, and leave us no margin.
2550. I want to ask you one other question
upon the Railway Clearing House system. A
noble Lord referred you to what he called an
exception; but in the Railway Clearing House
Classification there are a very large number of
cases of particular treatment as regards parti-
cular empties, are there not P I see, for instance,
casks, crates, and cases, ale and porter casks;
emp'y casks to distilleries; whiskey casks:
vinegar casks ; cider casks; saccharine casks and
pails; empty carboys; fish empties; meat, game,
poultry, butter, rabbit, fruit, and vegetable
empties; wool sheets, and returned empty yeast
baskets; yarn empties; paraffin and petroleum
casks; paper shields and rollers; biscuit tims;
and gunpowder kegs?—Yes; those merely indi-
cate that we have from time to time, in com-
munication with various traders, arrived at,
or endeavoured to arrive at, something like
an equitable relation as to how the empties in
their particular trade should be dealt with, and
what would be fair as between the company and
the traders; in fact, that is how the whole system
has been built up from time to time by com-
munication with the traders in order to arrive at
something like an equitable adjustment between
the two.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
2551. Do I understand you to say that, in
consultation with the managers of the different
railways, this question of empties has been tested
at various points 2–Yes.
2552. Have you the result of that testing with
you ?–No, not with me ; but lest it should be
implied from that answer that I am not disposed
to let them be known, I will add that I will have
a more careful test made, not simply an experi-
mental test, from time to time so as to try how
the thing looked. But the proper and most
effective way to do it would be to have a fair test
made either of a week’s or of a month's traffic, or
at all events to have specimens taken of the
various classes of empties.
2553. The only results which you have pro-
duced to the Committee apply to these specified
articles, as I understand 4–Yes, the heavier
classes, where the loss was evidently very large
indeed. j
2554. You have, under the Clearing House
Classification, one general scale applicable to.
returned empties of the ordinary class –Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
2555. That is bearing no relation to the rate
of the fulls?—Yes.
(81.)
3 F 2 2556. Then,
412
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 189].]
Mr. OAKLEY.
| Continued.
Mr. Clifford.
2556. Then you have exceptions to the fore-
going general scale 2–Yes.
2557. The instances which you have produced
here have been of articles under the head of
those exceptions?—Yes, because they were evi-
dently articles, as our test shewed, where we
should suffer generally a most serious loss.
2558. That is to say, you, having under the
Clearing House Classtfication made your charges
higher as regards those exceptional articles?—
No, pardon me ; they are not higher, or at least
I may say this: they may be higher for the
weight, but they are not higher, taking the weight
and bulk into account; and that waſ what we
had to consider in the carriage of these light
empties.
2559. But I may take it that your instances
of supposed loss to the company rest mainly upon
these exceptional goods?—Yes, obviously it
would be so, because these are exceptionally un-
profitable things to carry, and if they were to be
treated on the 75 per cent. principle, it would be
found that we should lose very heavily indeed.
2560. I noticed that your instances were
vinegar casks, earthenware crates, hat crates, oil
casks, insulator casks, and ale casks, I think —
Yes. &
2561. Assuming that those articles, or bicycle
crates and tricycle crates, are exceptional articles
as regards weight and as regards bulk, would
there be any difficulty in treating them separately
and putting them in a separate class; I mean
that supposing the principle of the Mansion
House amendment were adopted 2–Would you
just explain what you mean by that ? Do you
mean putting the general trade under Class C.
or Class 1, as the case might be, and these excep-
tionally heavy articles, or rather the light articles
in proportion to the bulk, being treated sui
géneris.
2562. Yes, treated sui generis hereafter ; would
there be any difficulty in that ; would that meet
the objection which you have raised as regards
these exceptional articles 2—I think I should be
obliged to say to that that I could not agree to
Class C.
2563. That is what we propose. We pro-
pose Class C. to apply to the general description
of empties —That is what I mean ; I could not
agree to Class C. for the general description of
empties.
2564. Waiving, that for a minute as it is a mere
detail—— ?—It is important.
2565. Waiving that for a moment, do you see
any difficulty in providing hereafter for excep-
tional empties, such as are mentioned here as
being likely to create loss to the company ?—
Providing for them by a special list in the
schedule, you mean in the Provisional Order 7
2566. Yes?—No, I do not see any difficulty in
cansidering that ; we should be very happy to
consider it, to see whether we could meet it in
that way.
2567. That would meet to a great extent your
objection, would it not *—Yes, so far as these
particular articles are concerned.
2568. I mean the objection which you formu-
\at, d before the Committee just now in the way
of showing instances in which losses would accrue
Mr. Clifford—continued.
to the company 2–Yes, of course ; if you provide
for those cases, and if the general empties were
put in a satisfactory class, I do not know that we
should object to that in principle.
2569. That you would be prepared to con-
sider 7—Yes. In fact, as Mr. Courtenay Boyle
said, we were at a loss to find something that
will govern all,
2670. I notice that in your calculation of loss
there were instances in which you found that no
loss would accrue under the adoption of the
Mansion House scale 7–Yes, there were one or
two instances. -
2571. So that, in those instances at all events,
the Mansion House scale would be more favour-
able to you than the proposals of the Board of
Trade 2–Yes, in that particular one certainly.
There is one instance in the list I gave, namely,
the last but one at the bottom of the page.
2572. Did you hear the evidence given by
Mr. Impey yesterday ?—Yes.
2573. Are you aware of the result of his 25
cases of actual rates.
Mr. Cripps.] They were averages, not actual
rateS. -
Mr. Clifford.
2574. Yes, they were averages; but the
averages were the result of 25 instances, were
they not ?—That is true ; but you must remem-
ber——
2575. I was going to ask, comparing the
actual rates with the rates proposed by the
Mansion House, that would give you a margin,
according to Mr. Impey's calculation, of some-
thing like 20 per cent. Over your actual rates as
charged in the 25 cases which he gave 2–Yes,
but he founded his conclusion upon an average,
and he assumed that there was the same propor-
tion of empties going for long distances as for
short. But that is not at all a reasonable or
practicable way of arriving at it, and it does not
really represent the trade upon which the results
would have to be founded. Long distance
empties are very much less numerous than the
short distance empties.
2576. But you are aware, are you not, that to
provide for long distance traffic in empties we
give you there a minimum in the Mansion House
amendment 2–Do you ? Where ?
2577. “With a minimum charge of 4 d. for
any distance up to 100 miles and 6 d. above 100
miles.” Would that alter your view as to the
effect of the Mansion House proposals 2–That
is the same minimum as we have now.
2578. Exactly. We went to your Clearing
House Classification for some of our proposals?
—No. I beg your pardon ; it is not quite the
same minimum ; because you have extended the
distance. The minimum here is 4 d. up to 100
miles and 6 d. above.
2579. That is the principle laid down by the
Clearing House Classification ?–But you have
extended the mileage so much that the result
might seriously affect us.
2580. Have you considered the effect of that
restriction in making those calculations of yours
which you have laid before the Committee ?—
What restriction do you mean?
2581. This
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
413
12 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
2581. This restriction as to the minimum ?—
There is no question of minimum here. It can-
not arise, because all the weights are so much
larger. º o
2582. In comparing the actual charges with
the result of the proposals before the Committee,
have you considered the case of the southern
companies, with their present charge of 2 d. for
28 lb. packages 2–That is exclusive of collection
and delivery P -
2583. Yés?—There is no practical difference
between them and us, because we include col-
lection and delivery.
2584. I am speaking now of the southern
companies and the effect upon them of our pro-
posals; they would have a minimum of 4 d., as
Mr. Emerson said, instead of 2 d. 2–I have only
seen this paper this morning, and therefore I
have not had an opportunity of looking at it
fully; and I think the southern companies would
have to examine it for themselves.
2585. The effect of the Mansion House pro-
posals as regards them would be to give them a
margin of 100 per cent. upon their present mini-
mum, would it not ?—Of course, obviously, if
they have got a minimum of 2 d., and you.
propose a minimum of 4 d., it would be so, if
their minimum of 2 d. applies to the same dis-
tance as you propose this minimum of 4 d. for ;
but one must look at that ; one cannot answer a
thing like that off-hand. e
2586. Did you hear, Mr. Rogers’ evidence
yesterday as to the existing charges for empties?
-—Yes.
2587. Did you hear him say that in many
cases even the existing charges were prohibitive'
– That is quite possible. Of course if a crate is
valueless, and has to come a very long distance,
it had better be destroyed ; but that does not
alter the cost of carriage.
2588. But it alters the incidence of the charge
in that way, does it not 2–If we charge practi.
cally only what it costs us, a man has no right to
complain that the charge is prohibitive with
regard to a particular crate because the crate is
of so little value.
2589. That is just the point, whether , the
charges are high or low 2–They cannot be high
if they are less than the cost.
5590. We will not discuss that point.
Chairman.] That is just the point.
Mr. Clifford.
2591. As to this traffic in empties, it is not an
urgent traffic, is it; you can take your own time
in bringing back these empties as a rule, can
you not 2–No, indeed, we cannot for this simple
reason ; that they are an incubus and a burden,
and we get rid of them as quickly as we possibly
can. What we complain of is, that we cannot
get rid of them, except at the will of the consig-
nee, because he will not take them.
2592. What I mean is, that it is not for the
convenience of the traders that you have to
return them quickly, but you can take your own
time about it if you choose ; it is for your own
convenience?—It is for our convenience to return
them quickly ; otherwise in a big place like
London, or any other big town, we should have
Mr. Clifford—continued.
the place blocked up with empties; it must be
carried on with the regular daily current work.
2593. Can you suggest any reason why you
should stamp upon these empties the value of the
original consignment as the subject for your
charge 2–-I thought I had explained that at first
in endeavouring to arrive at a logical, or I
will not say a logical but a reasonable basis
for legislation; we thought that the trade
carried on in the crate when full ought
to be the guide for the crate when empty.
That was the nearest principle that we could
arrive at, and we thought probably in our inno-
cence that a proposal of that sort would be gladly
accepted by the traders, because every one, know-
ing the bulk of his empty and its lightness as
compared with its weight when full, must recog-
nise that it was practically carried at a very
cheap rate.
Lord Belper.
2594. You do not adopt any principle of that
sort at the present moment, do you ?–No, we
adopt a scale that has been arrived at after a
great number of years of (what shall l say ?)
communication and constant intercourse with
traders to find out really what they could afford
to pay and we to carry at, having relation to the
value of the empty,
2595. You have been converted by the Board
of Trade to that clause of which they are not
very fond, to change from your own principle
which you have adopted up to this time 2—I do
not go quite so far as to say that we have been
converted. We were required by the Board of
Trade to find some principle that they could
embody in their Provisional Order. What we
should prefer above all things is, not to have any-
thing fixed. We have not had anything fixed
in the past, and we have arrived at something
like a reasonable settlement with the traders.
What we are afraid of now is that some limit
may be fixed in perfectly good faith that may
become a very onerous burden hereafter.
2596. I can quite understand the point of fixing,
but I think you have rather departed from the
point that we were discussing as to what was the best
principle if it was agreed by everybody that you
should have to fix a limit; and the question is
whether the principle adopted in the amendment
is the better one or the principle which you have
now adopted. That is the point I wish to get
at 7—That is to say, the principle of a class?
2597. Yes?—I do not think we should object
to the class, if the class is high enough.
2598. Then your objection is not a matter of
principle, but a matter of detail really 2–Quite
so, what the result would be, it all comes to
that. -
2599. Your objection is to the result, not
to the way it is arrived at 2–It all comes to
that. #
Chairman.
2600. Then you would not, as I understand
you, object to taking the various articles which
you have been discussing out of the clause and
putting them into a clause with a higher rate 2–
No, I think, your Grace, that would be reason-
(81.)
3 F 3 able.
414
MINIJTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.]
*-a-------
Chairman—continued.
able. The only point as to which I should
guard myself in that answer is that I am not
assenting to Class C. for the general trade; we
should require a higher class than that.
260]. But you would take out those articles?
—We could do that.
2602. And put them into a class with a rate
that you say would be remunerative, or rather,
not a loss 2–Equitable.
Mr. Hanbury.
2603. But, as I understand, at the present
moment these empties are practically treated in
two classes. There is one definite class with
definite charges, and then there are certain
exceptions which seem to go into another class 2
—They are in several classes, if you read
through.
Lord Houghton.
2604. And with a mileage scale also 2–Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
2605. But in no case is the rate fixed with
relation to the rate of the full ?—Yes, vinegar
casks and whiskey casks, for example.
Mr. Cripps.] And ale and porter casks P
Mr. Hanbury.] 'Those are the cases Mr.
Oakley quoted, and which are principally on the
table that we have. -
Cross-examined by Mr. J.ush Wilson.
2606. Will you kindly tell me whether the
exceptional cases that you have mentioned in
your list exceed in weight 3 cwt. or not generally
— Some of them do.
2607. Do they generally exceed in weight
3 cwt. 7–No, not generally ; returned empty
hat crates, for example, would not exceed
3 cwt.
2608. But most of them would 2–No, they
are the larger crates, as I explained just now, and
the lighter in proportion to their bulk.
2609. And they are the heavier crates, are
they not ?–Yes, as crates, heavier.
2610. Is the proportion of heavy returned
empties as compared with light, large or small P
—I should not like to answer; I think it is large
compared with small empties; but the problems
about empties are very difficult to answer with
perfect accuracy.
2611. Let me be quite sure that you under-
stand my question; are the majority of empties
carried by railway companies less than 3 cwt.
in weight 2–Yes, certainly ; the majority,
certainly.
2612. Can you point to any empty of less than
3 cwt. which under the proposed charge would,
as compared with the Clearing House present
charge, incur a loss to the railway companies?—
Those instances I have given to you.
2613. Which are they 2
Chairman.] We have them here.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] If your Grace will forgive
me, most of these the witness admits are greater
in weight than 3 cwt.
}}"itness.] No, no.
Mr. OAKLEY.
| Continued.
Mr. Lush Wilson—continued.
2614. Was not that so?—No.
2615. All but one I thought you said 2–No ;
take a hat crate.
2616. That is the one you referred to ?—Yes.
Take a mineral water crate, that would be less
than 3 cwt.; an earthenware crate might be.
2617. Just let me ask you about the mineral
water crate ; do you really mean that a mineral
water crate in most cases would be less than
3 cwt. 2–Yes, each crate. Here is a consign-
ment of a lot of them, 9 cwt. That 9 cwt. does
not represent the weight of one crate, but of a
collection of mineral water crates.
2618. Does not that 9 cwt. represent possibly
a crate of mineral waters full ?–No.
2619. It means more than one 2–It means the
actual weight of the empties that were carried in
that lot. g
2620. I will of course take your answer in a
moment, but can you assure me, as a matter of
fact, that mineral water crates all weigh less than
3 cwt. P—The clerk who made out this return is
here.
262]. I should like to be sure about that, but
let me put it to you generally, perhaps it will
save a lot of time if I get an answer from you ;
is it not the fact that the majority of these excep-
tional cases that you have given us exceed in
weight 3 cwt. 2–Bach
2622, Each 2–No.
2623. Not the majority ?—No, certainly not,
3 cwt. is a very large weight for an empty; it
would be a large plate glass crate or pianoforte
case, or something of that sort.
2624. Each consignment ; I will put it to you?
—Each consignment, that may be any weight
you know. A consignment may be a very large
consignment or a very small one.
2625. May I take this, I do not want to waste
time; you have admitted to me that these excep-
tional empties are the heavy empties; are they
not, all of them 2–Stop ; you say that I have
admitted it.
2626. Have you or not ; yes or no?— The
majority of cases that I have quoted are, no
doubt, heavy as compared with what you would
term ordinary trade cases.
2627. I want to understand you. Are these
exceptional cases that you have referred to the
Committee, as compared with the whole body of
empties that you carry, the heavier empties 2–
Yes, that is what I say.
2628. That will do. Let me ask you this:
have you made any calculation as regards the
rates for the residue of the empties carried, the
lighter ones, to see, in regard to these cases,
whether or not there would be a loss as compared
with the Clearing House charges 2—I have
only just the test examination to try how this
would do ; but it would not be as large, I will
prove that to you ; we will have some cases got
out for you.
2629. Do I understand you to say that the
loss will be greater on the shorter distances than
on the longer ones 2–In some cases, yes.
2630. Generally, or not P –Speaking from
memory, when we tested this, yes, the loss would
be
ON
415
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
12 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. J.ush Wilson—continued.
be greater on the shorter distances than on the
longer, g
2631. There is
think not.
2632. Just see if you can follow me and work
out a few figures for me. Take the distance of
26 to 50 miles, first of all, if you please, not ex-
ceeding 25 miles, that is a short distance?—That
is right. *
2633. For Class 5 °–There are very few
empties in Class 5; you are not taking a good
class.
2634. I will go through the other classes, too.
I think that is 8 d. 2–What distance do you say,
25 miles P
2635. Not exceeding 25 miles?—What weight?
2636. A cwt. 2–Yes. -
2637. Eightpence?—Fourpence.
2638. Is that right 2–No, 4 d. ; 25 miles 4 d.
2639. Not exceeding 25 miles, I think you will
find in Class 5, for a cwt. is 8 d. 2–Where are you
taking it from ?
no mistake about that ?–I
Mr. Lush Wilson—continued.
2640. I am asking you to look at the schedule :
you are looking at the Clearing House book 2–I
beg your pardon, you mean the Provisional
Order P
2641. The Provisional Order, to see whether I
am right ; one cwt. in Class 5, not exceeding 25
miles, 8 d. 2–Where do you find that, carriage of
small parcels 2 -
Mr. º If you will just indicate to Mr.
Oakley where he got that from he can follow it.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Well, you
COUl I’S6—
know, of
Jhairman.] Do you know what is the page in
the schedule P
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I think I can show it.
Chairman.] You must know where you took
your question from.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] It is the result of a cal
culation under this section.
Mr. Lush Wilson hands in the following
Table :
BRIGHT ON CORPORATION PETITION.
IRETURNED EMPTIES.
L. B. & S. C. Railway,
L. & N. W. Railway
"Provisional Order Bills, 1891.
R. E. C. H.
CoMPARISON of MAXIMUM CHARGEs under the Provisional Orders, on the assumption that the
operation of the Small Scale is excluded, with the Charges under the Clearing House
Classification General Scale of Charges for Returned Empties.
Seventy-five per cent. of Maximum Rates and Charges under Provisional Orders, excluding the
operation of the Sumalls Scale.
STATION TO STATION.
- - Clearing House Scale,
l)istance. L. B. & S. C. Railway Schedule. L. & N. W. Railway Schedule. including Collection and
Delivery, per cwt.
Class 1. | Class 2. Class 3. Class 4. | Class 5. Class 1. Class 2. | Class 3. Class 4. | Class 5.
Per cwt. | Per cwt. Per cwt. Per cwt. | Per cwt. | Per cwt. | Per cwt. | Per cwt. | Per cwt. | Per cwt.
I. II. III. IV. V. WI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII.
d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.
5 miles - 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 Not exceeding 25 miles.
10 , - 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 53 33 33 33 }}
25 , , - 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 Y? * 23 33 3
50 , , - 6 7 9 10 11 6 7 9 10 11 6 26 to 50 miles.
J00 , - 9 II 13 16 j9 9 11 12 15 17 9 51 to 100 ,
150 , - 12 15 1S 21 25 11 14 15 18 . 22 12 101 to 150 ,
200 , - 15 19 22 27 32 I2 15 18 20 26 15 151 to 200 ,
250 m - 19 23 27 33 39 15 18 21 24 32 18, 201 to 250 ,
300 m - 22 27 32 30 46 17 21 25 20 37 21 251 to 300 m,
400 , - 29 36 42 51 60 22 27 32 37 49 24 301 to 400 ,
500 , - 35 44 52 63 74 27 33 39 45 60 30 401 to 500 ,,
600 , º 42 52 61 75 88 32 39 47 54 71 36 501 to 600 ,

3 F 4
416
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.]
Mr. Lush Wilson.] Your Grace sees that it
must be the result of calculation under the
section now before your Grace.
Chairman.] But you must start from some
given point. * *
Mr. Dush Wilson.
2642. I have done it. (To the Witness.)
Look at Class 5 in the schedule and see
the charge for Class 5 and take 75 per cent.
of it?—You must give us the weight and dis-
tance. -
2643. I have given you the weight, 1 cwt. and
the distance not exceeding 25 miles?
Mr. Cripps.] Might I ask, have you taken
them from the small parcels P
Mr. Dush Wilson.
2644. No, I am taking it upon your present
basis. (To the Witness.) You will verify the
accuracy of the calculation afterwards under this
section ?—I will take your figures.
2645. Tell me whether there is anything to
complain of under this?–Have you got a copy
of them P
2646. I will give it to you in a moment.
(Handing a copy to the Witness.) Class 5,
1 cwt., distance not exceeding 25 miles, station-
to-station rate, 8 d. In the Clearing House is not
the charge for conveyance, including collection
and delivery, exactly 4 d. 2–Yes, or 6 d. in
London.
2647. Therefore, is not the station-to-station
rate allowed by the Provisional Order for a dis-
tance less than 25 miles or not more than 25
miles, exactly 100 per cent. more than the present
charge, which present charge includes collection,
and delivery 3–On that particular class, yes.
2648. Let me put one other question upon
that ?—But pardon me for saying that the Fifth
Class is the class of all others in which there are
very few empties, because it is all small articles.
2649. I am going to all the other classes in
time; I must begin with one of them. But let
me ask you this further question upon that ; is not
2 d. out of that 4 d. allowed under the Clearing
House Classification for that transit in respect of
collection and delivery 2–Certainly, a pro-
portion of that is ; yes, I do not suppose that 2 d.
would be an unreasonable thing.
2650. Therefore, in respect of those it is 300
per cent., or 200 per cent. more than the present
charge 2–This is all right, yes.
2651. You have asked me to take you to the
other classes; I wish to be perfectly fair; I will
take you to the same item in class 2, 5 d. is the
charge 2–Right; 5 d. for 25 miles.
2652. Therefore 5 d. is the present proposed
maximum station-to-station rate, as compared
with 4 d., the present Clearing House charge,
which includes 2 d. out of the 4 d. for collection
and delivery 2–But how do you get your 5 d. 2
2653. By the same calculation?— I must test
your figures, of course.
2654. Certainly 7– According to this paper,
that is so, no doubt.
2655. I will take you to one other; just look
at “32 ° on that table (pointing to the same), and
take a distance of 201 miles to 250 miles?—
Yes.
Mr. OAKLEY.
—s
[Continued.
Mr. Lush Wilson—continued.
2656, Class 5 2–Yes.
2657. Thirty-two pence is the proposed maxi-
mum ?—Yes. That is what this shows.
2658. One shilling and eight-pence the present
Clearing House charge, which Clearing House
charge includes collection and delivery 7–Yes.
2659. Therefore to compare the 1's. 8d. with
the 32d, you ought to take off 2 d. ; that is
1 s. 6 d. 2–Yes, quite right.
2660. Therefore the proposed charge gives you
100 per cent. beyond the present Clearing House
charge 2–Yes, it shows so here.
2661. Looking at the other figure, on the other
distances on this table —Take a reasonable one.
2662. Take anyone you like; take Class 2
again ; there it is l s. 6d. ; that is the same,
except the cartage, as the Clearing House; and
Class 1 would be less than the Clearing House?
–Yes, that shows what I said. -
2663. Is it not the fact that although Class 1
is 1 s. 3 d for that and, the Clearing House is
1 s. 6 d. , there is really 4 d. to be added on to the
! s. 3 d., to represent collection and delivery 2—
You said 2 d. just now.
2664. Yes, I did; but is there not 2 d. each
Way ?–No, not 2 d. each way; 1; d. at the out-
side each way.
2665. That is 3 d. 2–Yes. But of course one
must criticise this before I agree to it. I think
I can see plenty of holes through it already.
Mr. Cripps.] I did not wish to intervene, but
I do not understand that Mr. Lush Wilson is
representing parties who are interested in this
question.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] I am opposing this amend-
ment.
Mr. Cripps.] You have an amendment for the
Brighton Corporation, but the Brighton Corpora-
tion are not interested in this matter.
Mr. Lush Wilson.
2666. But it applies to each railway company,
therefore I am opposing your proposed amend-
ment, which is to increase the 75 per cent. (To
the Witness.) Generally speaking, I will ask you
this question: if that table represents accurate.
figures, does not the proposed allowance for
returned empties (assuming the 75 per cent. is
left) allow a very fair margin over the present
Clearing House Classification ? — No, I do not
think it does; but I cannot condemn it absolutely
until I have had an opportunity of testing it,
because the cases you have given me are in the
fifth class mainly, and they are the cases of which
we have the smallest proportion of empties, and
then generally of the very lightest description.
The large empties are done in Classes 1, 2, and 3,
and we can only judge of the results by a fair
average of those three classes.
2667. I want to be perfectly fair with you; is
it not the fact that the majority of the returned
empties are the light ones, and not the heavy
ones?—In number probably, yes.
2668. Is it not perfectly fair for me to put to
you the class containing the lightest ones?—No,
because the point is the goods that they go down
with, and there are very few goods that go in the
fifth class. -
- 2669. Is
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
417
12 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. J.ush Wilson—continued.
2669. Is it not the fact that there is a con-
siderable proportion of goods in the fifth class?—
No, about 2 per cent. of the total.
2670. Can you give me any idea, to the best
of yonr ability, as to the class under which the
greater number of empties will be carried ?–
Speaking, I think, pretty clearly, in the second
and third.
2671. Assuming for the moment that you are
right, looking at the columns for the second and
third classes, do you not find that, generally
speaking, there will be a very fair allowance as
hetween the highest amount proposed to be
charged and the present Clearing House charge
to represent the margin of difference?—I do not
think so, because I see here, especially in the
long distances, the allowance decreases very
materially.
2672. But now I must remind you of your
answer to me: did you not tell the Committee
that it was just the other way ?—No.
2673. Did you not tell me that the short
distances represent the greater loss to you, and
not the longer ones?–It may be, but not on this
scale of yours.
2674. I agree, but supposing my scale is right,
would it not show that your answer was wrong,
that is the question?—Of course, if your scale be
right, and I have said anything contrary to the
scale, I must be wrong; but I must reserve my
assent to the fact that your scale is right. I
think it is wrong.
2675. You have a perfect right to reserve it
by all means, and I hope you will examine it
carefully ; but if my scale is right, would you
wish to correct the answer you gave to the Com-
mittee in your examination-in-chief, and to me,
that the shorter distance will involve greater
loss?—Of course, if your scale be right, though
I do not think we were then speaking of the
same comparison.
2676. I put it hypothetically, if you said that
would you withdraw it?—If I have said any-
thing wrong I will withdraw it.
2677. Would it be wrong if my table is right?
Chairman.] You are asking Mr. Oakley to
answer what he cannot answer.
Witness.] I cannot answer that. When I was
answering his Grace I was comparing two other
things. Now you are asking me to say—
Mr. Lush Wilson.
2678. Did you not say that the longer distances
are more favourable to you than the shorter
ones?—On another scale, but not on this.
2679. Not on the proposed scale, that is the
question ?—Not on this scale.
2680. Seventy-five per cent. on that scale, did
you not say so 7–Upon my word I do not know
what I said.
Chairman.
2681. I should like to ask you one question:
whether the railway companies (if you can speak
for them, at all events speaking for yourself, as
an eminent member of that profession) would
agree to the rates fixed in the Clearing House
scale, with a fair margin added to constitute a
maximum. I do not want you to give an answer
Chairman—continued.
now if you would rather not 2—I think, your
Grace, that we should be ready to agree to a
principle of that sort, subject, of course, to a rea-
sonable margin ; we might say an adequate
margin.
2682. Yes; because you see you are working
now, as we understand it, upon this scale which is
set out in the 100th page of the Clearing House
Classification?—Quite so.
2683, You have got it I daresay by heart.
Supposing that was inserted in the Bill, that
would be pages 101 and 102, with a margin added
for a maximum; do you think that that would be
a fair solution of this, which seems to be rather a
difficult subject 2–I think it may be, but before
answering for all the companies I should like to
have an opportunity of consulting my col-
leagues.
2684. But so far as you are individually con-
cerned, speaking on behalf of the Great Northern
Railway Company, you would think that to be a
fair and reasonable arrangement? – Yes, I
should.
2685. Of course, assuming that margin would
be such as would be satisfactory to you?–Quite
so. Speaking for myself, I do not think there
could be a much fairer suggestion.
Chairman.] What do the traders say to that ?
Mr. Clifford..] I do not know whether your
Grace remembers that this scale in the Clearing
House Classification includes cartage. -
Chairman.] Of course.
Mr. Clifford.] I have not had an opportunity
of consulting my clients upon the point, but it
seems upon the face of it to be a reasonable pro-
posal.
Chairman.] It is what is apparently satisfac-
tory to both parties now.
Mr. Clifford..] I should not like to bind my
clients. -
Chairman.] Of course not. I only throw it
out, because I think the Board of Trade invited
us to deal with it by scale, and it seemed to us
(some of us at all events) that that might be a
solution of the difficulty.
Mr. Clifford.] IPerhaps your Grace will allow
us to consider that point.
Chairman.] Yes.
A] r. Hunter.
2686. (To the H itness). How much of this
scale is attributable to collection and delivery,
for example 4 d. per cwt. 2–Five shillings a ton,
I think you may take it.
2687. All round 2–Yes; it ought to be more
in London ; but in the country, I think, 5 s. all
round would be something we cannot object to.
Chairman.] I ought to say that I do not bring
this forward now as a substantive proposition. I
have not had an opportunity of consulting all my
colleagues; but I merely wish to throw out that
suggestion for your consideration, and possibly
for the consideration of those who sit round me;
I do not bind them to what I have thrown out.
(81.)
3 G Mr.
4.18
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAR EN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
sº-
12 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps, Now that we know of this sug-
gestion, your Grace, might it not be preferable to
leave the further discussion of the clause over ?
It would not be worth our while, it might take
up a whole day discussing this when it would be
needless.
Chairman.] I think, under the circumstances,
it would be better to adjoin the further considera.
tiou of this clause, in order that the parties may
have an opportunity of considering what has been
thrown out.
Mr. Cripps.] I think that would save time,
your Grace, certainly.
Mr. Waghorn.] Might I finish the cross-
examination of the witness?
Mr. Clifford.] Your Grace, I have some
further questions to ask the witness with a view
to test the accuracy of these tables of his ; but
those questions would not be necessary in case of
the adoption of the proposal made by your
Grace.
Chairman.] Are you going to test the
curacy of Mr. Oakley P
Mr. Clifford.] We have not had an oppor-
tunity of testing his table; it was only put in
before us to-day. But these questions would be
unnecessary if your Grace's suggestion is
adopted, and another principle is taken for the
basis of charging empties. Therefore it will be
well perhaps to postpone the whole question.
Chairman (to Mr. Waghorn).] What have
you got to say " For whom do you appear?
Mr. Waghorn.] I appear, your Grace, for the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference. Our
view is that it is really entirely a question of
classification, and my questions would rather be
directed to that point.
Chairman.] But if the hint I have thrown out
is followed up and bears any fruit, then your
examination now would be unnecessary.
3,0-
Mr. Waghorn.] Then we might not have an
opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Oakley.
Chairman.] What you want to show, I under-
stand, is that classification is better than Clause
21 as it stands in the Provisional Order ?
Mr. Waghorn.j Yes.
Chai, man.] Then we have thrown out the
suggestion that classification is better than that
clause. \\ e do not give up that clause alto-
gether; but the suggestion that I have made up
on the behalf of the Committee is, that some such
classification as I have indicated, following out
those Clearing House clauses, might be adopted
with certain additions to it.
Mr. Waghorn.] Yes, your Grace, I would only
like to make one further comment upon that,
that that question of classification should be
deferred for its final settlement until the question
of rates has been gone into.
Chairman.] That is another matter. There
is no object in your now cross examining Mr.
Oakley to show that classification is better than
clauses, because we have indicated our view that
at would be a better arrangement.
Mr. Clifford.] Then what I understand is that
subject to the adoption of it, and in case that
suggestion of your Grace's is not adopted, all
rights for the examination of Mr. Oakley will be
reserved.
Chairman.
2688. Yes, you will have an opportunity. (To
the Witness.) Do you want to say anything
more ?–No, your Grace. I shall be very happy
to defer any further defence until I have had an
opportunity of considering this. I understand.
these gentlemen may want to see me again.
2689. No doubt P—I shall be at their service.
Earl of Camperdown.
2690. Before you go, I should like to ask you
just one question. How are these rates arrived
at. They are arrived at, I know, by this classi-
fication in the Clearing House book ; they are
arrived at by the managers in concert together.
Is there any concert at all with the traders, or is
it simply made by the managers together ? . It
is settled by the managers; but the managers
themselves, each individual manager, confers
with the traders with whom he has to deal in
order to ascertain really what the wants of the
trade are, what would satisfy them.
Mr. Clifford.] I never heard that the traders
were consulted upon this point.
Chairman.] I should like to know whether the
Board of Trade have anything to say upon the
suggestion that I have thrown out.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I confess, your
Grace, that I should like to have the same oppor-
tunity of consultation that is given to others
before I speak upon it; but I should just like to
say that there are in the Clearing House Classifi-
cation two pages and a-half of very small print,
going into all sorts of detail, and I am afraid that
a great deal of it is not in drafting phraseology;
a good many of the terms used here would require
a definition if they were put into an Act of Par-
liament. It seems to me that the attempt to put
these two pages and a-half into terms suitable for
an Act of Parliament is not a course to be lightly
entered upon. At the same time, in the light of
the discussion that has gone on in the presence of
the Committee, and the indication of their views
that has been given, if the railway companies can
see their way to any classification of empties
which will protect them from undue loss by
dividing them into one, two, or three classes, I
think it would be a matter very well worth con-
sideration. But I look with some apprehension
at any attempt to put into the four corners of an
Act of Parliament all I see in these two and
a-half pages of small print.
Chairman.| Lord Balfour of Burleigh must
recollect that we are proposing now to depart
from Clause 21, in accordance with the views
expressed by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, who said it
was the most difficult clause in the whole Bill, as
he instanced, and it was the one which was the
least easy to be defended, as I gathered from him.
Lord
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
419
12 May 1891.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes.
Chairman.] And that he would rather that a
system of classification be resorted to in pre-
ference to the clause as it stands.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I entirely adhere
to that. Mr. Courtenay Boyle spoke after con-
sultation with me, and we are in entire accord
on the point. The point in this Clause 21, which
we dislike, is the undoubted opening to dispute
as to what class of goods went full in the cases
that are being returned empty; that is the weak
point of the clause, and that is why we indi-
cated that we would very much prefer some
classification. And, if nothing else can be done,
of course the Committee have a perfect right to
codify, in the terms of an Act of Parliament,
these two and a-half pages. All that we indicated
was that if the railway companies could simplify
it, and put it into two or three, or even four
classes, we venture to think that it would be
better than attempting to codify matters, which,
I know from experience, it will be a matter of
wery great difficulty to do.
Chairman.] It is possible that Mr. Oakley may
be able to assist us by codifying these two or
three pages. -
Mr. Cripps.] We shall be prepared to bring
up our suggestion, following on what has passed
to-day, on Thursday morning.
Mr. Clifford.] Perhaps your Grace will be
interested in knowing that the matter has been
dealt with in the Caledonian and Scottish Cen-
tral Railways Amalgamation Act, 1865, very
much upon the lines that your Grace has sug-
gested ; that is to say, that a schedule was
inserted containing charges for empty packages
which are specified, quarter hogsheads, for
instance, half ditto hogsheads, puncheons, and a
great many other such packages.
Chairman.] That you might recommend to the
attention of the railway companies. Mr. Cripps
no doubt will consider it.
Mr. Clifford.] It is of interest as showing that
the matter has been already dealt with very
much in the same manner.
Mr. Waghorn.] Might I be permitted to call
a witness, to lay before the Committee the
desirability and expediency of considering this
as a matter of classification, pure and simple P
Chairman.] No, I think we do not want that
now. We will hear you afterwards when we
deal with the subject as brought forward by Mr.
Cripps. What we have done now is tending in
the direction of classification, therefore we do
not want any witness to corroborate us in that
view.
Mr. Waghorn.] Then if on Thursday this
scheme does not entirely commend itself to the
view of the traders, if it is not so completely
satisfactory as it would appear, your Grace would
then consider the question ?
Chairman.] Of course we shall hear you on
the part of the traders as against any proposition
that is made, before we come to a decision.
Mr. Waghorn.] I am rather afraid your Grace
will hear me a little late, and we rather wished
to show to your Grace, now that it is so purely
–º-
a case of classification, that it might be reserved
till then. -
Chairman.] What we have agreed is that it is
a matter of classification as against the proposal
put forward by the Board of Trade in the Bill.
We do not want any further evidence to tell us
we have done right; we think we have done
right. -
Mr. Hambury.] We suggest a particular
scheme of classification. If it falls through you
will have an opportunity further on.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And we are to have
an opportunity of discussing it, i understand.
Chairman.] And we may fall back on Clause
21. If we find that we cannot deal with the
classification in a manner satisfactory to us, after
having heard all there is to be said for or against
it, we may have to fall back on Clause 21 and
deal with it, and possibly put it exactly as it
stands in the Bill. I do not say we shall; but
we reserve all that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I follow all that, and I
think it quite unnecessary to call any evidence.
Clause 21 is postponed.
ON CLAUSE 22.
Mr. Cripps.] I think the first amendment,
your Grace, on Clause 22 is from the railway
companies. ... Just before explaining the amend-
ment, I will say a few words to explain the
clause generally. This clause was not included
in the original Report of the Board of Trade, but
it is a clause which for the first time prevents
the railway companies from making any charge
in respect of the return of an empty truck.
Although as a matter of fact I believe the rail.
way companies have not made any charge for
the return of empty trucks up to this time, this
is the first occasion on which, as a statutory
limitation, they cannot make any charge in re-
spect of an empty truck in future. Therefore we
propose to insert this limitation, after “merchan-
dise" to insert “the minimum rate for the con-
veyance of which does not include the provision
of trucks.” The reason, your Grace, is this, that
where the traders as a class in connection with
their particular class of traffic to provide trucks
there we will undertake to return the trucks
when empty without charge when the obli-
gation is upon us to provide a truck, and where
in the great majority of cases we provide the
truck, ourselves, there we think this liability
should not be placed upon us, because in some
particular instance the trader provides his own
truck, and does not take advantage of the truck
that is provided for him by the railway compa-
nies. I do not know whether your Grace follows
the distinction in the two cases.
Chairman.] I do not quite.
Mr. Cripps.j As regards certain classes of
traffic, the traders provide their own trucks
generally, and as regards that class of traffic, the
merchandise rate does not include the provision
of truck. As regards other classes of traffic,
the ordinary principle is for the railway company
to provide the truck, and in those cases the mer-
chandise rate does include the provision of the
truck. - -
Chairman.] That is to say merchandise rate,
the truck.
(81.)
3 G 2 Mr.
420 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
TAK EN
12 May
1891.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes. Supposing the rate is 2 d.
(to take a concrete instance), that means that the
railway company for the 2 d. has to provide the
truck ; whereas in other rates in some other class
where it is 1 d. we will say, that means that the
railway company has riot to provide the truck;
and the railway companies think this being a
limitation for the first time placed upon them, that
they cannot charge for the return of empty
trucks, that ought only to apply to cases where,
as a rule, the traders provide their own trucks,
and not to cases where the railway companies,
as a rule, provide trucks, although in a particular
case the trader might exercise the option and
provide it himself. So your Grace sees that
that is the meaning of the amendment we
propose.” The maximum rate for the convey-
ance of which does not include the provi-
sion of trucks”; that is to say, that
we are only to send back a truck
empty free of charge where the maximum rate
does not include the provision of trucks, and
where as a matter of business and a matter of
practice, the truck is provided by the trader for
his own use. Take the case of coals, for instance,
in Classes A. and B.
Earl of Camperdown.] In those cases you are
allowed to make a separate charge for the trucks,
are you not ?
Mr. Cripps.] In which case ?
Earl of Camperdown.] The maximum rate for
conveyance does not include any rate for trucks ;
but when you supply trucks you can make a
charge for it.
Mr. Cripps.] In Classes A. and B., or in
Class A. where, as a rule, as a matter of busi-
ness, the trader provides the trucks.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In Class A. -
Mr. Cripps.] I think my learned friend is
right. But in all other cases we are bound to
provide the truck for the maximum rate ; and we
say that we ought only to be obliged to return
the truck empty in that particular class where
the truck is provided by the trader, and not pro-
vided by the railway company. That is the
meaning of our amendment.
Mr. Hunter.] In those classes, excepting Class
A., if the trader supplies the truck, is there any
provision that he should give a rebate for the
consideration of supplying his truck. Do you
not charge the truck as well?
Mr. Cripps.] You may remember that matter
was postponed.
Mr. Hunter.] Until we have decided it the
question may not arise.
Mr. Cripps. With submission, the question
would arise, would it not; because whatever was
done as between the trader and the railway com-
pany with regard to the provision of the truck,
the question of the charge for running that truck
or sending it empty on the lines of the company
would arise in the same way. As your Grace
knows, under Section 2, except in respect of
Class A., the maximum rate for the conveyance
includes the provision of trucks by the company;
and what we think is fair is that where we pro-
vide the trucks generally, although in a parti-
cular case the trader provides the trucks, this
new statutory limitation, as regards the charge
for empty trucks, should not be placed upon us.
I propose to call a witness to explain the views
of the railway companies.
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT, is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
2691. YoU have considered, have you not, this
question of the sending back of empty trucks
without payment 3–Yes.
2692. As you know, under Class A. the
traders provide their trucks so far as the maxi-
mum conveyance charge is concerned, but under
the other classes you provide the trucks 2–Yes.
2693. Then the amendment which you pro-
pose is that where you provide trucks generally,
but where in some particular case the trader
might provide the truck for a particular object,
you think you ought not to be put under the
limitation proposed here 2–We think so.
2694. Will you just explain why you think
so 2–There are certain manufacturers, say, of
carriages, who desire to have their own trucks
for the conveyance of the carriages which they
manufacture. Take, for instance, Messrs. Mul-
liner, of Northampton, or a firm at Bath, whose
name does not occur to me at the moment, and
there is another firm, for instance, at Leamington.
These manufacturers like to have their own
trucks for the conveyance of their carriages, and
on those trucks they paint their names in an
extremely legible character, for the purposes of
advertisement. We are not permitted to use
Mr. Cripps—continued.
those trucks; they have to be taken back to
where they are sent from, and we have no oppor-
tunity of using them, although perhaps by the
very saune train we may have to send a carriage
truck of our own to take a carriage to the same
point of destination. We therefore think that
we ought not to be under an obligation to carry
back that carriage truck free.
2695. You say that for the purpose of your
own traffic, however much you may want to use
it, you cannot use it 2–That is so ; and you can
quite understand that as these manufacturers own
only a small number of these trucks, perhaps one
or two or three at the outside, they want them
back as soon as they are unloaded, so that we
have to take them back at once, and therefore
they are not available for our purposes.
2696. At present, and apart from the proposal
of the schedule, is there any obligation upon you
to carry back empty trucks free ?—I am not
aware of any. -
2697. Therefore the proposal in the schedule
is a statutory limitation under which you are not
placed at the present time 2–Precisely.
2698. Then having that statutory limitation
put upon you, you think there ought to be an
exception
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES, PROVISIONAL O R DE R. BILLS.
421
12 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
exception in the case you mention ?–I think so;
I think it is a reasonable exception.
Chairman.
2699. What do you do in the case of horse-
boxes 2—There again we are not able to use
them. The owners provide certain boxes for
their own horses, and they have to be returned,
and we are not able to use them. They prefer
to keep them for their own stock, and they do so.
There is no obligation on us at present to return
them empty without charge, and we think we
ought not to be bound by a statutory obligation
in the future.
Lord Houghton.
2700. Do you make a charge for them as a
matter of fact?—No charge is made for them at
the present time.
Lord Belper.
2701. Can you use any empty private truck
for coal or for anything else ?–As a matter of
practice we do not, because a coal truck is only
useful for coal ; you could not put general mer-
chandise into a coal truck, But what I say is
that you could use a carriage truck for the
purpose of putting another gentleman's carriage
on the truck,
2702. As I understand, you could not use a
private truck in any case. Could you use any
truck of any sort for merchandise, if it belongs to
any private trader and not to you ? - We do not
as a rule. But the trucks provided by the
traders are generally for coal traffic, and other
similar traffic; such as gas-tar, and articles of
that kind, into which you could not load general
merchandise; and therefore I draw a distinction
between that case and the case, for instance, of
Messrs. Mulliner, of Northampton, sending a
carriage to Bath, where, supposing we had a
carriage going from Bath, we could load it into
the truck without any detriment to the truck or
its contents. But we are precluded from doing so,
because Messrs. Mulliner want the truck back at
the very earliest possible moment. -
2703. Do you charge for horse-boxes at the
present moment?-- We do not make any charge
for the return journey when empty.
Earl of Camperdo'ſ m.
2704. Could you under any circumstances
place goods in a coal waggon, we will say,
belonging to a private individual 7–No, we do
not. -
2705. It is not a question of whether you do
or do not, but whether you could legally do so?
—Certainly. I may say that I have on many
occasions in the course of my business experience
loaded, say, timber into coal-trucks belonging to
private individuals.
2706. After obtaining their permission ?–No,
I am afraid it was not.
2707. Did you have to pay for the use of the
trucks 7–We did make an arrangement subse-
quently for the user of them.
Mr. Cripps.
2708. As regards coal trucks, for instance,
nearly all the traffic would be one way, I pre-
Mr. Cripps—continued.
sume ; you sending back the empty coal-trucks
up to the collieries?—Precisely. .
2709. Taking a truck in any one of these various
classes, if the truck were your own, would you
have the chance of getting a return cargo for it,
so that you could make use of it both ways 2–
Certainly. Assuming, for instance, that we took
a carriage from Bath to Paddington, that truck
would be available at Paddington, and might go
back with another carriage ; but in the case which
I mentioned we are not allowed to use the private
trucks or horse-boxes of owners who provide their
OWI).
2710. Whereas otherwise you could send a
horse between the two places, and then use the
horse-box again to send a horse between two
places on the way back 2–precisely. We should
have an unlimited use of our own truck, whereas
in the other case we only have a limited use.
271 1. As regards this question of Class A.,
even if you had your own trucks, with reference
to coal traffic, you would have to send it back
empty, and have the traffic only one way ?–Yes.
The coal traffic really sets in one direction, and
of course the empties go back, and the pressure
for the return of the empties is so great now that
such an incident as I referred to as happening
some six or seven and twenty years ago is quite
impossible now. The traders want their trucks.
back, and they have to be returned with as much
expedition as if they were full ; and they are so.
returned ; we lay ourselves out for that.
2712. I see it is provided by a clause which
has been inserted by this Committee, that
“ where merchandise is conveyed in trucks not
belonging to the company, the trader shall be
entitled to recover from the company a reasonable
sum by way of demurrage *º-Yes.
2713. That is of course, a further obligation
upon the companies; and therefore if this clause
stood in its general terms, you would not only
have to send back the truck empty, whereas if it
were your own you might have a return cargo in
it, but you would also be liable for demurrage
under this new clause 7–That is so.
Uross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2714. As I understood, it was to cure this
difficulty of trucks with the names of the pro-
prietors upon them, that this provision was
introduced 2–That was merely an illustration.
2715. It seems to have got a good deal beyond
that now. At present, I understood, all empty
trucks are returned, and no charge beyond that
for the outward journey is made for the return ?
—That undoubtedly is the present practice.
2716. And it is the universal practice, is it
not 7–So far as I know. But I should like to
point out that the practice of providing private
Waggons on the part of their owners is limited,
to a large extent, to coal and certain kindred
articles. The number of trucks furnished or
supplied by other traders is very limited indeed.
2717. Let me follow that out a little. All the
rates therefore which you charged at the present
time are rates which include the return of the
empty?--I could not admit that as a proposition.
2718. You said that no charge was made be-
yond that for the outward journey?—That is
(81.)
3 G 3 perfectly
422
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint committee
12 May 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
perfectly true; but you know as a barrister, that
that question has been very considerably de-
bated, as to whether the outward charge does as
a matter of fact include the return of the vehicle.
2719. "You must have it one way or the
other. You must be paid for bringing back the
empty, and therefore the rate for the outward
journey covers the return of the empty 2–We
would rather say that we made a concession to
the traders and returned the vehicle without
charge. -- -
2720. We know that there are no concessions
to traders; the rate you charge for the outward
journey is sufficient to cover the return of the
empty truck?—I could not admit that. -
2721. Then are you working at a loss all
round 2 Surely you are paying a dividend, are
you not?—We are. *
2722. Therefore you are not making a loss?—
It is quite clear that it is a service rendered to
the owner of the waggon which is susceptible
of a charge, but hitherto no charge has been
made. * *
2723. Either it is includedin the outward rate,
or you do it for nothing; it must be either the
one or the other?—We should say we did it for
nothing. &
2724. And if the actual rates have been taken
by the Board of Trade as the basis of the rates
that you are to charge, they have, in fixing the
maximum rates, considered of course the fact that
at the present time you do that service for
nothing?—I assume so. *
2725. If the actual rates have been taken as
the basis, that must be so?—It is very likely that
they have done so.
2726. Then what do you propose to do º Do
you propose to have an unlimited power of
making a charge for the return of the empties ;
because there is nothing in the schedule to fix
the charge for the return ?—There is nothing so
far; but we should not object to a limitation of
our charge. %, *
2727. Although at present you say you make
no charge at all?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
2728. The effect of this amendment of yours
will be that you will be able to charge for the
return of empty trucks when those trucks have
carried goods that are in Class B. Do you see
what I mean 2–I do not quite follow your
question.
2729. The effect of your amendment will be
that you will be able to make a charge for the
return of empty trucks when those empty trucks
have carried articles that are included in Class
B. P-Yes.
2730. Now, if you will look at the classification
you will see that in Class B. you have got
bricks 2—Yes.
2731. Are not bricks carried in large quanti-
ties at present, especially by colliery owners in
their own private trucks, made specially for that
purpose ?—I only know that we carry a very large
number of bricks in our own waggons. There
may be some colliery proprietors who use their
own trucks for the carriage of bricks, but it is a
very small business compared with the traffic
that we carry.
that, would it not ?
Mr. Shaw—continued.
2732. Still, small as it is, you would have the
power under this of charging for the return of
these bricks, would you not ? Bricks are kindred
things to coal in this sense, that a truck is used
for bricks, and bricks only ; is not that so? –
Colliery proprietors do not keep trucks specially
for bricks. T. t
2733. Sometimes they do, surely 2–Very
rarely, I think. They would use their own iron
or coal waggons.
2734. You would not charge for the return
when it is coal; but when it is bricks you would
be able to charge, would you not ?–The trade
in bricks is a very much smaller trade than the
trade in coal; it does not bear any comparison
to it; and for bricks we provide for a far greater
tonnage than the private owners do.
2735. You do not charge for the return of your
own trucks 2—No.
2736. Why is that?—Because we are able to
use our trucks from point to point.
2737. Take the case of patent fuel ; that
comes in Class B. Patent fuel is an increasing:
trade, is it not ?—An increasing shipping trade.
2738. Patent fuel would be carried, when it
is carried at all, l suppose, in coal trucks? –
Yes.
2739. The same argument would apply to
You do not ask for power
to charge for coal, whereas for patent fuel you
get an extra charge 2––We always class patent
fuel with coal; and an exception might fairly be
made to class patent fuel with coal.
2740. Carriages and horses are the only ex-
ception, I think, which you made; they are in
separate classes of their own. . Could not your
contention be met by puttin in a class for the
carriage of ca.riages, if that is the only case ?—I
only gave that as an illustration. . Of course
there is such a very large traffic passing over the
country that it would be impossible to indicate
all the different varieties, and I merely gave
that as an illustration of what happens in prac-
tice.
Chairman (to Mr. Cripps).] Does not that
Clause 22 hang very much upon Clause 2, as
regards the provision of trucks, which has not
been decided yet, but has been postponed P
Mr. Cripps.] It does, your Grace.
Chairman.] I think we had better deal with
the matter as a whole, and not piecemeal. If we
dealt with this now we should be dealing with a
minor part of a larger proposition.
Mr. Cripps.] That is probably so, your Grace.
Therefore perhaps we had better postpone Clause
22 till we deal with Sub-section (b) of Clause 2.
Chairman.] I think so. We shall get into con-
fusion if we deal with this clause now.
The Witness withdrew.
Mr. Stent.] Your Grace, the West Cumber-
land Ironmasters' Association have got an amend-
ment on Clause 22, which has not been disposed
of. I am not quite clear whether the whole .
clause has been postponed.
Chairman.] Yes, we will postpone the whole
clause and deal with it and Sub-section (b) of
Clause 2 together subsequently.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
423
12 May 1891.
Clanse 22 postponed.
On CLAUSE 23.
Chairman.] On Clause 23, line 37, there is an
amendment to strike out “ or performing” and
insert “ or any railway company or person owning
or working any branch railway, railway station
or siding who provides any accommodation or
performs.” Who appears on that amendment
Mr. Clifford.] I am told, your Grace, that Mr.
Carver is away suffering from influenza, and that
Mr. Balfour Browne, who also appears, is out of
the room at the moment. k
Mr. Frere.] That first amendment to which
your Grace is referring is withdrawn, I under-
stand.
Chairman.] Are you prepared to say so *
Mr. Frere.] Yes.
Chairman.] That is to say the amendment on
behalf of Sarah Tomlinson and also of the Mersey
T)ocks and Harbour Board 7
Mr. Frere.] Yes, on behalf of both.
Chairman.] How much are you able to say is
withdrawn 2
Mr. Frere.] On page 38 there are three
amendments by Sarah Tomlinson and the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board, and I understand
that all those three are withdrawn.
Chairman.] You say you understand they are
withdrawn.
Mr. Frere.] They are withdrawn.
Chairman.] Now we come to the amendment
proposed by the Marquess of Bute.
Mr. Capper.] The South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire Freighters’ Association, your Grace,
also have a similar amendment to that of Lord
Bute. I am sorry to say that Mr. Woodfall, who
hitherto had appeared for both, has not recovered
from a very severe attack of influenza. I am the
agent for the South Wales and Monmouthshire
Freighters' Association. Their amendment has
not been printed in this compilation which has
been made by the railway companies. Mr. Wood-
fall called attention to that fact on two previous
occasions. -
Chairman.] Why have you not got your
amendments in print P
Mr. Capper.] They were delivered in in time;
it is not our fault they are not printed here. This
of course is not our print.
Chairman.] Where are they
Mr. Capper.] The clerks at the table have
them.
Chairman.] Have you got a copy of it 2
Mr. Capper.| Yes; but I may say it is similar
to Lord Bute's amendment, and that will answer
every purpose.
Chairman.] It is identical with Lord Bute's
amendment.
Mr. Capper.] It is identical with Lord Bute's
amendment. -
Chairman.] Lord Bute's amendment is, “ The
maximum charge for conveyance of merchandise
traffic over the lines of the company, and one or
Inn Ole * railway company or companies, or
(81. *
—s,
over two or more lines of the company, shall be
calculated at the rate which, according to the
scale of the contracting company or line would
be chargeable for the total length of the transit.”
Is that your amendment?
Mr. Capper.] That is our amendment.
Chairman.] Then we have got the Miarquess
of Bute's amendment coming first.
Mr. Capper. Unfortunately Lord Bute is
not represented here, owing entirely to the illness
of his counsel. Mr. Woodfall expected to be
here, but he has been very ill indeed, I am
Sorry to say.
Chairman.] Then, in his absence, we will
hear you.
Mr. Capper.] We simply ask your Grace that
one railway company shall not be entitled to
charge the rates belonging to another railway
company. Under this clause, as the South
Wales freighters read it, they say that they are
liable to be charged in running over two rail-
ways the rates that you may grant to the further
railway company, and a scale of rates that pos-
sibly they may be unaware of. They simply ask
that the starting point, whatever it may be, shall
be the ruling rate for the whole distance.
Chairman.] Do you call any evidence 2
Mr. Capper.] No, your Grace.
Mr. Cripps.] On behalf of the railway com-
panies, I would just point out what the amend-
ment is. Clause 23 provides that “any railway
company (other than the company) conveying
merchandise on the railway, or performing any
of the services for which rates or charges are
authorised by this schedule, shall be crititled to
charge and make the same rates and charges as
the company are by this schedule authorised to
make ; ” that is to say, the ruling rates or charges
shall be the rates and charges of the owning
company; that is, what is the principle in this
Section 23 which has been put in by the Board
of Trade. . Now, the amendment which is sug-
gested on behalf of the Marquess of Bute and
the South Wales and Monmouthshire Freighters'
Association introduces two new principles to
which we cannot assent. First of all it suggests
that the scale shall not be the scale of the owning
company, but the scale of the contracting com-
pany ; that is to say, supposing that goods were
going over four or five different systems, to which
different scales might be applicable, the suggestion
is that the scale of the contracting company
should apply throughout, whereas the principle
adopted by the Board of Trade, which is surely
the just principle, is that the scale of the owning
company should apply in each case. In addition
to that, if you look at this amendment you will
see it goes much further than that. It says:
“The maximum charge for conveyance of mer-
chandise traffic over the lines of the company
and one or more other railway company
or companies, or over two or more lines
of the company, shall be calculated at the
rate which, according to the scale of the
contracting company or line would be chargeable
for the total length of the transit.” That is to
say, even where the contracting company does
not run over the owning company at all, still in
3 G 4 all
424
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
all cases the rate is to be decided by the rates
applicable to the contracting company. I do not
know whether any evidence can be necessary
upon a point of this kind; but surely the prin-
ciple throughout the schedule of rates is this: that
the schedule applicable to the owing company is
just and reasonable as between them and the
trader and the public, whereas of course the
schedule of the contracting company might be in
any particular instance entirely distinct and
different from the schedule of the owning com-
pany or companies over which the traffic is
carried.
Earl of Belmore.] Might not this occur : that,
for instance, if traffic was going from north to
South, the cost of the conveyance would be quite
different from what it would be if it was going the
other way ?
Mr. Cripps.] It might be entirely different in
the two cases, my Lord.
Chairman.] The Committee will not insert
that amendment. -
On CLAUSE 24.
Mr. Cripps.] There is no
Clause 24, I understand.
amendment to
On CLAUSE 25.
Chairman.] Now we come to the amendment
of the Westry of St. Mary, Newington.
Mr. Lush Wilson.] That is withdrawn, your
Grace.
Chairman.] Then we come now to the amend-
ment of the Mansion House United Association
on Railway Rates. Who appears in support of
that amendment 7
Mr. Clifford..] I appear, in support of the
amendment; after “person’ to insert “ or the
agent or servant of any person.” We want
simply to extend the term “trader’ to trader's
agent or servant; it seems necessary, to make the
definition complete, that the term should be held
to comprise not only the trader, but the person
whom he employs.
Mr. Cripps.] We have no objection to that,
except that we think the present words include
“ person ’’ would include agent, and the ordinary
law of agency applies.
Mr. Clifford.] There can be no harm in adopt-
ing it, and it seems to us to make the definition
clearer.
Chairman.] I am not so sure about that ; have
the Board of Trade anything to say upon this
point? -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] We would submit
that for all purposes for which an agent or a
servant of the person ought to be included,
surely he is included when he is distinctly acting
for the trader. If he is not acting for the trader
he ought not to have any independent existence
at all, and we think the word “ trader ’’ covers
all that is necessary.
Mr. Cripps.] That is certainly our view, your
Grace.
Chairman.] The Commitlee will not insert
that amendment. Then the next amendment is
in line 16. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace has not got
past line 10, have you ?
Chairman.] We should not insert that. We
refused to insert the other amendment, and this
is practically the same thing. We decline to
insert both these amendments on page 7 in lines
9 and 10. Now we come to the amendment pro-
posed by the railway companies. r
Mr. Cripps.] The amendment here is after the
words “received from any other railway,” to take
out the word “ company ” and to insert the words,
“ without break of gauge.”
Chairman.] Then how would it read 2
Mr. Cripps.] It would read in this way:
“The term ‘terminal station' means a station or
place upon the railway at which a consignment
of merchandise is loaded or unloaded before or
after conveyance on the railway, but does not
include any station or junction at which the mer-
chandise, in respect of which any terminal is
charged, has been exchanged with, handed over
to, or received from any other railway without
break of gauge or a junction between the rail-
way and a siding not belonging to the company.”
The point, your Grace, is a simple one. Where
there is a break of gauge, the services of loading
and unloading, and other terminal services have
to be performed ; where there is no break of
gauge that is not necessary, but where there is
a break of gauge as between two lines, you must
load and unload and perform the usual terminal
services.
Earl of Belmore.] That would apply for
instance to the ordinary light railways in Ireland,
I presume.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, and to the Festiniog Rail-
way.
Mr. Hunter.] Would not the insertion of these
words give you more than loading and unload-
ing P. lt would also give you station terminals,
would it not ?
Mr. Cripps.] Would not that be fair too,
where there is a break of gauge They would
have in such a case to provide station accom-
modation necessary for the loading and unloading
and the dealing with the goods.
Mr. Hunter.] There would be four terminals
in that case. -
Mr. Cripps.j The position would be the same,
of course, as where the goods had been origi-
nally loaded ; because, owing to the break of
gauge, all the services would have to be per-
formed jnst as they were at the place where the
goods had been originally received. I do not
think there would be any difference in principle
between the two cases.
Chairman.] Have the traders anything to say
upon this point 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
are instructed to oppose this,
I understand we
Mr. Cripps.] I do not know that it will be
necessary to call evidence upon it. I am told
that Mr. Harrison will give some evidence.
*
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
425
12 May 1891.
Mr. FREDERICK HARRISON, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Moom.
2741. YoU are the Goods Manager of the
London and North Western Railway, are you
not ?—I am.
2742. Are there places on your system where
you have to receive traffic from railways of
another gauge than your own 2–Yes, at Blaenau
Festiniog, where the Festiniog narrow gauge
railway comes into our goods yard, and at Dinas
on the Carnarvonshire Railway, just beyond
Carnarvon.
2743. Of course, when this narrow gauge line
joins you, you have to unload the traffic where it
is in the narrow gauge truck, and put it into your
own truck 7–Certainly.
2744. Have you also to provide accommoda-
tion at the station where that can be done 3-Yes.
At Dinas there is a separate bank in between the
two gauges of railway, and at Blaenau Festiniog
the narrow gauge railway runs in on an interme-
diate rail through the goods shed and the goods
yards throughout.
2745. You have, you say, a separate bank
specially made for the purpose of this inter-
change of traffic 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2746. As I understand, your whole desire is
that where there is a break of gauge there
should be an extra payment in consequence of
the difficulty of transferring from one to the
other ?—Yes.
2747. You have given two illustrations, one
being Blaenau Festiniog, which is quite a small
railway on a very narrow gauge, is it not *—The
2-feet gauge. »
2748. Would not the clause which my learned
friend has been introducing refer also to a break
of gauge between the two gauges on the Great
Western Railway ?—I suppose so ; it is a differ-
ence in gauge.
2749. If, for their own convenience or pleasure,
they choose to break the gauge, you think, they
should be entitled to make a charge?--I do not
think it would be for their convenience or
pleasure.
2750. Surely it might be if the charge or
remuneration were sufficient 2–No ; because I
may say that for a great many years, when there
was a break of gauge between the two portions
of the Great Western system, the other com-
panies all agreed that in consideration of that
they should have an extra allowance on aggount
of the transhipment; but that was not sufficient
to induce the Great Western Company to con-
tinue it; but they assimilated their gauge and
gave up their allowance.
2751. What was the allowance ; it was very
small, was it not?—It was a mileage allows … •e
of 22 miles.
2752. For the break of gauge P-Yes.
2753. The terminal that would be chargeable
in this case would be much more than that, would
it not ?
Mr. Cripps.] Might I point out to my learned
friend that this would not cover a case of that
kind where there are two gauges on the same
railway ; for the words are, “from any other
railway without break of gauge.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2754. It would cover any traffic passing from
another line on to the Great Western. (To the
Pł itness.) Supposing traffic was coming over
the London and North Western on the narrow
gauge, and the Great Western chose to say, “We
will carry that on the broad gauge,” a charge
could be made then, could it uot ?—It is a per-
fectly supposititious case, because the Great
Western broad gauge does not approach to the
London and North Western system by a great
many miles, and therefore they would have to
convert for the whole distance between the two.
2755. In the first place it approaches very
closely in London, does it not ?–No.
2756. How far are you from the Great Western
broad gauge 2–Our nearest station I suppose
would be about four miles.
2757. But do you not exchange traffic at the
stations in the west of London, on the lines run-
ning round London 2–I do not think we do with
the Great Western; but if so, it is a very small
business. I daresay we do some.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My objection, your
Grace, to the matter was really very largely
upon the supposition that it did not refer to the
passing from one railway to another. It is more
reasonable if it refers only to traffic passing from
one railway to another, and they are on an
entirely different gauge, not like the Great
Western Railway, which has two gauges, which
they might choose between ; but if, on the other
hand, there is an entire difference of gauge, as in
the case of the Blaenau and Festiniog line, I
think it is reasonable that there should be some
charge. It ought not, however, to be a fixed
charge, but it ought to be subject to the ordinary
arbitration which you have given with regard to
terminals in the other part of the schedule,
Mr. Poyser.] I also strongly oppose this
amendment coming in here, your Grace, under
the head of terminals, because the result is to put
on 3 s. a ton as a station terminal, merely for the
transhipment of goods from a light railway to an
ordinary railway. That seems to me so much
too heavy for the work that is actually done,
that we should strongly oppose its coming in
here. If it is to be dealt with, let it be dealt
with as a special subject, and not under this
clause.
Mr. Cripps.] Does your Grace wish to hear
Lord Balfour's opinion upon this point 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I should much prefer
my learned friend should go on before Lord Bal-
four expresses his opinion.
Mr. Cripps.] I understood that his Grace
wished to hear Lord Balfour. What I have
to say is this : as my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne has himself pointed out, this could
not apply to the case which was suggested
on the Great Western of a line partly narrow
(81.)
3 H and
426 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
and partly broad gauge, but it can only
apply to a case where the traffic is exchanged
between two different companies having at the
point of exchange a different gauge. And where
that happens, it is obvious, as I suggested, and
as Mr. Harrison has pointed out, that terminal
services would have to be rendered and terminal
accommodation, as regards station room, must
be provided.
Chairman.] Would you have one or two ter-
minals 2
Mr. Cripps.] To take a concrete instance,
supposing traffic starting from London going on
to the Festiniog line, there would be the London
terminal, there would be thc terminal at the
point of exchange, and there would be the ter-
minal at the point to which the goods were con-
signed.
Chairman.] Then there would be three ter-
minals 2 .
Mr. Cripps.] Three terminals.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There would be four
terminals.
Earl of Camperdown.] The Festiniog line
would have two and the North Western would
have two.
Mr. C. pps.] I think, with all submission, the
Festiniog would only have one under those cir-
cumstances at the point of interchange. The
definition is, “That the term ‘terminal station’
means a station or place upon the railway at
which a consignment of merchandise is loaded or
unloaded before or after conveyance on the
railway, but does not include any station or
junction at which the merchandise has been ex-
changed when handed over to or received from
any other railway without “break of gauge.”
see what is suggested, namely, that we might
charge a double terminal where the break of
gauge is; but I think we only desire to charge a
single terminal there, and not a double ter-
minal.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is not clear. It
must be made clear.
Chairman (to Mr. Cripps).]
you propose to make that clear.
How would
Mr. Cripps.] That could be made clear in
drafting. I could put in a word or two in a
moment.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade any-
thing to say upon this point.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I may say, your
Grace, that I rather incline to look with suspicion
upon any modification of the definition of “ter-
minal station,” and more especially upon the
putting in of any words which would seem to
legalise a terminal charge for what is really
transhipment. If you are going to have a tran-
shipment charge let it be legalised as a tran-
shipment charge according to the amount that may
be necessary for the particular lines concerned.
My Lords, we have only heard of one instance
where it is wanted. The desire to make this
charge in a case like that of the Great Western
has been absolutely disclaimed, and therefore
that does not enter into consideration. Mr.
Harrison mentioned the small line coming from
the coast up to Blaenau Festiniog, and there
joining with both the Great Western and the
London and North Western, I think.
happen to have spent a couple of housr
at that junction last year, when I was there
on the Welsh Sunday Closing Commission,
and if there is no other case than that, it seems to
me obvious that the case should be dealt with as
a special transhipment charge peculiar to that
line and the North Western and Great Western
which it joins. If there are any other cases to be
brought forward they cannot be so numerous as
that there would be any inconvenience whatever
in scheduling them ; but I would press it upon
the Committee that for the sake of meeting what
may be an admitted grievance in one or two
instances, it would be an unwise course to open
the door to the possibility of charging terminals
under the name of terminals at any intermediate
point of the carriage of the goods other than the
points where the conveyance arises and the con-
veyance terminates.
Earl of Belmore.] You would have to schedule
all the Irish light railways, would you not,
because there are a good many of them in
Ireland P 4.
Mr. Cripps.] I may mention that there are
many other cases which have not been referred to,
but it would not make any difference to the rail-
way companies whether they take this in this
form or as a transhipment charge in those particu-
lar cases. The only point is to have the power
of charging. We would just as soon take it as a
transhipment charge.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] In answer to the
question put to me by the Earl of Belmore, I
would say at once that rather than see this
altered in this sense for the English and Scottish
railway companies, I would consider, when we
come to the Irish companies whether a condition
meeting that point should not be put in meeting
the case of all the Irish railways. But I am
veay, anxious indeed upon this point, that nothing
should be done to reopen the possibility of any
terminal charge being made at any intermediate
point in the carriage upon any of the British
railways.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to alter the definition of a terminal station as it
stands in the Provisonal Order; but we are pre-
pared to listen, I will not say favourably, but we
are prepared to listen to any proposal that may
be made on the part of the railway companies if
they choose to bring up a special clause dealing
with transhipment. We do not think it is con-
venient to put it in here, and we do not bind
ourselves to the principle; we are quite open
upon that.
Mr. Cripps.] I quite understand it, your
Grace. -
Chairman.] Whatever you bring up we shall
discuss and listen to on its merits, without any
pledge on our part to accept it, or the principle.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, there is one word in
this clause, I do not know what Lord Balfour
of Burleigh will say in reference to it; that is
the word “Company ” “from any other railway
company.” I suggest whether it ought not to be
“from any other railway.” Supposing there is
cartage for instance across London, between one
railway
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 427
12 May 1891.
railway and another, the cartage company ought
to be in the same position as an outside carrier.
I think the real intention would be “received
from any other railway ” rather than “from any
other railway company.”
Mr, Balfour Browue.] My learned friend has
not given notice of this.
Chairman.] Where is that?
Mr. Cripps.] On line 16.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Surely in that
case, supposing the goods went from Blackfriars
to Camden Town, that would be a goods station,
would it not ; they would then be “a station or
place upon the railway at which a consignment
of merchandise is loaded or unloaded before or
after conveyance.”
Mr. Cripps.] It would be in the first part ;
but then you would exclude “but does not in-
clude ’’ (these are the exceptional terms), “Any
rtation or junction at which the merchandise in
respect of which any terminal is charged has been
exchanged with, handed over to, or received from
any other railway company.” It wonld be ex-
cluded under the latter words if it was handed
over or received from any other railway; it would
not carry out the intention of the Board of
Trade. We are not objecting to the question of
a junction for interchange between two railways
at the point of junction ; but I think, taking the
illustration that Lord Balfour has given, these
latter words would exclude the possibility of
charge in that case.
Lord Balfºur of Bur/eigh.] Before I express
any opinion, I should like to hear evidence
whether that is the common thing to do.
Mr. Cripps.] I am told, your Grace, it is very
common; it would be a question of evidence, no
doubt.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not find that that has
been specifically given notice of.
Chairman (to Mr. Cripps).] You propose to
omit the word “Company.”
Mr. Ralfour Browne.] But that was for the
purpose of inserting instead, “Without break of
y 5
gauge.
Mr. Cripps.] There are two questions there; it
is a question of drafting, your Grace, if I
may say so; whether the intention is that
it should apply to exchange between railway
companies, or between railways at thc point of
junction. Certainly we understand it to apply to
the point of junction, and if that is so the proper
word is “ Railway.” And taking Lord Balfour's
suggestion, we should be excluded from making a
charge for carting from Victoria or Euston to
Camden Town. Your Grace, if there is any
Question as to the importance of the business done
in the way I suggest, we can give evidence upon
it. I am told that a very large business is done
by carting between two railway companies, which
would not be analogous to an exchange between
two railways at the point of junction.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade anything
to say upon this point P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] It is simply a ques-
tion of the danger which is very much dreaded by
the traders, of the introduction of a terminal on
the intermediate railway. For example, I will
ask Mr. Cripps this question : Supposing that a
consignment of goods was going from Folkestone
to Liverpool, and they wished to cart it from the
Sonth-Eastern terminus to the London and
North-Western terminus, do they propose under
this to put four terminals upon that consignment 7
For example, do they propose to have a terminal
at Folkestone, a terminal for unloading at the
South-Eastern terminus, a terminal for loading
again at Camden Town, and another terminal for
unloading at Liverpool P. If so it seems to me that
that opens a somewhat alarming prospect, and
I should like to know a little more distinctly and
have time to consider what it is exactly that is
proposed. That is why I suggested (I am afraid
perhaps a suggestion that I had no business to
make, because I am not the Committee) that
evidence should be heard before it is decided
upon. There may be a grievance that has not
been brought to our notice. It is entirely a new
point to us, and I am just stating what occurs to
me on the spur of the moment.
Mr. Cripps.] In answer to the question put
to me by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, it will be
in this way : that if an ordinary carter carted
the goods as between the South Eastern station
and Euston, he would be eutitled to make his
charge for cartage, which would be in the nature
of a terminal (that is the carrier's charge), both
at the South Eastern station and at the Euston
station ; because when you cart between two
stations in that way you actually perform the
services and require the accommodation ; and if
it is the intention of this clause not to allow a
terminal charge in a case of that kind, I must
ask your Grace and the Committee to allow me
to call evidence upon it. There is a very large
amount ºf traffic done in that way, and we
thought, of course, the intention was to put the
railway companies carting in the same position
as an independent carter would be in. But if it
is really intended in a case of that kind that we
are not to charge a terminal, it becomes a very
important point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Just because it is an
important point we must keep my learned friend
strictly to his amendment. It is quite going out-
side it; he never proposed to omit the word
“Company ” by itself; he proposed to omit it in
order to insert “Without break of gauge.” Now
he is proposing an absolutely different amend-
ment. We have been kept strictly to our
amendments, and I do not see why the railway
companies should not be kept to theirs. We
have never considered it, and Lord Balfour says
that he never heard of it before, and we have
not. If it is such an important matter, I say that
we ought to have had notice of it.
Mr. Cripps.] I submit that it is certainly within
the words of the amendment.
Earl of Belmore.] In the case you have put of
an independent carter, surely there would be two
contracts with the railway companies.
Mr. Cripps.] There might or might not be.
We might have arranged with an independent
carter to carry through.
Earl of Belmore.] But in practice is that ever
done. If a man at Folkestone sends goods by
(81.)
3 H 2 the
428
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
the South Eastern he makes a contract with
them to deliver at Liverpool; he has no more to
say to it.
Mr. Cripps.] I am told that it is an important
matter, your Grace ; but if I am told on the
technical ground that it is not raised in our
amendment, of course we will not discuss it
further.
Chairman.] I do not think you are in order on
that.
Mr. Cripps.] If that is so, I will not discuss
it.
Chairman.] Your proposal was to strike out
“ company ” for the purpose of inserting “with-
out break of gauge.”
Mr. Cripps.] I think that is so.
Chairman.] I think you are going rather
beyond that.
Mr. Cripps.] If your Grace pleases.
Earl of Camperdown.] There is just a question
I should like to ask on both sides, whether it will
not be necessary before the words “Act of Par-
liament” at the end of the definition of a terminal
station, to insert the words “ schedule or ’’ ‘‘re-
gulated by schedule or Act of Parliament.” If
you look at page 14 of the schedule, you will
see the last words in small print “such reason-
able sum as the company may think fit,” and
you will see “For any accommodation or ser-
vices provided or rendered by the company
within the scope of their undertaking by the
desire of a trader, and in respect of which no
provisions are made by this schedule.” I took a
note at the time, and I asked one learned counsel
whether it would not be necessary to put in the
word “schedule,” and I think they said yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think the schedule,
my Lord, would be a part of the Act of Parlia-
ment when it passed.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a matter between
you. When the discussion took place, I think
counsel thought that it would be necessary.
Mr. Cripps.] I think my learned friend Mr.
Pember was here when the discussion took place.
I think the question would be whether “ Act of
Parliament’’ includes the schedule or not.
Earl of Camperdown.] You had better just
take that into consideration.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly ; and it
might maturally be mentioned again when we
come to PART IV., EXCEPTIONAL CLASS.
Now, the next amendments are proposed by
Mrs. Sarah Tomlinson, and by the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board, in line 16 to insert
“ branch railway, or.” I really do not know how
to ask your Lordships. The whole question is
this: whether that word “siding ” in the section
covers, and certainly covers a branch railway
made under a special Act of Parliament, that is
the whole of it. If it does, if it was absolutely
certain, I would not propose the amendment.
But I am in doubt about it myself, because
Mrs. Sarah Tomlinson's siding is made under a
special Act of Parliament, and the Mersey
Docks and Harbour Board's lines are made
under a special Act of Parliament; and it might
be held hereafter that “siding ” was simply those
sidings that were made by agreement with the
railway companies; and it is to clear up that
doubt that we want to put in the words “siding
or branch railway.” I am exceedingly doubtful
myself as to how it would be held; and it is
quite certain that the Board of Trade did not
mean to say that this was not to be treated as a
siding. They, thought, the word “siding”
covered everything of the sort. But you can
understand that there might be a question.
Take the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
they have miles and miles of railway run-
ning all along their quays; and the quays
along Liverpool run for, I think, about 13 miles.
Would that be in the same category as an ordinary
traders’ siding 7 It ought to be so far as the
terminal is concerned, there is no question. I
think there would be no harm done by intro-
ducing the words “branch railway or siding.”
I do not think that would sin against what Lord
Balfour of Burleigh said. I am not tampering
with the section; I am anxious to keep the
section perfectly intact, but no harm can be done
by putting in the words “branch railway,” I
think.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is that what the Board of
Trade intended ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Certainly we should
desire that this clause should cover a case of
which we heard a great deal, like Mrs. Sarah
Tomlinson's siding. Whether these words are
necessary or not I do not know, but I should
have thought that the clause as it stands was
exhaustive. Surely this physical junction must
be either another railway or a siding.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, it might be another
railway, and not a siding, I think.
Mr. Cripps.] The draft seems to us to be
perfect as it stands. We do not take any part
in this if your Grace thinks it should be altered.
Chairman.] That is to say, you do not object.
Does the Board of Trade think there is any
danger in the insertion of these words 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I cannot say that
I think there is any danger if it is not objected
to on the other side ; but I do think that it would
be desirable to ask counsel for the railway com-
panies whether they have any doubt as to whe-
ther it is included or not.
Mr. Cripps.] I do not think we have any
doubt that the case would be included as men-
tioned by my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne.
His idea seems to be that a siding constructed
under an Act of Parliament might not be included.
I think it must be included.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then there can be no
objection to put in “branch railway.”
Chairman.] Then the words will be inserted.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now the next amend-
ment I have is, I think, a thing that must have
been overlooked.
Mr. C. ipps.] Just upon the words which, I
understand, have been inserted, ought not the
same words to be inserted as are inserted there
IIl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
429
12 May 1891.
in Clause 5, Sub-section 1, “Services rendered
by the company at or in connection with branch
railways or sidings.” If you have it in one place
you ought to have it in both, ought you not ; or
else it will be held in the other case that the
siding does not include a branch railway.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that seems
fair.
Mr. Cripps.] And put it in in the plural,
“branch railways or sidings.” -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I was saying that the
next proposal is upon page 40 of your notes for
the South Yorkshire Coal-owners’ Assurance
Society, after the word “company,” to insert
“ or any yard or siding owned or rented by the
consignor or consignee of merchandise, or towards
the cost of constructing or maintaining, which
the consignor or consignee has contributed or
contributes,” and if you accept that South
Yorkshire amendment, I will not move the West
Yorkshire one, which was intended to cover the
same thing “ or a siding towards the cost of con-
struction or maintenance of which the trader
either has contributed or coutributes by agree-
ment as provided by Section 19 of this schedule.”
That is intended, as I read it, to fill up a thing
that has been overlooked. If you look at the
schedule, you will find that it is not to include
“any station or junction at which the merchan-
dise in respect of which any terminal is charged,
has been exchanged with, handed over to, or
received from any other railway company, or a
junction between the railway company and a sid-
ing not belonging to the company.” Now there
are a great number of sidings that belong to the
company but are leased to the colliery owners,
for which it is quite obvious that we should not
be charged terminals, because to all intents and
purposes they are our sidings, while we pay the
rent. But the words “belonging to the com-
pany” would certainly exclude that from the
exemption, and therefore would make us liable,
if we were merely the tenant or occupier of a
siding, to pay a terminal, which the Board of Trade
of course never intended. There is another class
of sidings which ought also to be excluded, and
if necessary I could give evidence of this, but I
do not think it will be, because it will not be
disputed. In a certain number of cases
special arrangements have been made with
colliery owners to find a certain portion of
the funds for making the siding, and they
have contributed largely in some cases, not
to the full extent, the railway companies have
given certain sums towards making the sidings.
In those cases again they are sidings which
really we have a right to have no terminal
charged on. But under the schedule as it stands,
they would not be within the exemption. Under
these circumstances what we propose is to insert
after the word “company ” “ or any yard or
siding owned or rented by the consignor or con-
signee of merchandise, and towards, the cost of
construction or maintenance of which the con-
signor or consignee has contributed or con-
tributes.” Under these circumstances I think
it must have probably been an oversight. I
submit that we are entitled if we rented for
instance from a company to have the full benefit
of no terminal charge there, and if we have con-
tributed to the cost again we ought not to have
the terminal charge.
Mr. Cripps.] If it is a question of agreement
in th nature of rent as between the company and
a private owner, as my learned friend suggests,
that would be regulated by the agreement, and
we need not consider the special arrangements,
now whatever the agreement may be that pay-
ment would be made as from the company or
from the owner. As the terminal clauses now
stand the railway companies cannot make any
charge except for accommodation provided or
services performed by them, that is the whole
principle of the terminal charge. What my
learned friend suggests is this : That is wher-
ever the consignor or consignee has contributed
anything towards the cost of constructing or main-
taining a yard or siding, it might be 6 d. possibly,
for that yard or siding which may have cost
several thousands of pounds under some arrange
ment as between him and the company, in that
case we should not be able to make any terminal
charge at all. But the matter really is regulated
when you come to look at it, by Sections 3 and 4
of the schedule. You see that we cannot charge
a station terminal except for the use of an
accommodation provided and for duties under-
taken by the company ; and therefore if it is the
fact that the accommodation has all been provided
by the consignor or the consignee we cannot
make a terminal charge. Whereas on the other
hand if in connection with that siding accommo-
dation the consignor or consignee has made some
small outlay, then under what my learned friend
suggests we could not make any charge at all ;
we can only make charges in reference to the
accommodation provided. I submit therefore to
your Grace that the clause as it stands as regards
a terminal station has been properly drafted upon
this point, and that we could not make the
charge which my learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, suggests that we might make. Whereas
in all other cases where we do provide accommo-
dation we ought to be entitled to make it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am free to confess
that the latter part of my learned friend’s criti-
cism seems to me to be right, that if we contri-
buted 10 l. to a siding, it would be ridiculous that
we should get off from all terminals ; I think
that is unfair. But that does not get over the
difficulty of our having rented the siding, and
paying rent for it to the company. It would still
then be within that clause, and they would still
charge the siding to us, although we were pay-
ing rent for it.
Chairman.] But would they be able to charge
for other than services performed by them 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not only that, it is
accommodation provided.
Chairman.] By them; but if the siding is
yours?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not mine.
Chairman.] It is yours for the time, just as
my house is mine for the time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is.
(81.)
3 H 3 [Chairman.
430
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
Chairman.] The siding would be provided by
them ; but it would be your property; it would
not be freehold, but leasehold.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Or it might be merely
a yearly rent.
Chairman.] Still, so long as that year lasted
you could not be turned out of it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is quite true that
I could not be turned out of it, but they might
charge me terminals, I think, your Grace. That
is my fear.
Chairman.] That could only be because the
services would be rendered by them, and the
accommodation provided by them. The accom-
modation would not be provided by them if it
belonged to you.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think it is provided
by them ; it is their siding; it is rented by me,
but provided by the Company.
Chairman.] But it is yours, Surely, so long as
you pay a proper rent for it, just as my house is
I]]] Il C.
Mr. Balfour browne.) But the words are “a
siding not belonging to the company.” This does
belong to the company.
Chairman.] No, it does not belong to the com-
pany. My house in Belgrave-square belongs to
the Duke of Westminster; he is the ground land-
lord; but I should be very much astonished if he
told me that the house belonged to him, and not
to me.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is true with regard
to a house; but I think in this case it cannot be
said that if I were there on a yearly rent the
siding belonged to me.
Chairman.] For the time.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not even for the time 3
it does not belong to me in any sense whatever as
regards ownership clearly.
Chairman.] But a farm belongs to my tenant,
although I only let it to him from year to year;
it belongs to him so long as he pays the rent.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would be dual
ownership with a vengeance. I should say that
the farm belonged to your Grace, but that for the
rent your tenant has the use of it.
Chairman, Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that is exactly
our position. This siding belongs to the railway
company, and therefore it is hit by this section if
it stands. But at the same time they would be
able to charge me two terminals.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is not the difference between
you and the railway companies in the meaning of
the word P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think so. All I want
is to make this clear, because it will lead to liti-
gation afterwards.
Mr. Hanbury.] Are you agreed as to the true
principles 2
Mr. Cripps. It is only a difference as to the
words. I do do not think there can be any
difficulty, because we cannot charge except for
accommodation provided by us; the suggestion
is that if we have rendered accommodation at
–-º
certain times to a trader, we can also charge him
for that. That cannot be done of course.
Mr. Hunter.] Supposing there were no rent
and the trader had paid substantially the whole
cost of the siding with the understanding that
there should be no rent, you would still be able
to charge terminals.
Mr. Cripps.] No, I think not ; that would not
be accommodation provided by us; it would not
be accommodation provided by the company.
Mr. Hunter.] Whatever belongs to the com-
pany is accommodation provided by the company
in the meaning of the schedule.
Mr. Cripps.] I do not understand it so. I can
understand that there are two points. Supposing
first of all that the trader actually provides it,
then it is not provided by us. And the second
case is where we provide it and let it to the
trader at a certain rent for a certain time.
Mr. Hunter.] Partly the one and partly the
other.
Mr. Cripps.] Even if it were partly the one
and partly the other, if it is provided by us we
can charge a terminial or siding charge, but
beyond that we cannot. I do not know that
there is any difference between us, except that
it seems to me the words should stand as they
all 62. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is just the differ-
ence between us. I propose other words.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would not this meet
you, instead of putting in those words to insert
“siding not belonging to or leased by the com-
pany.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not “leased by the
company; ” it might be “ or let by the com-
pany.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Then be it so, “let by
the company.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would cover that
point, at any rate. That is the only point really
that I can make. Although I do not feel that
there is considerable injustice, if I have contri-
buted largely to the cost of the siding, that I
should still pay terminals; supposing that I may
have contributed 5,000 l. out of 6,000 l., under
these circumstances it would be a very hard thing
to make me pay terminals besides.
Chairman.] But that would be a case of an
agreement.
Mr. Balfour Browne. It would be a case of
an agreement that I would give 5,000 l. and the
company 1,000 l. ; but then there would be no
agreement as to the terminals, and they would
say, “Here we can get you, you have to pay the
terminals; ” that is what I am afraid of if we
pay the greater part of the costs of the siding.
Chairman.] But if you put 5,000 l. down out
of 6,000 l., it is not likely that you would do it
without having an agreement with the company
upon what terms you would subscribe the
5,000 l.
Earl of Camperdown.] In the case of an exist-
ing agreement the company would not require
it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It may have been done.
We
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
431
12 May 1891.
We have had Mr. Barnes' statement with regard
to his siding.
Mr. Cripps.] If there is such a case (I am
instructed there are none), we should have evi-
dence of it. I am told that the suggestion made
by my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne, is a
suppositious case.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My instructions are
a number of cases both in the South Yorkshire
and West Yorkshire districts to which consider-
able sums were contributed by the trades.
Mr. Cripps.] Not, I understand, at terminal
stations; we are now dealing with terminal
stations.
Chairman.] Now, “not belonging to or let by
the Company ”; will that meet you ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that covers one
point, at any rate. I willingly accept that it
does cover the first point.
Mr. Cripps.] No ; I do not think there is any
objection to that.
Chairman.] Now, what is the next amend-
ment 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose any-
thing more, your Grace. I do not think you
have cured it all, but I cannot propose words at
this instant.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is better the other
way, “let by or not belonging to.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that would be
better,
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Your Grace, I
should like the attention of the Committee for
one moment. The Committee, upon the spur of
the moment, accepted an amendment to Clause
5, Sub-section 1, in line 7, after the word “with ”
inserting, so I understand it, “branch railways
or,” thinking it was a consequential amendment
upon what had just been dome upon page 7.
Chairman.] Yes.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I do not ask for
reconsideration now, but I do point out that
may carry the Committee a little further than is
intended, and I will tell the Committee why. It
occurs to me that the services rendered by the
company at or in connection with branch railways
or sidings may enable the company to inake
charges in connection with railways such as those
mentioned upon page 9; there is a schedule of
them, some of which may be railways which
ought not to have such a charge. I do not say
that it is or is not so at present; I am not lawyer
enough to state that. I have some apprehension
upon the point, and I should like it to be care-
fully considered.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that had better
be reconsidered.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
But then we will ask you to consider that amend-
ment which has been inserted in Sub-section 1 as
to how it would affect the whole Bill, and to let
us hear what you have to say either on Thursday
or Friday.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] 'I hat will be quite
satisfactory.
**-ºsa
Chairman.] We do not pledge ourselves to
agree to your view, but we want you to look
into the matter, and report to us on Thursday or
Friday. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I should like the
assistance of our learned friend opposite, too.
Chairman.] I have nothing to do with them.
Mr. Cripps.] The next question, your Grace,
will be the form of procedure in future. We
have now come to the end of all the amendments
under the heading of the general conditions.
Would your Grace and the Committee now wish
to go back and take up the clauses which have
been left to stand over or to go on with the ques-
tion of classification ?
Chairman.] I think we had better clear up
the whole of what we are now concluding. We
will go back on new Clause 2.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] A good number of the
matters that have been left over, your Grace,
have been left over pending the settlement of
the rates. Take the question, for instance, of
over-lapping, that Lord Balfour suggested should
be left over until the rates question had been
dealt with.
Chairman.] Any question that has been left
over, and which is mixed up with the rates in
the after part of the Bill, of course we should
not take now ; because the same ground for post-
poning them exists now as existed the other day.
But there are one or two clauses, I think it is
Clause 2, which we want in order to finish part of
the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I follow that.
Chairman.] And not to deal with any question
that is mixed up with the latter part.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend was
suggesting, however, that you should make some
decision that having settled this part of the Bill
you should proceed to classification. That is a
matter I shall have something to say upon.
Chairman.] We are going to deal with the
Bill exactly as the Bill stands.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all I ask your
Grace to do.
Mr. Cripps.] Do I take it that what your
Grace has stated is that the next part of the Bill
you will deal with will be on page 8?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is on
schedule.
()]] G.
Mr. Cripps.] I thought it was understood that
the rates and charges would be special to the
particular companies; whereas classification in
the same way as these special charges with which
we have been dealing were applicable to all the
companies; and, therefore, the next point will be
the classification.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think it will
follow at all that the rates are to be specially
applicable to single companies. I think we can
show that they should not be ; and I should
prefer very much to take them in the order in
which the Board of Trade have put them ; that
(81.)
3 H 4 is
432
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
is to say, rates first and classification after-
wards.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are these maximum
rates in thc London and North Western Schedule
special to the London and North Western Rail-
way, or are they general with any other com-
panies.
Mr. Cripps.] To a great extent they are
special; they are depending upon special traffic
and special agreements and arrangements, and I
believe that the discussion for instance, so far as
the London and North Western alone are con-
cerned, will probably take some time on matters
in which other companies are not immediately
concerned, and need not be here.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Am I not right in sup-
posing that the classification, so far as Class A.
is concerned, is common to the London and North
Western, and the Great Western and the Great
Northern companies 7
Mr. Cripps.] I think the classification is com-
mon to all the companies.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] I mean the rates in Class
Mr. Cripps.] I am told that there is a great
distinction; probably the difference is in the coal
and iron rates.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Is that not common to the
three companies
Mr. Cripps.] No, they are all three different.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We desire however to
show that they ought to be the same rates for the
three companies.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] I was not asking that.
Mr Shaw.] There is just one point I might
ask. I think my learned friend, Mr. Cripps,
said that going on to page 8 there might be some
questions arise, when this comes to be dealt with
for each separate railway company. Clause 27
says, “This schedule shall apply to the London
and North Western Railway Company,” has
not been dealt with yet; there may be some
amendment to be put to that clause.
Earl of Belmore.] No notice has been given
of such amendment.
Mr. Shaw.] Because no notice has been re-
quired so far; we have only been dealing with
the Order up to Clause 26.
Chairman.] Do I rightly understand that the
classification applies to all the companies?
Mr. Cripps. J Yes, your Grace, that is so.
Chairman.] Then I think it seems to be the
feeing of the Committee that we should take
classification first as applying to all the com-
panies.
Mr. Cripps.] Then now would your Grace fix
the time at which the amendments should be put
forward with regard to classification in the same
way as you did when we were dealing with
special charges.
Chairman.] We are going to adjourn till
Thursday.
Mr. Shaw. Really your Grace I do not know
whether you are aware that by going into classifi-
cation first what that will amount to ; the classi-
—º
fication will have to be altered after the rates.
Settle the rate and then you know what class it
can be put into.
Mr. Cripps.] It is just the other way.
Chairmau.] Many people take the other view,
that if you settle the rates first you will have
to alter them after you have fixed the classifica-
tion.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say that my
learned friend Mr. Cripps has not answered Sir
Joseph Bailey rightly 2 I find that the London
and North Western, the Great Western, and the
Great Northern companies are absolutely the
same in rates.
Lord Belper.] And the Midland.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Midland is
different. The Brighton, the South Western,
the South Eastern, and the Chatham and Dover
are all the same,
Sir Joseph Bailey.] You are not reading it
correctly ; the Midland and the Great Eastern
are the same.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, that is so; they
are bracketted together, It is the four South
Coast companies that are the same.
Earl of Belmore.] Then they group themselves
into three groups.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They do. I confess I
think, your Grace, will find really the balance
of convenience is taking the thing in the order
the Board of Trade have put down; and I very
strongly urge——
Chairman (to Lord Balfour
Have you anything further to say ?
Mr, Balfonr Browne.] You will find you will
have to do it twice over if you do not take it in
order.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] What differ chiefly,
your Grace, are the Class A and Class B rates;
the Class A and Class B rates differ in almost
every case ; in every case I think. The class
rates are the same for the five northern companies
and different, but also the same, inter se, as the
four southern companies. All the other things,
the animals, the carriages, the exceptional class,
the perishables, and the smalls are all absolutely
the same, except in the case of the smalls, in so
far as the tonnage rate varies between the
different classes. That is an exact statement of
how far the provisions we have laid down are the
same, and how far they vary. I do not know
whether the Committee have decided the ques-
tion of their procedure, or whether they invite
me to express any opinion upon it.
Browne).]
Chairman.] I think we have decided that we
will take the classification first, and postpone the
rate clauses.
Mr. Cripps.] Will your Grace fix some time
for the amendments, and we will have them
printed as we have had them printed before ?
There are a great many of them, of course we do
not know how far an amendment may be carried.
If they are put in by a day we will classify them
and print them for everybody's use.
[Chairman.
ON RAI LWAY RATEL AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
433
12 May 1891.
Chairman.] I suppose they could be put in by
Friday morning. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My clients tell me that
they are prepared to go on with the rates, but
that they are not prepared with regard to classi-
fication; they are in the greatest difficulty.
Chairman.] We cannot help that.
a thing that has been decided to-day.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It has, your Grace,
because you said you were going to take the Bill
in its order. -
Earl of Camperdown.] His Grace said exactly
the contrary on either the first or the second day.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But to-day his Grace
said that he was going to take it in the exact
order.
Chairman.] What I said to-day has not had
any effect upon your clients. I thought at first it
would be better; but upon consulting with the
Committee, it will be more convenient to take
the classification first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was understood that
up to Clause 27, the whole of the railway com-
panies were to be here, but that after Clause 27
each railway company was to be prepared to
defend its own rates.
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Balfour B, owne.] I can only state that.
We are of course bound by your decision.
This is not
Chairman.] We want to know what we shall
begin with on Thursday. We had better take
up what postponed clauses do not depend upon
the latter part of the Bill.
Mr. Cripps.] So I understand.
Chairman.] Clause 9, was postponed; was that
postponed by Lord Balfour P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Clause 9, I ven-
ture to think, must be postponed until you have
dealt with the rates. That was the plea I made
before.
Chairman.] Then what can we deal with on
Thursday !
Mr. Cripps.] You can deal with Clause 19.
Mr. Bidder.] My Lord Camperdown is quite
right. If you look at page 9 it is classification
first and then rates afterwards.
Earl of Camperdown.] “The suggestion is
is that we should take Part I. and Part III.
together, and discuss Part II. afterwards.”
Chairman.] Whatever we said before we have
decided now, it is ruled by our decision to-day.
Mr. Cripps.] I think what we could deal with
would be Clause 19, and the one or two points
that stand over from to–day. There is the ques-
tion of returned empties, and there is the ques-
tion of bringing up a proposal with regard to the
transhipment charge. I do not think there is
anything else we could deal with at the present
tlme. - -
Mr. Waghorn.] There are one or two new
clauses.
Chairman.] We can look and see exactly how
it stands. (To Mr. Cripps.) You are going to
bring up a clause ?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes. We will look back to the
Notes and see how the matter stands; but any
matter that does not really depend upon the sub-
sequent parts of the Bill can be dealt with now.
Chairman.] Has any one else any new clause
upon this part of the Bill ?
Mr. Waghorn.] Your Grace, I have to propose
some new clauses up to Clause 28. Your Grace
decided that you would hear new clauses that
had reference to the matter up to Clause 6, and
that the others were to be dealt with afterwards.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace, before you
close, may just make an application ? A cer
tain agreement has been entered into, as I had
the pleasure of telling you, between the London
and North-Western Railway Company and cer-
tain colliery owners in Lancashire and Cheshire ;
I happen to know that, because I am counsel for
the South Lancashire and Cheshire Coalowners'
Association. Other clients of mine, the South
Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Associations
desire to see that agreement, and as that agree-
ment has been handed in, and as they propose to
schedule it to this Act of Parliament, I think all
opponents have a right to see that agreement,
and therefore (of course I cannot show them that
myself), I ask you to make an order that we
should see it ; we have written twice
to the London and North-Western Company
for those two bodies, the South Yorkshire and
West Yorkshire Associations, but up to the pre-
sent time they have not shown us that agree-
ment. Under the circumstances, seeing that it
is public property, it having been handed in to
your Grace, and handed in also, I believe, to the
Board of Trade, I think the other people who
will be affected by it have a right to see it.
Chairman.] You have handed it in, you
say ?
Chairman.] You have handed it in, you say?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, as acting for Lan-
cashire and Cheshire Coalowners, and I now ask
for it for the South Yorkshire and West York-
shire Associations ?
Chairman.] If it is public property it does not
require our intervention.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Except that when our
clients write and say, “let us have a copy of it,”
they refuse.
\! r. Pope.] The South Lancashire and Cheshire
Coalowners have not yet signed the agreement;
we cannot hand it in as an agreement. There is
no objection if your clients put it forward as an
agreement that it should be seen by any body.
Mr Bal/our Browne.] As I understand, it was
absolutely agreed. It has been handed to the
Board of Trade, I know, therefore I take it that
it is an absolute agreement.
Mr. Mason.] It is not so yet, I am sorry to
Say.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not sealed, per-
haps; but whatever it is, one set of persons who
may be interested in it have a right to see it.
(81.)
3 | Farl of
434
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEIE JOINT COMMITTEE
12 May 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have you got a copy
of it?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not, myself.
Earl of Camperdown.] You know what it is.
Mr. Pope.] So far as the London and North
Western is concerned, my learned friend is
perfectly entitled, he has the print of the agree-
ment, and he is perfectly at liberty to show them
any copy, or as many as he likes to anybody
he chooses. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then when my learned
friends are asked for it, why did they not give
us a copy Ž
Mr. Pope.] I do not know anything about it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It looks all fair; but I
have no right to do that without instructions
from my clients, the South Laucashire and
Cheshire Coal Owners.
Lord Belper.] Can you not get it from them *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They may not give us
OI) 62.
Chairman.] But do you not see your position
is this: You are asking us to make an order that
this shall be shown to certain parties, because
you cannot get any answer from the London and
North Western Company.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so.
Chairman.] You have an answer from the
London and North Western Company, through
the mouth of Mr. Pope, than whom nobody is
more competent to give it; who says that so far
as the London and North Western are concerned
you are at perfect liberty to show it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is true, so far as
the London and North Western is concerned.
They might give a copy to my clients from South
Yorkshire.
Chairman.] That is all you ask.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I have no right to
show it. All I know is that it has been handed
to the Board of Trade, and, therefore, I take it
that it is an absolute agreement, and everybody.
has a right to see it.
Chairman.] But Mr. Pope states that it
is not an absolute agreement, because it is not
signed. .
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend's difficulty
appears to me to be this. He cannot now say
that the London and North Western Company
object to his doing anything; but he wants an
order from the Committee to coerce his own
clients. He says, “I cannot show it, because I
do not know that the Cheshire coalowners will
COnsent.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend says
it has not been signed. All I can say is that it
has been signed by my client, on behalf of the
association he represents, and by Mr. Mason, on
behalf of the London and North Western Com-
pany. If that is not a binding agreement, I do
not know what is.
Mr. Pope.] I can only say that, so far as the
London and North Western Company are con-
cerned, you are welcome to show it in whatever
condition it is to everybody.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Will you give to the
South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire Associa-
tions a copy of the agreement 2
Mr. Pope.] Mr. Maskell Pease has got a
Copy.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not instructed by
Mr. Maskell Pease just now. I am instructed
by the South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire
Associations to ask for a copy of the agreement.
It makes it all the more desirable that my clients
should see it, seeing that somebody wants to
keep it back. -
Ordered,—That this Committee be adjourned to Thursday next, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
435
Die Jovis, 14
O 4. Zaii, I 89 | O
PRESENT :
Duke of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of CAMPERDown,
Lord HOUGHTON.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODE HOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K. G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Shaw.] Woul D your Grace allow me to
make an application on behalf of the South Wales
Collery Owners. I want to know whether, after
you have finished the points which are to be
settled to-day, and perhaps to-morrow, you will
begin “classification " at once, or whether you
will begin “classification ” (after we have put
our amendments in to-day), after the Whitsuntide
adjournment, it is a new subject altogether, and
we want to know, beeause it would be necessary
to telegraph to South Wales to-night bring
witnesses up to-morrow morning if you begin
“classification ” then.
Mr. Pember.] For the railway companies, per-
haps your Grace would not mind my saying that
our humble opinion and suggestion would be, that
it would be better to get all the amendments in
order, and get them classified, as that would be
the means of shortening the work; in all proba-
bility in that behalf, it would be better not to
begin “classification ” until after Whitsuntide.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace did not
tell us to put in the amendments until to-morrow
morning, and they would not be in print for your
convenient handling, therefore I concur with my
learned friend in thinking that it would be much
better if you would adjourn it until after the
Whitsuntide recess, when we may have them all
in print ready for you.
Chairman.] Then it will be understood that
after Whitsuntide we shall commence with
“classification,” but we should like to have it
understood that previously to that all amend.
ments will be put in, and put in in an intelligible
shape.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly.
Mr. Pember.] Would not your Grace name a
day for all the amendments to be put in
Chairman.] We did. (To Mr. Balfour Browne.)
I think it would be very desirable if the traders
could agree upon their amendment so as not to
have half-a-dozen amendments of very nearly
the same class put down, because in that case
we should not know which to take first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I may say that, with
that view, we had a meeting with a large number
of traders last night, and I hope to be able before
the adjournment to formulate them, and make
them as short as possible, but as yet no absolute
agreement has been arrived at.
Chairman.] What I mean is, that we do not
want half-a-dozen amendments to the same
point.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] On page 431 of the
Official Report of the proceedings on Tuesday,
your Grace desired that the Board of Trade
should present a report as to the effect of an
amendment which the Committee contemplated
inserting on Clause 5, Sub-section 1, line 7,
an addition of the words “branch railways
or * in that section. Lord Balfour of Bur-
leigh being detained elsewhere by a very
long standing engagement I have prepared a
very short memorandum in obedience to your
Grace's instructions, which I propose to read
with your Grace's permission at the present
moment. The Committee will recollect that on
Tuesday afternoon a proposal was made to insert
the words “branch railways or ’’ after the word
“with ” on page 4, Clause 5, Sub-section 1,
line 7, and that it was thought this alteration
was consequential upon another which the Com-
mittee had indicated their intention of accepting.
Upon the representation of Lord Balfour on
behalf of the Board of Trade it was agreed to
delay consideration of the proposal for a report
upon its effect. We have now to represent to
the Committee that the insertion of the words
in this place may be held to entitle the companies
to ask for payment for services rendered by them
at junctions with branch railways, which services
ought not to be charged for at those places as
special charges in addition to those otherwise
authorised in this schedule. Under these cir-
cumstances the Board ef Trade hope the Com-
mittee will not insert the words. While reporting
on this subject the Board of Trade think it
right to call the attention of the Committee to
the fact that the insertion of the words “branch
railways or ’’ in the definition of “ terminal
station ” on page 7 will have a different effect
from anything which was represented to the
Committee on Tuesday afternoon. We believe
(81.)
3 I 2 that,
436
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT CommittEE
*-
that it will exclude any station from the definition
of “terminal station ” if it is a point at which
there is a junction between two railways, and
will prevent the railway companies from making
any terminal charge at that station, even if the
merchandise is delivered by the consignor to the
company for conveyance or delivered there to the
consignee by the company. For example, if a
consignment of merchandise goes from London to .
Leamington through Rugby it is right that no
terminal should be chargeable at Rugby, and the
definition as framed by the Board of Trade ex-
cluded the possibility of such a charge being
made; but if the consignment of merchandise
went from London to Rugby for delivery to the
consignee there, the company ought to be allowed
to charge for a terminal at Rugby. It is probable
that the words now inserted would have the effect
of making this illegal. The Board of Trade are
satisfied that Sarah Tomlinson in making the
proposal did not intend it to have this effect, and
the Board of Trade desire the serious considera-
tion of the Committee before they pass altogether
from the clause. -
Mr. Pember.] May I ask Mr. Courtenay Boyle
where he supposes the words “branch railways
or ’’ would come in P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Before the word “sid-
e 22
Ings.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The proposal was that
they should come in before the word “sidings,”
“branch railways or sidings,” but we think that
the words should not come in at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But it will be remem-
bered that the words are “branch railways not
belonging to the company.”
Mr. Pope.] That is what we discussed last
night, and we thought that would be met by
saying “private branch railway not belonging to
the railway company.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is exactly what I
thought the intention of the amendment was ;
would it not be better to leave the word “sidings”
in and by a definition to explain that the word
“ siding” included “branch railway belonging
to a private person not belonging to a public rail-
way.”
Mr. Pope.] I think that would be a better.
solution than using doubtful words.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not the least
objection to that, but the words, Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has suggested would, I think, hardly do,
because there are railways belonging to a private
company which are open to public traffic.
Mr. Pope.] I think we should keep the word
“sidings,” and then define what the word “sid-
ings” means, so as to make it include “private
branch railway.”
Mr. Balfour Browne. I think that will do on
the understanding that something else is to be
put in to define what “siding ” is.
Chairman.] Then we define the word “sidings.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Putting in words to
declare what “ siding ” means.
Chairman.] Then in point of fact what is now
suggested is that the paragraph on page 7 com-
mencing “ terminal station ” and ending “ by
Act of Parliament * should remain as it is.
14 May 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace inserted
the words “let by or,” with that exception i
would remain as it is. *
Chairman.] Then you require the definition
of “siding ” immediately afterwards.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have you decided as to
the meaning of the term “Act of Parliament,”
whether it included the schedule?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not had
an opportunity of consulting the other
side ; but what Lord Camperdown suggested
the other day was that it would be
necessary to insert the words “schedule or
or * before “ Act of Parliament ’’; but my own
impression is that the Act of Parliament must be
held to include the schedule, therefore I do not
think it would be necessary as far as I am
concerned. t
Mr. Pope.] “The charges for the use of which
are regulated by any schedule or Act of Parlia-
ment,” I agree that I think the words “Act of
Parliament" would necessarily cover the
schedule.
Chairman.]...What are the words we are asked
to insert to define what a “siding ” is ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If your Grace will allow
that to stand over till the end of the day, we will
suggest something.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The words go out also
from the Sub-section C. of Clause 5.
Chairman.] They were only inserted provi-
sionally there. - -
Then the first clause that was postponed was
Clause 19.
Mr. Pember.] On that Clause 19 would you
mind referring for a moment to page 313 in our
print of your proceedings. l do not know how
that would tally with the one your Grace has
there ; it is in the proceedings of the 21st of
April, just before Mr. Frederick Parker Rhodes
was put into the box. I am told it is page 189
of the official proceedings. If you remember, we
argued that on both sides at some length, and at
last after your retiring to consider, you gave
this decision on returning: “The Committee
have decided not to insert the proposed words.
We consider that Clause 19 should be
made retrospective, and that in it there
should be a reference to arbitration where
the charges or payments cannot be fixed by
agreement.” Now I do not want any discussion
to be started with regard to this, but merely to
ask your Grace's declaration as to the exact
meaning of those words, they seemed to us sus-
ceptible of two interpretations. If you turn to
Clause 19. you will find that if it is made retro-
spective it will deal with what has been the sub-
ject-matter of agreement up to now, and also
with what will be the subject-matter of agree-
ment in future ; and your Grace's words will be
capable first of all of this interpretation : that
with regard to anything that had existed hitherto
in default of the two parties agreeing there
should be arbitration; but with regard to any-
thing that was to come into existence in the
future it should be left to agreement entirely
between the parties, and that there should be no
arbitration. On the other hand it is equally
susceptible of the interpretation that in the
future
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
437
14 May 1891.
future if the two parties could not agree as to
what was really necessary for the convenience of
either one or the other there should be arbitra-
tion between the two. Now without discussing
what it ought to be I would venture on behalf of
the railway companies to ask your Grace what
the Committee really did intend upon the matter,
whether they intended to confine the arbitration
to matters of past time, or whether they proposed
to extend it to matters of the future as well.
The Committee consult together.
Chairman.] What were the words which we
declined to insert 2
Mr. Pember.] The words “accommodation or”
in Clause 5. If you remember, I pointed out
that in the original Report of the Board of
Trade, in the first part of the clause, in the sub-
stantive part, there had been the words “accom-
modation or services,” and your Grace declined
to re-insert those words; but I pointed out how
Clause 19 was related to the subject-matter of
Clause 5, and your Grace then said two things,
first of all, that you determined to make Clause 19
retrospective ; and, secondly, that in it there
should be a reference to arbitration where the
charges or payments could not be fixed by agree-
ment ; and we are not quite sure whether you
intended the arbitration to extend to future
agreements as well as to past or not, therefore
we have had the clause drawn under both aspects,
so as to meet what your Grace might think rea-
sonable.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend was
suggesting that something should be put into
Clause 5 ; that would have been subject to arbi-
tration in the future, because Clause 5 was to
subject everything to arbitration, because it was
to go to the Railway Commissioners.
Mr. Pember.] We ought not to have the discus-
sion on the subject over again.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not want to dis-
cuss it.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is rather difficult to
carry one's mind back through about 500 amend-
In ent S.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The suggested amend-
ment was the words “accommodation or,” to be
inserted in Clause 5.
Earl of Camperdown.] That we decline to
insert.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But that would have
been subject to arbitration.
After further consultation.
Chairman.] It is sometimes difficult to be
asked what one meant in dealing with a former
discussion.
Mr. Pember.] I am sure you will acquit me of
any desire to put a conundrum to your Grace.
Chairman.] So far as I can recollect, and so
far we can bring it before us at this moment, we
think it was intended to apply to both the past
and the future. (To Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) It
is suggested by Lord Camperdown that Clauses 19
and 20 would be better placed as following
Clause 5.
Earl of Camperdown.] For this reason, that
whenever either Clause 19 or Clause 20, or
Clause 5, have been treated, the learned counsel
on both sides have always proceeded to argue to
one of the others ; it is evident that all three
belong to the same point, and that Clauses 19
and 20 are not of the miscellaneous part of the
Bill at all, but that they belong to the first part, to
the same subject as Clause 5 does; at least, so it
appears to me.
Mr. Pember.] It appears so to me.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I cannot entirely agree
with his Lordship ; but, as regards Clause 19, I
think it is quite desirable that it should follow
Clause 5, as being incidental to the fixing of
maximum rates and charges; I have great doubts
as to Clause 20, which is purely a saving clause,
and has nothing to with the fixing of rates and
charges ; but as to Clause 19, I think that should
go next to Clause 5.
Mr. Pember.] Make it Clause 5a.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, call it Clause 5a.
Mr. Pember.] I might, perhaps, read to your
Grace the words, and hand them up to you, in
which we propose to carry out what your Grace
desired. It is unfortunate that in printing them
a faulty copy was taken to be printed, so that it
requires a certain amendment; but it is not
important, and it is not difficult to follow. Has
your Grace a copy Ž
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Pember.] As many as possible shall be
handed in for your use. We had made Clause 19
with the view of making it first of all retro-
spective, and then carrying out what your Grace
has just stated. It will read as follows: “ No-
thing herein contained shall prevent the company
from making and receiving, in addition to the
charges specified in this schedule, charges and
payments by way of rent or otherwise for sidings
or other structural accommodation provided, or
to be provided, for the private use of traders, and
not required by the company for dealing with
the traffic for the purposes of carriage, provided
that the amount of such charges or payments is
fixed by an agreement in writing signed by the
trader or by some person duly authorised on his
behalf, or determined, in case of difference, by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Balfour /3rowne.] I have just seen this for
the first time this instant. Apparently I gather
that the proviso, “ Provided that the amount of
such charges or payments is fixed by an agree-
ment in writing signed by the trader or by some
person duly authorised on his behalf” does (it
seems to me at first sight that it does) preserve
all existing agreements as to sidings.
Chairman.] That is the clause as it stands in
the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But that was to be sub-
ject as I understand first to this schedule, and
secondly to arbitration. Let me give you a case,
supposing a trader in order to get the benefit of
the railway company making a siding promised
to pay maximum rates, not the rates that
were being charged, but the old maximum rates,
surely that agreement is not to stand when you
fix new maxima; it would be an agreement signed
by the trader it is true.
(81.)
3 I 3 Earl
438
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
+ - -- - - *--
--- - - --- - *-*------ -*-*-* - --
‘Earl of Camperdown.] I suggest that it would
be better to give Mr. Balfour Browne time to
read the clause. º -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There are several
amendments before us. I do not know why we
should take Clause 19 first. I should like to
have an opportunity of considering this proposed
'clause.
Chairman.] You had better consider that
amendment and we can go on with the others.
Mr. Lope.] I understood your object was to
preserve existing agreements, now your sug-
gestion is that an existing agreement might in
the face of new maxima be so disadvantageous
that it ought not to be preserved. I see that my
learned friend Mr.
Poyser appears to take my
view. 1
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He represents manure
in bags.
Mr. Poyser.] I see that the Marquess of Bute
has a clause to provide the very same thing.
Chairman.] You had better consider it and
at the proper time we can discuss it ; it is really
merely adding those words, “ or determined in
case of difference by an arbitrator to be ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade.” Now what is
the first amendment that we can deal with ?
Earl of Camperdown.] At line 14, after the
word “receiving ” to insert the word “charges.”
Chairman.] We agreed not to put in the
word “charges,” but counsel will know ; there
seems to be a doubt whether we dealt with this
clause and amended it.
Mr. Poyser.] Certainly not, with all respects;
when we came to Clause 19 that was altogether
adjourned.
Chairman.] Then we must begin Clause 19.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] First of all, as for the
railway companies, do they propose that? I
suppose not.
Mr. Pember.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And I do not propose
that for the Mansion House, nor the next one.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not propose
after the word “ schedule * to insert “ reason-
* able.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; nor anyone of
those three.
Chairman.] Then South Staffordshire, after
“ behalf” to insert “such charges to be reason-
able.”
Mr. Pember.] That is surely dealt with by the
proposal of the railway companies.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am quite willing to
accept that as a substitution for my proposal.
Mr. Pember.] Then comes the chemical
manure; but that rather raises the point which
my learned friend Mr. Balſour Browne was just
now suggesting.
Mr. Poyser.] This proposed amendment by
the railway companies does exactly what we
wanted to do by this amendment.
Chairman.] But we have to amend the clause
before we get to that. Your words are to be
inserted at the end of the clause. Now the
14 May 1891.
*
railway company's proposal is to insert these
words, “provided or to be provided.”
Mr. Poyser.] I propose to withdraw mine in
favour of this new Clause B.
Chairman.] Your proposal is to insert words
at the end of the clause, but we have now to
insert words in the middle of the clause; and
we cannot hear you until we come to the end of
the clause.
Mr. Pember.] Those are all the amendments,
your Grace. .
Chairman.] Now after the word “accommo-
dation,” in line 16, to insert the words “pro-
vided or to be provided,” and drop out the word
“providing” before the word “sidings.”
Mr. Robert Capper.] The South Wales
traders have an amendment similar to that for
Lord Bute.
Chairman.] But that is at the end of the
clause, and we are now at the middle of the
clause ; does anybody object to those words 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, certainly not,
speaking for the Mansion House.
Chairman.] Then the railway companies pro-
pose to insert at the end of the clause “ or deter-
mined in case of difference by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade ’’; that is what
you propose ?
Mr. Pember.] Yes, your Grace.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The fault, as I see
appears to be this: although I thought we were
to have some time to consider it, but I will put
the point for whatever it is worth, and see
what my learned friend Mr. Poyser was pro-
posing and what the railway companies are
now proposing, that is to make every agreement
which exists between a trader and a railway com-
pany practically binding. Now, I say that
would be rather a hazardous thing to do, you
not knowing the various agreements which exist.
Supposing, as I say, somebody has promised to
pay the railway company the old maxima, and
you reduce the old maxima by one-half, is the
trader to go on paying the old maxima P He
entered into an agreement to pay the old maxima
when the railway companies had the power to
charge him up to the hilt. Say he undertook to
pay a shilling a mile, and you reduce it to six-
pence, is he still bound to pay that 1 s. ? This
seems to me to be a very far-reaching proposal,
and I do not think you ought to confirm it unless
it has been done expressly at the request of the
trader, and I should propose some such words as
these : “That no agreement contrary to this
schedule or imposing additional charges.”
Mr. Pope.] The very scope of this proviso is
that it is to be an additional charge for additional
services rendered.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will you allow me to
finish the sentence, “Except at the express re-
quest of the trader.” If we expressed a desire to
have that very thing then we would have to pay
for it. There are hundreds of agreements existing
between railway companies and traders, and I
think many of them would be very unwilling to
- have
ON RAILWAY l'ATES AND CII ARGES PROVISION AL ORIDER BILLS.
439
14 May 1891.
have those confirmed under the new state of
things.
Earl of Camperdown.] I wish to ask you a
question upon that point. These agree-
ments are most of them terminable, al-
though there may be some which are per-
petual. In a perpetual agreement the
persons who entered into it must surely have
determined to make it for all time, and they are
perfectly content to be bound by it. In the case
of a terminable agreement, when the terminable
agreement comes to an end, then the party who
objects will have an opportunity of having
resourse to this clause.
Mr. Pember.] Clearly.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour Browne.)]
Is it not so P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think with regard to
a perpetual agreement, the trader entered into it
never contemplating this legislation, he knew
that the railway companies had in perpetuity the
power to charge something.
Earl of Camperdown.] But he bound himself
in perpetuity. I can imagine the agreen,ents
which Mr. Poyser is supporting or something of
that kind; those agreements were made because
the trader thought they were advantageous to
himself and would continue so. He has said, I
made this agreement, and I am content to bind
myself for ever, and there is an end of it, but
you propose to revoke that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not propose to
revoke that, but I say if it is inconsistent with
the schedule the schedule ought to over-ride
it.
Mr. Pember.] It has nothing to do with the
schedule.
Mr. Hanbury.] It is in addition to the
schedule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I can quite understand
that. If a man like Mr. Poyser's client has a
very favourable agreement, he wants to preserve
it for ever; but if, on the other hand, he has a
very bad agreement, why should you, at the
instance of Mr. Poyser or the railway companies,
preserve it when you are revising this clause?
Earl of Camperdown.] Is it your intention to
revise all improvident agreements 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think they ought to
be looked into under the new arrangements, by
the Board of Trade.
Choirman.] Would you say the new agree-
ment is to be perpetual.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I would say that no
agreement is more perpetual than an Act of
Parliament.
Chairman.] But I think the difference between
an agreement and an Act of Parliament is that
everybody knows that an Act of Parliament may
be repealed, but if you and the company come
to an agreement that you shall do something in
perpetuity I do not imagine that in course of
time you will come to me and say, Things are
quite different from what they were when I
entered into this agreement with you, and there-
fore I must be let off.
=="-_
Mr. Balfour Browne..] With great respect it is
the constant practice of Parliament to repeal
agreements when they are made in perpetuity;
an agreement between the Corporation of Birken-
head and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board
was repealed although it was made in perpetuity.
Chairman.] Parliament can do anything it
likes, but the question is whether if there is an
agreement between you and me in perpetuity I
am entitled at the end of seven years to come
and say, I find I have a good deal the worst of
the agreement therefore it ought to be altered.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I submit that when the
circulmstances are altered the agreements ought
to be reconsidered.
Earl of Camperdown.] You have pointed out
to the Committee that you want to assist the
trader who has made an improvident agreement.
Mr. 13alfour Browne.] Not quite so, my Lord.
It was not an improvident agreement under the
old maxima.
Earl of Camperdown.] Let me point out to
you that you want to assist a trader who has
made a certain sort of agreement. Now I take
the case of a trader who has made a very good
agreement for himself. If your proposal is placed
on the schedule the result will be to enable the
railway company to take advantage of that
clause and abolish that agreement and injure the
trader. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think not, my Lord.
For instance, if the railway company had, after
that agreement was entered into, got increased
maxima, I think the agreement ought to be
revised, but if, on the other hand, their maxima
are reduced, then they are in no worse position
at all by having bargained for the lower, but if
the circumstances are altered for them, then I
say distinctly it ought to be revised.
Earl of Camperdown.] You were in ſavour of
preservation just now.
Mr. Balfour Bronne.] I think the agreement
ought to be revised under altered circumstances.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I wish to say, my Lord
Duke, just this much : speaking for our district,
we approve the clause as proposed by Mr.
Pember, but we totally oppose the addition pro-
posed by Mr. Poyser.
Chairman.] But we have not got to Mr. Poy-
ser's addition yet.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I thought we were dis-
cussing it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I understood yours was
withdrawn, because it was the same as Mr. Pem-
ber's.
Chairman.] Mr. Poyser is at liberty to make
any remarks he pleases upon his own amend-
ment.
Mr. Poyser.] I understood your Grace to say
that it had better be dealt with after this had
been decided ; I quite bow to that, but this would
rather carry out what I was venturing to suggest
to your Lordships.
Chairman. (To Mr. Poyser).] Did I under-
stand you to say that if the Committee agree to
(81.)
3 I 4 the
440
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAR EN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.
the proposal of Mr. Pember, you have nothing
more to say ?
Mr. Poyser.] I think so; but I want to put
this argument before the Committee.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Now
we will hear what you have to say.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have nothing to say,
except that I support Mr. Pember's proposal.
Chairman.] Is there any other interest which
wishes to be heard upon this clause as amended,
or proposed to be amended, by the railway com-
panies through Mr. Pember ; has anyone any
objections to state 7
Mr. Shaw.] The only suggestion I can make
on behalf of my clients is this: I do not know
whether it is perfectly clear that the arbitrator
has the power to go into all the circumstances
under which the sidings in the past were made ;
how much the traders paid, and how much the
company paid ; I am not quite certain about
that.
Mr. Pember.] Of course it is.
Mr. Shaw.] I was going to add to that “Who
is to take into consideration under what circum-
stances such sidings and accommodation were
provided.” -
Chairman.] No, we cannot do that.
Mr Balfour Brownel I was only suggesting,
even if you accept the clause, that “provided
or to be provided,” ought to be followed by “by
the company.”
Mr. Pember.] I do not think so, because it
might be partially provided by the company;
the arbitrators would take that into consideration,
they have been provided for the use of the
trade.
Earl of Camperdown.] You have the words
“ by the company ” in the next line, and “not
required by the company,” that would naturally
refer to it.
Chairman.] The Committee will agree to
insert Clause B., as proposed by Mr. Pember,
and these other words appear to be unneces-
sary.
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to the amendment
standing in my name it is this : “Provided also
that nothing herein contained shall be taken to
cancel or modify any agreement at present exist-
ing between any trader and the company for the
provision of such accommodation.”
doubt about that is whether the words “payment
is fixed by agreement in writing” are sufficiently
strong in themselves to preserve the old agree-
ments. I do not want to go into the effect of
these agreements, because that has been already
dealt with by the Earl of Camperdown and the
Committee, but I would say there are many
agreements existing where there has been a per-
petual consideration given; that is to say, the
land has been given, or the money advanced in
actually constructing the sidings, and in return
for that consideration the railway company have
entered into an agreenient as to what they shall
doin respectof carrying traffic to and from asiding.
I would suggest that those words of mine only
carry out clearly and distinctly what is admitted
to be now, if the clause stands, the right principle,
My only
namely, that the old agreements should be pre-
served, and the words I propose to put in are
perfectly distinct; they are only carrying out the
intention of the Committee with respect to those
agreements. It would save any dispute hereafter
as to the effect of the legislation with respect to
agreements entered into by people with their eyes
open and perfectly competent to act.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I thought that my
learned friend Mr. Poyser accepted Mr. Pember's
amendment 2
Mr. Pember.] All your agreements are pre-
served, undoubtedly ; but one of the objects of
the clause is to provide for those agreements for
which the payment may not have been fixed by
agreement.
Chairman (to Mr. Pember).] You say “are
preserved undoubtedly ’’; where do you say that
is dot.e 2
Mr. Pember.] By the general law. It would
be perfectly impossible by implication to get ri
of documents which are under seal probably.
Mr. Poyser.] Take an instance of an agree-
ment. We have an agreement where, upon our
giving up the land and providing a certain
amount towards the siding, we are in future to
have those things done for nothing by the railway
company ; that is to say, that the parties have
given consideration, and if the company are to
turn round and say the agreement must be
reopened, we have not got that consideration
to give them again.
Chairman.] How could the railway company
turn round and say that an agreement which has
been solemnly entered into shall be reopened?
Mr. Poyser.] They might say, This legislation
has overridden the old agreement, and it is not
binding upon us. If that which your Grace
indicates is the principle to be adhered to, why
not put in some words to make that absolutely
distinct, as suggested in my proviso; because if
there is a distinction there can be no objection to
stating it.
Chairman.] But how can legislation over-ride
an agreement which has been entered into.
Mr. Poyser. Legislation may over-ride any
agreement.
Chairman.] If it say so, but not by implica-
tlOn.
Mr. Pember.] Let me ask you to take a case
in which the payment for certain services is
absolutely fixed at nil. I am quite aware that
nothing is no quantity, but nil is an intelligible
phrase. I say we could not over-ride that agree-
ment. Suppose you appeared before an arbi-
trator to settle the amount, and you pleaded the
agreement where the amount was settled at
mil.
Chairman (to Mr. Poyser).] I think the Com-
mittee are quite of opinion that your words are
not necessary.
Mr. Poyser.] If you say so, that is all I want;
we have got the principle.
Chairman.] Then there is another point.
Mr. Robert Capper.] The South Wales trader's
under the Act of 1867.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL OR DE R. BILLS.
441
14 May 1891.
Chairman.] What amendment are you speak-
ing to ?
Mr. Robert Capper.] An amendment which I
propose similar to Lord Bute's. My amendment
is not yet printed, it is to come at the end of the
clause.
Chairman.] Do you mean “provided that
nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or
in any way affect any agreement, whether sta-
tatory or otherwise, made between the company
and any company or person.”
Mr. Robert Capper.] Yes, we believe the
amendment certainly preserves agreements, but
it does not preserve agreements for special
rates given under special Acts.
Earl of Camperdown.] This section does not
relate to anything but agreements. It does not
relate to special Acts.
Mr. Robert Capper.] If we have a special Act
giving special rates do we understand that they
will be preserved ?
Mr. Pember.] This clause does not touch them
at any rate ; it has nothing to do with them.
Chairman.] Are you now speaking of the Act
of Parliament or the agreement 2
Mr. Robert Capper.] The Act of Parliament.
Chairman.] Surely an Act of Parliament must
speak for itself. We cannot repeal agreements.
Your case is where there have been special rates
fixed by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Robert Capper.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] This Clause 19 cannot have any-
thing to say to your rates where they have been
fixed by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Robert Capper.] If that is so I am con-
tent. •
Chairman.] I am not a lawyer, but I believe
that is so.
Mr. Pember.] I believe Lord Bute does not
appear upon his amendment.
Mr. Bidder.] I may mention with regard to
that, that it has been quite understood with the
Great Western Railway Company, that any
question the Marquess of Bute has to raise of
that kind will be dealt with when their own
schedule comes up.
Chairman.] Then, Clause 19 is now disposed
of as amended. Now we will take Clause 21.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Upon Clause 21, in
consequence of what fell from the Committee
upon the last occasion of sitting, which I had,
perhaps, better refer to—
Mr. Pember.] But wait; the companies have
their clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not know why you
have priority.
Mr. Pember.] Because this is our schedule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Indeed, it is not ; this
is the Board of Trade schedule ; you would not
agree to the schedule.
Mr. Pember.] As I understand, this was it:
those whose property is going to be dealt with
are the persons who are to bring up clauses.
Chairman.] I think we invited the railway
companies, and that it was the understanding
that the railway companies should bring up their
clauses. i
Mr. Balfour Browne | I thought that was our
suggestion; we proposed amendments, and it was
for us to bring them up.
Chairman.] I do not think it much matters;
but we will hear Mr. Pember.
Mr. Pember.] Then, as near as we can, having
borne in mind what dropped from your Grace at
the last meeting when the question of returned
empties was discussed, we have brought the re-
vised clause which we suggested for your accept-
ance, and of which no doubt copies will be
handed in. My learned friend Mr. Cripps had
more to do with this than 1 had, so he will state
what it is. -
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace will recollect that
when the question of returned empties was dis-
cussed at the last meeting there were really three
proposals before the Committee. One was in the
schedule which we discussed, another was the Man-
sion House proposal, which was a question of classi-
fication. Then the suggestion was thrown out that
the railway companies might bring forward a
proposal based upon the Clearing House Classi-
fication figures with a certain margin. This
clause of ours is based upon the Clearing House
Classification of figures, with a certain margin,
only it is put in a form to be as short as possible,
because Lord Balfour of Burleigh pointed out
that to put in two or three pages of the Clearing
House Classification would be a serious question
as a matter of drafting; but your Grace and the
Committee have the clause before you; it is
drafted in this way: “In respect of returned
empties, if from the same station and consignee
to which and to whom they were carried full to
the same station and consignor from which and
from whom they were carried full, the company
may charge the following rates inclusive of station
and service terminals.” Then we put in the
same fixures as there are in the Clearing House
Classification, but I must make this explanation
that the figures in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion include collection and delivery, and therefore
the margin which we considered a sufficient
margin between the new maxima and the old
Clearing House figures will be the difference
between the collection and delivery rate and the
station-to-station rate. Your Grace and the
Committee will follow that very easily: that as
regards collection and delivery 3 d. would be a
proper sum to take off each of those charges, and
except as regards the lowest charge of all, a 4 d.
charge, which of course does give us a wider margin,
it only gives us a very moderate margin, as
between the actual charges and what we are now
asking for as regards the maximum. But I
would point out to your Grace, that as regards
the 4 d., which is the one instance where the
amount of the maximum would be a good deal
above the existing actual charge, in the Mansion
House clause 4 d. is taken as the minimum,
therefore we have taken that minimum as the
fair minimum from which to start ; and, starting
from that minimum, we have the same figures
throughout as are in the Clearing House Classi-
(81.)
3 K fication
442
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.
fication subject to this, namely that theirs are
collection and delivery rates, and ours are
station-to-station rates.
Now in addition to that, there are a large
number of exceptions in the Clearing House
Classification which in special cases would allow
an extra charge.
they are almost a page or two ; we have
shortened that very much indeed, and the only
extra charge which we propose is this : “Pro-
vided that in the respect of returned empty
crates or carboys, the company may charge
double the above rates.” Now as regards crates,
that is exactly the provision in the existing
Clearing House schedule. We have power there
as regards crates to charge a double sum. All
those are exceptions in their favour, but in order
to make the matter as clear and as simple as
possible we only ask for a special power of charging
in those other cases of returned crates there the
same as in the Clearing House Classification.
As regards carboys, that is done on a different
principle, but I believe as a matter of figures it
will work out at about the same figure as we pro-
pose to charge here. That is a matter of evidence
upon which we propose to call Mr. Oakley, and
I think, your Grace, knowing as you do how
You have it before you there ;
long the discussion was the other day, it will be
sufficient to point out what our principle has
been, following up the suggestion of the Com-
mittee that we should base our maximum charges
upon the actual charges we make now with a
reasonable margin. .
Earl of Camperdown.] What is your margin
approximately P
Mr. Cripps.] The percentage differs as the
amount charged becomes higher.
Mr. Brilfour Browne.] It is 300 per cent.
Mr. Cripps.] That is the minimum.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is the maximum.
Mr. Cripps.] Take a 1 s. 6 d. case. The
margin would be 3 d. It is 3 d. in each case ;
therefore of course the higher the charges the less
is the percentage of difference. The only case in
which there is really a large percentage of
difference is in the 4 d., the lowest case of all, but
we take that as the minimum, the same minimum
as the Mansion House committee themselves pro-
pose ; but in all other cases as you get above the
4 d. you get a decreasing percentage as regards
margin between the proposed maximum and the
present actual charge.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is again called in ; and further Examined as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
2758. I THINK after the intimation of the Com-
mittee when we last met the goods managers met
and considered this question of retnrned empties 2
—That was so.
2759. Your object being, if you could, to
modity the Clearing House regulations so as to
give you a ſair power to charge in the future ?—
Yes. After the intimation which fell from the
Committee we tried to so arrange that the
Clearing House figures should be so arranged as
to fit the requirements of the trade.
2760. Now the Clearing House regulations in
reference to returned empties have a general
scale of charges as regards other stations than
J.ondon, and a higher scale of charges as regards
Tondon —That is so ; they are set out on page
100 of the Classification.
276.1. But you have framed, have you not,
your general scale of new maxima entirely upon
the lower scale of charges?—Yes, we have.
2762. You have not taken the higher London
scale, but the lower country scale 2–We have
taken the lower country scale.
2763. The scale from which you work, the
scale in the Clearing House Classification book,
includes collection
required by the public.
2764. But your scale would be as we know
(we do not deal with charges for collection and
delivery) a station-to-station scale 2–Yes, we
thought it would be a reasonable thing to have
as a maximum the margin given by the value of
the present service of collection or delivery.
2765. Just to test that, what margin does that
give 2–It gives a margin varying from 5 per
cent. on the higher distances to as much as 45
per cent. upon the lowest distance of all ; that is
to say, below 25 miles.
and delivery '' – Yes, if
Mr. Balfour Browne.] 300 per cent, it is.
Mr. Cripps.
2766. Will you just explain how you arrive at
that ; what allowance do you take off for cartage
and delivery ; how do you arrive at the proper
deduction to be made for the cartage and delivery
charge 2–Our scale is the country scale. Our
average charge for carting all our goods at
country stations may be roughly stated at 1 s. 6d.
a tom, therefore we have taken off 3 s. for the
Cartage.
2767. What would 3 s. work out on a hundred-
weight !—It is a fixed figure applicable to all
distances.
2768. Take a distance from 25 miles and not
exceeding 50 miles, there you have 6 d. per cwt.”
—That is the proposal.
2769. What I want to ask you is this: taking
3 s. as the proper cartage allowance, what would
that mean per cwt ; what margin does it give *
—It gives a margin of exactly 30 per cent.
Mr. Humter.
2770. Mr. Oakley told me the other day that
it was 5 s. ?– Yes, that was so, but that was in-
cluding London, We have rejected London
entirely and are dealing entirely with the country
scale.
2771. I understood Mr. Oakley to say that it
was not including London 2–No, that was not
SO.
Mr. Cripps.
2772. Supposing we take it at 5 s., and sup-
pose we test it on the 5 s. basis. If we take
that cartage at 5 s. per cwt. that per cwt. would
be 3 d. 2–Yes, that would be exactly 50 per cent.
On a 10 s. rate.
2773. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
443
14 May 1891.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
2773. But would you mind answering the
question, because I want to get the figures clear.
If we take the 5 s. cantage rate per ton that
would work out at 3 d. per cwt., would it not *-
Yes.
2774. Therefore in order to test this clause
you get as it were a 3 d, margin as regards each
figure ?—That is so, all the way down. w
2775. Therefore, of course as regards tige
lowest figure, that is the 4 d., you do get a high
percentage of margin upon that?–Yes, there is
no doubt we should upon that calculation.
2776. But I think as regards the lowest figure,
4 d., you take the same minimum as the Mansion
House proposed?—Yes; we take the minimum
the Mansion House proposed. e
2777. Now directly you get above that mini-
mum the percentage of margin gets less as the
figure rises 2–It does so until it practically dis-
appears upon the long distances.
2778. Upon the long distances it almost dis-
appears ?–Yes.
2779. Looking at your experience in these
matters, do you think this proposal gives you
a reasonable margin as between the maximum and
the actual charge?--I think it is a very small
margin indeed to accept.
2780. As we know in the Clearing House
Classification book, under the head of returned
empties, there are two pages of exceptional cases
under which your can make extra charges?–Yes,
that is so at present.
2781. But out of those two pages you only
now seek for a higher charge in the case of the
returned empty crates or carboys 7–Yes, we
thought from what passed in the Committee the
other day that the best thing would be to drop all
these exceptions except in the case of returned
empty crates where the bulk, as compared with
the weight, is very large indeed, and with
regard to the carboys, as to which there is a great
deal of risk in carrying, we resolved that we
would sink all the other exceptions except those
tWO. -
2782. As regards the crates, you seek to pre-
serve the existing Clearing House regulation,
you having power to charge as regards crates
double the ordinary rates ?—Yes; as a matter
of fact, we are taking somewhat less than the
present Clearing House practice.
2783. As regards carboys, does the provision
here work out about the same in money as the
provision in the Clearing House Classification
book 2–No ; it does not. For the carboys at
present returned we get a minimum of 2d. each,
but they run about three or four to the cwt.,
so that we are making a reduction in the case of
carboys.
2784. So that, as regards the carboys, this
places you in a worse position than the Clearing
House Classification, and as regards empty crates
you are in the same position ?—Yes; and I
should like to add to the answer that the present
Clearing IIouse arrangement with regard to the
carboys is that we do not undertake the cartage,
and that the charge of 2d. of which I speak is
in all cases station-to-station.
2725. Therefore in that case you have not got
the margin that we have been dealing with in
Mr. WILKINSON.
| Continued.
—º
Mr. Cripps-—continued.
the other cases 2—No ; as I said just now, we
are proposing to take something less than the
present practice.
2786. It was suggested that the original pro-
posal of the railway companies adopted in great
part in principle by the Board of Trade would
be a difficult one for the traders. Would there
be any difficulty to traders in following this pro-
posal 2–1 think it is as simple in my judgment
as any proposal can be. -
2787. As regards ascertaining what the real
should be it is a simple question of figures, is it
not ; nothing else, is it?–Clearly.
Cross-Examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2788. I think its simplicity is perhaps its only
recommendation, but we will see. As I under-
stand, the figures in the Clearing House Classifi-
cation oil page 100, include the cartage 2–Yes,
on page 100 they do include the cartage.
2789. You have taken the same figures to
exclude the castage 2–On the lower of the two
scales, yes.
2790. And therefore, if my learned friend
admits, the cartage is 3 d. a ton, you have in-
creased the charged for 25 miles from one penny
to 4 d., or 300 per cent; that is so, is it not ?—If
you take that for your figure, you ought to com-
pare it with the higher of those two scales, and
not the lower one, which we have agreed to
accept.
2791. If, on the other hand, I am right, and the
3 d. is the right charge to put all through, as my
learned friend Mr. Cripps put it, on the second
distance, your margin is 100 per cent., and on the
third distance, from 50 to 100 miles, it would be
33 per cent, and on 200 miles it would be 25
per cent. Which is the right margin 2–I do
not quite agree with the figures you have given.
2792. But I have taken them from my learned
friend, the said 3 d. all through ; that is so, is it
mot ?–No, I do not think so.
2793. Just calculate for yourself?—You gave
me the distance of from 50 to 100 miles, saying
the difference would be 50 per cent.
2794. I say it would be 50 per cent., and for
150 miles it would be 33 per cent. 7–That would
not be, because from 50 miles to 100 it would
only be 33 per cent.
2795. How do you make out that ?—It will
be 3 d. out of 9 d.
2796. Now what do you think is the right
margin, the 300 per cent, or the 33 per cent?—
I do not think the margin is an unreasonable
one in any one of them.
2797. Not even the 300 per cent. 2–No.
2798. Now let me see if I can understand the
exceptions. There are two pages of exceptions,
you say, in the Railway Clearing House book,
and you have singled out one, crates. Are you
aware that every other of the exceptions in the
Clearing House book is in favour of the traders ?
—No, I gave you the case of carboys, which are
distinctly the reverse.
2799. The crates and carboys are the only
ones in which it is in favour of the railway com-
pany –I say, no.
2800. “Returned ale and porter casks must
bo charged the same rate per ton as when re-
(81.)
3 K 2 ceived
444
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
ceived full, when that rate is less than the charge
as per the ordinary scale for returned empties " :
how do you make that out in favour of the rail-
way companies?—That was the principle the
railway companies put before the Committee,
which the Committee distinctly rejected on
Tuesday.
2801. Never mind that. I ask is that in
favour of the railway company or in favour of
the trade. It is an exception is it in favour of
traders ?—No.
2802. Just follow it. It is only to be charged
for return as full if the rate is less than the
ordinary rate 2–Yes.
2803. So that if it is less than the ordinary
rate that is an exception in favour of the traders ?
Yes.
Mr. Pember.] To get your 300 per cent. could
you tell us what rates you compare.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2904. We had it from Mr. Oakley that the
cartage was 3 d. If you take 3d from 4 d., which
is the Clearing House Classification charge for
25 miles, and that includes cartage, that leaves
a penny, and you propose to raise that to 4 d.,
that according to my arithmetic is 300 per cent.
Now go on to another instance; the next I have
here is empty cask, have you got that ?–Yes.
2805. “Empty casks to distillers”?—Yes.
2806. “Empty casks, whether returned or
not, going to distillers for ... the purpose of
being filled and returned by rail, must be charged
the same per ton as when received full, when
that rate is less than the charge as per the
ordinary scale for returned empties”; that is in
the same category again, is that an exception in
favour of the traders ?–No, in that particular
case it is in favour of the company.
2807. Show me how, I do not understand it 2
–Because if you refer to “spirits’ in the
Clearing House Classification book, you will find
they are classified in casks or cases third class;
we are proposing to give a rate very consider-
ably less than that rate.
2808. I am not asking what you are pro-
posing; I am asking whether those exceptions
in the Railway Clearing House Classification
are not all, with the exception of crates and
carboys in favour of the traders ?--The answer
is that they are not, and that this case of the
casks for distilleries is an illustration of the
TeV Cl’S62.
2809. Ilet us see, The presumption is that
they are to be charged the same rate as when
full; if that rate is less than the charge as per
ordinary scale for returned empties, how is
that in iavour of the company; it is only to be .
an exception if it is less ; it is just in exactly the
same category as the last I read –The answer
to that is: that in the case of empties going to
distilleries we have not the service of cartage to
perform. As a rule the casks when empty go
in by waggons and not by carts; it is really
considered by the railway companies to be some-
thing in favour of the trader.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
2810. Whiskey casks the same 2—Yes.
2811. Vinegar casks the same, cider casks the
same, saccharine casks and pails the same 2–
Yes.
2812. Then empty carboys I think you are
right about. Returned empties, fish empties, I
think there again it must be charged special class
rates, a minimum charge of one ton per wag-
gon — All the rates are station-to-station rates.
2813. At any rate, all these exceptions I have
mentioned to you are all distinctly in favour of
the trader 2–Several of them are.
2814. And not one of them have you put into
your clause, but you have preserved the two
which are in favour of the railway companies;
that is so, is it not, crates and carboys –It
is difficult to give in one answer all that one
wishes to say about this; but the proposal really
that we have made is very much in favour of the
trade.
2815. At any rate, I find that the two things
which are preserved are crates and carboys, which
in the Clearing House scale are in favour of the
railway company ?—I have tried to explain the
reason why those two things should be excluded
from the operation of the clause. I caused some
crates to be got out and measured after the Com-
mittee broke up on Tuesday, and I found that we
were carrying between 2,000 and 3,000 cubic feet
to the ton.
Chairman.
2816. What goods are you speaking of?—I am
speaking of the crates for which we seek to charge
double rates.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2817. Is it the fact that at the present time the
excepted crates are special crates?–No, a num-
ber of crates are specified.
2818. But they are special crates, are they
not ?–No ; hat crates, bicycle crates, china crates,
and earthenware crates.
2819. That is true ; they are all mentioned in
the Clearing House Classification ; your proposal
would include all crates ?–Yes, and properly so,
I think.
2820. Therefore there again it is an extension
of the Clearing House Classification ?–No, I
think not.
2821. But you find returned empty hat crates,
bicycle crates, tricycle crates, china crates, and
earthenware crates; those are special crates, and
are specially mentioned; you make it applicable
to all crates; that is an extension, is it not, of
those four classes?–To that extent it is an
extension.
2822. Now a question was asked with regard
to carboys; that the present rates are low, and
are at owner's risk –They are at owners's
risk.
2823. And they are low 2–Yes, I think so.
2824. Is the proprosal practically to double
those ?–No. -
2825. Are you sure ?—Yes.
2826. Just compare and see. Carting 50 miles
2 d. station to station, and you propose 4 d. 2–
We do not propose 4 d, each. I stated in an
earlier
ON RAILWAY RATES ANT) CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
445
14 May 1891.
Mr. WILKINSON.
[ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
earlier answer that they run about three or four
to the hundredweight.
2827. Just follow on, “Returned empty car-
boys, whether in tubs or hampers at owner's risk
only, not exceeding 50 miles, 3 d.”?–Yes.
2828. Exceeding 50 miles they are to be
charged at double the above rate ; and double
the above rate is 6 d. for 50 miles; that would be
1 s. ?—Yes.
2829. And you do not call that an extension of
the Clearing House rate 2––
Mr. Cripps.
2830. One is per hundredweight, and the other
is per carboy 7–1t is per carboy in the present
existing rate.
2831. How many carboys are there to the
hundredweight?—Three to the hundredweight.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2832. Then that is 1 s. in the place of 2 d. I
mean it is a fourth of 1 s. in place of 2 d., that
is the 4 d. I suggested to you before ; and you
said you did not propose to charge 4. d?—
Chairman.] But 4 d. is not the fourth of 1 s.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2832.* It is 3 d. in place of 2 d. 2 – And
the company take the risk, instead of the owner
taking the risk as at present ; so that practically
it is the same thing. . .
2833. You think it is the same thing?—Yes.
2834. You think that in a case of carboys 50
per cent. is equal to owner's risk?–It is not 50
per cent.
2835. I think it is ; it is the difference between
3 d. and 2 d.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
2836. Will you be pleased to refer to page 100
of the Clearing House Classification ?–Yes.
2837. You have got there “All sacks and bags
sent to be filled, or returned empty, not exceed .
ing 100 miles, 3 d. per cwt. station to station.”
You are proposing to charge, instead of 3d. per
cwt. from 4 d. to 9 d. up to 100 miles, are you not ?
—Yes.
2838. And them “not exceeding 300 miles 4 d.
per cwt”; you propose to charge from 9d., to
ls. 9 d. 2–Yes; there is a very considerable dif-
ference in the case of sacks and bags.
2839. And for a distance of 400 miles, instead
of 6 d. you propose from 1 s, 9 d. to 2 s. 3 d. 2–
Yes; the proposal will make a considerable dif-
ference in the case of returned empties.
2840. Something like 400 or 500 per cent. 2–
Yes. The figures are as you give them. All
the rates are station to station at present ; that
is the concession the company have given to the
traders.
2841. All corn is for the most part carried in
bags, is it not ?–Yes.
2842. Artificial manure is carried in bags, is it
not, for the most part 2–Largely.
2843. Nails and spikes 2–Yes. I do not think
the bags that nails and spikes are sent in are ever
returned. I never knew a case.
2844. In fact, if you take the different trades
Sir Alfred Hickman -- continued.
that send off their goods in sacks or bags, the
quantity of merchandise would far exceed the
quantity that is sent off otherwise than in bags
or sacks. Taking artificial manure, corn, nails,
and things of that kind altogether, grain espe-
cially, which is reckoned by millions of tons, of
course it would far exceed the quantity carried
otherwise than in sacks or bags —Yes, clearly.
It is nearly universal for grain to be carried in
bags. -
2845. Is it the fact that the railway companies
are now in the habit of carrying empty bags free ?
– There may be cases; but the general rule ap-
plicable to all railway companies is in this
clause.
2846. As a general rule, they are carried free
altogether ?—There are cases where they may be
carried free.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
2847. Just a question or two upon what has
been asked you about the Clearing House
Classification. First of all, with regard to car-
boys, to put this straight: “Not exceeding 50
miles 2 d.each, station to station.” 2–Yes.
2948. You say there are about four carboys to
the hundredweight?– About that.
2949. That would be 8 d. per cwt., station to
station, not exceeding 50 miles?—Yes.
2950. Would you look at what we propose as
our maximum; 8 d. being the present actual, is
6 d. the proposed maximum ?–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Where is that? Indeed
no ; it is double.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, it is 1 s. ; I beg your
pardon. But in the one case you charge for the
actual carboy; in the other you charge by
weight.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think you
heard the witness ; he said from three to four
to the 4 cwt.
Witness.] Yes, that was the answer; from
three to four to the cwt.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So that if it is three it
gets to be 4 d. and if it is four it gets to be
3 d. 2
Mr. Cripps.
2851. From three to four to the hundred-
weight, that would be 6 d. to 8 d. 2–I should
like to extend that answer by saying that I spoke of
carboys of which we carry the largest quantity.
There are a large number of carboys used for
articles such as sulphuric acid, where the weight
would be considerably less than the weight I
have given ; they may run to 12 lbs, and 14 lbs.
each ; and at present we should charge 2 d. for
each single carboy. But the general run of them
is from three to four to the cwt.
2852. As regards crates the bulk is very much
larger in proportion to the weight, is it not ?—
I am quite satisfied that we shall lose a consider-
able amount of money upon this proposal; that
is to say we cannot do the work for the money
we asked for.
2853. Another question has been put to you
as regards sacks and bags. In the minimum
charge for sacks and bags in the general classi-
(81.)
3 K 3 fication
446
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. Cripps—continued.
fication of goods it is “as for 1 cwt. P--
As printed.
2854. The minimum weight to be in your
proposal half hundredweight 2—That is so.
2855. Might I put this to you : that apart
from making your proposal in any way too com-
plicated you would agree to any reasonable way
of putting in this provision in regard to sacks
and bags from the Clearing House Classification;
of course with an allowance for margin 2–I
really would not like to do that.
keep to the proposal we have placed before the
Committee.
2856. It has been pointed out to you that as
regards 4 d. it may be a high percentage margin,
but you take the 4 d., do you not, as the minimum
charge 2–Yes; and I should again like to say that
we have taken the lowest of the two scales; that in
giving the figure of 5 s. Mr. Oakley rather com-
bined the figures of the two scales; that is the
London scale and the country scale; whereas
we have taken the lowest scale.
2857. Of course if you take the 6 d. scale,
which is the London scale, the percentage of
margin would work out very much smaller 7–
Practically it is a difference of 3 d. a cwt. in
favour of the company.
2858. And as regards the 4 d. I would remind
you of what my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne said, “That minimum charge of 4 d. I am
bound to say is more than they are actually charging
by 100 per cent. upon the southern limss; but
we find upon the northern lines that 4 d. is their
minimum charge, and we thought it fair to give
them a minimum charge even if we were putting
it to the smalls rate, and we gave them Class I.
when the distance was over 150 miles.” There-
fore the 4 d. is the actual figure which the Man-
sion House proposal put forward as a fair mini-
Ill Ull]].
2859. The practice of the southern companies
is to charge not by weight, is it, but per package 2
— I understand the practice of the southern
companies is to charge per package at present ;
they have not at present adopted the Railway
Clearing House Classification in its entirety.
There are some differences, some in favour of the
traders and some in favour of the companies,
2860. There the minimum, I think, is 2 d. per
package, is it not ? — I believe that to be the
Cà.S.C.
2861. The 2 d. per package being, of course,
entirely exclusive of carfage 2–Yes.
2862. Looking to what the southern companies
do, having a minimum ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I did not ask anything
about the southern companies ; you are re-
examining.
Mr. Cripps.
2863. If any question arises upon it you may
ask a question. (To the Witness.) Taking 2 d.
as the minimum per package, what do you say of
4 d. as the minimum per cwt. P – We thought
the proposal was a reasonable one for all
parties.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I ask one question
arising out of Mr. Cripps' re-examination ?
Chairman.] Very well.
Mr. WILKINSON.
amºs--"ºm
I would sooner
[Continued.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
2864. (To the Witness.) Mr. Cripps asked
you whether if you had taken the London
scale, the figures would have shown much
more in favour of the railway companies; but if
you had taken the London scale should you not
also have deducted the London scale for cartage?—
That was what I wished to convey in my an-
swer : that in making his calculation on a total
5 s. Mr. Oakley combined the London scale
and the country scale. We have utterly dis-
carded the London scale and based the calcu-
lation entirely on the country scale.
2865. The difference between the London
scale and the country scale is the extra cartage
in London 2–Yes, practically.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
2866. Then nothing arises on Mr. Cripps'
question,
Chairman.] What do you include in station
and service terminals. You say “the following
rates inclusive of station and service terminals’’;
what sum do you include in those ?—We did not
dissect the figures to enable me to answer that,
We have a lot of services to perform with the
empties, and the station and service terminals
are earned most distinctly. We have to receive
them at the station, weigh them, check them,
move them about on one platform from point to
point, load them in waggons, cover them, invoice
them, and then convey them. At the receiving
end we uncover, unload them, hold them very
often several days to suit the convenience of the
trader ; and for all we are to have 4 d. per cwt.
Mr. Pember.] It is another way of saying that
if we get these rates we shall not charge station
or service terminals.
Earl of Camperdown.] But you do intend to
charge cartage.
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would it not be well
to make it perfectly clear. I observe looking at
the general clasification that nothing in the general
classification is said about cartage, although the
practice is well understood among yourselves.
But if you are dealing with an Act of Parliament
would it not be as well to put in the words “but
exclusive of cartage * after “service terminals’’?
Mr. Pember.] I think it might. As my learned
friend Mr. Cripps says you will not forget, your
Grace, that nothing in these schedules applies to
cartage at all; it is excluded altagether irom the
purview.
Mr. Hanbury.] But it was included in the
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.] Are the railway companies
fairly agreed as to what is a fair deduction for
cartage 2
Mr. Balfour Browne..] We know as a matter
of fact that 3 d. is the deduction.
Mr. Pember.] That is precisely one of the
fallacies involved in my learned friend's state-
ment that there is a margin of 300 per cent. ; he
chooses
ON
447
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
14 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
chooses to suppose in point of fact that if the
railway companies for the purposes of Com-
petition forego anything they forego it all on
conveyance and do not forego anything on the
profit of cartage. He has no right to make that
assumption.
Mr. Hunter.] To make it clear I asked Mr.
Oakley “How much of this scale is attributable
to collection and delivery,” and he said “5 s. a
ton I think you may take it.' I said “all
round,” and he said “yes; ” it ought to be more
in London; but in the country I think 5 d. all
round would be something we cannot object to.”
Mr. Pember.] Then I will ask you to look at
it in this way. For instance, if 3 d. is a fair
amount to take for cartage in the past, in future
add 3 d. to the charges proposed in this clause
and you will get broadly a charge of 4 d., which
will compare with the total charge of 4 d., now,
and instead of being 300 per cent. it will be 74
per cent.
Mr. /3alfour Browne.] I have here
Oakley’s figures. -
Mr.
MR. CHARLES JOHN OWENS, is again
Mr. Cripps.
2867. YoU are goods manager of the London
and South Western Railway Company?—I am.
2868. Are certain empties charged on the
South Western system at 2 d, each 2–Yes,
that is so, 2 d. each whatever their size, small
or large. -
2869. Do you charge the same rate for all
empties 2–No, we have a varying scale.
2870. I just want you to explain to his Grace
and the Committee what your varying scale is.
Have you get it there 2–I have a printed copy
of it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2871. Let me have a copy 7–It is the only
one I have, unfortunately.
2872. Though it is printed.
is printed 7 — We charge for boxes and
cases, small 2 d. each ; but for boxes and
cases, large we charge 4 d. each, and that
for distances not exceeding 125 miles. But if
the distance of 125 miles were exceeded the
charge would be 3 d. and 6 d. each respectively ;
and those rates would be purely station to
station, and exclusive of the services of collec-
tion and delivery.
3873. For instance, large boxes and cases are
charged, are they not, 4 d, each 2–Large boxes
and cases are charged 4 d. each up to 125 miles
and 6 d. each above that distance.
2874. Does the same apply to hogsheads,
puncheons, or tierces —That is so ; we charge
4 d. each up to 125 miles and 6 d. each above.
2875. Then I see as regards butts and pipes
you charge 6 d. each 2–That is so, and 9 d. above
125 miles.
2876. And pianoforte cases you charge how
much 2–We charge 1 s. up to 125 miles, and 1 s.
6 d. above that distance.
Though it
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is an exceptional
class.
Mr. Pember.] You shall see Mr. Oakley ; he
had better give ital, first hand.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will ask your Grace
to reserve the decision upon this clause until you
have heard me.
Chairman.] Naturally.
Mr. Pember.] I think this will best come from
Mr. Oakley ; but I see at once the fallacy of
supposing flat you must deduct a rigid 4 d. from
the cartage in all cases.
Mr. Yates.] I did not cross-examine the wit-
ness, because my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne asked questions, and it is no use re-
peating them; but I propose to call a witness
upon this point in opposition to the railway com-
panies’ proposal, to be sure about the cartage
especially.
Chairman.] We must hear first all that the
railway companies have to say.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
2877. In all cases do you make additional
charges where the distance exceeds 125 miles?—
Yes, in all cases. -
2878. Did you inspect the empties received at
Nine Elms on the morning of May 13th 2–I did
not do so personally, but I sent one of my repre-
sentatives to do so.
2879. Did you ascertain what the contents
had been when they were full ?—Certain empties
from stations near London were taken, and we
found, giving cases, that two vegetable baskets
were received from Richmond, on which we
should charge 2 d. each, being 4 d., and that 4 d.
is exactly the figure we should receive under the
scale now proposed by the railway companies,
giving us no margin whatever over our existing
present charge. . .
2880. Therefore the minimum we propose
would give you no margin at all ?–No margin
whatever.
2881. Will you give another instance that you
took on that morning 2–To take another in-
stance, we brought four drapery boxes from Addle-
stone, and for those we charged 8 d. The weight of
those four empties was 1 cwt. 12 lbs., the distance
being 19 miles. The proposal of the railway
companies would give us 5 d., on that consign-
ment we should lose 3 d.
2882. That is to say, your actual charge is
now 3 d. more than the maximum would be in
the future ?—That is so.
2883. Then, again, at Egham, four meat
baskets; how does that work out?—We charged 8 d.
for those four meat baskets, their weight was 1 q1.
26 lbs. Our present proposal would give us 4d.
2887. That is to say, a new maximum of 4 d.
against the actual charge now of 8 d. 2–Yes ;
showing that our charge would be reduced by
50 per cent.
Chairman.
2885. But all these charges which you, the South-
(81.)
3 K 4 Western
448
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT Coxſ MITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. Owens.
{Continued.
Western Company are now making are made at
your own will and pleasure?—Exactly so. e
2886. You might charge anything 2—Within
reason ; we are bound by reason.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is a very small
amount. -
Mr. Pember.] What Mr. Owens means is that
the words “reasonable charges” are in their Act.
Witness.] Exactly.
Mr. Cripps.
2887. But in no case is their maximum now ;
that is what his Grace asked ?–We have no fixed
maximum for empties; but I may say this, that
empties would be provided for in our existing
maximum powers under “other articles, matters,
and things” on which we should charge 3 d. per
ton per mile, and we should be bound by that ; we
could not exceed that figure. Therefore there is
a limitation to our charge.
Mr. Pember.
2888. That would come in your clause ?—Yes.
Mr. J. writer.
2889. But that limitation does not exceed
5 cwt. P-No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2890. And these empties are all under that
limit?—Yes.
Mr. Cripps.
2891. Not all ; but most of them are.
have taken nine instances?—Yes.
2892. In all of those instances, does the pro-
posed maximum work out at less than the actual,
or are there any instances to the contrary 2–
There is one instance to the contrary; that is a
case where we brought 22 kilderkins from Farm-
ham, and our charge was 3 s. 8d. ; and as they
weighed 8 cwt. I q., we should be entitled to
charge 4s.2d., which would give us a margin of
6 d.
2893. But in all the other cases out of the nine
the proposed maximum would be less than your
existing actual charge 2–Yes.
2894. And in the one case to the contrary, the
margin would only be between 3's. 8d. and 4s.2d.?
—That is so.
2893. Looking to the result of this investiga.
tion, do you think that what is now proposed by
the railway cnmpanies will give you any undue
power ot charging?—I do not, certainly.
2896. In fact, as is shown here in almost every
case, it would reduce the proposed maximum even
below the existing actual 2–That is so on all the
lighter description of empties.
2897. In substance, in order to prevent the
multiplication of evidence, would what you say
apply to all the southern companies, the South
Eastern, the Brighton, and the Chatham and
Dover, as well as yourselvet?—Our System of
charging is practically the same; the result would
be the same on all the southern railways.
You
Yes.
Cross-Examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2898. That is what I want to get at. The
Committee said that something like the Clearing
House scale with a fair margin was to be adopted.
You have never adopted the Clearing House
scale 2–We have not.
2899. If you had adopted the Clearing House
scale, your charges would have been considerably
reduced ?–Not in all cases.
2900. In the large majority of cases?—No,
that certainly I could not admit.
2091. Have you ever compared them 2–
2092. Why did you not adopt the Clearing
House scale 2–I can hardly answer that ques-
tion ; I have only been goods manager for three
years, and I found the scale we now charge in
force.
2093. Do not you find the scale considerably
higher than the Clearing House scale 2–Cer-
tainly not on long distances.
2094. Do you not see that this scale which is
proposed on short distances at any rate, and on
all distances, is higher than the Clearing House
scale by reason of the cartage being omitted ?—
That is so ; it is higher than the Clearing House
scale for empties between two country stations,
but not higher in every case. Our empties be-
tween London and country stations are quite on
another scale I am dealing with the county
Scale.
Chairman.] But this scheme is to apply to
both.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is.
Witness.J. That is why I was anxious to point
out to you that we were taking the lower of the
two scales. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2905. We have provided for that in the clause
I shall bring up. If you say that the proposed
scale is higher than the Clearing House scale
gives you, less than you are at present charging
in some instances, the Clearing House scale
would evidently give you much less 2—On certain
distances.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2906. As you are not within the Clearing
House I do not think it is worth while asking
you much about it.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
2907. On the question of the London scale,
of course this proposed scale applies to all these
companies which have one terminus in London 2
—Exactly so.
Mr. Hunter.
2908. But with regard to the Clearing House
Scale for London, is there any difference between
London and other towns to justify a different
scale except two ; the difference in the cost of
the cartage and in the cost of the station?–That
is the reason for the difference between the two
scales.
2909. Therefore the difference between the
two scales is explained by those two elements?
—Exactly.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
449
14 May 1891.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
2910. AFTER giving the evidence you did on the
last occasion, you carefully considered, did you
not, the question of the returned empties?–Yes.
As I then promised, I set to work the moment I
got back to King's Cross to try and get some-
thing like a representation of actual work done,
so that I might be able to show the variety in
the classes of empties, and a comparison between
what the charges would be under the old scale,
under the suggested scale of 75 per cent., and also
Mr. Cripps—continued.
under our humble request of 100 per cent. I
have come here, but I must be allowed to plead
for a little mercy, because, although the clerks
have been at work day and night looking through
many thousands of invoices, the work has only
this instant been completed, and is hardly so con-
centrated and so clear as I should like to have
put it before the Committee. But if you will
allow me I will just tell the story briefly first,
and then submit myself to inquiry as to details.
[The Witness hands in the following Table] :—
! {{PA ºzº Difference
Charges at Charges at ºil between
Present (2UWCCIl Ill 75 per cent
- full 75 per cent. Proposed * Dr. º
Classes. Weight. Charges and of Proposed
Charges. Proposed at Proposed p; sent Charges and
* Present
Rates. Rates. Charges. Charges.
Tons cºvt. 40's. lbs. f. s. d. £. S. d. £. s. d. f. s. d. £. s. d.
Class C - - 4 10 0 0 2 15 3 3 5 9 2 15 2 – 10 6 - 1 1
,, 1 - - 2 iO 0 19 2 7 2 2 16 4 2 7 3 – 9 2 — — l
, 2 - 4 2 1 19 4 13 3 5 9 2 4 7 7 – 15 11 — 5 8
,, 3 - 12 17 1 0 14 1 11 19 17 7 15 17 3 5 15 8 1 15 4
,, 4 - 0 19 3 0 1. 3 1 1 15 3 1 8 5 – 12 2 – 5 4
, 5 - 2 3 1 4 1 13 3 3 9 4 2 15 5 1 16 1 I 2 2
TOTALS 27 2 3 l 4 26 13 11 36 13 5 29 11 1 9 19 6 2 17 2
2911. Will you state shortly what the result Mr. Balfour Browne.
of that table is ?—In the day we have taken out 2913. Will you give me the figures 2–

we carried 27 tons 2 cwt. 3 qrs. 14 lbs. of empties
in all the classes beginning from Class C to Class 5.
The present charges that we should have re-
ceived, or that we have received or shall receive,
for carriage of those empties amounts to
26 ſ. 13 s. 11 d. Our proposed charge, that is
at the full rate, the 100 per cent., would be
36 7. 13 s. 5 d. At 75 per cent, it would be
29 l. 11 s. 1 d. Showing that the margin we ask
for was 9 l. 19 s. 6 d. and the margin which
the 75 per cent. would have given us was
2. l. 17 s. 2 d. w
2912. Just one minute to make this clear, what
you are dealing with now is the proposal sub-
mitted by you to the Board of Trade and which
is in the present schedule ; you are making a
comparison now with that, are you not?–Yes;
that is so. His Grace asked me the other day
whether I could give him any idea of a com-
parison between what I was then asking for and
what was then proposed by the Board of Trade;
and while I told him that I was satisfied myself,
I had not any means at hand to satisfy him and
I have endeavoured to supply that.
£. 9, 19 s. 6d. full rates, and 2 l. 17 s. 2d., 75 per
Cent.
Mr. Pember.
2914. That is 9 l. On 27 l. ?—Yes; and it is
2. l. 17 s. 2 d., call it 3 l., it is a ninth the other
way.
Mr. Cripps. Your Grace will bear in mind
the difference between the 75 per cent. and the
100 per cent. in this Section 21 as it stands in
the schedule. -
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.
2915. (To the Witness.) You have taken both
the 75 per cent. and the full charge that the rail-
way companies propose, and compared them with
the actual charge that you now make 2 – Yes,
to produce the information which I understood I
was asked for the other day. But that, of course,
is only information now ; and the suggestion that
we are prepared to advocate is that which I
understand you submitted. -
2916. In reference to the proposal which we are
(81.)
3 L In OW
450
MINUTEs of EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT coal MITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[ Contin wed.
Mr. Cripps--continued.
now submitting, how in your opinion would that
work out as regards a just and reasonable charge?—
I am sure, from a knowledge of the cost of dealing
with these empties, that the charge is really only
reasonable. We, as I said the other day (and I
do not want to repeat myself), do not get paid
for the carriage of these very light articles; they
involve us in a great amount of truck haulage,
and, so far as London is concerned, in return of
light truck haulage; and they are only dealt with
on this scale, not because of the payment for the
work we do in respect of them, but because we
have been obliged to look at them as an auxiliary
or ancillacy trade. -
2917. Let me ask you first of all with regard
to what is really our minimum charge of 4 d. per
cwt., what is your opinion of that looked at as a
minimum ?—I think it must strike anybody that
to carry 1 cwt. of empty boxes for 25 miles for
4 d. and collect and deliver them for that
money —-
2918. Just let me follow you there; the 4d.
which we are proposing is the maximum you
know as compared with the actual?—I thought
you were referring to the other. - -
2.919. Your 4 d. would not comprise collection
and delivery 2—No, that is what we wanted,
to suggest should be the margin. Whatever the
cost of collection and delivery is, we think that
should be the margin that we should have
between the charges we do make and the maxi-
mum we might make when the circumstances of
the day compelled us to increase our rates.
Mr. Hambury. -
2920. Do you know what that is, what is the
cartage 2–lt varies at almost every station, and
with, of course the circumstances of each class of
traffic. In dealing with cartage we are obliged
to look at it really as an average ; in some cases
it does not cost us more than 1 S. or 1 s. 6d., but
in other cases it costs us more than 2 s. 6 d. or 3 s. ;
it depends upon the distance from the town and
the nature of the traffic we have to deal with.
We cannot, in settling the scale, attempt to
assign to each particular class of empty the exact
cost of cartage ; we can only deal with it on an
average.
2921. You are not able to say, looking at this
Clearing House scale, how much of it is for cart-
age 7–No, it wonld vary with each class of empty
that we carry.
2922. Can you say what is the average 2–1
said the other day that I thought 5 s. (that is 3 d.
a cwt.) was not an unreasonable figure looking
at the very li- ht goods. I know we could not do
it for that if we had only empties to carry; but
I should explain to you that in country stations
and in places where we employ agents we do not,
in paying them, make any difference between
fulls and empties; they take the lot all round.
2923. But you say still that 3 d. is a fair
average 2–I should think probably it would not
be an unfair average ; it is perhaps high, but not
excessively so.
Earl of Camperdown.
2924. In London what would be the cost of
cartage 2–In London it is much more; it is
higher.
Earl of Camperdown —continued.
2925. What should you say it was 2—It
varies. *
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course it must be an
average. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In the same way that
the 3 d. is an average. *
Earl of Camperdown.
2926. In the same way as you struck an
average for the other one —I dealt the other
day with it all round as 2 s. 6 d. If I am to
separate London from the country I should not
put the country at 5 s. and London at a higher
rate ; I should probably reduce the country
cartage to 4 s. and call London 6 s.
Mr. Hanbnry.
2927. Is the difference between London car-
tage and country cartage representra by the
difference in the two scales 7–Yes, pretty nearly
I should think it would be. -
Mr. Cripps.
2928. Would there be other elements, just
following up the question that one honourable
Member put 2 There would also be the question
of the cost of stations in London ; would not that
he an element in the higher London scale 7–Yes,
and the cost of wages. Wages are higher in
London than in the country from 2 s. to 3 s. a ton
per man. - -
2929. Would the difference between the London
and the country scale include the higher cost
generally of dealing with these goods in London,
and not merely extra cartage cost alone 2–
Necessarily, but not only so. There is 3 s. 4 d.
difference per ton between the country and
London ; 2 d. per cwt.
2930. Just consider this 4 d. per cwt., for a
moment; what does 4 d. per cwt. work out at per
ton 2–Six and eightpence.
2931. And taking 4 d. as the present Clearing
House maximum for a moment, if you take 5 s.
off that for cartage that would only leave yeu a
maximum of 1 s. 8 d. 2–Yes. .
2932. What do you say to that ?—Of course
that would not do ; that just catches the point I
explained a few minutes previously : that in a low
rate like that we are obliged to consider the re-
duction of every element that forms the whole
cost of carriage. They must be reduced in loco-
motion, in road, in station, in labour, and in cart-
age.
2233. Let me ask you another question, be-
cause a question or two has been put with regard
to it; 4 d. here is your minimum charge P-Yes.
2934. If we take 3 d. as the proper amount to
add, if we add on collection and delivery for the
moment, that would make 7 d. 2–Yes.
2935. But, 7 d. to be compared with the
existing charge of 4 d. 2–Yes.
2936. That I think would be only a per
centage increase of about 75 per cent 2–That is
SO.
2937. When you leave the minimum charge,
which you say is a fair minimum charge, and go
to the higher charges, the percentage of margin
of cost constantly grows less 2–Yes, precisely,
very materally less. We have only º it.
Cl’e
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
451
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
here up to 50 miles ; but if it gets to 100 miles
or beyond it would be very little. -
2938. Just going back for a minute to the
illustration I was giving, taking the 4 º' per "Wºº
or 6 s. 8d. per ton, if we take Class, C. with
the terminals given in the proposed schedule of
2s. 8d. you would have to carry actually for 1 s.
less than the terminal charges alone, with
nothing for carriage 2–-Will you give me the
figures please ? -
2939. We work it out in this way : 4d. per
cwt. is 6 s. 8 d. per ton 3–Yes.
2940. If you were to allow,
for cost of cartage, you only get is. 8d, left?-
Yes. .
2941. Now under Class C, the terminals alone
per ton would work out to 2 s. 8d.
Mr. Pember.] Two station terminals at I S.
each, two service terminals at 3 d. each, that
is 2 s. 6 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is not Mr. Oakley's
evidence; it is Mr. Pember through Mr. Cripps
through Mr. Oakley.
Witness.] They are putting a problem to me;
I must know the elements of the problem.
Mr, Balfour Browne.] I should not accept it
at all.
Witness.] Probably not.
right.
I have it 2 s. 8d.
Mr. Cripps.
2942. Therefore you get less than nothing
for conveyance (we may put it in that Way),
minus 1 s. Let me ask you this generally.
Having looked carefully into this matter and
trying to adopt a system on the Clearing House
principle with a reasonable margin, do you get
more than a reasonable margin in your proposal?
—No, decidedly not, a gradually descending
margin from 75 per cent. as it appears to be here
for the long distances: this only shows now up
to 50 miles. If it be worked out for 100 or 150
miles, and, taking our average it is pretty nearly
100, it is between 80 and 100 miles, the margin
would be very small indeed.
Mr. Hanbury.
2943. Is there any definite reason why there
should be this varying difference between actual
charges and maximum for different distances?—
I think it is reasonable that it should be so,
because the longer the distance the less the total
cost of carrying, inasmuch as it is not burdened
with the expenses and delay at each end. One
consignment going 100 miles can be relatively
more cheaply done than the same consignment
going 25 miles.
Mr. Pember.] It is only handled once.
- Mr. Cripps.
2944. Especially as your rates here with re-
gard to that question are inclusive of station and
service terminals 2–Yes.
2945. Which, of course, would be a constant
quantity, irrespective of distance 2–Yes; but
those station terminals, you must always bear in
mind, are not always obtainable ; and in making
a reduction in the rate we recognise that the
against that, 5 s. -
Mr. Cripps—continued.
actual carriage as well as the terminal, or rather
the terminal as well as the actual carriage, should
bear its proportion of reduction, and therefore
the cartage too.
2246. Taking, for the moment, the figures you
took of empties dealt with at King's Cross on
one day, which you took to give the Committee
information —— ?—Twenty-seven tons.
2947. About half would be over 100 miles
and about half under ; – No, I have not got
that. •.
Mr. Cripps.] That is the table put into my
hand as worked out in that way.
[Mr. Cripps hands in the following Table :]
RETURN of EMPTIES dealt with at KING's
CRoss, on 23rd April 1891.

Present. Full 75 per Cent.
DISTANCE. Weight. t Proposed Proposed
Charges. Charges. Charges.
Tons. cwt. Qrs. lbs. £. S. d. £. S. d. £. S. d.
1 to 25 miles 4 15 3 18 2 15 4 3 14 6 3 3 3
26 to 50 miles 5 16 0 8 3 8 2 5 - 2 4 3 8
51 to 100 miles - || 4 2 0 18 || 5 4 11 5 7 11 4 7 5
101 to 150 miles - 5 1. 3 20 7 9 9 9 @ 9 7 19 2
Over 150 6 13 3 6 || 7 15 9 || 13 4 1 9 18 2
TOTAL - - 21 2 3 4 26 13 11 | 36 is 5 || 2 || 1
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Does he know anything
about it? -
Earl of Camperdown.] He has said that his
general average is about 80 miles.
Mr. Cripps.
2948. The figures will show about that ; that
is why we had the figures worked out?—Yes,
these are the same figures. I had not this table.
As I explained at starting, the work has occupied
so much time that I have hardly had time to con-
centrate it in my mind; but taking the weight
broadly, disregarding the cwts., there are 13 tons
carried up to 100 miles and l l carried beyond.
2949. Just a question as regards the provisos
that are put in this proposal. Are those pro-
visos in your opinion just, the provisos in respect
of returned empty crates or carboys 2–We
thought them reasonable. We had before our
minds the necessity of presenting to the Com-
mittee something very brief and generic, if I may
so use the term, that could be embodied in a
Provisional Order. We were advised some
time previously that we could not hope to em-
body in a Provisional Order any verbiage or lan-
guage like that embodied in Clearing House
Return ; and, having that warning before our
eyes the other day, we endeavoured to attain the
object by putting the whole in a concentrated
form, and abandoning, so far as many of these
items are concerned, any special exceptions, and
limiting it only to empty crates and to carboys;
the former being very expensive to carry in rela-
tion to weight, and the carboys being a speciality,
brittle, and certainly more troublesome ; we can-
not load them up, we cannot cover them up.
(81.)
3 L 2 2950. First
452
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
2950. First of all, with reference to your cal-
culation which you say has just been calculated,
as I understand that is the calculation of what
you get as actual rates, and what you would get
under the proposal in the schedule 7—Yes.
2951. Also with the proposal that you should
have the full rate instead of the 25 per cent 2–
Yes; this calculation has reference, as I explained
to the examination of the other day.
2952. I am quite aware of that. It is there-
fore possible in some instances to get at the
actual rates and to show what margin any cer-
tain proposal will give you ?–On each particular
article; that was the only way we could get at
it. We took out each individual article we
carried and worked out the earnings from that
article in each case. -
2953. And you have got it in this instance and
show a margin of 9 l. 19 s. 6 d. on one proposal
and 2 l. 17 s. 2 d. on the other?—Yes.
2954. We will pass from that because the pro-
posal you make to-day is an entirely different
one 2–Yes.
2955. My learned friend Mr. Cripps put it to
you that on the calculation of terminals for
Class C. at 2s. 8 d. you would be carrying even
on your proposal for less than nothing?-- Yes.
2956. Do you follow 2–Yes.
2957. It just occurs to me to ask you, does
not that show that the 2 s, 8 d. terminal is a
ridiculously large one 2–Certainly not, I can
answer for that. On the contrary, if I ventured
to use your adjective in the presence of the
Board of Trade I should rather say it was ridicu-
lously low.
2958. Therefore you want to carry for less
than less than nothing?—I want it at both ends,
if you please.
2959. My learned friend's calculation was that
taking this 2 s. 8d. you would be carrying for
less than nothing 7–Yes.
2960. You say that 2s. 8d. is too little ; there-
fore you want to carry at less than nothing?—
No ; therefore I ought to get a higher price for
Carrying. -
2961. It is your own proposal that he was
dealing with ; he was dealing with this table,
your own proposal 7–I do not know that I could
cite a greater proof of our moderation.
2962. But do you not see that that moderation
may be accounted for by the fact that he has
taken too large a sum for terminals, which leaves
nothing for conveyance?—As a matter of practice,
I should not hope to get these terminals.
2963. As a matter of practice, these terminals
are not always obtainable 7–No, nor is the
carriage nor any element of our cost always
obtainable. -
2964. And if you did not expect to get the
2 s. 8 d. terminal, you would need to know what
you expect to get before you can get the cost of
conveyance?–On each individual article. I have
got to look at it as a question of the cost for the
whole. Let me make what I believe to be the
view of the companies quite clear. We cannot
always get the same rate on every article in every
class. It is a question always with us then
whether, instead of earning 1 s, profit, we should
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
be content with 6 d. In fact, anything above the
actual cost of carriage and labour is profit, be-
cause it goes to reduce the general charges
against the company. But we could not carry
on business on that all round.
2965. Therefore it is absurd in every case to go
and deduct a terminal like 2 s. 8d., and say the
remainder is for conveyance?—I should say at
starting that you cannot take the maximum which
we receive under all circumstances as obtainable
in every case.
2966. You have said fairly enough that 5 s. is
not an unreasonable average, and 3 d. a cwt. would
be a not unfair average 2—No ; if you will pardon
me, when I was speaking of that the other day—
2967. You said that to-day ?—Pardon me, I ex-
plained that in this way : that if I was dealing as
between country stations alone, I should put the
average a little lower; I should not start with
country stations at 5 s. and London at 6 s., but
that, taking an average all round, including
London, probably 5 s. will not be an unreasonable
SUl IIl.
Earl of Camperdown.
2968. You said the country at 4 s. ?—Yes.
Chairman.
2969. I understood you to say that you would
take the country at 4s. and London at 5 s. or 6 s. ?
—Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2970. This proposal is an all round proposal P
—Yes, it is. *
2971. Let us see really whether 5 s. is not a
fair average all round. You admit that, do you
not ?–Yes, including London.
2972. Therefore if 5 s. is a fair average all
round including London, 3 d. a cwt. would be
the right annount for cartage 7–No ; that is just
where you make the mistake ; because the 3 d. a
cwt. would not be chargeable on all these items.
Some portion of the carriage, a distance of 25
miles might be 3d. a cwt. ; the other portion
would not be, because it would be between the
country stations. Let me put it quite clearly.
You are assuming in your 3 d. average that the
proportion of London to country bears a fair re-
lation to the total of London as compared with
the total of country. That cannot be so. Because
the country covers in my case a thousand miles
of railway ; London is but one station and it does
not represent half the traffic of the total.
2973. It represents a much larger proportion
than any other station ?–Yes.
2974. Then further, is it not the fact that the
charges in London are much higher than 5 s.,
so that you would require a great number of
country stations to pull down the average 2–No ;
the relation of London to the country is so dis-
proportionate that it would require very few.
Taking country stations like Leeds, Nottingham,
Manchester, and stations of that sort, a few would
very soon reach London.
2975. I find here that apparently from the
figures you have supplied (referring to the table
handed in by Mr. Oakley on the previous day) that
the cartage in London goes up to the very large
SUl I?)
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
453
14 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—-continued.
sum of 8s. 8d. in some cases?—Yes, and for this
reason; it is easily explainable. London is a
city of long distances from King's Cross to the
south side, Surrey, or from King's Cross to a
long way west ; but there is a large amount of
cartage done within one or two miles of King's
Cross, that would not be 8 s. 8d.
2976. But the lowest I find in London is
5 s. 9 d. 2 — We do for less than that ; some of it
is 3 s. 4 d.
2977. That must be a very narrow circle
indeed – Yes, that is broadly from the City
stations.
2978. And even in country stations it is
not a universal rule of 4 s. ; it depends upon how
far you cart there 2–Yes; at some country
stations where we carry a very long distance it
is perhaps 5 s. or 6 s., and in other cases it is only
1 s., and in some cases 9 d.
Mr. Hambury.
2979. Taking it as a question of tonnage, what
is the proportion of cartage in London to the
cartage at country stations on your line; I only
want to know roughly 2–Do you mean the pro-
portion of cost or the proportion of quantity ?
2980. The quantity. For every 100 tons
carried at country stations, how many would be
carried in London 2–I am afraid I cannot
answer that question; it would require looking
into.
2981. Would you say it was about half and
half?— I do not know ; I should not like to
answer when I do not know, when I could not
give an answer that I could not rely upon.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2982. I find this in the Clearing House book
on page 4, “When parcels and packages con-
signed as if to be delivered in one lot are after-
wards found to involve several separate
deliveries in portions weighing each 500 lbs.
or under, the charge for each such separate
delivery within the ordinary or free delivery
boundaries must be as under, namely (a) in
London 3 d. per cwt. ; minimum charge
4 d. each delivery, (b.) in the country 2 d.
per cwt., minimum charge 3 d, each delivery.”
Is that the rule 2–Yes, that is the rule no doubt.
That is a rule to meet the cases of a consignment
of quantities coming up, and the traders requiring
us to split up the consignment and to make
sundry separate deliveries. You can readily
understand that in a case like that we are obliged
to make a relatively higher charge than at the
tonnage rate.
2983. It is not relatively higher; if it is 3 d. it
is at the 5 s. ?—No, you are mistaken ; you are
not quite apprehending my answer. This is a
rate including collection and delivery per ton. If
it was a large consignment the price would be
fized, but when he splits up his consignment we
add something for the special delivery.
2984. Quite so, and that something is 3 d. per
cwt. with a minimum of 4 d. 2–That is what we
charge.
2985. Does that include the collection of the
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
parcel at the other end or exclude it 2–It is one
collection in gross from the sending station. It
is a separation of the gross into sundry deliveries
at the receiving station.
2986. One delivery in parcels at the other
end ?—Yes. - -
Mr. Hunter.
2987. How many years has this Clearing House
scale been established ?–Twenty-five years I am
informed.
2988. Has it been the same all that time —
Mr. Twelvetrees, our goods manager, tells me it
was altered in 1872; it has been the same since
1872.
2989. Was it reduced or increased in 1872 2–
It has been increased. I think I explained in
my previous examination that when these empties
became a large factor then the companies were
obliged to make a charge for them, because the
expense which was thrown upon the companies
WaS SO Sel’lOUIS. -
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
2990. First of all, about the question asked
you on page 4 of the Railway Clearing House
book; that is an additional charge, is it not,
that you may make where the rate paid already
includes cartage and delivery 2–Cartage in
gross.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But not for parcels.
Mr. Cripps.
2991. Is it where you have to make several
separate deliveries, although the parcels or pack-
ages were consigned as if to be delivered in one
lot?—Yes, it is a practice that is very much in-
creasing ; the trader in the country makes the
railway the emporium or centre from which he
makes deliveries to his separate customers in
London. Formerly it used to be consigned to a
house in one delivery. Now, through the faci-
lities afforded by the railways, we give the
country manufacturer the opportunity of deliver-
ing direct to his customers on the arrival of the
goods in London.
2992. My learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne
was pointing out to you on our proposed scale
that where you have average maxima, as he put
it, your actual charges vary very much in differ-
ent cases? —They must.
2993. Does the same principle apply to cart-
age; would the actual cartage charged in each
case vary very much as against your assumed
average of 5 s. ?–Undoubtedly it must do that ;
the cartage depends upon circumstances. If a
man is a quarter of a mile from our station his
cartage is cheaper; if he is three or four miles off
his cartage would be relatively more expensive.
2994. Therefore dealing with 3 d. as a relative
all-round charge, it does not imply that your
actual charge will differ in the different cases?—
(81.)
3 L 3 - No,
454
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. C. pps—continued.
No, it is impossible really ; it is only theory to
argue otherwise. It is impossible to assign to
each individual class thf actual cost of the cartage
of every particular article in that class; you must
look at it as a whole. -
2995. And that is the reason, as I understand
it, that for the purposes of giving an indication of
what your margin would be you have taken the
5 s. as an all-round cartage price 2–Yes.
2996. Although in each case as you say it may
differ, and must differ according to the quality of
the article and according to distance –Yes, it
must differ. It differs in every big town; I
would not say in every country town, but it
differs very largely. Take Yorkshire for example,
where it is all hills, the cartage there is more
expensive than it would be in Lincolnshire.
2997. And taking the collection and delivery
rate, which we know is not governed by a maxi-
mum, is it governed by the competition that you
have P-I am sorry to say it is.
2999. Still you have taken the 5s., that is the
higher average, in that you take London in, and
you apply it to the Clearing House figures which
are applicable to stations, excluding London 2–
Yes. The cartage is governed very largely by
competition. Taking London for example, any
traffic that can come up by ship to the waterside
is delivered very cheaply from thence to the
London houses in Mint-street or Thames-street,
and our cartage there must be of course modified
by conditions of that sort.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace we oppose
this clause very strongly. The suggestion, your
Grace was good enough to make on Tuesday last
seems to us, if I may venture to say so, an
exceedingly reasonable one, that we should so
far as possible adopt the Clearing House scale
which has existed for, I believe, 20 or 30 years,
which the railway companies have carried under
and never varied, which they themselves adopted
remember without compulsion, and that we
should add thereto a reasonable margin. Now
I do not hesitate to say that this proposal which
has been put before you by the railway com-
panies adds a most unreasonable margin in
almost every instance. The lowest margin
which they have got so far as I can make out is
a margin of 25 per cent. in addition; and
although I can quite follow that it is impossible
in very small amounts to give an exact percent-
age the same all through, especially for instance
when to 2 d. you have to add something, you
must add 1 d., and then it amounts perhaps to
100 additional per cent. or 50 per cent., still
when you find on one charge there is 300 per
cent., as I think there undoubtedly is taking it
by itself without the cartage, then you must
hesitate before you adopt a scale putting us
under that very heavy impost. Further than
that I think, I think a scale can easily be adopted
having this Clearing House Classification
absolutely for the basis and giving a modc-
rate percentage of increase all round for
margin. We have framed such a scale, and
I beg to hand in now our clause and I will
call a witness who will explain how it has been
framed and that we have given them in every
case a very considerable margin over the Clearing
House scale. In no case so far as I remember at
this instant looking down the columns have we
given them less than 11 per cent., and that only
on the 2d. raised to 3 d., but in no case have we
given over 100 per cent. down to 11 per cent. I
submit to this Committee that a percentage vary-
ing from 100 per cent down to 11 per cent. is .
an ample margin, seeing that these charges
themselves in the Clearing House Classification
have satisfied them all through.
Mr. Cripps.] Will you kindly let us have a
copy Ž
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Certainly we will.
Mr. Frere will hand you a copy now. Further
than that, I may say that we have followed your
Grace's direction implicitly ; we have not only
put in a scale, but we have put in all the ex-
ceptions. You will find that they have taken
out the only two exceptions in the Clearing
House scale which are in their favour and put
them into their clause. We have preserved, as
you will hear from the witness who has compiled
the table and compiled the clause, all the excep-
tions in the Railway Clearing House; and there
is nothing very exceptional in it, because it is all
contained in those three pages. I will hand in
the clause as we proposed it, and Mr. Colbatch
Clark will explain the accompanying table to
show you how it is worked out.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION A L ORD EP BILLS. 455
14 May 1891.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY. \ PROVISIONAL
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY. ſ ORDER BILLs.
BRIGHT ON CORPORATION PETITION.
RETURNED EMPTIES. CLAUSE proposed to be substituted for SECTION 21,
page 6 of the BILL.
21. For returned empties, if from the same station and consignee to which and to whom they
were carried full, to the same station and consignor from which and from whom they were carried
full, the company may charge any sums not exceeding the amounts specified in the following general
scale and sub-sections: — -
When not When carried
g - • frº 7 e carried to or to Or
For all returned empties, except such as are specified in from London from London
the following sub-sections: i. - e
. - S. d. S. d.
For distances not exceeding 25 miles - sº * * * – 2 per cwt. – 3 per cwt.
For distances exceeding 25 miles but not exceeding
50 miles - tºº - - * - * * tº — 4 y? – 5 32
For distances exceeding 50 miles but not exceeding
100 miles - - - - - sº tºº amº — 7 32 – 9 55.
For distances exceeding 100 miles but not exceeding
150 miles - e-º º * º tºº - * {-} – 10 35 1 I 52.
For distances exceeding 150 miles but not exceeding
200 miles – sº * = } wº * , tº * º | 2 35 1 4 , , ,
For distances exceeding 200 miles but not exceeding --
250 miles - - sº & º * fºr *s gº 1 5 39 1 7 25
For distances exceeding 250 miles but not exceeding -
300 miles - me sº * - - * -º gº I 8 33 1 l () 55
Fer distances exceeding 300 miles but not exceeding -
400 miles - &= - tºg $º sº Gº- *... sº 2 — 35 2 2 »
For distances exceeding 400 miles but not exceeding
500 miles - – * &= sº & gºe sº 2 6 , 2 6 5 s
For distances exceeding 500 miles but not exceeding ;
600 miles - dº se * tºp º E. : 3 1 95 3 1
55.
Returned empties, Clause 21.
Provided that :—
(a.) For sacks and bags and returned empty fish packages, carried for any distance less than
50 miles, the company may charge as for a distance of 50 miles. -
(b.) For returned casks, crates, and cases containing straw, and casks and crates containing
earthenware and china returned to the potteries, the company may make the maximum
charges applicable to merchandise included in the fourth class of the classification, and
may make a minimum charge of l S. per consignment.
(c.) For returned empty hat crates, bicycle crates, tricycle crates, china crates, and earthen-
ware crates, the company may charge double the amounts specified in the general scale
in this section, and may make a minimum charge of 1 S. per consignment.
(d.) For returned empty carboys, the company may charge any sums not exceeding the
following:– - -
For any distance not exceeding 50 miles - tº sº sº tº- E; - 3 d. each.
For any distance exceeding 50 miles but not exceeding 100 miles *º-º - 4 d, each.
For any distance exceeding 110 miles but not exceeding 150 miles * - 5 d, each.
For any distance exceeding 150 miles E. sº º sm wº - - 7 d, each.
(e.) For returned yarn enlpties, the company may charge any sum not exceeding the amounts
specified in the general scale in this section, or any sums not exceeding the following
almOulntS :— -
For yarn skiffs, tied in bundles - tº º tº • * *E= sº tº º - 2 d. each.
For yarn skips, loose, in lots of two or more tº tºº *m. º - - 3 d. each.
For yarn or weft cans or baskets s &º tº-º: tºº * sº sº * = a - 1 d, each.
For weft casks - tº- wº º: £º tº- º sº gº &= - * - 6 (l. each.
For weft boxes - se tº ſº * sº * - w º 4- , sº sº - 3 (l. each.
For warp beams tº- tºº g- * tºº tº tºº * wº tº sº – 6 d. each.
For skips of empty bobbins or spools - tº-e g- tºº tº sº º - 4 d. each.
(81.) 3 L 4 +. (f.) In
* ,
$ ?
" . " 4:
f 456
&
#
*
º gº i - • * , # $
(f) In cases where the maximum charge for returned empty ale and porter casks, distillers'
, MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT CoMMITTEE #
g
14 May 1891. - * * \ .
-*.
—re .
casks, whiskey casks, vinegar casks and cider casks authorised by the general scale in.
this section exceed the maximum rates and charges which the company are by this
schedule authorised to make for the class of merchandise which such casks respectively sº
contained when full, the company shall only be entitled to charge the amount authorised
by this schedule for the class of merchandise which such casks contained when full.
(g.) In cases where the maximum, charge for returned paper shields and rollers authorised
by the general scale in this section exceed the maximum rates and charges authorised by
this schedule for the paper sent with such shields and rollers the company shall only be
centitled to charge the amount authorised by this schedule for the paper carried with
them. **
(h.) The company may make a minimum charge of 2 d. per consignment for any distance not
exceeding 25 miles, and a minimum charge of 4 d. per consignment for any distance
exceeding 25 miles. *
(i.) For any consignment of returned empties weighing less than a half of a hundredweight
the company may charge as for a-half of a hundredweight.
(j.) Where a consignment of returned empties is under 3 cwt. in weight, for a fraction of
14 lbs. in weight the company may charge as for 14 lbs. weight.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY, LONDON, BRIGHTON, As D
SOUTH COAST RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs, 1891.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION PETITION.
RETURNED EMPTIES.
CoMPARISON of the RAILWAY CLEARING Hous E GENERAL SCALE of CHARGES, with the
MAXIMUM CHARGES proposed by the suggested Amendment, which is framed upon the present
Scale, less an Allowance for Collection and Delivery, but with a margin of increase.

& /
Distances given WHEN NOT CARRIED TO OR FROM LONDON. . WHEN CARRIED TO OIR l'IROM LONDON.
in the *
Clearing House 91% ºng | Collection | * | Proposed Mººn Cºg Collection | **** Proposed | *gin
oft. and ë. Mººm, Indiase of its and ó.º* | Manimum, I Of SČ
tº gº ... tº § ºvans wº i wrons arge 11CrC&SC
Classification. tion. Delivery, g.º.” S. to S. | j. tion. Delivery. g. *:::: S. to S. per Cent.
Per Owt. Per CWt. for Owt. Per Owt. Per Owt. IPOr CWt, Por CWt. Per Owt.
s, d. s, d. S. d. 3. d. 8. d. 3. d. s, d. s. d.
Not exceeding 25 miles — 4 - 3 - 1 – 2 100 – 6 — 4 – 2 - 3 50
& \, \, v \
26 to 50 miles - & – 6 — 3 – 3 — 4 , 33 – 8 — 4 — 4 – 5 25
\
51 0 100 m - - - 9 - 3 – 6 – 7 16 1 — — 4 – 8 – 9 12
101 , , 150 , , - ge 1 — – 3 – 9 – 10 11 . 1 3 — 4 – 11 1 1 18
151 n 200 , - - 1 -3 – 3 1 - 1 2 16 1 6 — 4 1 2 1 4 14
201 m, 250 m - - 1 6 — 3 1 8 1 5 13 1 9 — 4 1 5 1 7 11
251 ,, 800 x - sº 1 9 - 8 1, 6 1 8 11 2 - - 4 1 8 1, 10 10
301 , , 400 , , - - || 2 – — 3 1 9 2 - 14 2 3 — 4 1 11 2 2 13-
401 m, 500 m - - || 2 6 — 3 2 3 2 6 11 2 6 – 4 2 2 2 6 15
501 p. 600 , - || 3 – - 8 2 9 3 1 12 8 — — 4 2 8 3 1 15
certain distances). And all these cases are specially provided for in the proposed amendment,
Francis J. Tillstone,
Town Clerk, Brighton.
lèees & Frere,
Parliamentary Agents,
13, Great George-street, S.W.
Note:-The exceptions to the General Scale of Charges, set out on pages 101 and 102 of the Railway Clearing House Classification, all give lower rates
than the General Scale, except as to crates, carboys, Sacks and bags, empty fish packages (when sent less than 50 miles), yarn emptics (whom sent
Ale and porter casks, empty casks to distilleries, whiskey casks, vinegar casks, and cider casks, arc only charged the same rate pCr ton as when
received full when that rate is less than the charge as per ordinary scale for returned empties.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
457
14 May 1891.
MR. COL BATCH CLARK is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Balfour Browne.
2999. YoU, I believe, are acting for the cor-
poration of Brighton ?—I am.
3000. And upon the Clearing House scale you
have framed another scale which is embodied in
the new clause which I have handed in 2—I have.
3001. In every instance does that scale keep
as close to the Clearing House scale as possible,
giving what you consider a reasonable margin to
the railway companies?—It does.
3002. First of all you propose for distances
not exceeding 25 miles 2 d. 2– Yes.
3003. When carried to or from London ?–No;
carried to or from stations, not London.
3004. And 3 d. when carried to or from Lon-
don?–Threepence when London is one of the
stations.
3005. Why do you propose these two figures
for that, the Clearing blouse having allowed 4 d.
per cwt.”—I have dealt with the Clearing House
figure of 4 d. per cwt. from which I have deducted
for collection and delivery 3 d., leaving 1 d., and
I have added on to that, what I considered a
reasonable amount for margin, another 1 d.,
making it 2 d. That gives a margin of possible
increase of 100 per cent.
3006. On the 25 miles 2–Yes.
3007. Just dealing with the same 25 miles
when one of the terminii is London what margin
do they get then Pi—Then they get 50 per cent.
3008. You are dealing with the second scale in
the Clearing House Book? — Yes, precisely in
the same way, only in that case I take 4 d. for
the collection and delivery rate.
3009. Is that because of the greater expense
of delivery in London? – Yes; and because I
find that is the rate charged in Brighton in
addition to our station-to-station rate. In Brigh-
ton they are station-to-station rates, and when a
trader sends from Brighton to London he is
charged 4 d., 1 d. at one end and 3 d. at the
other.
3010. You have deducted 4 d. from the 6 d.,
which is the Clearing House scale from London 2
—-Yes.
3011. That gives you a present actual charge
station-to-station of 2 d. 2–Of 2d.
3012. And you propose a maximum in that
case of 3 d. 2–Yes.
3013. That gives them a margin in that case of
50 per cent.”—Yes.
Mr. Haubury.] Will you explain before you
pass on from that, what is the reason for having
this different margin in the case of London and
country stations 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We have taken the
scale from; the Clearing House book. The
reasons for a different margin are those which have
been pointed out, first, that cartage is greater at
erminal stations.
Mr. Hunter.] The cartage has nothing to do
with it. Why is the percentage greater 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The difference is that
you really cannot divide pence.
Witness.] No ; the reason why I put an extra
amount for London was because I found in the
Clearing House book that an extra amount was
charged.
Chairman.] But it is the other way.
Witness.] A less margin with a larger amount.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Let me try to follow up
what the Committee have in their mind. For
country stations, if it is carried 25 miles, the per-
centage of margin is 100 per cent. 2–Yes.
3014. In London it is only half that amount,
50 per cent. 2–Yes.
3015. How does that arise ?—Because I did
not deal with fractions of one penny at all. I
added 1 d. in each case.
3016. It would be impossible, would it not, to
deal with fractions of 1 d. 2–Yes.
3017. And really 50 per cent., in your opinion,
is more than a sufficient margin, and therefore
100 per cent. is more than a sufficient margin;
but you could not add less than 1 d, P-I should
have put less if I could have done so.
3018. With regard to distances of 26 to 50
miles, you have followed out the scale again P—
Yes. -
3019. And you have taken the 6 d. in the
Clearing House book, taking off the cartage,
which leaves 3 d... and added 1 d. 7–Yes.
3020. That 1 d. is still the same amount added,
but it only works out now at 33 per cent. 2–
That is so.
3021. So that all the way down the Clearing
House scale, you have adopted both scales of the
Clearing House book?—Yes.
3022. Dealing with the one for country
stations and the other for London 2–Yes.
3023. In no case, so far as I can see in the
first set of columns, do you allow a margin of less
than 11 per cent. 2–Eleven per cent. is the
smallest.
3024. Is that an ample percentage in your
opinion to cover the Clearing House scale 2–I
think so.
3025. I see I was wrong. Form 250 to 300
miles it goes down to 10 per cent. ”—Yes.
3026. Even in that case, do you think that
10 per cent. is an ample margin 7–I think so.
3027. The Clearing House scale contains a
good many other provisions besides those for
returned empties in general P-- Yes.
3028. How have you dealt with them in the
proposals that you submit to the Committee –
I have taken care in all those cases that the
charges which the companies are entitled to
make are covered by them, so that they will
always be able to make the full amount of those
charges.
3029, You have followed the Clearing House
scale and given a margin in every one of the
special cases 2–Yes.
3030. Is it the fact with regard to crates and
carboys that those are the cases where the ex-
ceptional classes are in favour of the railway
companies 2–Yes.
(81.)
3 M 3031. With
458
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
3031. With regard to most other cases, ale and
porter casks, whiskey casks and others, as Mr.
Wilkinson admitted, the exception is in favour
of the trader 2–It is.
3032. Have you tried so far as possible to
preserve that throughout 2–Yes.
3033. In each instance you allow the railway
companies a margin of something not less than is
shown in this table 2–Yes.
3034. Even in the exceptional classes 2–I
should point out that there is one case, that is
yarn empties, for which I put precisely the same
as there is in the Clearing House.
3035. Why did you do that ?—Because in that
case, where the general scale is the highest, the
companies are entitled to charge the general scale.
have left it there. It is in the option of the
companies either to charge the general scale or
to charge what is put for each particular
amount. With that exception, I think that
there are margins in every other case.
3036. In that case you did not give a margin,
because they have the option of charging which-
ever is highest ?—Yes.
3037. But in all other cases you have given
them a margin 2–Yes.
Chairman.
3038. There are other cases, sacks and bags?
—Yes. There you will see I have made a 50-
mile minimum, because if I did not they would
not be quite covered. If I had taken out bags
my proposition would not have quite covered
them. They might have been charged a 25-mile
minimum. If I had left the sacks there at the
25 miles they would not have got quite so much
under my table as they are entitled to under the
Clearing House scale, and I therefore made it
that 50 miles was to be the minimum, and with
that they will get twice as much as they can get
under the Clearing House scale.
3039. Then empty fish bags 2—That is in the
same way. For empty fish bags they will, as a
matter of fact, under this table, be entitled to
charge very considerably more ; but the mini-
mum there was 50 miles, and my minimum was
25 miles. At that particular point they would
have been cut down, and therefore in order to
avoid that I have made it that 50 miles shall be
the minimum distance that they shall be entitled
to charge. If it is less than 50 miles they shall
be entitled to charge as for 50 miles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3040. Does that meet the difficulty you were
in of cutting down their charges 2-—[t does.
3041. Under the proposal which you now
make, which, as I understand you, is framed
upon the Clearing House classification, they
have a margin in every instance, except the one
of yarns 2–Yes.
3042. A margin, in your opinion, amply suffi-
cient to remunerate the railway company ?—Yes,
the margin which is clearly stated in this
paper.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
3043. All these percentages, which you say
you leave us as margin, are achieved in the same
way, by deducting the full amount of 3 d. per
Mr. CLARK.
[Continued.
~g,
Mr. Pember—continued.
cwt. for cartage in the country, and the full
amount of 4 d. for cartage in town —That is
SO. e
3044. Does not it occur to you that if the total
charge quoted for collection and delivery is made
up partly of terminals, partly of conveyance
rate, and partly of cartage and delivery, and is a
fixed amount, that under competition the com-
pany probably forgoes a certain amount of each
one of those heads of charge 7–-I took what I
have been told had been given in the evidence
here. I understand that 5 s, a ton, or 3 d. per
cwt., is the charge for collection and delivery.
3045. It may be taken as a fair average charge
for cartage; but I ask you again, why should
you not suppose that in making up the compo-
site rate, which would consist partly of the
charge for station services and conveyance rate
and cartage, they forego something under each
one of those heads 2—I did not suppose so, and
I treated it accordingly.
3046. Just one or two matters of detail to
follow out what you have suggested. How do
you deal with meat, game, poultry, butter in
baskets, and so on 1—ſ have left them under the
general scale. -
3047. You give no special minimum charge for
those ?—No.
3048. But I see that our charge for those is
4 d. per cwt. for 25 miles?—Including collection
and delivery. -
3049. Is not that the same thing with regard
to fish empties?–No, they are station to station.
3050. You may have it, I do not know, but if
you look at page 101 of the Clearing House
classification you will find, with regard to sacks
and bags, not exceeding 100 miles 3 d. per cwt.,
station to station ; 300 miles so much ; above
300 miles so much ; minimum charge as for one
cwt. Where have you provided for that ?—There
is a general minimum of half a cwt.
3051. But where have you provided for a mini-
mum charge as for one cwt. 2–In this classifica-
tion there is a distinct declaration that sacks and
bags sent empty are chargeable at higher rates.
You admit that you cut down those with regard
to your 25-mile rate, so you give us a minimum
of 50 miles to make that good ; but where do
you give us a minimum charge of half a cwt. as
we have it in the classification ?—The minimum
charge which you would be entitled to make on
this scale would be 4 d., and your charge here is
3 d. per cwt. -
3052, If you mean your Sub-section H., it is
that the company may make a minimum charge
of 2 d. per consignment for any distance not
exceeding 25 miles, and a minimum charge
of 4 d. per consignment for any distance exceed-
ing 25 miles —Your charge here is 3 d. per cwt.
for 100 miles, and I give you, power to charge
7 d... I make 50 miles the minimum, that you
shall be entitled to charge for 50 miles 4 d. at the
least.
3053. There is one other thing which it occurs
to me to ask you abont this comparison of yours.
I see that it is 3 d. per cwt. that you have
deducted for cartage when not carried to or from
London 2–Yes.
3054. Did you hear Mr. Wilkinson say to-day
that 3 s, in the country was more like the proper
thing
ON RAll, WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
459
14 May 1891 ..]
Mr. CLARK.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
thing to charge for cartage —I did hear Mr.
Wilkinson, but not before I had prepared these
tables; but I did hear Mr. Oakley the other
day.
%55. We will take Mr. Wilkinson, and see
how far his figures affect this comparison. If his
figures are right, that 3 s. is the right amount for
the country ; 3 s. divided into a ton at 20 cwt. to
the ton brings it considerably under 2 d., that
you ought to deduct for cartage and destroys all
these percentages at once 2–If that is so, of
COUll'Se It IS SO.
3056. It destroys every percentage in the
country scale. Now I have no doubt you have
taken a great deal of pains with this; I think you
said you were a solicitor P−Yes.
3057. Have you ever made a single consign-
ment of traffic in your life 2–No, I have not, but
I have acted for the traders of Brighton and
obtained full information from them as to the
working of this.
3058. You do not, I suppose, represent the
Mansion House people 2–No.
3059. They proposed a 4 d. minimum ?—Yes.
3060. Would you just answer my question.
You said with regard to that minimum which I
spoke to you about for one hundredweight that
you had practically taken it into consideration,
and it was suggested that you had done so under
your Sub-section H. among your provisos : “The
Company may make a minimum charge of 2 d.
per constgnment for any distance not exceeding
25 miles, and a minimum charge of 4 d. per con-
signment for any distance exceeding 25 miles.”
Now, upon the assumption for the moment that
that might be true of the country, would that be
true of London ; would you have covered
London 2–Yes, I believe that I have.
3061. Traffic to and from London 2–I believe
I have covered the whole of it; if I have omitted
any instances I shall be glad to correct them.
3062. I suggest that that will not hold good in
London?–Yes, it would. The minimum weight
to Ilondon in the Clearing House classification
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued
is half a hundredweight, it is in the book, page
100, at the bottom of the page.
3063. The minimum weight of a hundred-
weight with a minimum charge of 6 d. up to 25
miles, and a minimum of 8 d. above 25 miles, but
here it is a minimum charge of 4 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] The difference between
them is this: that the classification makes a differ-
ence between the minimum charge for London
and not London, whereas the witness does not in
his scale.
Mr. Pember.] He does not. If you notice, at
the bottom of page 100, the minimum rate will be
half a hundredweight, with a minimum charge
of 6 d. up to 25 miles, and his charge is to be
only 2 d. for 25 miles. --
Earl of Camperdown.] It is to be the same for
the country as for London P
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3064. It is quite obvious that this table was
prepared before you came into the room to-day ?
—Yes.
3065. Therefore it could not have had any
regard to what Mr. Wilkinson said 7–No.
3066. You heard what Mr. Oakley said on the
last occasion. As we understood him then it was
a fair average all round of 3 d. 7—Yes.
3067. Did you also follow the Clearing House
book, which on page 4, when a consignment is
delivered in small packages, makes the charge 3 d.,
with a minimum charge for delivery in luondon of
4 d. 2–Yes.
3068. Had you also that in your mind when
you put 4 d. upon London and 3 d. upon the
country?—Yes.
Chairman.] It does not signify what he had in
his mind; the question is what he has in his mind
Il QW.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is quite certain that
nothing he has heard to-day has altered his mind.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. MARSHALL STEVENS, is called in; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Yates.
3069. As representing the traders of the Lan-
cashire and Yorkshire conference, do you oppose
the proposal of the railway companies?—Yés.
3070. With regard to the clause which is
endeavouring to fix the rates for the purpose,
how in your opinion ought it to be dealt with?–I
think it is entirely a matter of classification and
rates, and we understood from the Committee
on the last occasion that they requived a pro-
posal from the railway companies as to the classi-
fication of the empties. That classification is
not contained in their proposals. I would like
to say that there is no more difficulty in classi-
fying, empties in the proper place in the
classification than is there with regard to many
other articles. If you take hardware you will
find amongst hardware.
Chairman.] But this is not a case where we
are going to classify ; it is upon the question of
returned empties; we do not want a lecture
upon classification. -
Mr. Yates.] No ; but it was to show that
returned empties ought to be put in the classifi-
cation, and not put in this clause.
Mr. Peinber.] Are we on that point, your
Grace 2
Chairman.] No, the question of returned
empties was under discussion two days ago, and
We suggested (moved very much by the Board
of Trade) that the clause as it stood in the Provi-
sional Order did not as a matter of fact altogether
satisfy the Board of Trade. They did not like
the principle which was set out in it, and I think
Mr. Courtenay Boyle suggested that there
should be several classes.
Mr. Yates.] That there should be classifi-
cations.
(81.)
^
3 M 2 Chairman.]
460
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITT ºr
14th May 1891.]
Mr. STEVENS.
[Continued.
Chairman.] Then we invited both parties, the
railway companies on the one hand and Mr.
Balfour Browne on the other hand, to produce
some amendment which should be for our con-
sideration, keeping it quite open that we might
fall back upon this clause if we thought fit. The
railway companies have now prepared, in obedi-
ence to our request, the clause which is now
before us.
Mr. Yates,) But in order to show that that
clause does not meet the case, I want to show
that it can be dealt with better in another way :
in certain classes instead of in this way.
Earl of Camperdown.] The learned counsel
means dealing with them in classes rather than
in classification.
Mr. Yates.
3071. (To the Witness.) The returned empties
are of very various descriptions, are they not ?—
Yes; and so are many other articles in the
classification of far more importance than the
returned empties. - -
3072. In your judgment, ought those to be
put in certain classes and dealt with when you
come to deal with the rates?—Yes, if that were
done, the statement of Mr. Wilkinson that a loss,
and a serious loss, would occur to railway com-
panies under their proposals could not be borne
out. The Lancashire and Cheshire Conference
object very much to the railway companies being
bound to carry any class of goods or any goods
of any description at a loss, because that only
means that they have to make up that loss out of
other classes of goods.
3073. Supposing this is not to be dealt with
by way of putting empties into classes and
dealing with them when you come to rates, can
you tell us something about the cartage 2–Yes,
I say the present charges of the railway com-
panies, those being a varying charge in London
and the country, are arrived at entirely upon the
difference of cartage and not upon the difference
of station terminal at all, and I am prepared to
show you that from the railway companies' own
regulations. The Committee have the classi-
fication book but they have not the Clearing
House Regulations before them. The first regu-
lation as to terminal and special allowances of
the Clearing House reads as follows: It is
No. 62, page 17: “An allowance of 8 s. 6 d.
per ton in London and 4 s, per ton in the
country is made for their terminal expenses on
goods traffic when carted.”
Mr. Pember.] This ought to have been put
to Mr. Oakley, so that Mr. Oakley might have
explained what the regulations mean : I do not
know.
Mr. Yates.] The regulations are in plain
English. -
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Pember).] Cannot you
cross-examine on this.
Chairman.] We can very easily, if we think
fit, recall Mr. Oakley to explain the regula-
tions.
Witness.] “An allowance of 8 s. 6 d. per ton
in London and 4 s. in the country is made for
their terminal expenses on goods traffic when
carted, and 1 s. 6d. per ton in London and in the
country when not carted.” That means this,
that the cartage in London on all traffic which
is exchanged between two companies where they
have to keep a separate account for the cart-
age, is charged at 7 s. a ton, and at 2s. 6 d. per
ton in the country. That is the regulation
under which their traffic is now carried as
between two companies.
Mr. Yates.
3074. Does your experience tell you that that
is about the rate which is actually paid in the
country, so far as the country is concerned, for
cartage 2–It is absolutely the rate paid by one
company to another when the other company
carts the traffic.
3075. But the question I asked you was
rather, Was that the rate paid by the companies
in the towns themselves?—That is our difficulty.
I can give a dozen quotations from the evidence
of railway managers of the variation of cartage.
In one case it is given to us at 2s. 6d. when it
suits them to take 2s. 6 d. off; in other cases it is
given at as low as 1s.
3076. And you cannot get from the evidence
of the companies what it is exactly that they
pay ?—No ; our point is this, That we do not
think the rail way companies should have any
monopoly of cartage more than any other ordi-
nary trader. -
Chairman.] We are not here to discuss
whether there should be a monopoly of the
cartage by the railway companies; that is entirely
outside the question. -
Mr. Yates.] I did not ask that.
Chairman.] But the witness answered it, and
that is worse still. We want to confine our-
selves to this: Is this the proper mode of dealing
with refurned empties 2 It is not a question of
what grievances there may be outside that.
Mr. Yates.
3077. (To the Witness.) Do you say that is
too much to charge 2–Yes; I say it gives far
too large a margin, and if it is to be dealt with
here, although we do not think it is in
the proper place, we should support the pro-
posals brought in by the last witness, except that
there is no possible reason why there should be
an additional charge upon traffic when it is
carried to or from London.
Earl of Camperdowm.
3078. You deny then that the Railway Clear-
ing House has gone on the right principle,
because they have made a distinction —Not at
all, my Lord. The Railway Clearing House
rightly charge additional for London, because it
is inclusive of cartage. The proposal of the
railway companies, does not include cartage.
Mr. Clark's proposal does not inclue cartage, and
I say that, taking off a larger cartage for London
than for the country, there is no necessity at all
as regards the Bill for any two scales.
3079. With
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
461
14th May 1891.]
Mr. STEVENS.
[ Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
3079. With regard to this book of regulations
of the Clearing House, those regnlations are
entirely domestic to the companies, are they not ?
—Only the same as the Clearing House book
IS.
3080. They are entirely domestic to the com-
panies, are they not ?–Yes.
3081. They are arranged upon a give-and-take
basis, so as to facilitate transactions between the
companies?—Yes.
3082. Sometimes one special company may
lose upon a particular occasion, and another line
it gains, but in a general way there is a sort of
give and take between them, only as a con-
venient mode of doing business 2–I take that
from you.
3083. Do not take it from me. Do you or do
you not agree with it 2–I do not agree with it.
3084. If you do not know whether that is true
or not, you cannot plead that Regulation 62 as
meaning anything definite on your own side.
Now do you know whether the terminal expenses
are greater in London than in the country?—I
say absolutely they are not greater at some of the
London stations than at some of the country
stations.
3085. How do you know that?—Because you
put it in evidence before the Board of Trade, and
I can bring the evidence to you.
3086. But taking the London stations all
round, do you really put it that the terminal
expenses in London are not greater than , the
terminal expenses in the country, taking them
all round 2–-Taking all the stations in London
and the service performed, and comparing them
with the services performed in the country, I
could not give you that, because the services vary
so much,
Mr. Hambury.
3087. But were the services you gave the
Committee at all the stations in the country or at
any particular stations 2–At all the stations in
the country and including London.
Mr. Pember.] Supposing it were, that is a
domestic agreement between all the companies,
a give and take, by which one company gains at
one time and one at another.
Earl of Camperdown.] But the whole classifi-
cation is domestic to the companies, is it not *
Mr. Pember. No ; a great deal of the classifi-
cation has reference to traders.
Earl of Camperdown..] It is not made up by
them.
Mr. Hanbury.] Your point is that as this is a
give and take between the companies, it does not
matter between the companies whether they
charge one penny or a shilling?
Mr. Pember.] They must have a fair margin
to go upon to make a fair allowance to the
traders; when the trader is affected the companies
really have to abide by it; they gain or lose
nothing as the case may be, but it is a very dif-
ferent thing when you come to deal with the
companies as between themselves; one company
wins to-day and one the next.
|
Mr. Hunter.] But would that be so; would it
not work out at an average 2
Mr. Pember.
3088. This is what it says: “An allowance of
8s. 6d. per ton in London, and 4 s, in the country
is made for their terminal expenses on goods
traffic when carted, and 1 s. per ton both in
London and in the country when not carted.”
Then there is another thing. I will put it in
the shape of a question to Mr. Marshall
Stevens. As the company gets both the ter-
minal allowance and the cartage when the goods
are carted and delivered, it does not matter to
the company; there is a little too much put upon
the cartage, and a little too little put upon the
terminal expenses, because they do both ?—That
is so where they do both, but you provide for
cases where you do not do the cartage, and that
is what we are so anxious to get from the Com-
mittee, namely, a division of the collecting and
delivery rate. -
3089. Do you say we charge too much for
cartage 2–No; only we want to know what you
do charge for cartage.
3090. Our clauses divides the cartage from the
rest, because our clause does not include car-
tage 2–We say this clause without cartage
leaves your rates far too high when we compare
them with the Clearing House Classification,
and at page 100 I show you that you have far
too large a margin.
3091. That is another pair of shoes altogether?
—The margin may or may not be too large, but
as a matter of fact our clause divides the con-
veyance rates with station terminals and service
terminals from the cartage 2–Yes.
3092. Once more I put it to you. You know
that the fixing of cartage rates is outside the
purview of this Committee 2–That is so, abso-
lutely; that is the point I was trying to make
when I was stopped. But I would also say this,
that this clause would introduce a most vexatious
principle into the Bill, because, so far as I know,
it is the only matter in the Bill where con-
veyance rates and terminals are mixed up to-
gether. The Committee have decided that the
conveyance rate shall be treated separately from
the terminals; here is a clause proposing to mix
the two up together.
3093. But so far as I understand it that is a
vice, if it be a vice, which is shared by the
Brighton proposal 2–That is so absolutely. I
say that only upon the Committee dealing with
the question here and refusing to deal with it in
what I consider to be its proper place, namely,
the classification of rates, do I support the
Brighton proposal.
3094. But if you support the Brighton pro-
posal that has exactly the same vice, of mixing
up conveyance rates and service terminals, and
station terminals as your own 2–0uite so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
(81.)
3 M 3 Mr.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all the evidence
I propose to call. We were intending to include
station services and terminals; I do not think the
words are in, but it is intended to cover them. I
think our proposal is far more reasonable and
gives more reasonable margin to the railway
companies than the clause proposed by them.
Mr. Richards.] For the Corporation of the
City of London, I may say that we petitioned in
favour of the Board of Trade proposals, but upon
this clause I am bound to say those who have
considered this matter feel that the offer of
the railway companies, and the clause proposed
by the Brighton Corporation, would certainly be
in the interest of the traders, and especially of
those great markets for which the Corporation
appear here to-day ; and so far as the Corporation
are concerned they prefer the proposal of the
Brighton Corporation rather than the rate of 75
per cent., as suggested in the proposal of the
Board of Trade.
Chairman.] (To Mr. Richard.) Do I under-
stand you to say that the Corporation of the City
of London favour the ciause proposed by the
railway companies over the one proposed by Mr.
Balfour Browne. -
Mr, Richards.] No, we should certainly prefer
Mr. Balfour Browne's clause if we could get if,
but as we petitioned in favour of the proposals of
the Board of Trade, we thought it only right to
say that on this particular point, rather than the
proposals of the Board of Trade, we would accept
the railway companies’ proposal, but would muh
prefer Mr. Balfour Browne's.
Mr. Pember.] Because as a matter of fact the
º friend Mr. Balfour
margin in my learned
Browne’s case goes down to 10, 11, and
12 per cent., and only once or twice approaches
the desired margin of 100 per cent. in
one case and 150 per cent. in the other ;
and those small margins are only maintained
upon the assumption that you are entitled
to take out of the actual rates now charged
by the Clearing House Classification, 4 d. per
cwt. for cartage in London, and 3 d. per cwt. for
cartage in the country. Now as a matter of fact
in dealing with a composite rate, you must not
suppose that the full amount is charged under
one head, and that all the deductions are made
under the two others, and that there is no deduc-
tion made under the third. The chances are
that whatever my be the fair thing as a matter
of full profit to get out of the conveyance rate,
or out of the terminals, or out of the cartage, we
have to sacrifice something under all the heads,
and the moment you acknowledge that as a pro-
per principle, that moment all the threepences for
cartage in the country, and the fourpences for
cartage in London go ; and the moment they go,
the percentage of margin goes with it.
Now let us turn to that clause for a moment
and see how the thing stands. In our clause the
one item which is most criticised is the 4 d. per
cwt. Now of course I quite admit the arithmetic.
If you choose to say that out of that 4 d. per cwt.
you must always take away that 3 d. for cartage,
upon which theory I have dealt, I quite admit
you bring it down to a penny and our 4 d. as
compared with that penny, is an increase of 300
But that is not the sensible way of
looking at it. I say you must not say the 3 d. is
always taken to be taken off. I say something
less than 3 d. is charged under the composite rate.
What is the sensible way of looking at it ! Take
the total charge as we propose it, and the total.
charge as it exists. The total charge as it exists
would be 4 d., that is including the cartage, what-
ever it is. Now let us for a moment suppose that
the maximum charged for cartage, the whole 3 d.,
were added to our whole 4 d., that would be a
total maximum charge of 7 d., as against the
existing charge of 4 d. ; the margin upon that is
75 per cent., as I pointed out to you a short time
ago. That is far the largest margin that we get,
and I say that a margin of 75 per cent.
is not too much under all the circumstances.
The chances are that for the sake of the trade we
have reduced the profit that we make upon the
carriage of empties to an absolute minimum as it
stands, and the time may come when we might
have, owing to circumstances, to advanc those
citarges, and it is not too large a margin to allow
Also remember that this is a give-and-take
clause ; it is a compromise clause. We give up
a good many things that we might take under
our maximum charge, and taking all those things
into account, I think that our clause is a reason-
able one.
Mr. Clifford] Before the Committee consider
their decision I wish to point out that the Many
sion House Association have not withdrawn their
amended clause, so that the Committee have
before them three proposals, those of the railway
companies, the Mansion House Asssociation, and
the Brighton Corporation.
Mr. Balfour Browne. J May I say that I have
a technical right to rely upon my own clause,
but you have had the matter laid so fully before
you that I do not claim to reply.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then I would like to
say one word that, I hope the Committee will
not adopt the railway companies clause.
per cent.
Chairman.] You cannot speak after the wind-
ing up of Mr. Pember.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pember).] I do
not quite understand. You said you did not
think a margin of 75 per cent. in this primary
charge, the short distance clause of 4 d., was at
all excessive. Why is it not excessive 2 What
is the specific reason P Because primá facie a
margin of 75 per cent, over the existing charges
the appearance at all events of being high.
Mr. Pember.] That is so ; that supposes that
we should always charge the 3 d. for cartage,
but it is not by any means certain that we do :
the 3 d. we cannot deal with. Moreover, you
must not forget that the Mansion House amend-
ment gives us a minimum of 4 d.
Chairman.] All this arises very much out of
the suggestions that were made on Tuesday by
the Board of Trade, that upon second thoughts
they do not care so much about their own clause
as we were led to imagine they did.
Lórd Balfour of Burleigh.] We have had
some consultation this afternoon upon this matter,
and
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
463
14 May 1891.
and Mr. Courtenay Boyle has something to say
upon it. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. I am afraid your Lord-
ship's observations are perfectly merited that the
Board of Trade are not so very amorous of their
clause. With regard to the proposals before the
Committee, especially to the two which have
been put before you to-day, we are of opinion
that the Brighton Corporation clause put in by
Mr. Clark is extremely complicated and very
long. If the Committee decide to adopt a clause
of that sort, I think considerable modifications of
the clause would be necessary. In the first place,
in the proviso B. charges are made for returned
empties which are not empty : “For returned
casks, crates and cases containing straw, and
casks and crates containing earthenware.” That
is only a verbal criticism of course, but it is a cri-
ticism as showing the danger of these long and
complicated clauses. Then one or two of the
provisos do not quite read, and the whole
clause would require a certain amount of
alteration necessarily. The clause proposed
by the railway companies is, we think,
simple and good in principle. The method of
dealing with empties proposed in this clause that
was put in to-day is a very simple one, but our
own opinion, and it is an opinion which we do
not press upon the notice of the Committee, be-
cause the Committee are better judges of the
point than we are. Our opinion is that the
charges proposed by the railway companies are
on the whole rather high, that the margin sug-
gested is a greater margin than the circumstances
of the case as a whole render necessary. If the
Committee which has heard the evidence which
has been perfectly fairly given by the goods
managers who have been before you to-day were
of opinion that a system of class might be
adopted, it would be possible for the Committee
perhaps to modify the figures, possibly by leaving
out the first line, reducing the 6 d. to 4 d. and
the 9 d. to 7 d. I am not suggesting the figures
as finally suggested by the Board of Trade, but
something of that kind, not tying myself to
figures, but merely saying that in our opinion
the proposals of the railway companies give too
great a margin.
Chairman.] Do I understand that your sug-
gestion would be to strike out 25 miles and leave
it as 50 miles.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] From 25 to 50 miles
4 d., and from 50 to 100 miles 7 d., leaving the
rest as it is.
Chairman.] From 25 miles up to 50.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Strike out that alto-
gether.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Under 25 miles strike
out altogether; from 25 miles to 50 give some
figure less than 6 d. -
Chairman.] It is the same thing for anything
up to 50 miles.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] From 50 miles up to
100 something less than 9 d.
Chairman.] Would you have no short distance
clause *
—º
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not under 25 miles.
I think the figures are far more a matter for the
Committee than for any suggestion from Lord
Balfour of Burleigh or myself, and if we make a
suggestion it is because I do not think the Com-
mittee have had up to the present time so full
information as we have had as regards the cost or
the estimated cost of cartage What the Com-
mittee have had before them to-day is this, a
broad line drawn by Mr. Clark of 5 s. Now, we
have carefully prepared from the information
which was extracted at our very long inquiry, and
again at many subsequent interviews, a table
showing the estimated cost which various of the
whole nine companies consider represents fairly
the cost of cartage in London.
Chairman.] That is precisely what we have
been asking for during the last week.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] If you had asked for it
we should have supplied it, but we did not care
to volunteer to give it.
Chairman.] This is marked “confidential.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is no longer so
(handing in a paper). This represents the
figures put in by the railway companies at our
inquiry after whatever careful testing we could
apply to them ; the only reason why we venture
to suggest that the figures put forward by the
railway companies are high is this, that they are
based upon an estimate of cartage which is not
universally or even generally applicable ; and my
impression is that if the Committee had fuller in-
formation about the cost of cartage they might
get at a figure in this clause which would be a fair
one for both parties. But the point is this : that
if the Committee will settle the structure of the
clause, that is to say, the form which the clause
is to take, the figure need not be settled to-day.
Chairman.] Quite so. I am quite aware that
it is in two parts, the form of the clause, and if
we agree to the form of the clause, then what is to
be put into the clause.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Exactly.
Chairman.j On that very important point, would
you ascertain whether, the railway companies
admit the calculations which you have made upon
what you believe to be their evidence.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] By all means let that
be tested ; but these are the figures we got from
them after examination and cross-examination ;
there was one obvious mistake, but that has been
corrected.
Chairman. These, then, are the conclusions
you arrived at after you had heard their evidence?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Those are the figures
that we had put in by them ; there was one
obvious mistake that we had to alter. What we
suggest to the Committee is that they should
settle the form of the clause and leave the figures
to be put in, if necessary, if they cannot settle
them to-day after the subsequent evidence.
[The following was the Table handed in by
Mr. Courtenay Boyle] :-
(81..)
3 M 4
464 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
14 May 1891.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
SCHEDULE of EstLMATED RATES for CARTAGE of One Ton of Goods, as put forward by the
undermentioned Railway Companies during our Inquiry. The Sums given were put forward
as an Estimate of the Approximate Cost of the Service, on the Average, for Goods in each
Class.
CARTAGI, AT LONDON. CARTAGE AT STATIONS OTHER THAN LONDON.
Classes.
London London London Londom
and Great Great Great and and Great Great Great and
North Western, Nerthern. Eastern. South North Western. | Northerm. | Eastern. South
Western. Western. Western. . Western.
s. d. S. d. S. d. s. d. 8. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d.
A. * * — *- gººms *mº e-º-º: *-*- sº-º-º: *=
B 3 4 3 4 — — *E* 1 4 1 — * } -º-º: *
C 3 4 3 11 – — * l 4 1 2 tºº Gºmº *
1 3 :) 4 5 3 9 3 9 3 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 2 *
2 4 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 1 6 1 6 1 8 I 8 2 —
3 5 — 5 10 5 — 5 — 5 — 1 9 1 9 2 I 2 1 2 6
4 5 10 G 8 5 10 5 10 6 8 2 — 2 — 2 6 2 6 2 6
5 6 8 7 5 6 8 6 8 7 6 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 4

Mr. Pember.] At that point there is just one
suggestion I would venture to make ; that what-
ever else may be the effect of this table with
regard to the estimated cost of cartage that you
have put in it has this one undoubted effect:
that it reduces very much the margin which our
clause would give us. When I talked of a margin
of 75 per cent. it was on the assumption of 3 d.
per cwt. for cartage; this destroys that at once.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You cannot get at it
unless you know the tonnage.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle (to Mr. Pember).] I quite
agree that that is on the side of the railway com-
panies; that in many instances the cartage upon
this scale is less than 5 s. all round.
Mr. Pember.] But I do not think after all is
said and done that it is altogether true that these
estimates of rates for cartage are thoroughly well
considered if you do not mind my saying so. It
is perfectly true that these figures were put in
by the railway companies, but it is only at one
end.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, it is cartage into
London, and cartage out of London.
Mr. Pember.] But if a rate is quoted for
returned empties it includes cartage at both ends.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j All collection and deli-
very rates too; you would have to add those two
together and strike an average.
Sir Joseph Bailey (to Mr. Cripps).] I want
to ask you a question with regard to the wording
of your clause. The first item is 4 d. for 25
miles, and the second is 6 d. under 50 miles, and
the fourth item is for every additional 50 miles or
part of 50 miles, 3 d. ; do you see that ?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Then there is an inserted
line “for any distance exceeding 50 miles, but
not exceeding 100, 9 d.,” but you notice that is
3 d. for the extra 50 miles over the 6d, ; had you
any reason for inserting that line 2
Mr. Cripps.] No, that line really might come
out ; the only place in which the 3 d, does not
apply is the first.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just say one
word, your Grace, Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
said that our clause is long. As to that, it is no
longer than the Clearing House regulation. He
has also said that in Clause B. we treat as
returned empties things which are not empty,
because they contain straw. Those are almost
word for word the Clearing House regulation.
The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
465
14 May 1891.
The only question I submit is, whether we have
allowed sufficient margin beyond the Clearing
House; I submit that we have.
Mr. Clifford.] May I remind you of this, that
the proviso in the railway companies’ clause
would permit them to impose double charges for
all returned empty crates, whereas the Clearing
House Regulation only allows them to charge
double rates in cases of exceptional crates.
The Committee retire to deliberate.
On their return,
Chairman.] The Committee have agreed to
accept the first part of the clause proposed by
the railway company, that “In respect of re-
turned empties if, from the same station and
consignee to which and to whom they were
carried full to the same station and consignor
from which and from whom they were carried
full, the company may charge the following rates
inclusive of station and service terminals.” Then
they have made a reduction in those charges to
this extent:
For any distance not exceeding 25 miles, 3 d.
per cwt. -
For any distance exceeding 25 miles, and not
exceeding 50 miles, 4 d. per cwt.
For any distance exceeding 50 miles, but not
exceeding 100 miles, 8 d. per cwt.
For each additional 50 miles, or part of 50
miles, 3 d. per cwt.
The minimum weight to be 56 lbs., with a
minimum charge of 3 d.
Then we are not prepared to accept the
proviso as it stands ; but in view of the new
scale we should like to hear evidence from the
railway companies and traders as to what articles
should be treated exceptionally in either the in-
terest of the traders or of the railway companies.
Mr. Pember.] Then, I suppose your Grace
will take the evidence to-morrow, as it is now
4 o'clock.
Chairman.] We shall certainly not take it
IlOW.
Mr. Pember.] I was going to say, your Grace
bofore we adjourn, if my learned friends who
represent the various traders will kindly listen,
surely it would be a great advantage if it could
be avoided, that your time should not be taken
up with a lengthened discussion as to what that
proviso should cover ; and I do think that two
or three representatives of the various traders
ought to be selected by them to meet the repre-
sentatives of the railway companies this after-
noon, and see if we cannot settle what arrange-
ment should be come to.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not the least ob-
jection to that.
Mr. Pember.] I know you are always ready
enough ; but then unfortunately there are other
persons who are not represented by you and
whom we so constantly hear you cannot control.
Chairman]. I ought perhaps to mention that
the articles to which we allude in what I have
read, must be articles that are now included in
the Clearing House Regulations ; they must
not be outside them ; you must not bring into
them other articles ; it must be all articles
included within the Clearing House Regulations
that we have had before us.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might I make a
suggeston, your Grace 7 There have been con-
siderble alterations made in the schedule now,
and possibly, before the next meeting, it might
be convenient to have it reprinted.
Chairman.] It will be reprinted before the next
meeting.
Mr. Pember.] May I ask your Grace if you
sit to-morrow .
Chairman.] Yes, we shall sit to-morrow and
then adjourn till Tuesday week.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Would it be con-
venient to your Grace to say on what days of
the week, after Whitsuntide, you will sit.
Chairman.] We shall sit on Tuesday, Wed-
nesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, 11.30 o'clock.
(81.)
[ 466 |
( 467, )
Die Veneris, 15° Mail, 1891.
F RESENT :
DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord HOUGHTON.
|
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman.] THERE is one point I should like
to put to the learned gentlemen on both sides,
and that is with regard to these agreements,
some of which appear to be in various Acts of
Parliament, while there are other agreements
which are not in Acts of Parliament. There has
been a suggestion made as to what effect these
Bills, when passed, will have upon these agree-
ments. There appears to be some doubt as to
whether they will sweep away the agreements, or
whether they will not. What the Committee
would like, if it were possible, would be, that
some sort of case should be drawn up, agreed to
by both sides, which we could then lay before
the officers of the Crown, and get an opinion as
to what effect the passing of these Bills will have
upon the existence of those agreements, I do
not know whether that would be possible. -
Mr. Pember.] I do not know whether the
Board of Trade have anything to say upon that
matter.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We have always ex-
pressed our opinion that the statutory agree-
ments are, by the words of Section 24, abrogated
after the passing of these Bills, but that non-
statutory agreements are not touched. That
was the advice that was given to the Board of
Trade ; but I think, as a legal opinion is very
important on the point, if the law officers of
the Crown had an opportunity of seeing the
case before the matter was determined upon, it
would be a very useful thing.
Chairman.] I mention this because when one
party says agreements are not abrogated, and the
other party says they are, we should be very glad
to have a definite opinion upon it.
Mr. Pember.] If you will allow me to say so,
I think it is a very valuable suggestion. I am
happy to tell you, with regard to the last thing
we were doing before we went away, that the
traders have agreed to the proviso we were dis-
cussing.
Mr. Robert Capper.] You were good enough
to allow me to draw your attention to this matter
of agreements yesterday. My point is this: that
we have no agreement at all, but that under a
special Railway Act we have special railway
rates reserved to us; therefore, it is not a ques-
tion of agreement with us. The question we
are interested in is whether the Great Western
Railway Act of 1867, as regards our rates and
charges, will be wiped out by the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act of 1888.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I may say that what
Mr. Capper has just mentioned is quite true,
that in a great number of Acts of Parliament
there are statutory provisions which seem incon-
sistent with the schedule as it now stands. I
cannot doubt for an instant that those older Acts
of Parliament which were passed before this,
will be abrogated by this schedule. I have not
the least doubt of it. Take, for instance, a Bill
my learned friend Mr. Pember got two years
ago, the Vale of Glamorgan, they have power
to run over the Great Western line ; the Great
Western Company in that case have only the
power to charge them as for the short distance
clause of three miles. By this order you have
altered that to six miles; and I have not the
least doubt that unless that is absolutely pre-
served in the same way as the Monmouthshire
rates in the present Great Western schedule,
that would be abrogated. When you come to
the Great Western schedule, I will ask you to
preserve that in the same way as the Great
Western Company did, by agreement, preserve
the Monmouthshire rates, because when the
Monmouthshire Act was passed in the year
1880 • ,
Mr. Pember.] I do not think we ought to
argue this.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not arguing it.
Mr. Pember. You are giving your reasons
why, or why not, a certain course should be
adopted.
Mr. Bidder.] Might I suggest to your Grace
that all other gentlemen who have questions of
that kind to raise should adopt the course which
Lord Bute has adopted, which has been agreed
to by the Great Western Company, that when
there is a matter to be raised, it should be raised
when the Great Western schedule comes on.
(81.)
3 N 2 Chairman.]
468
MINUTEs of EvidENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 May 1891.
Chairman.] If they are special to either in-
dividual Bill they can be dealt with on that
individual Bill. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I was going to say that
when the Great Western schedule comes up we
would propose to make a modification in that
schedule.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] That being so, I
appear with my learned friend Mr. Moon, and I
have taken the London and North Western case
for the general convenience ; we have not in-
truded the general case into the special Acts
upon the general discussion. The only thing I
desire to point out to your Grace is that in the
case you are about to have prepared, the effect
of this Bill on statutory agreements is one
thing; whether it ought to have that particular
effect upon statutory agreements is another
matter; the two questions are quite apart.
Mr. Pember.] As I understand, your Grace
merely wants the point of law made clear.
Chairman.] Yes, that is all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that what has
been agreed about empties had better be read out
and be upon the notes. -
Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps it would be convenient,
before I go any further, that I should read what
has been agreed as to empties. The proviso at
the end of the clause has been agreed to in this
way: “Provided that (1) returned empty sacks
and bags shall not be charged more than half the
above rates, with a minimum rate of 4 d. ; (2)
Returned empty carboys or crates (other than
glass manufacturers’ crates and crates taken to
pieces and so packed) may be charged double the
above rates.” That proviso is accepted both by
the representatives of the trade, and by the rail-
way companies, and I hope under those circum-
stances that it will meet with the acceptance of
the Committee.
... Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so, your Grace,
it is accepted on both sides. -
Mr. Hunter.] May I ask of Mr. Balfour
Browne, why no provision has been made with
regard to fish empties 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I believe that the ques-
tion of fish empties is under the special care of
the Counsel for the Corporation of London. I
do not know what he has to say upon it; I have
ºnally nothing to do with fish, even royal
fish. *
Chairman.] The minimum charge is 4 d., is it
not ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, for bags; but I
think you will find that the minimum charge in
the Clearing House was higher for bags; the
minimum charge for bags is at present 3 d. ; the
4 d. here was intended to give them a kind of
margin.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is this agreed to by all
the trade 2 lt may be agreed to by your
traders.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is agreed to by all
the traders who proposed any amendments as to
returned empties; and I think those are the
only people who are affected.
Chairman.] What did you say as to the City
of London P w
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It was in answer to:
the honourable Member for Aberdeen, with re-
gard to the fish empties, that I said that that
matter was not under our care, but was, during
the long inquiry before the Board of Trade,
looked after by my learned friend Mr. Rickards,
who appeared for the Corporation.
Mr. Rickards.] My Lord Duke, I represent
the Corporation, and the difficulty I was in was
this: that we petitioned generally in favour of
the Board of Trade proviso. With regard to
this particular clause, as I said yesterday, we
preferred the offer of the railway companies to
the 75 per cent. of the full rate, as suggested by
the Board of Trade; we should be only too
ready to accept this, as it has the assent of the
other traders. I may say, as a matter of fact,
that those rates are higher than the railway com-
panies are charging at the present time. Still,
we accept them as the traders agree to them.
Earl of Camperdown.] And you do not propose
to ask anything as to the fish empties.
Mr. Rickards.] No, I do not propose to ask
anything in respect to them.
Mr. Hunter.] The minimum, according to the
scale for 250 miles, is for fish empties, 9 d., and
for other empties, 1 s. 6 d ; so that the Clearing
House makes a difference in favour of fish
empties for a distance of 250 miles of double. -
Mr. Richards.j That is so. On the other
hand, of course, we are in great hopes that the
railway companies will not raise the rates merely
because they have the power. Fish coming a long
distance has hitherto been subject to greater con-
sideration on the part of the railway companies
than fish coming from a shorter distance.
Mr. Hunter.] If that argument is good for
anything it is good for having no maximum at
all.
Mr. Rickards.] That is so, certainly; but I
have no clause to suggest.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Have you
anything to say upon the matter of fish empties 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No. I could have
wished that the traders and the railway com-
paniee conld have agreed that there should be
something lower agreed for fish empties, but as
they have not thought fit to do so, we have not
thought right to interfere.
Chairman.] Do we understand that that in-
terest is represented by the City of London ?
Mr. Rickards.] Yes, I represent that; because
the Corporation is the market authority, and
therefore both meat and fish would come specially
under the superintendence of the Corporation. I
believe the National Sea Fisheries Association
entered an appearance, but they are not repre-
sented here by Counsel. I have no doubt they
might like to say something upon the matter.
Chairman.] Might I ask the City of London
what might seem, but is not intended to be,
rather an impertinent question ; do you consider
that you fully represent the whole of the fish
rade.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
469
15 May 1891.
Mr. Rickards.] No, my Lord Duke, I should
have no right to say that. I think the National
Sea Fisheries Association more properly repre-
sent the whole of the fish trade. The Corpora-
tion are only the authority for Billingsgate,
therefore it would be impertinent on my part to
say that the Corporation of London represent the
whole of the fish trade.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I can answer that
question perfectly well ; we had many representa-
tions of the fish trade, other than the Corporation,
before us at the Westminster Town Hall ; the
National Sea Fisheries Association, and the
Birmingham Fish Trade Association, who are
not now represented.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But your Lordship will,
I think, remember that the fish traders were
content with th Board of Trade Order.
Mr. Hunter.] They petitioned.
Mr. Balfour Browne | They petition, but they
do not appear.
Earl of Camperdown.] How do the proposed
rates for fish empties actually compare with
existing rates; you say they are more favour-
able. -
Mr. Balfour Browne. They are a little lower,
I think.
Mr. Pember.] I understood my learned friend,
Mr. Balfour Browne, to say that they compared
favourably with the Board of Trade proposals.
I think you will find that fish empties and grain
sacks are about the same in the Clearing House
Classification, and you see that there has
been a reduction upon the returned empty sacks
and bags; at any rate if there has not been an
actual reduction, there has been the actual rate
given, with a penny for margin.
Earl of Camperdown.] The short distance has
been raised ; it was 3 d. station to station, and it
will now be 4 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so; but that
is the margin, one penny margin.
Mr. Bidder.] Between 25 and 50 miles,
Earl of Camperdown.] Up to 100 miles was 4d.,
and it may now be 8 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, it may.
Earl of Camperdown.] As you go on with
the longer distances it get worse and worse all the
way up.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not suggested
that we should go back from our bargain, but if
the Committee thought it was necessary, after the
word “ bags” in the proviso, if you put in “fish
empties,” I think there would be no harm done.
Then it would be liable only to that 4 d.; but I do
not want to go back from my bargain at all, I
say that distinctly.
Mr. Hunter.] Would the railway companies
have any objection to add to “empty sacks and
bags,” “returned empty fish packages.”
After a general consultation between the
parties,
Mr. Rickards.] I do not know what the
honourable Member for Aberdeen has suggested,
but I have consulted my clients, and we think the
-e
case would be met if the words “fish empties”
could be inserted after the words “empty sacks
and bags.”
Chairman.] What the Committee would desire
would be that the railway companies should pre-
pare some clause dealing with fish empties, which
would put them in the same position relatively
to the Clearing House scale as they are in now;
we would give them time to draw it out, and they
could bring it up at a later period.
Mr. Bidder.] It is difficult to put it exactly.
I was going to point out that what the honour-
able Member and my learned friend Mr.
Richards suggested does not quite cover the
existing Clearing House scale. What we pro-
posed, and what the railway companies think
would be reasonable, would be to provide thus:
that the returned empty fish packages shall not
be charged more than the following scale: for
distances not exceeding 50 miles 4 d. per cwt.,
and for each additional 50 miles, or part of
50 miles, 2 d. per cwt. ; for the shorter distances
you will see that it is the same, and then there is
a slight margin, with a minimum charge of 4 d.,
of course.
Lord ſloughton.] Do yon propose to go on
charging 2 d. for every 50 miles after 250
miles.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, that is the proposal; 100
miles would be 6 d. : 150 miles 8d.: 200 miles
10 d. ; and 250 miles l s.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then the scale you read
out would be higher to longer distances than the
present Clearing House regulation ?
Mr. Bidder.] It will be higher for longer
distances.
Earl of Camperdown.] But as compared with
the scale we have already laid down for other
things, your scale would be higher ; because
your initial scale would be 4 d., and then you go
on increasing by 2 d. for every 50 miles.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Lordship is quite right,
but the initial charge of 4 d. is only up to 50
miles ; but I do not know whether your Lord-
ship has noticed that the rates in the Clearing
House Classification are station-to-station rates.
Earl of Camperdown.] I have observed that,
certainly ; and so are these in this clause.
Mr. Rickards.] Might I point out that at the
present time, when it becomes over 200 miles
(and this particularly applies to Scotland, whence
a very large amount of fish comes to the London
market), the railway companies now only charge
1 s. 3 d. ; they do not go on adding something
extra for every 50 miles; and the evidence
before the Board of Trade inquiry (in this Mr.
Courtenay Boyle will confirm me) showed that a
large amount of what I may call cheap fish came
from the north of Scotland. The railway com-
panies bring that to London at the same rate for
the district pretty nearly inclusively from Peter-
head right to Wick, and it would press most
hardly upon the Scotch fishermen if there were
to be this increasing 2 d. for every 50 miles. I
must press it upon the Committee to make the
maximum charge for distance as well as for
rate.
(81.)
3 N 3 Chairman.]
470
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
16 May 1891.
Chairman.] On page 102 of the Clearing
House Classification it is “not exceeding 50 miles,
3 d. ; 100 miles, 4 d. ; 150 miles, 6 d. ; 200 miles,
7 d.; 250 miles, 8 d. ; and above 250 miles, 9 d.,”
and any (iistance above that it goes on at 9 d.
What would be a fair maximum above that ?
Mr. Bidder.] The clause we propose would
give the power of adding 2 d. for every 50
miles.
Chairman.] That would bring it for 250 miles
a great deal higher than the present scale.
Mr. Bidder.] It would bring it up to 1s.
Chairman.] Then take 500 miles.
Mr. Rickards.] A large amount of fish comes
from Wick, which is a very long mileage.
Mr. Bidder.]. When you get a large amount of
distance like that, you must leave it to the
interests of the trade to adjust itself.
Chairman.] But according to the classification
book it is only 1 s. 3 d.
Mr. Bidder.] That charge has been voluntarily
adopted in order to cultivate the traffic; and the
same reason, namely, the necessity for cultivating
the traffic which has prevailed in the past will
prevail in the future.
Chairman.] If that is a fair scale now, would
it not be fair to make it the same in the future ?
Mr. Bidder.] It would not be fair to make it
compulsory in the future, because that provision
has been conceded voluntarily under certain cir-
Cumstan CeS.
Earl of Camperdown.] As the clause stands, it
would be 2 s. 6 d. as against 1s.
Mr. Rickards.] May I point out also that any-
thing over 200 miles would cover Torbay and
the whole of Cornwall; and therefore it would
press most unfairly upon the Cornish fishermen,
because they are at a distance of over 300 miles.
I shall ask the Committee not to make the maxi-
mum over 200 miles. So that whatever is over
200 miles should be as it is in the Clearing House
scale. -
Chairman.] But in the Clearing House scale
it is 250 miles. º
Mr. Richards.] The companies who have
settled this have taken 200 miles, they have not
asked for any further addition. I can bring a
quantity of evidence to show how unfairly this
would press upon the fish trade, if that be
necessary.
Mr. Hunter.] What I should suggest as the
simplest way to deal with it would be to take the
Clearing House Classification Table, and add a
penny all along, taking it as it stands ; that is to
say, beginning with 4 d., 5 d, and so on, that
would give 25 per cent, additional to the first
part ; 30 per cent, at 50 miles, and 33 per cent.
at 100 miles.
Mr. Bidder.] Adding 1 d. to each of the figures,
I would point out that in principle it must be
wrong to group together distances of over 250
miles up to 500 miles, as in the case of Wick for
instance. It is the fact that the railway companies
do at the present time voluntarily forego a por-
tion of the charge to which they would be entitled
in order to cultivate the traffic ; but it cannot be
said that you should make it compulsory upon a
railway company to do three times the work at
the same rate. As a matter of principle, I ven-
ture to think that the last is wrong.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what the Cor-
poration of Brighton did propose yesterday, that
1 d, should be added to all those figures. *
Mr. Hunter.] The Committee has decided that
we should proceed upon the Clearing House
Classification.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With a margin.
Mr. Hunter.] That we should proceed upon
º Clearing House Classification upon that
3.S1S. l
Mr. Balfour Browne. With a margin.
Mr. Hunter.] Quite so.
Mr. Hanbury.] How far do the Mansion
House Committee represent this meat, poultry,
butter, and so on.
Mr. Rickards.] I think that would come under
the Corporation, who are the market authority
for London.
Mr. Hanbury.] I mean the Corporation.
Mr. Richards.] We cover the whole of the
meat supply to the London market.
Mr. Hanbury.] Have you considered this
matter P
Mr. Rickards.] So far as the meat trade is
concerned, the meat trade preferred the sugges-
tions of yesterday to the suggestions of the Board
of Trade ; but they wish to bring before the
Committee that the maximum for distance is a
great concession, especially to Scotland, and the
Scotch meat. The maximum is 1 s. 3 d. a
hundredweight, no matter what the distance is ;
that would be a great benefit, especially as re-
gards fish.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Balfour
Browne).] How many of the representatives of
the traders drew up that clause ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The only people who
proposed amendments were the Mansion House
Committee, the Corporation of Brighton, and the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference, and they
were all represented upon it.
Lord Houghton.] The amendments were pro-
posed to the Board of Trade clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, they were pro-
posed to the Board of Trade clause, that is true ;
but we thought it only fair that all who proposed
amendments should be represented upon the
Committee that drew up that alteration. If
anybody had asked to be there they would have
been welcomed, but I do not think anybody else
claimed to be.
Mr. Rickards.] I would like specially to point
out (and I am sure the honourable member for
Aberdeen would be able to inform the Committee
that it is so) that the bulk of the fish which
comes from Scotland is what we may call cheap
fish, herrings, and that sort of thing, which would
be absolutely prohibited if this extra 2 d. per
hundred miles were put upon the empties. It
would virtually prohibit any fish being sent §.
After
() N RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
471
15 May 1891.
After a short consultation between the
parties.
Mr. Bidder.] The railway companies, your
Grace, have considered the proposal of the
honourable member, and although it is hardly
defensible, if I may say so, as regards long dis-
tances, in principle, yet they are anxious to meet
the views of the Committee in every way; and
they are prepared to accept it and to embody it
in the schedule ; that is to say, the proposal of
the honourable member for Aberdeen, which is,
that 1 d. should be added in every case to the
schedule in the Clearing House Classification,
including also the minimum above 250 miles, and
1 d. of course for the minimum, the minimum to
be 4 d. instead of 3 d. That shall be put into
form and introduced into the schedule.
Chairman.] We are not quite agreed amongst
ourselves at the moment.
Mr. Bidder.] At any rate, the railway com-
panies are prepared to introduce that, if agreed
to by the Committee. *
Chairman.] Do I understand you to say that
the companies think it hard upon them as regards
the long distances.
Mr. Bidder.] That is so. For instance, take
the Great Western Company from the West of
England, Cornwall; the distance is considerably
over 200 miles; it is 320 miles.
Chairman.] Could you suggest anything that
would make it equitable P
Mr. Bidder.] Suppose we were to add, above
300 miles, 11 d. 7
Chairman.] Would that be more fair to the
railway companies'
Mr. Bidder.] I think it would.
Chairman.] Would you be good enough to
read out exactly what it is that you do propose
with that last addition.
Mr. /3idder.] “Returned empty first packages
shall not be charged more than the following
scale: for distances not exceeding 50 miles, 4 d.
per cwt. ; for distances over 50 miles, and not
exceeding 100 miles, 5 d. per cwt. ; for distances
over 100 miles, and not exceeding 150 miles,
7d. per cwt. ; for distances over 150 miles, and
not exceeding 200 miles, 8 d. per cwt. ; for
distances over 200 miles, and not exceeding 250
miles, 9 d. per cwt. ; for distances over 250 miles,
and not exceeding 300 miles, 10 d. per cwt. ; for
distances over 300 miles, 1 ; d. per cwt. ; the
minimum to be 56 lbs., with a minimum charge of
4 d.”
Chairman.] Are the companies satisfied with
that ? We want to do justice on both sides.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You do not require that
last, about the minimum charge of 4 d., because
you have already fixed it.
Mr. Bidder.] That is quite right. I think that
is not required.
Chairman (to Mr. Bidder).] You shook your
head at first and said it was rather hard upon the
companies. Now, with that addition, do you
withdraw that shake of the head and say that it
is fair 2
Mr. Saunders.] My learned friend, Mr. Bal-
–-g
four Browne, is wrong; we do require the
IIll Ill Ill U10). -
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace, I will withdraw the
shake of the head ; but may I also withdraw a
remark which my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne led me just now into giving a hasty
assent to : We do require a minimum of 4 d., be-
cause you might send 10 lbs.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Do the Committee
understand that by doing that they are fixing the
same rate for 300 as for 450 miles 2 That is a
very important decision. If they do appreciate
that I have nothing more to say, but I thought
it well to point that out.
Earl of Camperdown.] In practice it is fixed
at above 250 miles now.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is, in practice; but
this will be fixing it by statute.
Mr. Richards.] The whole of the fish rate is
practically the same above Aberdeen.
Chairman.] We have decided this now.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know what your Grace
proposes to do ; shall we now take up the new
clauses?
Chairman.] Yes; but I think there is a post-
poned clause.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] Clause 22; the
arrangement, I understood, was that Clause 22
was to stand over with the others till the
schedules were dealt with.
Mr. Bidder.] I understood so, your Grace;
but you will remember that there is a part of
Sub-section B. of Clause 2, Clause 6, and Clause
22, which all depend upon the waggon question,
which the Committee decided to put aside until
they had dealt with the question of rates.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There was a tranship-
ment clause which the railway companies were
to bring up.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I think I have your
Grace's permission to speak: The railway com-
panies have pointed out what they consider to be
a blot upon the definition of “terminal station,”
on page 7, line 17. I will read out the words
which they have asked me to suggest to the
Committee, and explain what the meaning of
them is afterwards very shortly. The insertion
they ask for is the insertion of the following
words after the word “or,” in line 17, page 7:
“In respect of merchandise passing to or from
such siding.” The object of inserting those
words is to deal with this difficulty; they are of
opinion, and I think their contention is right,
that as the clause is worded, a station which is
connected with a siding ceases to be a terminal
station, not only in respect of traffic going to a
siding, but in respect of any traffic going to or
originating from the station. It is obvious that
that was not intended. A station may be con-
nected with a siding and quo ad the traffic going
to that siding, it ought not to be a terminal sta-
tion for the purpose of station terminals; but
quo ad the traffic arising at and going to that
station, it is perfectly fair that that station should
be a terminal station. Take, for instance, the
station at Reading, which is close to Messrs.
(81.)
3 N 4 Huntley
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*--~ - * * - ---
15 May 1891.
FIuntley and Palmer's siding, quo ad Messrs.
Huntley and Palmer's traffic, the Reading
station should not be a station in respect of which
the company should charge Messrs. Huntley
and Palmer a station terminal at Reading ; but
with regard to all other traffic arising at and going
to Reading, it ought to be a terminal station.
Therefore, with all deference to the Committee,
the companies consider these words fair, and sub-
ject to anything that Counsel on this side may
say, I would suggest to the Committee that they
should be kind enough to consider them.
Mr. Bidder.[ There is no doubt (it was only a
draftsman's error that they were omitted) that
the words are wanted, otherwise a station like
Reading would cease to be a terminal station
for any purpose whatever.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not quite sure
that it is so. If you look at the first part of the
definition, a “terminal station * means a station
or place upon the railway at which a consign-
ment of merchandise is loaded or unloaded
before or after conveyance. It defines what a
terminal station is to be first of all. Then it goes
on to say that it is not to include certain things,
and one of the things it is not to include is “a
junction between the railway and a siding not
belonging to the company ”; and the next sen-
tence refers to that “ or any station with which
such siding ” (and it only refers to that) “may
be connected.”
Mr. Bidder.] That is exactly why it was
thought you ought to introduce words to show
that you meant it only to refer to that; because
if you read the words, the words themselves do
not point to traffic going to a junction at all. As
it stands in the original schedule, it is “any sta-
tion with which such siding may be connected ; ”
that in the case of Messrs. Huntley and Palmer’s
siding at Reading Station, is Reading Station;
and it enacts broadly that Reading Station is not
a terminal station; of course nobody meant that,
but it is just as well, if it is dubious, to introduce
words to make it clear that that is not what is
meant.
Mr. Balfour Browne.]. It certainly was not
meant, and I do not think the clause says so.
Mr. Bidder.] If it does not, then we only
desire to introduce words to make it clear; I am
sure if my learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne
will read it he will see that these words make it
clear. #: ‘‘
Chairman.] You may think the words un-
necessary, but do they not make it clearer P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There is no objection
to making it clearer; I fail to catch the words in
the exact connection, but I do not think they do.
(After perusing the proposed amendment). I do
not think they do read with the section, if you
follow it. The whole idea is to define a place
which is to be a terminal station. Instead of
doing that this says, not “any station,” but “or
in respect of merchandise passing to or from such
siding.” Now that is not a “place.” The idea
is to define “terminal station,” whereas this says
something in respect of “merchandise passing.”
Chairman.] But you will find in the earlier
part of the clause that the word “merchandise”
does occur.
---- - -****-**** * * * - --
Mr. Balfour Brotone..] Yes, it does. It says
“but does not include any station or junction at
which the merchandise in respect of which any
terminal is charged has been exchanged with,
handed over to,” and so on ; but that goes back
and does not include the station ; it refers to a
“ place.” What you want, I think, is to read it
“ or any station, with which such siding may be
connected.” I should think it would be better
put at the end, “ or any station with which such
siding may be connected in respect of merchan-
dise passing to or from such siding.” -
Mr. Bidder.] May I suggest that if the only
question is whether it should go at the beginning
or at the end, I think my learned friend
Mr. Balfour Browne would find that it would be
better form that it should go at the beginning
than at the end, because it would be in respect
of merchandise, even if the siding were only tem—
porarily connected; so that you will see that it
would be better at the beginning than at the
end.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I confess I like to define
the place and not the merchandise.
Earl of Camperdown.] Take Reading; Reading
would distinctly be a place or station upon the
railway at which a consignment of merchandise
is loaded or unloaded. •
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then how can you pre-
vent Reading from being a terminal station.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] As I said before, I do
not think this at all necessary.
Mr. Bidder.] If you afterwards put words to
say that a place shall not be a terminal station
which has a siding connected with it, then if
Reading is such a place, these words must have
that effect. º
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I doubt very much
whether the true construction would not be that
Reading would still be a terminal station, not-
withstanding the suggestion of my learned
friend. .
Mr. Bidder.] What I would suggest is that
inasmuch as several minds accustomed to the
consideration of questions of this kind have come
to the conclusion that it does bear that construc-
tion, although they may be wrong; it would
surely be better to put in words that make it
impossible that it should bear that construction;
and I am sure my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne will not suggest that these words in any
way alter or affect the traders' interests in the
matter.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If they are not neces-
sary they would prejudice it, because there
would be an interpretation put upon them. It
would be said that they were put in for some-
thing.
Mr. Bidder.] So they are ; they are put in for
the sake of making it clearer.
Chairman.] The Committee will insert the
words in the place in which they are suggested
to come, that is, in the 17th line: “In respect of
merchandise passing to or from such siding.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Then there was to be a
definition
ON RAILwAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
473
15 May 1891.
definition of “ siding ” at some time or other,
have you got that ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There was.
Mr. Bidder.] And with regard to tranship-
ment, may l say that a clause was to be brought
up.
Darl of Camperdown.] But we have got to put
in the definition of “siding” first.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordships would allow
that to stand over for a few minutes, I think we
could settle it. It has been drafted, but there
is some final criticism going on about it. -
Mr. Balfour Browne (to Mr. Bidder).] Would
you mind letting us see it when it is ready,
because I have one too, and perhaps we might
agree.
Mr. Bidder.] Certainly. Then, my Lords, the
transhipment clause was to be inserted. It was,
as proposed, to run : “In respect of merchandise
received from or delivered to a railway of a
different gauge, the company may make a reason-
able charge for any service of transhipment per-
formed by them, the amount of any such charge
to be determined in case of difference by an
arbitrator to be appointed by the Board of
Trade.”
Earl of Camperdown.] But take the case of a
railway which has both gauges, if it was to trans-
fer from one of its lines to the other this would
entitle them, I suppose, to charge, would not
that be so P
Mr. Bidder.] There is only one such case I
think. I do not think that what your Lordship
says would apply. The Great Western Railway
is a railway of both gauges, therefore it is not a
railway of “a different gauge.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.) It is a railway of a
different gauge, although the company possesses
both gauges.
Mr. Bidder.] It would include, and as I ven-
ture to think, properly include, one case, the
Festiniog narrow gauge railway. I do not think
it could possibly apply to the case of the Great
Western Railway changing from the broad gauge
to the narrow gauge,
Chairman.] Would not it do if you said “com-
pany ” after “railway.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I would suggest “in
respect of merchandise received from or delivered
to another railway company having a different
gauge.”
Mr. Bidder.] I would venture to put this:
assume there is a case, I am not aware that
there is such a case, and let us assume that there
is such a case as that of a railway which has the
trunk line of the normal gauge and has a branch
of a smaller gauge ; then it would be proper in
respect of the necessary services of transhipment
from the small gauge waggon to the ordinary
waggon, that the company ought to be allowed to
charge for that service, because it is a necessary
service.
Earl of Camperdown.] There you are changing
your position, are you not ?
Mr. Bidder.] I was thinking just now of what
I had in my mind when I spoke first of the
Great Western Railway, for their own conveni-
ence, changing from the broad gauge waggon to
the narrow gauge waggon. I do not think that
is covered by the clause.
Mr. Darlington.] I should like before your
Grace finally decides upon this question, to be
heard upon it, because I shall be able to show
you how it affects our interests in certain slate
quarries.
Chairman.] You represent whom ?
Mr. Darlington.] I represent the owners of
certain slate quarries in North Wales. As far as
I can understand the matter it is this : in certain
cases, at all events, the slates are brought down
from the quarries upon the narrow gauge railway,
which may, or may not, belong to the company;
but in the case I have in my mind at all events,
the trader brings the slates down to the railway
station of the company on a line which has been
provided, at all events partly, by, or is partly in
the hands of, the company. The trader himself
performs the haulage, and himself performs
the service of putting the slates out of
the train in which they are brought down
from the quarry on to the railway truck. Now,
we are very much afraid that this clause may
give the railway company power of charging
something for the break of gauge, although the
railway company do not themselves carry on the
narrow gauge. Now, the thing 1 am afraid of is
this, with reference to the word “transhipment.”
If it is defined in some way, so that it can only
apply to the actual handling of the goods, then,
I think, we are all right, because I quite agree
that if the railway company actually do perform
the service for us, then we ought to pay for it;
but simply because there happens to be a break
in the gauge, supposing, for instance, instead of
us performing the haulage on the narrow gauge
lines on which the slates are brought down from
the quarry, the railway company were to say
to us, “We will ourselves perform the service of
hauling the trucks from the quarry, and we will
take a terminal from you, and we will also want,
in addition to the rate for haulage on the narrow
gauge, a payment in respect of the service of
transhipment,” we should say, “What is the
service of transhipment, because the actual
handling of the goods is done by us”? They
might say, “Oh, there is the difficulty of pro-
viding other trucks for your benefit, having to
provide two sets of trucks for the same traffic;
that is a service of transhipment.” I do not
say that they actually would do so, but I say
that they might do so.
Chairman.] But the words of the clause are:
“for any service of transhipment performed by
them.”
Mr. Darlington.] We are afraid that the word
“transhipment ’’ is too vague a word; it is not
used any where else.
Chairman.] Do you mean to say that under
these words, “service of transhipment performed
by them " they would include the mere providing
of an empty truck 2
Mr. Darlington.] I am not sure, in certain
circumstances, what might not be said.
Chairman.] What 1 understood you to argue
was that if you brought down your goods, and
(81.)
3 O - you
474
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TIHE JOINT COMIM ITTEE.
15 May 1891.
you yourselves took the goods out of your truck
and put them into another truck, the company
might say that was a service of transhipment per-
formed by them, although in point of fact you
had done it.
Mr. Darlington.] They might say because
they had provided apparatus in the way of a
loading bank, or some slight accommodation of
that sort, which may be used by our men, “with-
out that loading bank you could not do your
transhipment.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I say, your Grace,
that a doubt arises in my mind as to whether this
clause is necessary at all. All that the com-
pany propose to do under this clause is that
if the goods come down in a truck of one
gauge, and have to be transhipped to a
truck of another gauge, they propose to
to charge for that. Now what do they do when
that takes place P They unload one and they
load the other ; but they have full power at the
present time, under the schedule, to charge for
all loading or unloading performed, therefore I
do not see what they want this clause for at all.
It is no use calling a thing by a different name,
that is to say, calling it “transhipment ;” as a
matter of fact it is the unloading of one truck
and the loading of another; and you have already
given them power to charge a sum for loading
and unloading. You will find that loading and
unloading are given in Scotion 4 of the schedule,
which you have already settled, and the words
“loading and unloading” cover every service that
they are now trying to get another charge for
under the word “transhipment.” But if you
adopt the clause let me suggest that you should
limit it only to cases in which traffic come from
one railway on to the lines of another system. I
suggest this : “In respect of merchandise
received from or delivered to another railway
company having a railway of a different gauge,
the company may make a reasonable charge for
any necessary service of transhipment per-
formed by them ’’ (I think the word neces-
sary should be in, because it prevents
them from doing a service gratuitously for the
mere purpose of getting the charge for it),
“ the amount of such charge to be determined
in case of difference by an arbitrator to be ap-
pointed by the Board of Trade.” I say, I do
not think the clause is necessary at all, because
the companies have the power to charge for
loading and unloading already ; but if you do
insert it, I hope you will only insert it with this
modification.
Mr. Darlington.] May I say upon that —
Chairman.] We have already heard you.
Mr. Darlington.] I merely wish to say this by
way of explanation: our fear was that the power
to make a charge for loading having been given
already, this proposal would be construed into a
power to make an extra charge for transhipment
as well as for loading.
Mr. Bidder.] I confess I cannot follow the
difficulty which my learned friend appears to be
in. My learned friend Mr. Darlington is afraid
that we might charge for services when we do
not perform them, and have only provided a
loading bank, or such apparatus. Surely this
language is as clear as language can be : “If the
service of transhipment is performed by them.”
The providing of a loading baluk or putting a
waggon there, is not performing a service of
transhipment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Indeed, it has been
held that the providing of accommodation is
“ performing a service.”
Mr. Bidder.] Now, with reference to my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne's contention
for putting in the word “necessary,” I do not
understand what the fear of gratuitous tranship-
ment can be. I have no objection to the word
“necessary "if you want to put it in ; but I
venture to think that “transhipment” is quite
sufficient in this particular case, and that there is
no necessity for this word.
Eurl of Camperdown.] What particular service
does your clause refer to or cover which “ loading
and unloading ” does not cover ?
M.I. Bidder.] You mean why we want this in
addition to the charge in Clause 4 for loading
and unloading 2
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] I take it that that is loading and
unloading when rendered to or for a trader.
This is a loading and unloading in the course of
the journey.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is quite right.
Mr. Bidder.] I think that is the distinction.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is rendered for the
trader all the same; it is not for the convenience
of the railway company.
Earl of Camperdown.] I understand what Mr.
Bidder says. It is a perfectly good answer; it
covers my question.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordships think it
desirable to put in the word “necessary" we
have no objection to the word being put in.
Now, my learned friend Mr. Cripps, who was
in charge of the business the other day, told us
that he gave a pledge which I was not aware of
(of course if he gave it we should certainly be
prepared to implement it), to put in words
equivalent to “another railway.” On principle
I should have thought that the words were a
mistake, but inasmuch as my learned friend
gave a pledge that the words should be put in we
must fulfil it.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is there any objection
to insert the words “another company possessing
a railway of a different gauge.”
Mr. Bidder.] Those are the very words we are
willing to put in (my learned friend says he under-
took to do it), “to another railway having a
different guage”; “having ” was our word, not
“ possessing,” that is the only difference.
Chairman.] The Committee will insert these
words, but not the word “necessary.”
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have an amendment
upon this Clause 25, which has been printed with
the additional clauses; but it really is in effect
an amendment of Clause 25, and it is a definition
of the term “station.” The railway companies
printed it as an additional clause.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
475
15 May 1891.
Chairman.] What page is it?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I cannot tell you what
the page is ; the pages are not numbered.
Chairman.] But first let us see where we
are. Where does the transhipment clause come
1n P
Mr. Bidder.] I think it had better come in as
5a.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You have already got a
5a. Clause 19 was altered to 5a.
Chairman.] Then this must be 5b.
Mr. Bidder.] I really think this has a prior
claim to be 5u, as being more cognate to Clause 5.
Mr. Darlington.] I would ask my learned
friend Mr. Bidder kindly to read me the clause
as it stands as amended.
Mr. Bidder.] “ In respect of merchandise re-
ceived from or delivered to another railway
company having a railway of a different gauge,
the company may make a reasonable charge for
any service of transhipment performed by them,
the amount of such charge to be determined in
case of difference by an arbitrator to be appointed
by the Board of Trade.”
Mr. Darlington.] I think my objection would
really fall to the ground.
Mr. Bidder.] It had fallen to the ground
already, and is now decently interred.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Now, my Lords, I pro-
pose my clause, which is as follows: “ The Rail-
way and Canal Commission may from time to
time on the application of any person interested
make orders with respect to traffic received or
delivered at any place on any railway other than
a station, requiring the railway company to dis-
tinguish in the book or books kept at the station
nearest to such place, showing the rates charged
for that traffic, how much of each rate, whether
a through rate or otherwise, is for the convey-
ance of the traffic on the railway or railways
respectively, and how much is for other expenses,
specifying in detail the nature and amount of
such other expenses.” The object of the amend-
ment is to enable traders who dispatch their mer-
chandise from sidings to have the same right and
the same facilities as other traders have in the
dispatch of their goods from stations as regards
the division of the rates. The Act of 1873,
Clause 14, provides that “Every railway com-
pany and canal company shall keep at each of
their stations and wharves a book or books
showing every rate for the time being
charged for the carriage of traffic, other
than passengers and their luggage, from that
station or wharf to any place to which they book,
including any rates charged under any special
contract, and stating the distance from that
station or wharf of every station, wharf, siding,
or place to which any such rate is charged.”
Then, it goes on to provide that the Railway
Commissioners may from time to time, on the
application of any person interested, order that
the rate shall be divided up into its component
parts, and the details given, Now, my Lords,
two-thirds of the tonnage of the traffic in the
United Kingdom is dispatched from sidings,
therefore it is obvious that it is more necessary
in the case of a trader dispatching goods from a
siding that he should have a right to have his
rate divided even than in the case of a trader
dispatching his goods from a station, and it ap-
pears quite clear that the Legislature intended to
give it ; but Mr. Justice Wills, a member of
the Railway Commission, has held that a siding
is not included in this clause, and has refused an
application which was made under it to have the
rate divided. The Act of 1888, by Clause 34,
recognises the right for books to be kept.
Clause 34 runs as follows: “When traffic is re-
ceived or delivered at any place on any railway,
other than a station within the meaning of
Section 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act,
1873, the railway company on whose line
such place is shall keep at the station
nearest such place a book or books showing every
rate for the time being charged for the carriage
of traffic other than passengers and their luggage
from such place to any place to which they book,
including any rates charged under any special
contract, and stating the distance from that place
of every station, wharf, siding, or place to which
such rate is charged.” That meets the difficulty
about the book, and meets any possible objection
that the railway companies could make on the score
of expense ; but it does not go on to say that the
Railway Commissioners may, on the application of
the trader, order the rate to be divided. Clause
14 of the Act of 1873 empowers the Railway
Commissioners to order the rate to be divided
into its component parts, to say how much is for
conveyance, how much for terminal, and so on;
but this Clause 34 of the Act of 1888 re-enacts
in favour of the siding, that books shall be kept
showing what the rate is, but does not enact that
the Commission may order the rate to be divided.
The effect of my amendment, if your Grace and
the Committee adopt it, will be to give the siding
owner precisely the same rights as are at present
given to traders who send their goods from
stations; and as I have already submitted, the
siding traffic is by far more important than the
station traffic, Therefore there can be no reason,
I submit, why it should not be conceded,
Mr. Bidder.] If amendments of this class are
to be entertained, I am afraid that the duties of
the Committee will be very extensive, because
what Sir Alfred Hickman is asking to do has
nothing to do with the maximum rates question,
but has to do with the amendment of the general
legislation of 1873, and that notwithstanding the
fact that it has been amended by the General
Act of 1888, which deals with this very subject.
Now, without arguing it upon the merits, I
would ask whether your Lordships are not
being asked to go outside of your own proper
business. This is giving a definition of the
words of the Act of 1873 for the purpose of that
section.
Chairman (to Mr. Bidder).] We will not
further trouble you. (To Sir Alfred Hickman.)
We cannot accept your amendment. Now what
else is there 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There are some other
new clauses. I think mine is the next in
order.
Chairman.] Have you got the definition of
(81.)
3 O 2 “ siding,”
476
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 May 1891.
*------
“siding,” because then we shall complete this
clause. -
Mr. Bidder.] We propose to insert this, your
Grace, “The term ‘siding' includes branch
railways not belonging to a railway company.”
Chairman.] That would come in after “Act
of Parliament,” would it not ?
Mr. Bidder.] I think it would come best in
after the words “terminal station.” I think it
should come in in line 20.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that definition
does cover the cases that we had in our mind.
Chairman.] Then that will come in after the
words “ Act of Parliament,” in the 19 line.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether your
Grace has the same copy as I have. There were
a certain number of amendments which have
practically been disposed of by previous decisions
of the Committee. There was one for the
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and there
was one for Mrs. Tomlinson, that has been dis-
posed of.
Chairman.] Are you now reading from “New
clauses, 23rd April.” P
Mr. Bidder.] Yes. The first one has been
disposed of by previous decisions. In the same
way those proposed by Messrs. J. and J. Colman
have been disposed of.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Those have all been
disposed of, I think.
Mr. Bidder.] The first one that has not been
disposed of is the one headed, “New clause
proposed by the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference, page 4, before Clause 7.” My learned
friend, Mr. Balfour Browne, appears for that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The proposal we have
to make is: “where the whole of the services
covered by the conveyance rate are not rendered
by the company, the actual sum chargeable in
respect of each consignment shall be such reason-
able sum within the maximum as shall, in case of
dispute, be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade.” Your Grace
will remember that at a very early period of your
sittings we tried to induce the Committee to
make a distinction between the charge for the
use of the railway and for the haulage upon the
railway. We wanted that to be divided into
two, to see what we were being charged. Your
Grace and the Committee did not think that
necessary; but now that we come near the end,
we think that we have the right to ask your
Grace to say, in a case where only one of those
things is done for the trader, that is to say, sup-
posing the railway company only supplies the road,
or in other words, where the whole of the services
rendered under the conveyance rate are not
rendered by the company, that then “the actual
amount chargeable in respect of each consign-
ment shall be such reasonable sum within the
maximum as shall, in case of dispute, be deter-
mined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade.” Now that proposal is exactly
analogous to what you have introduced with
regard to station terminals; you have introduced
precisely the same principle there, that where
the trader does not get all the services in con-
-*.
nection with the station he is only to be eharged
a reasonable amount, and that reasonable amount
is to be determined by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the 13oard of Trade. Surely what
is good for the one is good for the other. Suppos-
ing I get one benefit, that is, the use of the road
merely, I am not to be charged the whole amount
for the conveyance, although the railway com-
panies would have the right to do it, and I have
no remedy unless you give me this. Therefore
I ask that we shall be entitled to go before the
arbitrator and say, “We convey our own traffic ;
we are quite willing to pay for the use of the
road, but submit that we are not bound to pay
the same as a man whose traffic is conveyed by
the locomotive power of the company.” This
would apply to cases where a great many traders
have the power of running, and do run their own
engines over the railway of the company.
Chairman.] Is that the practice 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, largely between
sidings and railway, especially in the colliery
districts; it is done generally by agreement with
the railway company ; but the practice is to a
very large extent followed in the colliery districts,
and it is a most important power to give the
trader; because if we had not the power, for
instance when our siding is at a considerable
distance from the station, when by leave of the
railway company we run our own trucks to the
railway station, where they are picked up by the
railway company.
Chairman.] On a siding belonging to the rail-
way company ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, and sometimes
even on a main line belonging to the company.
Under these circumstances I do not believe it is
the companies' interest to do it, but they would
have the power to charge as the whole conveyance
rate, we do not think that fair, and we think that
we ought only to pay such reasonable amount of
the conveyance rate as the service that we get
from the company fairly represents; that is, the
providing of the road. I say it is the same in
principle as what you have done with reference
to the station terminals ; and therefore I ask you
to insert the same clause here. If necessary I
can call evidence, but it seems really to be a con-
sequential amendment to what you have done in
the matter of station terminals.
Chairman.] I do not think it is consequen-
tial.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I used the wrong
term ; but I say it is the same in principle as
what you have done upon the matter of station
terminals.
Mr. Bidder.] It seems to me that this arises
out of an entire misconception. The conveyance
rate, as it is called in this amendment, is that
which is referred to in Clause 2 of the schedule,
the maximum rate for conveyence. Now, if a
trader is in a position to run, and does run, his
own traffic, the company does not “convey,” and
cannot charge any rate for conveyance. What
they are entitled to charge him them is tolls.
Nothing is better understood and more clearl
distinguished in the general Acts than the tolls
that
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
477
15 May 1891.
that are paid in the case of running over a rail-
way, and the charges for conveyance when the
railway company carry the traffic. It seems to
me that the amendment is not only entirely un-
meaning, but at the same time it is in that vague
form that it might raise questions which it would
be very difficult to determine : “where the whole
of the services covered by the conveyance rate
are not rendered by the company, the actual sum
chargeable in respect of each consignment shall
be such reasonable sum within the maximum as
shall, in case of dispute, be determined by an
arbitrator.” My learned friend illustrates it by
that one case of the trader running his traffic
himself. My answer to that is, “Very well then,
the company do not convey, and there is
no charge for conveyance at all ”; but if it
is to cover anything else, I venture to submit
that when we are fixing the maximum charges
for conveyance you ought not to introduce a
clause which might put the whole charges for
conveyance at sea at the same time. “In respect
to each consignment,” I suppose it would let in a
trader to argue that in respect of his consignment
some particular special service had not been
rendered, that is to say, that extra brake power
was not given in connection with his consign-
ment ; and he would go to the Railway Com-
missioners, so that there would be no finality
about it. But further than that, the case my
learned friend has selected is the most unfortu-
nate one that could have been selected, because
there there is no conveyance at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend says,
if it is conveyed in the way that I spoke of
they will charge the tolls. When we said that,
we asked you to consider and split up this charge
for conveyance into tolls and other matters.
Here is the evidence upon the 16th of April, of
Mr. Marshall Stevens ; he was called by me and
asked, “Do you propose to split -
Mr. Bidder.] Will you allow me a minute. I
think I ought to hand to your Grace the General
Act of 1845, which provides by Section 92 that
“upon payment of the tolls from time to time
demandable, all companies and persons shall be
entitled to use the railway with engines and
carriages properly constructed.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will show you how we
were met upon that particular day. We said
the conveyance rate includes three things, tolls,
haulage, and use of waggons. I asked Mr.
Stevens at Question 223, “Is there anything at
the present time in the order, as submitted to the
Board of Trade, which enables the trader to see
what the component parts of conveyance are,”
and his answer was, “not that I am aware of.”
(Q.) Do you propose to split it up into unaximum
tolls first of all?—(A.) That is a payment for the
use of the railway ?—(A.) Yes, I think I do not
know of a single railway Act of Parliament that
does not include charges for tolls. (Q.) Why
do you think it necessary to have a statement in
the order limiting the tolls of the company ?—
(A.) When we were before the Board of Trade,
the railway companies intimated that if the revi-
sion were such a revision that they could not
accept, they would fall back from the position of
carriers they now occupied and would depend
upon their tolls.” Just as Mr. Bidder says
now ; and now you will hear what the tolls are.
(81.)
Then he was asked, “ and those tolls are un-
limited except by the old Acts of Parliament
that are being repealed by this Order 2 –
(A.) That is so, excepting that tolls form part of
the conveyance rate. (Q.) Under these circum-
stances, do you think that a trader ought to see
what he is being charged for the use of the
railway ?—(A.) Yes, and there is more than that.
This revision is not only a revision as between
the traders and railway companies ; it is also a
revision that will have to guide, and as I under-
stand it, the only revision that will have to guide
the railway companies as amongst themselves,
(Q.) Are there a great number of railway com-
panies that use the railways of other companies 2
— (A.) Yes, I was going to say almost without
exceptlon. (Q.) Under these circumstances
they supply probably their own haulage ; but
they have to pay something for the use of the
road 2–(A.) Yes, that is so. There are a great
many instances. For instance, the Great Western
Railway Company run into Manchester, they run
over the London and North Western Railway, and
use the terminal station of the London and North
Western Railway Company at Manchester.
(Chairman.) Do you appear for the railway com-
panies? (Mr. Balfour Browne.) No, your
Grace, not at all, I am appearing for the traders,
and it will be most important to them, but it
will be a makeweight surely if you can show
that it will be for the advantage of the railway
companies too.”
Witness.] Then another very important in-
stance is that almost without exception our
corporations have their own railways. (Q.) Large
sidings in connection with gas works, water
works, and other public works 2–(4.) Yes.
Again the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board,
for instance, at Liverpool, have 60 miles of
railway on their estate, over which the waggons
of the railway companies now run to some ex-
tent.” This was why we asked to have the rates
split up into its component parts : but you re-
fused even after hearing this evidence to do so.
Now we say they will have the power, as my
learned friend suggests they should have, of
falling back upon their tolls, and the tolls are
practically larger than the whole of the maxi-
mum rates put together; so that we shall have
no protection at all unless you give us some
such clause as this; the words, I think, are per-
fectly clear. We have followed the words you
put into the terminal clauses, which are, that
* where the whole of the services covered by the
conveyance rate are not rendered by the com-
pany” (that is to say, where one is not rendered),
“the actual sum chargeable in respect of each
consignment shall be such reasonable sum within
the maximum as shall, in case of dispute, be
determined by an arbitrator to be appointed by
the Board of Trade.” How can that be more
vexatious to the railway company than the power
you have given us to go and say: “With regard
to this station, I do not use all the station, I am
in a position to do the services for myself, you do
not work the signals for me, or anything of that
sort.” We can go before the arbitrator to say
that, why should we not go in this, which is
really a most important matter to the traders,
and have it settled by arbitration? When we are
being charged for the whole, and only get one tº
3 O 3 O
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 May 1891.
of the services, why should we pay for the whole,
and pay even more than that, as my learned
friend Mr. Bidder suggests, because he wants to
fall back upon, and we should be charged under,
the old tolls, which, as the honourable Member
for Aberdeenshire will tell you, are large enough
to cover everything that they can charge.
On Mr. Bidder rising,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You have no right to
reply upon me; I have not called any evidence.
Mr. Bidder.] You have quoted the evidence of
Mr. Marshall Stevens.
Chairman.] You have quoted Mr. Marshall
Stevens’ evidence in your own favour, and that
is very much the same thing as calling him as a
witness.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend has been
quoting Mr. Marshall Stevens' evidence. I sup:
pose Mr. Marshall Stevens will not be offended
if I say he is not a great lawyer. Let me
observe that what he said is this : he was asked,
“Do you propose to split it up into maximum
tolls first of all.” To which he replied, “Yes.”
(Q.) That is a payment for the use of the rail-
way?–(A.) Yes, I think I do not know of a
single Railway Act of Parliament that does not
include charges for toll. (Q.) Why do you think
it necessary to have a statement in the Order
Jimiting the tolls of the Company ºil-(4.)
When we were before the Board of Trade,
the railway companies intimated that if the
revision were such a revision that they
could not accept, they would fall back from the
position of carriers they now occupied, and
would depend upon their tolls.” That meant
the traders to run. A nd then he was asked,
“And those tolls are unlimited except by the old
Acts of Parliament that are being repealed by
this Order ’’ 2 To which he replied “That is so,
excepting that tolls form part of the convey:
ance rate.” It is nothing of the kind, the old
Acts of Parliament are not being repealed by
this Order, but what is being repealed by this
Order is so much of the old Acts of Parliament
as relates to rates and charges. But your Lord-
ships probably know, in fact even Mr. Marshall.
Stevens seems to know, that in every Act of
Parliament there was a schedule of tolls for the
use of the railway, a separate schedule
of rates and charges for the conveyance
of goods ; and what the Act of 1888
provides should be dealt with is the maximum
rates and charges, not the tolls. Of course it
might have been provided that you were to deal
with the tolls; but tolls are not dealt with from
beginning to end of the Act of 1888, nor are
they dealt with from beginning to end
of this schedule; and the repeal which
will take place upon the passing of these
schedules by implication, that is to say, of all
the rates and charges existing in enactments in
the previous Acts, will not in any way, affect
the toll charges, they are not touched at all.
Mr. Hambury.] That is Mr. Balfour Browne's
contention; he says that the tolls which are not
touched will be equal to the whole conveyance
rate S.
-*-*
Mr. Bidder.] I think my learned friend is
wrong there ; there may be cases in which it
may be so, but I think it is certain that he is
wrong; but whether that be so or not, we are
here dealing with the rates and charges, we are
not dealing with the tolls; and there is nothing
in the Board of Trade proposals to deal with the
tolls. I am sure Mr. Courtenay Boyle will
concur with me, that from beginning to end the
Act of 1888 has been clearly understood as
being confined to the revision of rates and
charges. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is Section 24.
Mr. Bidder.] Section 24 of the Act, under
which the schedule is prepared, is confined to
the revision of rates and charges ; and my
learned friend’s amendment, if I may say so,
does not tally with his argument.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] You are not comment-
ing upon the evidence I quoted; you are replying
upon my argument.
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend is asking you
to revise the running tolls ; he knows you cannot.
He is asking you to deal with the conveyance
rate, which does not apply at all. If ever a state
of things such as my learned friend anticipates
took place, and Parliament thought the rates
wanted revision, Parliament would take steps
to revise them, as it has done the rates and
charges.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j We have argued, and
have put before the Board of Trade our view,
that even the question of tolls should be revised
by the Board of Trade. In the Act of 1888,
under which you are sitting and under which
they sat, in Section 38 I find that printed copies
of the classification of the merchandise traffic
(this schedule in which you are settling the
maximum rates and charges) are to be on sale;
and several other points are mentioned. How-
ever, the Board of Trade took the view that it
was only the rates and charges which were to be
dealt with, and therefore they have left the
question of tolls absolutely untouched.
Mr. Hunter.] You do not ask us to touch
them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We do not ; the tolls
are left out. When, however, traffic is conveyed
upon a railway—take the ordinary case of a
railway company supplying the road, supplying
the engines, and supplying the waggons, there
are three things supplied—there is the use of the
road, there is the use of the locomotive power for
the haulage, and the use of the waggons, all those
are covered by the conveyance rates, and I pay
for every one of them in the conveyance rate.
Now, suppose I provide waggons
Mr.
CàSC.
Hunter.] We have provided for that
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If I provided the
waggons I should not pay, and you have pro-
vided that I should not, and if I provided the
locomotive I should not pay; but you have not
provided that I should not; therefore I think
you ought to give us some possibility of going
before an arbitrator to say, 1 only use the road;
I provide everything else; let me therefore only
Day
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CIIARGES Pri. OVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
15 May 1891.
pay that portion of the conveyance rate which
relates to the use of the road.
Mr. Hanbury.] But I understand that Mr.
Bidder's argument is that if you only use the
road it does not come within the conveyance rate
at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is because he
wants to go back upon the old tolls, which are
more than the whole three component parts of
the conveyance rate put together; in fact,
you will find that some of the old tolls are
more than the terminals and everything put
together. That is what he wants to fall back
upon, that is to say, a prohibitive rate instead of
a rate to be fixed by the arbitrator under the
Board of Trade.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then your contention
is this: That although professedly you do not
interfere with the tolls, because you say tolls
are not included in this schedule, yet actually
you do indirectly interfere with the tolls by
making it a conveyance rate instead of a toll
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I admit that.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is your object 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is, and I will tell you
why. May I just add a word to make it clear,
because in the same way you will see that in all
the old Acts of Parliament the providing of
waggons was treated as toll.
Mr. Bidder.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon ; it
is. You may say no, but the honourable Mem-
ber for Aberdeen will confirm me; it is treated
as a toll; you have already confirmed me in that.
When I do not provide waggons I am not to be
charged, and when I do not use a locomotive but
provide it myself, it ought to be provided that I
shall not be charged.
Chairman.] You mean to say that the railway
company propose to charge you for the use of the
locomotive when you do not use it 2
Mr. Balfour Browne. Certainly they do.
Chai, man.] First of all you suggest that in the
Act of 1888 (I think yon said the 33rd
Clause)——
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Sub-section 2.
Chairman.] That provides that copies of the
classification of tolls, rates, and charges shall be
kept and sold at a certain price, that is merely
that they shall have it ready for the public.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Chairman.] That does not empower us to deal
with tolls.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will tell you shortly
how my argument upon that stands. Under
Section 24, a schedule of classification had to be
fixed ; and then under Section 33, “Printed
copies of the classification of merchandise traffic,
and schedule of maximum tolls, rates, and charges
of every railway company authorised as provided
by this Act.” That is the very thing that is to
be settled under Section 24.
Chairman.] That does not give us power to
deal with the tolls.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect, I
thought it did, but the Board of Trade have
overruled us upon that.
Chairman.] The Board of Trade ought to have
known what they meant.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not denying that.
Mr. Hunter.] I wish to ask you this question :
If the locomotive power is supplied by the
trader, and the train is under his charge, then it
follows that the company is not the carrier, and
these rates have no application.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If the train is under
his charge, I quite admit that. Under the
Aberdeen case it would be, if the Aberdeen case
is law in this country. I am not sure that it
holds in England; but suppose they give me a
locomotive, and I put my engine driver on,
under those circumstances it would be under my
charge, and they could charge me a toll for the
locomotive.
Mr. Bidder.] But is that very likely to happen?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon ; it
is very frequently the case that engines are lent
to traders and used by traders for days together.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Now, first, as regards
tolls in the Act of 1888. I think it was pointed
out to the Committee some time ago that the
word “tolls '' is not found in Section 24 any-
where. The words in Section 24 are “rates and
charges *; the word “tolls' comes in in the Act
of 1888, when the subject matter dealt with is
canals; and I think the intention of the Legis-
lature, speaking with great deference and with-
out any knowledge of the intention of the
Legislature, and without any power to interpret
iſ, was that the use of the word “tolls' in the Act
of 1888 should only apply to the case of canals.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Before you go on
might I direct your attention to Sub-section 6 of
Clause 33.
Earl of Camperdown.] And also I see that
Sub-section 2 says: “The tolls, rates, and
charges of evey railway company authorised, as
provided by this Act, shall be kept for sale by
every railway company.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And Sub-section 6 of
Section 33 expressly speaks of the tolls of every
Company.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I admit that Sub-
section 2 is against that view : “Printed copies
of the classification of merchandise traffic and
schedule of maximum tolls, rates, and charges of
every railway company authorised as provided
by this Act,” but I do not think that
there is any authorisation so provided by
the Act of the tolls of the railway com-
pany ; and that is the view which has always
been held by the Board of trade, that Section 24
deals with rates and charges, and does not deal
with tolls. Now with regard to the amendment
proposed, the view of the Board of Trade is quite
clear, that where the railway company do not do
all the duties of conveyance, they do not “con-
vey.” The maximum rate for the conveyance is
the maximum rate, which the company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise. If
they do not convey the merchandise, they may
(81.)
3 O 4 make
48()
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 May 1891.
make no charge for the conveyance of mer-
chandise; that is the view of the Board of Trade,
having heard all Mr. Balfour Browne's most able
and clear argument.
Mr. Hambury.] You mean they do not haul it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They do not haul it,
and they do not convey it, they let somebody else
haul it, although they provide the road and pro-
vide the waggon. The intention of Section 2
was to limit the charge to cases in which they
did the conveyance. So far for the construction
of the clause as we believe it to be construed.
Now with regard to this portion of the amend-
ment, the duties of the arbitrator would be
very severe indeed if the arbitrator appointed by
the Board of Trade has to settle all these ques-
tions of actual rates.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to accept the amendment.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then the next is the
amendment proposed by the Mansion House
Association, that is a matter which appears to me
should be dealt with on rates. It proposes that
“A trader shall be at liberty to consign his mer-
chandise at owner's risk rates, and in any such
case the maximum rates and all other charges
authorised by this schedule shall be reduced by a
sum equal to per cent.” That we can fill in of
course ; but it seems to me that unless you dis-
cuss the whole question of rates, the question of
owner’s risk rates, which is the most important
question, there is no doubt of that, could scarcely
well be dealt with.
Mr. Bidder.] I venture to think that your
Grace could deal with it in principle now, and
that it will be much better that it should be dealt
with and disposed of instead of hanging over. It
is a question of principle whether you are going
to introduce a modification.
Chairman.] I think we had better deal with it
I] O.W.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Now, as you under-
stand, the railway companies are, in a great
number of instance at any rate, common carriers,
therefore they are insurers of the goods which
they carry. In a great number of cases the
owners of the goods desire to be their own
insurers and to relieve the railway companies of
the insurance risk; that has been long recognised
by the railway companies and by the traders of
the country. You find in the Railway Clearing
House book, innumerable instances in which arti-
cles are carried at the owner's risk rates; those
rates being a good deal lower than those charged
when the company take the risk. All we desire
is to have the owners’ risk rates in the very
cases in which they are mentioned in the Clear-
ing House book. At page 83 of the Clearing
House book, I find a table of reduced rates at
owners’ risk: “When a rate is reduced con-
sequent upon owner undertaking the risk, the
reduced rate per ton charged must in every case
be in accordance with the following table.” Then
you find a table setting out the “rate per ton
not exceeding,” to be charged when sent at
owners’ risk. Then there are three classes of
owners' risk, because, of course, the risk varies
greatly in different articles, and those are in-
dicated by X, Y., and Z. You find on turning
back into the Clearing House schedule, all the
articles which are carried at owner's risk, and
then by reference to this table you find out at
what rate they are to be carried if the owner of
the goods takes the risk himself. Now that
practice is universal on railways, and we want
to have it continued, and we want to have the
benefit of the owners’ risk rate being fixed as
well as the company’s risk rate, because if it is
not we will be at their mercy. Suppose the
company’s risk rate is 10 s. between two places,
the owner may say, “I want to take the risk of
carrying these goods myself,” the company may
say, “’No, we will not give you an owner's risk-
rate.” Surely that is not fair. If the owner is
willing to take all the risk upon himself, and re-
lieve the railway company, he ought to have an
equitable reduction of the rate. That has been
the practice of the railway companies, and we
shall show you that it would work exceedingly
hard if it were not fixed. We propose to call one
witness, at any rate, if not more, to show that the
traders feel very deeply on this point.
MR. HENRY L.A.FONE (a Member of the House of Commons), is sworn; and Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
3095. YoU are a Member of Parliament, and
were until recently a partner of the firm of
Boutcher, Mortimore, and Company ?–Yes.
3096. They are leather and hide factors, and
leather curriers at Bermondsey P –Yes.
3097. Are you here speaking on behalf of the
leather trade generally 2–Yes.
3098. Are market hides at present carried at a
reduced rate when declared at owner's risk 2–
Yes.
3099. What is it you ask shall be provided for
in the schedule?—Simply to continue the present
custom, the universal custom.
3100. In other words, do you ask that the
railway company shall be under a statutory obli-
Mr. Clifford—continued.
gation to do what they do now voluntarily, that
is, under the Clearing House Classification ?—
Yes.
3101. Will you explain to the Committee the
working of the Clearing House Classification in
this matter ?—In what way ?
3102. As to the percentage of reductions that
they provide for 2—I think the best way will be
to take the present rate from London to Man-
chester, or from Manchester to London. It is
at owner's risk, for certain quantities of market
hides, 30 s. a ton; the proposals which are
now formulated are 35 s. a ton, a difference
of something like 12 per cent. The owners
at
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
481
15 May 1891.]
Mr. LAFONE, M.P.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
at present are quite content to take the risk; the
companies do nothing but take charge of the
goods in Manchester and carry them along their
line of railway to London.
charge is 30 s. The proposal is, as I said, to
charge 35 s. The railway companies want to do
away with the owner's risk rate and carry them
at their own. The traders say that if that is
insisted upon it means such a heavy extra charge
upon the raw material that they will have to
concentrate their trade in either Manchester or
Liverpool, and the railway companies will, in
effect, lose the carriage of the goods.
Chairman.
3103. When you speak of the proposed rate
which the railway companies are going to charge
in lieu of giving you owner's risk rate, do you
mean that that is the proposed maximum rate P
—The proposed maximum rate ; Yes.
3104. It does not follow that that should be
the rate which should rule 2–In our experience
we find it is.
Earl of Camperdown.
3105. Do they charge the maximum rates now
that they are entitled to charge 2–They charge
a fixed rate of 30 s, a ton for the 189 miles.
3106. Is that the maximum rate they can
charge 2–I presume so. That is a question of
classification as well. -
Mr Clifford.
3107. But what you are upon is the difference
between owner's risk rate and company’s risk
rate 2—Yes; that is something like 12% per
Cent.
Earl of Camperdown.] I want to know this:
taking the sum the witness pays at the present
time, which he says is 30s., whether the com-
pany are at the present moment charging the
highest rate they can charge 2
Mr. Bidder.] Is there a maximum ?
Mr. Clifford.
3.108. (To the Witness.) That would depend
upon terminals, would it not *—Yes, -
Chairman (to the Witness). But can you an-
swer the question ?
Mr. Clifford.
3109. Are you able to answer that question ?
—I cannot.
31.10. Is there any maximum rate now for
owner's risk *—That is the rate that is fixed now
between the companies and the traders.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The terminals, you
know, are not a fixed amount. If it is over the
maximum for conveyance, you know they are
charging something for terminals.
Witness, The terminals vary with the classifi-
cation.
Mr. Clifford.
311'. Hides are in a low classification, are they
not ? --No, they are not in so low a classification
as we should have expected.
3112. In the Clearing House Classification
there are different percentages of allowance for
For that the present
Mr. Clifford—continued.
owner's risk rates indicated by different letters,
are there not ?—There are.
3113. Will you explain to the Committee what
happens under the different schedules 2 — It
means this : that under the different headings
here, if the articles are put into X., Y., or Z., the
rate charged would be proportionately higher or
lower.
3114. How much does the percentage of
allowance vary 2—I think it is from 10 to 20 per
Cent. -
31 15. Under those three headings?—Yes.
3116. Is that option which you have at present
under the Clearing House Classification the
option you wish to have embodied in the statute P.
—Yes, it is.
3117. Do you think it reasonable to ask for
that satutory protection?—The trade has been
carried on in this way for so long a time, to the
mutual satisfaction, I presume, of the traders and
of the railway companies, that we do not see any
reason why it should not be a statutory obligation
upon them.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3118. That is to say, you have got on so com-
fortably without legislation that you think it
necessary to have legislation ?–No, that is not
SO.
3119. That is what it comes to, is it not '-
No, you must not assume anything of the kind.
3.120. That really is what it comes to. You
say the trade has been so satisfactorily conducted
up to the present time by voluntary arrangement
that you think it ought to be the subject of
special legislation ?—It is not a question of what
I think, it is a question of what the law is saying
to us, that the Act should be passed in a certain
way.
3121. I do not think you will find anything in
the Act of 1888, or anywhere else, which says
that it is the duty of Parliament now, or of the
Board of Trade to stereotype all voluntary
arrangements by legislation ?—Very likely not.
3122. Now let us get the facts with regard to
your actual rate; what did you say your rate was
from London to Manchester 2—Thirty shillings,
at owner's risk.
3123. Does
delivery 7–Yes.
3124. Do you know what the maximum rate
is ?—No.
3125. Will you take it from me that it has.
been worked out that the maximum rate for con-
veyance alone, irrespective of terminals, cartage,
or delivery, is 31 s. 6 d. 2–I cannot say that.
3126. You may take it from me that if that is
right, the rate you are paying is a long way with-
in the maximum ?–Thirty shillings as against
31 s. 6 d.
3127. No ; 31 s. 6d., plus whatever is the
proper charge for terminals, cartage, and
delivery 2—There is no question of terminals in a
station-to-station rate; it is a lump sum including
everything. -
3128. Does this 30s., as a matter of fact, in-
clude the collection and delivery of the goods 2–
Yes.
that include collection and
(81.)
3129. Now
3 P
482
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. LAFONE, M.P.
[Continued.
15 May 1891.]
Mr. Bidder.—continued.
3129. Now then, about this Railway Clearing
House schedule that you have referred the Com-
mittee to ; it appears to be a rather complicated
thing, at any rate to settle the owner's risk rates,
because there are three categories, X., Y., and Z.,
under which the articles are classed. Then if
you will take the trouble to look, as I have,
through the preceding classification, you will find
that there is not one article in 20 in the list
which has been brought within any of those three
categories. Whenever an article is within owner's
risk rates, opposite that article either X, Y. or
Z. is put; and if you cast your eye down page
after page, you will see that there is not one
article in 20 with either X., Y. or Z. after it. In
other words, there is not 5 per cent of the articles
in the classifications to which owner's risk rates
apply. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I hope you will not
take my learned friend Mr. Bidder's rapid calcu-
lation for granted.
Witness.] If you examine the list at page 31,
you will find that that is not borne out at all. I
have only turned that up by chance.
Mr. Bidder.
3.130. Then you are singularly fortunate.
Will your Grace turn to page 31 of the Clearing
House Book, this is perhaps the most favourable
one to the witness that could have been selected.
You will see that the first four or five articles
have an X., Y., or Z. against them, then certain
articles have not. Glass in crates has it ; glass-
house pots have it, then two or three things
have it not; globes have it, and then the whole
of the rest of the page has not got it at all.
There are two and-a-half-columns which have not
got it as against half a column which has 2–Very
likely.
3131. Now you are proposing to make com-
pulsory arrangements for all which could only
have been found possible in a limited and small
number of articles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is not the pro-
posal at all.
Mr. Bidder.] Surely it is : “a trader shall be
at liberty to consign his merchandise at owner's
risk rates’’; that applies to all merchandise.
Witness.] Not necessarily.
3132. I would ask you, in your own judg-
ment, would it be a reasonable thing to entitle a
trader to claim in all cases to have his goods
carried at owner's risk and have reduced rates
given him 2–I am not here to give an opinion
upon that.
3132* I am entitled to ask your opinion ?——
Chairman.
3133. What we are now dealing with is
the clause that says that a trader shall be at
liberty to consign his merchandise at owner's
risk ; you would apply it to all traders, or is
your evidence to the effect that you think it
ought to apply to your trade but not to other
trades 2–1 am only speaking as respects my own
trade.
3.134. Then you give no opinion as to other
trades 2—Certainly not.
Mr. Bidder.
3135. Then, in point of fact, all you come to
say is that the present rates you get in your
particular trade for the carriage of hides are so
satisfactory that you want some special legis-
lation to preserve them 2–I do not say that they
are so satisfactory; they are satisfactory to the
railway companies, but they are not satisfactory
to the traders. We would like them to be con-
siderably lower.
3136. Did the trader ever live who would
not ? But the old system is so satisfactory in
your particular case that you want it stero-
typed ?–That is the way you put it.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3137. As I understand, you would be per-
fectly content if the same owner’s risk rates as
are given in the classification book were given
by this Committee ?—Yes.
3138. Limited to the special articles which the
railway companies themselves have selected for
owner's risk?—Yes.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] But
does not your clause go a great deal further than
that ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think it does, but I
opened by saying that we only wanted to have
the benefit of the Railway Clearing House list.
Chairman.] It strikes me that your clause is a
net with a very small mesh.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3139. I think Mr. Courtenay Boyle has him-
self inserted words to make it apply to what has
been voluntarily accepted by the Clearing House.
(To the Witness). You would be content with
that ?—Yes.
Chairman.] I do not think he went so far as
that. He said he would be glad to get it less.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That was as to the
amount. In the meantime I am upon the ques-
tion as to whether the owner's risk rates should
be applicable to those articles in the Clearing
House Classification.
Chairman.] As the witness only speaks to
leather, he cannot give an opinion as to any other
trade.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I shall have to
call other witnesses ; but I am willing to accept
this, to make it only apply to the Clearing House
Classification.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] I wish to point out to my
learned friend that there is another lion in his
path, if I may say so, that the “owner's risk” in
the Clearing House Classification and in
railway companies voluntary contracts, has a
particular meaning, which is quite a different
meaning from that attaching to “owner' risk,” as
interpreted by decisions of the courts of law. I
have the Great Western Railway Company’s
consignment note for goods at owner's risk; it
relieves the company of all liability for loss,
damage, or delay, except upon proof that such
loss, damage, or delay arose from wilful miscon-
duct on the part of the company’s servants :
therefore
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BII, LS.
483
15 May 1891.
therefore if there is an accident on the railway,
the company are relieved ; but the decision
which interpreted owner's risk in the case of
Robinson v. The Great Western Railway Com-
pany was that “owner's risk " exempted the
company, from ordinary risk incurred by goods
going along the railway, but not from liability
for negligence, such as delay in delivery
Mr. Hunter.] What case is that ?
Mr. Bidder.] It is the case of Robinson v. The
Great Western Railway Company, 35th Law
Journal. Then there is a more recent case
reported in Law Reports, 9th Queen's Bench.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would you tell me,
was that a case under Section 7 of the Railway
and Canal 'Traffic Act 2
Mr. Bidder.] I cannot tell you, but I think it
W3. S.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If that is so, then you
could not now enforce your yellow paper because
that has been held to be illegal; it has been
held to be a question as to what you can do
under the Traffic Act.
Mr. Bidder.] What I wanted to point out
was that a contract to carry at owner's risk rates
has been interpreted to make a company liable
for their negligence. The contract under which
we carry at those reduced rates protects us from
negligence, therefore it is a different question
altogether.
Mr. Balfour, Browne.] I think it does not
protect you in the case of negligence.
MR. RICHARD PILKINGTON, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
3140. YoU are a member of the firm of
Pilkington Brothers, Glass Manufacturers, of
St. Helens 2—Yes.
3.141. Are you here representing various
firms connected with that trade 2–Yes, I repre-
sent all the polished plate manufactures of the
Kingdom, the London and Manchester Plate
Glass Company, Messrs. Pilkington Brothers,
the Union Plate Glass Company, the Tyne Plate
Glass Company. I also represent the principal
sheet and rolled glass manufacturers. I represent
William Stock and Company of Leeds, Messrs.
Sherwood and Company, and various other firms;
those are the sheet and rolled plate window glass
makers.
3142. May I take it generally that you
represent here the plate and rolled sheet glass
manufacturers of the kingdom 2–Yes, generally
speaking. -
3143. What do you say with respect to the
proposal now before the Committee with regard
to the principle of owner’s risk rates.
Chairman.] But do not you see that Mr.
Balfour Browne has diminished his clause.
Mr. Clifford. Quite so; I was going to put
it to the witness in that way.
Witness.] In the Clearing House Classification
we have the advantage of the owner's risk rates
IDOW.
3144. May I take it that you wish the pro-
visions of the Clearing House Classification to be
made statutory 2–Yes.
Chairmam,
3.145. What you ask now is to have that made
compulsory which is now voluntary 2–Yes.
3146. Compulsory by Act of Parliament,
which is now voluntary between the parties and
the companies 2–Yes ; that the reduction which
we are getting at present, which is about 15 per
cent. when carried at owner's risk, shall be com-
pulsory in the future.
Mr. Clifford.
3147. At present
reduced rates?—Yes.
your glass is carried at
Chairman.
3148. So far as your own trade is concerned ;
or do you speak for other trades than your own 2
—No ; I speak for the plate glass manufacturers.
3149. Do you mean glass generally 2–What
you may call window glass, not bottles, or de-
canters, or tumblers, or anything of that sort of
glass.
Mr. Clifford.
3150. At present all glass of this description is
carried at reduced rates, when declared at owner's
risk 7–It is carried at very reduced rates when
declared at owner's risk ; and the difierence on
the London rate, for instance, is this: the old
rate was 40s., and with 15 per cent. off it was
34 s. ; that was the old 3rd class.
3151. You wish that the existing system, in-
stead of being left discretionary with the company,
should be made obligatory 2—Yes.
3152. Limited as the Clearing House Classifi-
cation limits it?—We want to get the advantage
of 15 per cent, reduction for owner's risk.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3153. You want, you say, to stereotype by
legislation the voluntary arrangement which is
indicated in the Clearing House Regulations. I
Suppose you are aware of this fact, that that
arrangement is only adopted by certain com-
panies 2–We want the advantage of it.
3154. Let us get the facts. Are you aware
that that scale with the X., Y., and Z. does not
apply to either the London and South Western
or the South Eastern, or the Brighton, or the
London, Chatham, and Dover Company ? — I
suppose it applies to the companies which carry
the glass.
3155. I do dot know whether they carry glass
or not ; I should have thought they did some-
times 2–They carry a little glass.
3.156. Although you are interested only in
glass, the Committee have to look to other
things. Are you aware that the railway com-
panies I have named do not adopt that portion
of the Clearing House Regulations?—I am sure
that our rates are through rates; we are on the
(81.)
3 P 2 London
484
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
15 May 1891.]
Mr. PILKINGTON.
[Continuea.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
London and North Western system, and of
course we pay most to the London and North
Western Company; we pay all, or almost all, to
the London and North Western Company.
Chairman.
3157. The question was whether the southern
companies, as they are called, act in the same
manner as the northern companies 7–I imagine
that when the London and North Western
Company makes a rate for us
3158. It is not what you imagine; but do you
know what the practice is with the southern
companies?—No, I do not, because we are only
connected with the London and North Western ;
they manage the business with the other com-
panies.
Mr. Bidder.
3159. They quote the rate to you and you do
not know how it is made up 2–Gluite so.
3160. Supposing, for a moment, that to be so,
how about your proposal to stereotype by legis-
lation the voluntary rate. You would then have
some companies bound to owner's risk rates and
some not ?—I do not know about that ; but our
reason for asking for it is that everybody is
frightened at the word “glass,” whereas, really,
glass is carried without so much breakage; and
the companies who know most about it are not
frightened at the word “glass.” . We desire to
protect it from being classified with little pack-
ages of glass which go from London to places
outside, to frame pictures and things of that kind,
in small quantities; to prevent our large consign-
ments of wholesale glass, packed in large truck
loads, being classified with those little bits of
quantities. The word “glass” is so alarming
that we wish to have it as it is; if it is to be
made a bugbear for getting our rates, put up, we
wish to avail ourselves of the owner's risk rate,
and to have reasonable rates in the future. We
only ask to have in the future what we really
have had in the past.
3.161. What reason have you to apprehend
that in you case, where it is reasonable, the com-
panies will not continue to make voluntary
arrangements in the future as in the past P−This
is our opportunity for being protected by Act of
Parliament, and if we miss this opportunity we
may miss it for good and all.
3.162. But the rates have been maximum rates
under the Act of Parliament up to the present
time; whereas the companies have charged you
something a great deal under the maximum rate,
and given you these special owner's risk rates, I
suppose, because it suited their interest as well
as yours?—We are afraid that in future things
will be very much more tied down, and that we
shall not have an opportunity of getting the
same low rates as we have got in the past.
3163. In what way will you be more tied
down 2–Practically we are put into a very
high class now ; we are put into the third
class.
Chairman.] Do not let us go into the classifi-
cation. -
Witness. It is to ensure a good position.
We say if there is so much to dread in the word
“glass” we will take the whole responsibility
upon ourselves; give us a reasonable rate and
make us liable for the breakage; we will take it
at owner's risk rate, taking the responsibility
for breakage, and by that means get fairly
treated.
3164. The railway company have given you
these reasonable rates because they believe they
are gainers by it on the whole?—Yes, I dare-
Say.
3.165. Why should this Act change their
opinion on this subject 2—It seems that there is
going to be an Act of Parliament passed, a
very far reaching Act of Parliament, and we
want to be protected.
3166. And you may as well come and have a
cut in like everybody else ?–Now is our oppor-
tunity to protect ourselves.
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3167. Do you know whether the southern
lines, whether they adopt that portion of the
Clearing House book or not, get through rates?
—We get through rates from St. Helens where-
ever we go over the railway system.
3.168. From St. Helens do you send to places
south of the Thames, places like Brighton and so
on 2–Yes. - -
3169. When you carry from St. Helens to
Brighton, do you get owner's risk all the way ?—
All our rates are owner's risk.
Mr. Bidder.] He cannot know that when he
says he does not know how the rates are made
up.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He says his whole rates
are owner's risk rates.
Chairman.] What he has told us in his
evidence is that he gets a rate from the London
and North Western Company, but he does not
mean to say that that rate extends on to
Brighton.
Witness.] It does ; we go to all parts of the
kingdom.
Chairman.] It may be that the London and
North Western take the whole of the risk, and
that the London and Brighton Company are not
In 16.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It might be so, but it
is very unlikely. In fact the rate quoted by the
London and North Western Company is a through
rate over the Brighton system.
Chairman.] That is to say, the London and
North Western Company undertake the risk
from St. Helens to Brighton. It is so, so far as
the witness is concerned.
Witness.] They undertake it with other com-
panies. f
3170. Are you prepared to say that the Lon-
don and Brighton Company have anything what-
ever to do with the risk *—I am certain they
have ; because the London and North Western
Company would not undertake their risk.
3171. You cannot tell that ?—But our glass
goes to every corner of the kingdom, and two-
thirds of the rates that we have go over both
the North Western and other companies.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
485
15 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne. If necessary, I think
we could show distinctly that the owner's risk
rates exist upon the southern lines; they may
not be exactly those percentages which are in
the Clearing House Classification, but at all
events as a fact they do exist upon the southern
lines.
Mr. Hunter.] I see glass comes in different
classes in the classification. For example, in
Class 4, I see “glass in boxes or cases”; that, of
course, is at the company's risk. Now, would
your point be met by proposing to take “glass in
boxes or cases at owner’s risk,” in a lower class;
is not that what you want?—We asked for a
lower class, but we did not get it.
Mr. Hunter.] That would come up under the
question of classification ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It might, no doubt. It
is one way of dealing with it, putting it at the
owner's risk in a lower class.
Lord Houghton.] Has that been done in any
case ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, I do not think so.
The Board of Trade have ignored owner's risk
altogether.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Earl of Camperdown.] How de you proposé to
word your clause 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will tell your Lord
ship directly, it may be difficult, but it is done in
the Clearing House by classification. If you
look at the Clearing House book the way it is
done is that in the classification they really class
them in three different classifications, with per-
centages varying from 10 to 20 per cent. In
that way it could be done here, if you decide
upon the principle that owner's risk rates are to
be treated in the same way as company’s risk
rates. l
Earl of Camperdown.] That is rather a diffi-
cult thing to put into words.
Mr. Bidder.] Have you finished the evidence
you propose to call P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have.
Mr. Bidder.] Then I propose to call Mr.
Oakley.
The Committee consult together.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The suggestion has
been made that it is a matter of classification or
differential rates, and I am quite willing, as I
said when I began, to bring it up later on.
Chairman.] What we are going to deal with
now is the clause which you have produced.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, but I have
modified that ; I do not want to have every
trader coming and saying, I want to have the
owner’s risk rate.
Chairman.] The Committee must deal with
them seriatim as the clauses are put before them.
Mr. PILKINGTON.
| Continued.
We now have to consider the clause that you
have produced, modified as you consider it should
be modified, and we will then give our decision
as to whether we accept or do not accept the
clause. Unless we proceed in a regular way, we
shall get into a serious difficulty.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I thought I would
relieve the Committee even from that decision,
if I could bring it up afterwards. We shali
have to say something about this on the question
of rates. -
The Committee further consult together.
Chairman.] The Committee will not accept
the clause proposed by Mr. Balfour Browne.
Mr. Bidder.] The next is a clause proposed by
Sir Alfred Hickman.
Mr. Hunter.] That has been practically
decided. -
Mr. Bidder.] Then I do not think the Vestry
of St. Mary, Newington, persist in their clause.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not bring up a
clause for them.
Mr. Bidder.] Then that is all we have to do,
I think.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] We
do not wish to prevent you from bringing the
matter up later on ; we do not pledge ourselves
to deal with it ; but we do not preclude you from
bringing it forward at a later stage.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have a mind to try my
luck again.
Mr. Bidder.] You mean on the question of
rates ?
Chairman.] If you think you can approach us
then, you may.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think I shall convince
you then. º
Chairman.] We shall not prevent you from
trying to convince us.
Mr. Bidder.] I really think that concludes
everything the Committee have to do now.
Mr. Robert Capper.] I think there is the ques-
tion of empty trucks on Clause 22.
Mr. Bidder.] I thought I explained this
morning that that stood over with Clause 6, and
with the last sub-section of Clause 2, all three
related to the question of trucks.
Mr. Pembroke Stephens.] I was quite prepared
to argue the question, but I understood that it
was for the general convenience that it should
stand over.
Earl of Camperdown.] And Clause 9 stood
OVer t00.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Certainly.
Chairman.] What is the next amendment 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that is all, your
Grace.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday, the 26th instant, at Half-past Eleven
o'clock.
(81.)
3 P 3
( 486 )
( 487 )
Die Martis, 26° Mail,
1891.
IPRESENT :
DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BUKY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His Grace the DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, R.g., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman.] IT may be convenient that I
should announce that the Committee intend to
sit to-morrow. If the House of Commons should
adjourn over to-morrow, then we shall apply for
leave in the House to sit ; that leave, no doubt,
will not be withheld. Then there has been put
into my hands a Paper which I believe was sent
to the Board of Trade, which is signed by the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference on Railway
Rates and Charges ; I do not know whether a
copy has been supplied to the parties 2
Mr. Pope.] We have had copies.
Chairman.] The Paper is as follows: “ The
conference objects to the classification proposed
by the Board of Trade for the following reasons:
It does not include all the articles contained in
the Railway Clearing House Classification. A
large number of the articles in the proposed
classification are not specifically dealt with.
The classification is not compiled with proper
regard to the stowage requirements, value or
character of, or risk to, the articles set out. It
omits many collective terms hitherto in use by
the companies. The conference, however, will
accept and support the Board of Trade proposals
provided that they are adopted in their entirety.
The conference wishes it to be clearly understood
that in supporting the Board of Trade proposals,
it considers that it is supporting an arrangement
which seems to be in the nature of a compromise.
It desires to point out that any alteration made
by the transfer of any one important article from
one class to another materally affects both classes,
and would necessitate numerous further amend-
ments. It therefore submits that should any
amendment be accepted by the Committee, it
should be entitled to move any further amend-
ment consequential thereon or rendered necessary
thereby. Until some alteration is made in the
classification as proposed by the Board of Trade,
the conference does not desire to move any
amendment.” Now I want to know what other
body of traders are prepared to agree with the
proposals which have been set out in the Paper
I have read.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I just say one
word in amplification of that on behalf of the
Lancashire and Cheshire Conference. First of
all, I will tell your Grace and the Committee,
how many of the traders, as far as I am
aware, agree with that proposal. In the first
place, the question of classification (I do
not know whether the Committee knows)
was dealt with by the Board of Trade as a
matter which would be better settled between
the traders themselves and the general managers
of the railway companies than between counsel.
They sat 13 separate days; they had the traders
and the railway managers before them, and
although the traders were far from satisfied, as
their memorandum points out, let me just say
one thing, that we desired in the first instance to
have all the matters and things mentioned in the
Clearing House Classification, 4,000 in number,
set out in this classification ; we have only got
2,000; but still at the same time we recognise
that the Board of Trade have gone far to make
a complete and working classification, and that it
is an enormous improvement upon the old classi-
fication which existed in Acts of Parliament. To
give an illustration : we have now 2,000 articles
specified in this classification; in the old Act
there are only about 60 specified. So that it is
a great improvement upon them ; and under
these circumstances we think that it would be a
very serious thing to touch or interfere with the
classification at all. Let me point out that if
you remove anything from one class to another,
you will have a number of people who will say,
“My goods are of the same nature as those you
have dealt with, and they ought to be put down
a class *; or you will have the railway companies
saying that if you put some things down a class you
will have to put up other things to balance them.
On the whole, the Lancashire and Cheshire con-
ference think that they ought to accept this very
fair compromise, for it is a compromise, which
has been entered into between the traders and
the railway companies, with the sanction of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Pope.] Not “which has been entered into
between the railway companies and the traders,”
(81.)
3 P 4 but
488
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.
but “which has been recommended by the Board
of Trade.” i
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will say “which has
been adopted by the Board of Trade after hear-
ing both the railway companies and the traders.”
I will say, if you please, that it satisfies neither,
but I will add that the waste of time will
be fearful if the thing is to be gone into
again. I am instructed to say that besides the
Lancashire and Cheshire conference, the follow-
ing other traders will accept this compromise:
the South Yorkshire Coal Association, the West
Yorkshire Coal Association, the Brighton Cor-
Fº Messrs. J. and J. Colman, and although
have put down a large number of amendments
for Messrs Brunner, Mond and Co., upon this
paper, I believe if it is left intact they will accept
the classification as it stands; but what we
thought on behalf of Messrs. Brunner, Mond and
Company was that if certain matters were to be
taken down a class, or certain matters should be
removed from one class to another, if all the rest
of the traders accepted it we would accept it
also.
Earl of Camperdown.] What about the
Mansion House Association ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Mansion House
Association is in rather a peculiar position, and
I will ask my learned friend Mr. Clifford to state
what their position is. - #
Mr. Clifford.] I have only to say this on
behalf of the Mansion House Association, that
of the amendments which stand in their name on
the Paper a very considerable number have been
on further consideration or will be withdrawn,
and as to those that remain it is our belief that
they are concerned mainly with matters of detail,
and will not occupy the Committee any consider-
able length of time.
Chairman.] Then do I understand from you
that the Mansion House Association do not
concur with the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference 2 \
Mr. Clifford.] Not to the full extent to which
my learned friend has gone ; but we do con-
cur to that extent, that of the amendments
which stand in our name a very large number
will be withdrawn upon further consideration ;
they concur to that extent with the view ex-
pressed by my learned friend ; and as to those
that remain I think the Committee will find, as
I have already stated, that they are matters of
detail which will not occupy a very great length
of time.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] What does the
Mansion House Committee include 2
Mr. Clifford.] We represent a very large
body of traders from a very large part of the
country, as your Grace will see from the charac-
ter of the amendments that stand in our name;
therefore it has not been quite possible to recon-
cile all the traders with the view that has been
represented by my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne.
Chairman.] Now, the colliery owners of South
Wales, who represents them 2
Mr. Shaw.] I represent the colliery owners of
South Wales. I have one or two amendments
upon the classifications to bring forward. Those
amendments are only raised upon the classifi-
cation, so as to give me power, so to speak, to
raise them upon the rate question; those are
more or less local ; that is to say, they deal with
a few lines, not with all the lines in the kingdom;
but if this classification is to apply to all the
railway companies, when I come to deal with
the lines I am specially interested in, I shall be
answered, if I leave it till then, that “ The rate
we are dealing with is a rate which applies to the
whole class and not to my portion of the class";
but if I have the power to raise the question of
the rate for coal for shipment in the case of each
particular Bill when welcome to it, I will withdraw
it now upon the question of classification, reserv-
ing it until we go into the question of rate.
Chairman.] Now, the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire freighters, what have they to say?
Mr. Capper.] I am very sorry to say that our
counsel, Mr. Woodfall, is not here to-day; but
I would ask that you would hear a few words I
have to W. in his place, with regard to this
matter. e have had a meeting this morning,
and I am desired especially to say that, as
regards the amendments we propose to the clas-
sification, if the Board of Trade classification is
left where it is, we are perfectly satisfied; but if
the classification is proposed to be altered, we
ask for leave to go back to the Great Western
Railway Act of 1847 and refer to the classi-
fication therein, which was never mentioned at
the Board of Trade inquiry. We have endea-
voured to be perfectly consistent in the amend-
ments we propose ; we should have been better
represented had we known of the Act of 1847
than we were at that important inquiry.
Chairman.] Then, in point of fact, the line
you take up is very much the same as that taken
by the Lancashire and Cheshire conference 2
Mr. Capper.] To a certain extent, except that
we propose to bring before you entirely fresh
evidence.
Chairman.] Then, if the classification so set
out by the Board of Trade is confirmed, you have
nothing more to say.
Mr. Capper.] That is so.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] On behalf of the traders
of Staffordshire, Worcestershire, and Warwick.
shire, I cordially endorse what Mr. Balfour
Browne has said. There are things in the classi-
fication which we should like to see amended,
but we feel that to go into all details of the
classification would be to imperil the passing of
the Bill this Session ; we think that that would
be a great misfortune to the traders and to the
railway companies, and we, therefore, plopose to
support the suggestion which Mr. Balfour Browne
has made, to accept the classification of the Board
of Trade, but we must say that if the railway
companies are to be allowed to alter the classifi-
cation of the Board of Trade in their favour, we
must be heard asking to alter the classification on
OUII’ behalf. *
Mr. Dârlington.] On behalf of the quarry-
owners of North Wales we have only one objec-
tion
ON TRAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs RROVISIONAL ORIDER BILI.S.
489
26 May 1891.
tion to the classification, and that we believe to
be upon a misdescription. We believe that the
Board of Trade desired to include under the
words to which we have taken exception, the
goods which we desire to send, because we
believe that the articles are not in effect an
article of commerce. We cannot say absolutely
whether that is so or not, but our objection is
only a verbal one, to one class of article.
Chairman.] What is that?
Mr. Durlington.] Our objection is that slate
slabs in the rough are put in Class D. Now,
slate slabs, I understand, in the rough are not an
article of commerce; they are always sawn and
cut at the quarries, and when the slate slabs are
manufactured into any article such as cisterns,
mantel-pieces, or any other article of a like de-
scription, they are provided for in the classifica-
tion. -
Chairman.] Are you prepared to accept the
classification as set out by the Board of Trade 2
Mr. Darlington.] I object to those words; but
it is only a verbal alteration that we desire.
Chairman.] Then we know what your contem-
tion is. -
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to the chemical
manure manufacturers, we have only put down a
single amendment as to the classification, and the
effect of that amendment is to bring back the
classification in the Bill to the same condition as
it was in when it was published as a schedule by
the 13oard of Trade; that is to say, manure has
been put up from Class B. to Class C. since the
schedule was published by the Board of Trade,
and we are now willing to forego all our other
amendments except that one of bringing packed
manure back to Class B. from Class C. We
withdraw all our other amendments.
Mr. Bishop.] I represent the Swansea
freighters and the Glamorgan county council.
Our position is this: we represent the coal and
iron trade, and also the metal trade, copper, zinc,
lead, and so on, and those traders are in this
position : the coal and iron trade feel that the
settlement of the 13oard of Trade is a fair one
which we can accept ; the metal trade, however,
feel that they have not been dealt with quite so
well as they had hoped, but after hearing what
the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference has
said, and what my learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne has said, we are willing to sacrifice as
much as we feel we might perhaps have been
able to secure in order to facilitate the operation
of this Committee. -
Chairman.] Then are you prepared to follow
the line sketched out by Mr. Balfour Browne 2
Mr. Bishop.] Yes.
Chairman.] Then what other parties are there?
Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and Lakin; who appears
for them 2
Mr. William Wills.] I appear on behalf for
Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and Lakin.
Chairman.] What are they
Mr. William Wills.] They are lime burners.
We are unable to accept the view which has
been represented by other learned counsel who
have addressed your Grace this morning, and we
derire to press our objections to the classification
in the terms which have been sent in.
Mr. Pope.] On the part of the railway com-
panies I confess it is a little startling to me;
knowing what has taken place before the Board
of Trade hitherto, to find all the trades converting
themselves into promoters of the classification
which was adopted before the Board of Trade.
Our position as railway companies is this: Your
Grace will find when the whole matter comes to
be considered and discussed that it will not in-
volve, as the Board of Trade seems to threaten,
a discussion of a great amount of detail such as
been suggested. When the question was before
the Board of Trade the railway companies and
the traders met and discussed the matter as fully
as possible, and in regard to a very great number
of articles, in fact with regard to by far the ma–
jority of the articles which it was suggested
should be altered in the classification by the
Board of Trade, the companies were prepared
and are prepared to accede to the wishes of the
traders and to allow the classification to pass
without discussion. For instance, if you refer to
the railway companies' amendments you
will find there is not a single amendment
suggested by any of the railway companies in
regard to Class A., although there have been
considerable modifications introduced into Class A.
The railway companies accept that as being a
fair and reasonable compromise, but there are
two or three particular instances which involve,
not questions of detail, but questions of principle
which the railway companies must ask the Com-
mittee to consider with regard to the classifica-
tion.
The Report of the Board of Trade, at the
close of it, enunciates certain principles with
regard to classification with which the companies
do not quarrel, but the principal objection to the
classification which has been adopted is, that
although proceeding avowedly upon the prin-
ciples laid down, the Board of Trade do not take
a sufficiently wide and generous view of the
principles by which they professed themselves to
be guided. There are four or five particulars in
the classification which the companies feel
would work great injustice to them, because, as
we shall endeavour to prove, the effect of the
change introduced by the Board of Trade will
be one which we are satisfied the Board of Trade
did not contemplate, namely, that it will result
in an absolute diminution in the present income
of the companies, which we do not believe was
the intention either of the Legislature or of the
Board of Trade. Therefore, so far as the com-
panies are concerned, although it may involve a
discussion of other questions, there are some
main questions of principle upon the classifica-
tion which we shall ask the Committee to
consider, but the main points are conceded by
the companies, and the whole question will not
involve the great amount of discussion which
has been suggested.
Mr. Balfour Browne. That is if only one
party is going into the amendments.
Mr. Pope.] I wish to protest against either
my learned friend or any trader doing that which
we contend will be an injustice to the companies
(81.)
3 Q IIl
490
MINUTEs of Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.
in order to escape from the difficulty of putting
forward a lot of amendments.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend may
protest if he likes, but he says there are four or
five articles in the classification which he will
ask you to consider upon principle, because they
are put in a class which will involve a loss of
revenue to the company. With great respect to
my learned friend, that is a question of rates, and
not a question of classification. Now if my
learned friend succeeds in getting one or two of
these articles moved into a higher class, upon
which the companies can charge a higher rate
and so get a larger revenue, then, I say, the
traders cannot stand aside and say we will con-
sent to that being done.
Mr. Pope.] I do not ask you to stand aside ;
if any material alteration is made in the rates,
then you will be heard.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The traders cannot
stand aside ; the trader will be then entitled to
go into these points, and a great number more
besides.
Chairman.] Not a great number more besides,
I hope.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes, your Grace, be-
cause they will be consequential upon any
amendment you make. If you move certain
articles up you will be asked to move certain
other articles down a class, and that will involve
considerable discussion. Seeing that the rail-
way companies and the traders were fully heard
upon this question before the Board of Trade, it
is a matter, in my opinion, far more for the Com-
mittee than for counsel, and seeing that the
majority of the traders are satisfied, I think it is
really a question for the Committee and not for
the railway companies or the traders to discuss
here.
Mr. Pope.] I do not agree to that, we cannot
go into the morality of the question.
Mr. Balfour iXrowne.] It is not a question of
the morality of the question.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] We understood
you to say that there were certain questions of
principle which you wished to put before the
Committee. Now are you able to do that now
before we go into the details of the classification,
because if we could decide upon those points
which you raise as points of principle that might
simplify matters.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, I think so, your Grace. I
think we could discuss, generally, the principles
which would commend themselves to the railway
companies, and which would be in accordance
with the rules which the Board of Trade say
have guided them, which have been varied in the
proposed classification, and as we think have been
varied unduly and unjustly. I think we could
do it.
Chairman.] What Mr. Balfour Browne, as I
understood him, suggested, was that you were
proposing to raise a discussion upon certain
articles which you would take out of one lower
class and put into a higher class; that would be
of course to a certain extent matter of detail.
Mr. Pope..] To a certain extent.
Chairman.] But if you could put before us
your views upon the principles which you say
have been departed from by the Board of Trade,
then it might simplify the matter. I do not know
whether you follow me !
Mr. Pope.] Quite. I am afraid of necessity
that must be a matter of some detail, because it
arises in this way. The view which the com—
panies take is this, the same which the Board of
Trade take, that the basis of the new classifica-
tion should be that which has been built up by
the experience of the last 30 years, and is known
as the Clearing House Classification. There
are certain variances from the Clearing House
Classification which have been adopted by the
Board of Trade, some of them we assent to,
others we dissent from ; and we can, without any
real difficulty, point out to the Committee what
the variances are from the general principle of
the Clearing House Classification, and why we
object to those variances.
Earl of Camperdown. Are not these all
matters of detail P
Mr. Pope.] To a certain extent ; but they are
not all matters of detail. For instance, let me.
first take the illustration which has been already
dealt with. In one of these amendments, for
instance, I will take this first one which appears.
I will not discuss at this moment the amendment
of the landowners of Wales, which involves a
question of principle, namely, whether you are
to introduce into the classification a lower classi-
fication for the shipment of minerals, that involves
a question of differential rates in favour of parti-
cular districts or courses of trade ; but if we take
the next which appears as the first amendment
on Class A. –––
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would it not be well
to take your own amendment P Yours is the
first amendment on Class B.
Mr. Pope.] But this better illustrates the sortſ
of discussion which must arise. Now the first
amendment of the railway companies you will
find on page 9 of the amendments which are
before you. You will observe it begins “Class C.
continued ; name of party proposing amendment;
railway companies; page 22, column 2, line 5,
insert “iron and steel.” The following articles of
iron or steel : ‘anchors,’ and all articles included
in the iron and steel list, pages 18, 19, and 20,
down to and including, “wire rope, old, cut in
pieces.’” . That I understand we propose to
raise to raise from Class B. to Class C., and that
involves a general discussion upon the appropriate
classification for all iron commodities. It is not,
therefore, a question of long detail. Many of
these amendments would be consequential, and
would follow the general discussion and decision
as to the class into which iron ought to go. That
is an illustration of what I mean ; and our con-
tention, what we shall ask you to consider is
this, that the maintenance of that iron classifica-
tion as it is in the proposed schedule would involve
to the Midland Company alone a loss of revenue
of 50,000 l. a year. That is the only sort of ques-
tion which we shall propose to you to discuss.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is really detail?
Mr.
O N RAILW AY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
491
26 May 1891.
Mr. Pope.j It is really detail, but it is big
detail.
Chairman.] I think after having heard what
Mr. Pope has said it is quite clear that we shall
not gain time by doing other than taking
the amendments seriatim as they stand upon the
Paper.
Mr. Pope.] I think that is the best way.
Chairman.] A Paper of amendments has
been put into my hands, proposed on behalf of
the Mansion Honse Association on Railway
Rates, and headed “Owner's Risk Rates;” what
is that *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Your Grace will re-
member that when we proposed in the first part
of the schedule to deal with owner's risk rates
you gave us an intimation, in fact you said you
would not put it in there, but said that we might
bring it up again on classification. It was
thought that it would be better dealt with on
classification, therefore we have brought it up
here.
Mr. Pope.] If you said “dealt with after
classification ” I should agree, but it would be
impossible to deal with it until we have settled
the classification.
Mr. Balfour Broncºme.] The suggestion was
made by the honourable Member for Aberdeen
at the time, “Would it not do if the article
which was carried at company’s risk in one class,
was carried at owner's risk in another class. It
was Mr. Lafone who was under examination.
As I understand, under the Clearing House
Classification at present, the whole question of
owners’ risk is dealt with by three letters, X,
Y., and Z. It will not do to put one article into
a class lower, because the difference of rate be-
tween the two classes is greater than the differ-
cence of risk, and what we have done in this
amendment has been to adopt the principle of the
Clearing House rates by putting the letter X.,
Y., or Z. against the articles respectively, as is
done in the Railway Clearing House Classifica-
tion. You will find that X. represents a certain
percentage, Y. another, and Z. another, and
when you turn back to certain pages you will
find those special articles marked X., Y., and Z.
It is nothing more or less than adoping the
Clearing House Classification with regard to
owner's risk.
Mr. Pope.] Hardly that. I do not know
whether your Grace would desire that we should
discuss this question of owner's risk now. I
would just call attention to the amendment, and
show that it is impossible to discuss it in the
form in which the amendment stands. Before I
could argue this exception from the classification
in favour of a particular condition as to existing
lines I must know what that condition involves.
If you make it compulsory upon me to carry
certain articles at owner's risk I must know what
owner's risk means. This is an arrangement
between the companies, and if you were pro-
posing to make it obligatory upon the companies
to make a difference in the rate as between
owner's risk and company’s risk it would not
become arguable until we knew what the dif-
ference is.
–"--—
Chairman.] It seems to me that what we have
first to do is to settle first of all the classification,
and make that perfect, and when that is as
perfect as we think we can make it then——
Mr. Pope.] Then discuss the question whether
there are any exceptions to be made from it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I quite agree, only I
thought it right to put this in now because it is a
matter dealing with classification.
Mr. Pope.] I quite concede that it is the best
way of dealing with it, but I will also suggest
that if you would kindly look at the amendment
before we come to discuss it we should know
what we have to discuss. The amendment is in
these terms: “Where in this list the letters X.,
Y. or Z. placed against any article; ” that is
exactly how we do it in the Clearing House
Classification, it is true ; “ such article may be
consigned at a reduced rate if at owner's risk,
see Table, page .” Now before I can discuss
that, and before my learned friend can discuss
that, we ought to know what does he mean by
owner’s risk 2 What is the Table of Rates, and
where is the page at which we shall find it 2
Mr. Balfour Browne. It is the table upon
page 83 of the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Pope.] But you do not say so. If you
will insert that it will make that clear. Then
what does “owner's risk” mean P because, as the
law stands, your Grace, it is this : The Act of
1854 provides that the companies shall be the in-
surers of all goods excepting under circumstances
which that Act of Parliament makes possible,
namely, an agreement between the company and
the trader in writing in a form which the Courts
can enforce and to which the Courts will hold to
be reasonable. We want to know whether that
is the sort of obligation which is to be imposed
upon us before we agree to carry this or that
article at owner’s risk P
Chairman.] I think we had better postpone
that till we have dealt with the classification.
Mr. Pope.] The first amendment in order is
that of the landowners, &c., of South Wales.
Chairman.] It occurs to us that the traders,
most of them as represented by Mr. Balfour
Drowne and Mr. Clifford, are willing to agree to
this classification of the Board of Trade (and
their amendments are by far the greatest in
number), provided that there is no amendment
moved by the railway companies that would
affect them. Then it occurs to us that it would
be better first of all to deal with the railway
companies' amendments, and then having dealt
with the railway companies' amendments the
traders will be in a position to say whether they
still adhere to the proposal of agreeing to the
classification as already settled by the Board of
Trade, the railway companies' amendments being
much fewer in number than those of the traders.
And if the classification is altered in any manner
which will not be against the views of the
traders that would simplify the matter very
much.
Mr. Pope.] Obviously, your Grace, and, there
fore, that disposes of Class A. altogether, because
the railway companies have no amendment to
propose in Class A. in the Board of Trade Classi-
fication ; but there is this which remains. The
(81.)
3 Q 2 first
492
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.
*-
first amendment upon the Paper is that of the
landowners and coalowners , of South Wales.
That proposes upon page 17, line 16, before the
words “Class A.,” to insert the words “coal and
coke for shipment"; that is to make a subsidiary
class to Class A. It is not an amendment upon
the classification at all. I am only anxious that
the Committee should decide what they will do
with it, when they will take it; that is all. Is it
to be taken as a substantive proposition, or is it to
be postponed until after classification ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not “till after classi-
fication,” but at the close of classification.
Chairman.] The Committee think that, this
being a traders' amendment, they had better
postpone it and deal with the railway companies’
amendments first.
Mr. Pope.] Then as regards Class A. we proj
pose nothing. The first amendment proposed
by the railway companies is this. If you turn
to the classification Class B., the amendment
proposed is this. The proposition of the Board
of Trade is that Class B. is applicable to con-
signments of two tons and upwards; the amend-
ment by the railway companies proposes to make
it applicable to consignments of four tons and
upwards, That involves, of course, a question
of some importance, upon which I will ask you
to hear the railway managers. The alteration
which we propose would bring the new classifi-
cation proposed by the Board of Trade into con-
formity with the Clearing House Regulations.
Now the first Clearing House Regulation in the
mineral class is this: “As the case may require
station to station terminal only loaded and un-
loaded by owners and carried in quantities of
not less than four tons; otherwise chargeable at
special class rate or as for four tons at mineral
class rate.” Now we propose that the new clas-
sification should embody these regulations which
have been justified by the experience of 30 years.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] What page in the Clear-
ing House Classification book are you quoting 2
Mr. Pope.] The first general regulation.
\\
MR. GEORGE FINDLAY, is again called in ; and Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
3.172. IN reference to this question of minimum
weight for articles in Class B, perhaps you would
just shortly first tell the Committee the history
of the question. In the first place originally, am
I right in saying that the Clearing House Classi-
fication adopted the full load as being the mini-
mum ?–- Those were the words used in the
original Clearing House Classification, which I
recollect so far back as 1852 from personal know-
ledge; that the description of traffic which was
enumerated in that class was invariably earried
in full loads according to the capacity of the
waggon, but always in full loads.
3173. There was a very good reason for that,
was there not, in the character of the articles
which are carried in Class B. Y—Yes, but I think
the reason is made stronger in consequence of
the proposed alterations in the classification by
making as it were a sub-section of the mineral
class, Class B., and inserting a number of other
articles, such as barytes, china clay in bulk, bog
ore, compost, copperas, manure in bulk, scrapings,
sulphur ore, tan or spent bark, and so on. With
regard to many of those articles, it is not the
custom of the trade for them to be sent in such
quantities as four tons, but it is quite evident
that it is impossible to mix them in the same
waggon ; so that therefore if the quantity remains
at two tons, the companies will be called upon to
provide a waggon and carry what is practically
an unprofitable load of traffic in respect of that.
3174. Subsequently to 1852 I think, when
the Clearing House minimum was specified to be
a full load, there was an agreement come to
amongst the companies, was there not, which
was embodied in subsequent Clearing House
Orders fixing what should be taken as a full
load 7–Yes; from 1852 upwards the carrying
capacity of the railway waggons has increased,
but with a view to fixing a reasonable limit it
was agreed at the Clearing House amongst all
the companies concerned that four tons should
Mr. Bidder—continued.
be considered the minimum load for that class
of traffic.
3.175. And that has been adopted ever since,
at any rate, I think, as regards all the railway
north of the Thames 2—As regards all the rail-
ways north of the Thames ; all those south of
the Thames have adopted the somewhat higher
standard of five tons as the minimum weight.
3176. In point of fact would the result be
that with regard to many of the articles in Class
B. carrying two-ton loads the business would be
actually an unprofitable business?—Yes.
3177. That is to say at Class B. rates ?—
Yes.
3178. And especially where the loads were
short 2–Yes, that follows.
Chairman.
3179. How would that be affected; will you
give the Committee an instance –The rule has
been where the quantity has been less than the
four tons minimum weight in the past, to charge
either as for four tons or the rate of the next
following class ; that would be what we call the
special class rate, Class C.
Earl of Camperdown.
3180. Would you tell us how it would work in
a concrete instance?—I am now speaking under
the old state of thingt. Where two tons of traffic
in the mineral class were delivered to the com-
pany, it would be charged either at four tons,
which would be practically twice the rate, or at
a rate that would correspond to Class C., which
we call the special class.
Mr. Bidder.] I see the general regulation, your
Grace will find on the first page of the Clearing
House book. It is the very first of the general
regulatons.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Bidder).] This
two tons applies to Class B, and in following the
witness
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
493
26 May 1891.]
NMr. FINDLAY.
[ Continued.
witness up to that point I understood that it
would not pay them to carry two tons in the case
of many of these articles, or indeed in any of
them, and what I wanted was this, that the
witness should give me a concrete instance from
Class B. of some article, and show the Committee
how carrying two tons would not pay them, and
how if would contrast with the old practice.
You will be able to bring that out.
Mr. Bidder.
3181. (To the Witness.) I do not know whether
you can work out a concrete case; but taking
the Class B. rate, Class B. is the rate inclusive of
waggons except in the case of certain articles of a
special class, is it not ?–Yes.
3182. And looking at your schedule 2–
Chairman.] Which page is that ?
Witness. Page 18 is the classification ..
the schedule, if we are to work out the little
sum for the Earl of Camperdown, is at page 10.
Mr. Bidder.
3183. I see the rate from page 11 of your
schedule in Class B. for small consignments, that
is to say, a consignment of less than 10 tons,
would be for a distance not exceeding 20 miles,
1} d. a mile 2–Yes. -
3184. It is not unfrequently the case that
articles of this kind, such as lime and articles
included in Class B, are carried for very short
leads of six or eight miles?—Yes; but I under-
stand the proposition put by the noble Lord is to
give a concrete instance in which the rate would
be unprofitable, and I think in that case for the
sake of comparison it would be better to take the
case of two tons of undamageable iron
which travelled a distance of 20 miles that
would go for 2 s. 1 d., a ton; or taking the two
tons, 4 s. 2 d., that is practically for the use of
the waggon for the double journey. Practically
we should have to provide a waggon and to haul
two tons of traffic upon the railway for 20 miles
for 2; d. a mile, and I have no hesitation in
saying that carrying traffic of that description in
a waggon containing only two tons would give a
very unprofitable load. Our calculation of the
general average is about 4 d. or 5 d. a mile, and
that is borne out by the fact that 4 d. to 5 d. is
the rate that we charge for carrying traffic of that
description. -
3185. The rate being for a small consignment,
1} d. a mile, and the station terminal for siding-
to-siding traffic would not be payable?—Cer-
tainly not.
3186. Consequently if you had only two tons
in the waggon you would get two 14 d. a mile,
and that 2; d. a mile would be a rate unremune-
rative to the company ?–That is so.
Chairman.
3187. That would apply to articles which
could not be mixed with other articles; but it
would not apply to all articles in Class B., would
it, because some of the articles might all go in
the same waggon 7–Some of the articles might
all go in the same waggon; but some of the
articles, especially the articles I mentioned, such
as bog ore, compost, copperas, manure, Sulphur
Chairman—continued.
ore, and that kind of thing cannot be mixed
with the other articles in the waggons ; but it
appears to me that the difficulty, if I may say so,
which the Board of Trade have landed themselves
in is this: by including so many other articles,
such as iron, damageable, and some things un-
damageable in Class B., that those commodities
as a rule have been carried in two-ton lots, but
at a higher class, and being brought down to this
lower class it not only reduces the rate or
classification of those particular articles, but it
takes with it an amount of unfairness (using the
term good-naturedly) with regard to other articles
where we have always got the four ton minimum
before.
Mr. Bidder.
3.188. You took the illustration of a 20-mile
run, but it not unfrequently happens, does
it not, that you run a less distance in this
class of articles than 20 miles 3–Yes; if you come
to the minimum distance of six miles, that would
make it stili more unprofitable.
Chairman.
3189. Then your objection, as I gather it, is
that Class B. contains too many articles 2–Yes ;
and upon the question which your Grace will
have an opportunity of hearing what we have to
say later on, that if we succeed in altering the
iron class, which we think in a great measure
ought to be advanced, the difficulty in dealing
with that class will be overcome, becanse if it is
put in the next Class C. this difficulty will be
overcome, and the four-ton minimum might be
applied to all the other articles in Class B. when
we come to deal with that, -
Mr. Bidder.
3190. Many of the articles in Class B. might
be put in the same waggon P—Many of the other
articles might.
3191. But in the case where you are carrying
from siding-to-siding you take the load as it is
offered to you ?–Yes; where the company is
dealing with the traffic at at its own station we
could in many instances put many more things
in the same waggon ; but when a waggon comes
from a trader's siding we must take the two tons
in the waggon as it is offered to us.
3192. You take the load as it is offered to you;
you cannot deal with it?—That is so.
3.193. Now, keeping distinct for one moment
the question of articles newly brought down
into Class B., and taking only the articles which
have always been in Class B., there having
been always a four-ton limit and the payment
having been upon that limit, there would
be in respect of those articles an actual
loss upon the payment made for the carriage of
those articles?–Yes, there would ; and I may
say with regard to the articles which have been
hitherto carried upon the four-ton limit, that we
have never had a word of complaint so far as the
public is concerned. Upon the question of the
four-ton minimum, what may have guided the
Board of Trade I cannot tell; but their original
proposition was a four-ton minimum for Class B.
What the subsequent negotiations which altered
that may have been I cannot say.
(81.)
3 Q 3 3194, My
494
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTFE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
3.194. My learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne
said very properly that the Board of Trade have
heard at great length what the railway companies
and traders had to say upon the classification,
and when their original draft Report was prepared
they did adopt the original four-ton minimum for
Class B. ?–That, is so ; but after their Report
was presented to Parliament no doubt interviews
took place between the traders and the companies,
and that alteration took place. No doubt the
Board of Trade could tell what were their reasons
for making the alteration.
3.195. I do not know that this alteration was
ever discussed with the railway companies?—No,
it was not discussed with the railway com-
panies.
Mr. Hanbury.] Was the classification origi-
nally the same 2
Mr. Bidder (to the Witness).] How is that ?
I think after the original draft certain iron
articles were moved into Class B., were they
not ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I can answer the hon-
ourable Member's question in two minutes if I
am allowed. The alterations which were made
in Class B. were that creosote, coal tar, gas tar,
E. O. H. P.. helves or tilt hammers, fittings for
tubes, were put into Class B., not having been
so at first. The definition of manure was altered
by the omission of cornmas, which made the
thing not quite so clear as it ought to have been,
and slate slabs in the rough were put into
Class B. ; those are the only changes that were
made. *
1Mr. Bidder.] Then, I think, we may substan-
tially say that the answer to Mr. Hanbury's
question is that Class 13. was substantially
identical in the former Report with what it is
now P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] As regards all the main articles
in it 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
3196. In the concrete instance you gave to
the Committee I think you selected undamage-
able iron, did you not ?–Yes, I took that which
occurred to me; I did select that.
3197. You, I think, suggested to the Com-
mittee that upon a two-ton consignment of
undamageable iron you would receive 2% d. per
waggon, or that you might receive 2; d. 2–Yes,
that we might receive 2% d. per mile.
3.198. And that that would be an unremunera-
tive payment to the company ?—Twopence half-
penny per mile per waggon I consider an unre-
munerative payment to the company.
3199. May I call attention to your Act of
1846, and to your power of charge under that
Act. I find, for instance, undamageable iron
you are entitled to charge a penny per ton per
mile if conveyed for a distance of 50 miles or
upwards; but if for any less distance than 50
miles 13 d. a ton P-Yes.
3200. Now you are not restricted, there is no
minimum weight in your Act of 1846, is there 2
Mr. Clifford—continued.
—There is no minimum weight, I admit frankly,
but the practice has been, at all events, as I tell
you, to fix it at the minimum weight of four
tons.
3.201. Never mind the practice; I am just
now upon your statutory power. Is it not the
fact that under your Act of 1846 you are now
liable to carry every consignment of undamage-
able iron over 500 lbs. in weight at the statutory
charge I have mentioned?—I think that is so.
Mr. Bidder.] For a run of 50 miles and
upwards.
Mr. Clifford..] Under 50 miles it is 1} d.
Mr. Pope.] Subject to this, that that Act, of
course, does not apply to the whole North
Western system, and the object we have in view
is to have some definite understanding of what
“undamageable iron” is.
Mr. Clifford.
3202. (To the Witness.) But you agree that
under your statutory powers, so far as they affect
the main line of the North Western, you are
now only entitled to charge 2; d. per ton per
mile upon a two-ton consignment 2–Yes; but I
think I mentioned to the Committee that a great
deal of the difficulty would be removed by the
transference of this iron traffic to the class in
which it originally stood in the Clearing House
Classification.
3203. So that, continuing my illustration, even
the two-ton minimum is an increase upon your
existing statutory powers ?—I think so.
3204. You have said, however, that whatever
your statutory powers may be, in practice your
system has been to charge a four-ton limit?—I
was a , little wrong in my answer there. Our
practice has been to charge a minimum of two
tons in the higher class C.
3205. You now modify your original state-
ment to that extent?—I thought you were
speaking generally of the mineral Class B., but I
wish to correct myself to that extent.
3206. Is it not the custom of your company,
for instance, at Birmingham, to carry in two-ton
lots?—Yes. - - i
3207. And to quote for two-ton and not four-
ton lots 2–Yes.
3208. Therefore your existing practice, so far
as Birmingham is concerned, and the traders
there, is exactly that which the Board of Trade
proposes?—Yes, so far as iron is concerned, I
grant you that is so.
Mr. Bidder. º
3209. But that is in Class C. 2–Yes, I have
said that.
3210. That is a higher class; there is no ob-
jection to that ?—Yes, I do not want to antici-
pate what will be said hereafter, but I am bound
to admit that frankly.
Mr. Clifford.
3211. And only in the very small minority of
instances.do you quote for four-ton lots in the Bir–
mingham trade 2–Yes, I think where we quote
four-ton rates, it is in pig iron and bars and billets
and unmanufactured iron, which is conveyed at
the
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
495
26 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
* ==s*
*"
Mr. Clifford—continued.
the mineral rate, and there we quote a four-ton
rate; that is the heaviest description of traffic.
Chairman.] Are you dealing now with iron
and iron only ”
Mr. Clifford.] I am taking the illustration
given by the witness and following that out.
Chairman.] That would not apply to all the
articles in Class B.
Mr. Clifford.
32i 2. Clearly not. (To the Witness). Are
you right in stating that the Clearing House
Classification is uniformly limited to four-ton lots?
—In the mineral class, certainly.
3213. I am goiug to refer you to the Clearing
House Classification for an instance. At page
56, for instance, I find “pipes, cast iron or steel
(exclusive of rain-water pipes), gas, water, air
and steam in lots of two tons and upwards; ” that
seems to be an exception to your general condi-
tion ?—It is a great exception to what is pro-
posed here, because the rate proposed to be
charged according to the Clearing House rule is
Class 1, that is practically two classes higher
than this classification.
3214. But that seems to concede the principle
of charging for two tons?
Chairman.] But you must combine it with the
class it is now being placed in ; for Mr. Find-
lay’s argument is, that if it is put into a higher
class he would not object to carry it in two-ton
lots.
Witness.] We should be perfectly satisfied if
iron were put back to its original class, then we
could take it in two-ton lots.
Mr. Hanbury.] But that comes later.
Mr. Pope.] You are quite right, it is not the
amendment which is before the Committee,
because that is an amendment supposed to be
consequent upon the retention of iron in Class
D., then it is relevant to the amendment. Sup-
posing it is retained, then we ask for that; if it
is not retained then we shall not require to ask
for any amendment. -
Witness.] It is very difficult to separate the
two.
Mr. Hanbury.] You ask for this amendment to
cover everything, and if we do not accept that
then you ask that it shall only apply to iron and
a few other things. w
Mr. Pope.] We want the amendment as re-
gards all the articles in the class. Supposing iron
to be retained we want it for all the articles. If
iron is raised to the class in which it was formerly
we should not require the amendment as regards
iron, but it would be only requisite for the other
articles in the class and would not probably be
objected to, because the alteration I believe was
consequent upon the difficulty the Board of
Trade felt in dealing with these smaller consign-
ments of iron. That is the whole question. It
would be necessary to retain the alteration as to
the four tons for the other articles, supposiug
iron to be carried in two-ton lots.
Mr Clifford.
3215. (to the Witness.) Meanwhile you ad-
mit frankly, as I understand, that under your
existing statutory powers you are not entitled to
even this two-ton limit 2–Clearly so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poseyr.
3216. With regard to artificial manure, of
which you gave an illustration, did I understand
you to say that four tons are carried now in
Class B.
Chairman.] Which class is artificial manure in?
Mr. Poyser.
3217. At the present time it is in Class B. if
it is in bulk. (To the Witness.) I think you told
us that the practice was to quote for four tons in
Class B., but that if it was sent in quantities of
two tons you recouped yourself by putting it up
into Class C. 2–If I understand the question, in
many instances I have no doubt special rates are
quoted for packed manure with two tons mini-
mum, but those will be special rates, and dealt
with according to circumstances and not accord-
ing to the general classification.
3218. But four tons, you say, are sent in
Class B ; you told us so just now. I do not
know whether you were speaking advisedly or
not 7–Speaking from recollection, I said that in
other cases for packed manure the minimum was
four tons. -
3219. In Class B. ; and in Class C. it was two
tons 2—Yes.
3220. Now, you have already told my learned
Mr. Clifford as to one ton being the unit upon
which the charge was fixed in your Act of Par-
liament; that applies also to other commodities
in Class B. as well as iron, does it not?—Yes;
but you must take into account also the maximum
charge that we are entitled to make. It is the
fact, so far as I know, that in our Act of 1846,
and in the other Acts, there is no minimum load
fixed, as I understand.
3221. Now, in all cases where goods are sent
from a trader's sidings, you have a minimum load.
fixed by this Bill?—Yes; it is proposed accord-
ing to this Bill to fix it at two tons absolutely, I
believe.
3222. If you will show me that there is a limit
fixed in the Act I shall be glad to read it. I re-
fer you to Clause 10 of the Act. You must read
this, of course, with the classification.
3223. Do I understand you to mean by saying
“You must read that with the classification ” to,
mean that the minimum load in Class B., is at
present two tons, and that the minimum load in
Class C. is also two tons; is that the way you read
it 2–It comes, if I rightly apprehend your
question, at the end of Class C., “Merchandise
comprised in Class B. if sent in quantities of less
than two tons” will be charged in Class C.
3224. Do I understand you to mean that
there is a minimum load for goods in Class B. of
two tons —If sent in less than four tons.
3225. In Class B., as Class B. stands, do you
say that that the minimum load is two tons?—
At the head of Class B. in the Bill it says,
“Applicable to consignments of two tons and
- 22
upwards.
(81.)
3 Q 4
496 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
3226. I ask you, do you wish the Committee
to understand that “consignment” there means
applicable to the minimum load of two tons?
Chairman | What are you alluding to?
Mr. Poyser.] Mr. Finday, upon Clause 10 of
the Act, was speaking of the hardship put upon
the companies, that Clause 10 deals with the
right to charge from the trader's siding for two
tons as for the minimum load. I was pointing
out that in the present Act you can only charge
as for one ton, and that he has not the power he
is asking for now.
Witness.] I am afraid that is an argument for
the learned counsel more than for the practical ex-
perience of railway, managers, because my own
view would be that in Clause 10 where it is less
than a truck load Class B. would read as meaning
a minimum of two tons; that is my opinion.
Chairman.] What you mean is that every
article that is sent is calculated as if it were
two tons?
Witness.] If I rightly understand the learned
counsel, it is put to me that in Clause 10 a truck
load means something more than two tons. I
think the meaning of Clause 10 read with
Clause B. would be that if two tons were given
they would be considered to mean two tons,
neither more nor less.
Mr. Hunter.
3227. If that is so, surely Clause 10 must be
entirely unnecessary, if it does not give you
more than two tons?—It might be that one ton
was offered, and that we should be entitled under
those circumstances to charge for two.
3228. This clause gives you more than that ?
—I hope it does, but I had not read it as giving
more than that.
Mr. Poyser.
3229. Then if you are getting that addition
under Clause 10, if you are getting two tons
instead of one ton, which your Act of Parliament
gives you, do not you think you ought to be
content with that instead of wishing to get the
four tons?—The whole tenour of my evidence
has been to the contrary of that ; instead
of being content we are non-content.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
3230, You were quoting iron undamageable in
two-ton lots : Is iſ not your invariable custom in
South Staffordshire to quote to the principal
ports in four-ton lots, and 10-ton lots?—That is
for shipment. The quotation for 10 ton lots is
at a special low rate, and including delivery
alongside for exportation.
3231. And your regular quotation, not for
shipment, but for delivery at those those ports is
always quoted in four-ton lots unless you are
specially asked for a quotation of two-ton lots?—
This again refers to the actual practice of the
railway companies dealing with special rates, bnt
I consider that there is a great difference be-
tween what is the every-day business and prac-
tice of the company, and our endeavouring, with
the assistance of the Committee, and everybody
else to make a new classification, and a new
[Continued.
Sir Alfred Hickman–continued.
scheme of maximum rates, a maximum classifica-
tion and maximum rates. I grant the practice,
but I do not think it is a guide as to what should
really be adopted when you are coming to fix a
charge and class beyond which the company can
in no circumstances charge. What we do with
you and other large freighters in South Stafford-
shire is, that we give you a specially low rate
below those chargés, and we make a condition
with regard to 10-ton lots (which is not a matter
of discussion now before this Committee) with a
view to meeting the circumstance of berthing
alongside ships. -
3232. I am simply asking what your custom is
in dealing with South Staffordshire. You say
that the custom is always to quote for four-ton
lots, unless you are specially asked otherwise ?—
I have answered that in the affirmative.
3233. Then you say that you quote always
specially low rates. It is your custom to carry
iron at Class 13. rates, is it not ?–It is our custom
to carry what we call undamageable iron, that is,
that which is partially manufactured but not com-
pleted in its manufacture, such as puddled bars,
blooms, and billets, and ingots of steel and so on,
at the lower class rate; the higher finished article,
such as merchant bars, rods, and other descrip-
tions of finished and merchantable iron we carry
at a higher rate.
Earl of Camperdown.
3234. You mentioned puddled bars. In future
you propose not to carry them at the lower rate
but to carry them at a higher rate, as I under-
stand 7 – I think when we come to discuss that
question it is almost impossible to separate it.
We should not propose to carry puddled bars.
3235. Do not let us get beyond what we are at.
You are speaking of a future amendment, but let
us stick to this one. You propose under your
amendment to eliminate puddled bars altogether
from Class B. P−No, not at all.
Mr. Pope.] No, not by this amendment before
the Committee. -
Earl of Camperdown.] But it turns it into four
tons instead of two tons.
Mr. Pope.] It turns it into four tons instead of
tWO tons.
Earl of Camperdown.] In common with all
other articles; therefore the Witness proposes to
raise his charge upon this particular article.
Mr. Pope.] The proposal is to put a condition
upon this article if it remains in this class, which
would attach to it if it were in a class higher.
Earl of Camperdown. But which does not
attach to it under his present charges; he has
just stated that.
Mr. Pope.] Your Lordship will observe that
Sir Alfred Hickman speaks merely for South
Staffordshire.
Earl of Camperdown.] But his intention is so,
and that would be the effect of it.
Mr. Pope.] Clearly.
3236. (To
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
497
26 May 1891.]
Sir Alfred Hickman.
3236. (To the Witness.) The rate prescribed
in Class B. for undamageable iron is 1:25 d., is it
not ?—Yes. -
3237. You said just now that 2; d. a mile for
a truck-load did not pay ?—Yes.
3238. But you consider that double that would
pay ?—Yes.
3239. That is to say, then, that a 4-ton load
at 1:25 d. would be a fair remuneration ?—
Yes.
3240. Then the rate on Class C. is 1-8 d. 2–
Yes, I take it that it is so.
3241. You may take it from me that it is
so 2––
Chairman.] But what amendment are you on
now 2 We are on Class B. ; you are going to
Class C.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am on the question of
4-ton lots, or 2-ton lots. The object of my ques-
tion was for Mr. Findlay to show you that he
would be better off in Class B. with 4-ton lots,
than in Class C. with 2-ton lots, that is all.
Witness...] According to these figures, sup-
posing them to be final, we should be to the
extent of 0: 16 d. per waggon per mile ; that is
rather more than one halfpenny in particular
lots. -
3242. Lord Belper.] I understand that your
principal objection to these 2-ton lots is with re-
gard to iron —No, it is really the other way.
3243. I know the whole class is included in
the amendment; but I understood one of the
learned counsel to say that iron is the thing that
principally governs it, and is more important for
them than the other articles 2
Mr. Pope.] No ; I think I said that in truth
the 4-ton lot is naturally (to use the phrase)
applicable to the other articles in the class except
iron, more than it is to iron ; but that if you
raise iron a class, it would be no longer necessary
to make the 4-ton limit applicable to iron; but it
is necessary to make it applicable to all the other
articles now in Class C.
Lord Belper.] Then I understand you object
to the limit of two tons for all the articles in
Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Lord Belper.
3244. (To the Witness.) Are not all those
articles, articles that could be carried together in
the same truck 2–Some are and some are not.
Where the traffic comes from private sidings,
there, of course, it would be impossible to sup-
plement the load. -
3245. I did not mean to use it as an argument
in all cases, but so far as they could be carried
together that would to that extent mitigate the
objection to having a 2-ton limit 2–Yes, I
admit that, so far as they could be.
3246. And so far as regards articles that
could not be carried together there are a large
number that would almost invariably be carried
in 4-ton loads, such as brick, alabaster stone, and
big things like that ?–Yes. Still there are
small consignments even of brick and stone, and
a minimum would be necessary.
Mr. FINDLAY.
*-*
-ms
| Continued.
Chairman.
3247. But what I understood you to object to
was, that in some cases a truck load might be a
small amount handed over to you by the con-
signor, and you would be obliged to take it !—
Quite true. *
3248. And that you could not in that case
load up his truck with other articles 7–Quite
true.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3249. One or two questions in re-examination;
first of all, with regard to the position as regards
all the other articles, excepting those articles that
have been brought down in Class B., namely,
certain kinds of irom, the 4-ton limit minimum
was the practice, and was adopted by the Board
of Trade, and was accepted by everybody, and
nobody objected to it?—So I believe.
3250. And nobody wished to alter it 2—Some-
body must have wished to alter it or the Board
of Trade would not have done it.
3251. But before the question arose of bring-
ing iron down in to Class B., the 4-ton limit
was adopted in Class B., and I think you said that
it was not objected to ?—I should not like to say
before the question of iron was considered, but
on the first report it was so, and in the negocia-
tions which took place between the traders and
the Board of Trade, for reasons which Mr.
Courtenay Boyle will no doubt tell the Com-
mittee, it was reduced from four tons to two
tonS.
3252. The history of that reduction being, if I
gather aright, this: that certain classes of iron,
which hitherto were in Class C., were put into
Class B, and that those were classes of iron
which were not infrequently sent in two ton lots 2
—We do not know that absolutely for certain ;
but we believe, by making a diagnosis of the
case, that that must have been the difficulty
which led the Board of Trade to make the altera-
tion, I would rather not speculate upon that ; I
would rather hear what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
has to say about it.
Chairman.] We shall
Courtenay Boyle has to say.
hear what Mr.
Mr. Bidder.
3253. The honourable Member put to you a
question about Clause 10. Clause 10 in the
general conditions provides that the company may
charge as for a reasonable minimum load. That
applies not only to these mineral classes but to
all the classes of merchandise does it not ?—It
does.
3254. Clause 10 is general 2–Yes.
3255. As regards the Classes A., B., and C.,
probably there would be no objection to adopt as
the reasonable minimum load that which is
specified in the classification ; but it would be a
great hardship to the traders in the higher
classes, if 2-ton or 4-ton lots were adopted
as the minimum ; take for instance agricultural
implements?—Where manufacturers, such as
cotton mill owners or agricultural implement
makers, have private sidings, then it would be a
question to consider what is a reasonable truck
(81.)
3 R load
498
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
| Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
load, when you come to deal with the higher
classes of traffic, Classes 3 and 4.
3256. Perhaps it will be sufficient to point out
that Clause 10 applies to all the higher classes of
merchandise 2–Ouite so.
3257. With regard to a question that was put
to you about your own statutory powers, in the
first place the Act which my learned friend Mr.
Clifford quoted, is only one of your Acts, and
applying only to a part, but a considerable part,
of your system 2–To about 800 miles out of the
1,800 of the system, I think, so far as I recollect.
3258. Now, when we look at that Act, although
it uses the phrase “iron not damageable *; iron
not damageable in that Act, means something
very different from what is included in Class B.
now 2–The list of undamageable iron has been
largely increased and added to by a variety of
things which were never, according to our view
of the case, contemplated as undamageable iron.
3259. If you have the Act before you, and
will just take it in your hand, you will notice
that what my learned friend Mr. Clifford quoted
from, was the heading “iron not damageable,”
1 d. per mile if conveyed distances of 50 miles
and upwards, and 13 d. for less distances; ” but
the very next paragraph provided for damage-
able iron, sheet iron, hoop iron, and other des-
criptions of wrough iron, 13 d. per ton for a 50
mile run, and 2 d. a ton for any less distance 7–
Yes.
3260. Then I think, we find if we look at
Class B., that those very descriptions of iron are
included in Class B., for instance hoop-iron 2–
Yes, that is quite true ; many of the things wilich
are declared damageable according to the Act of
1846, are included in the list of undamageable
articles in this Class B.
3261. Then further, we are now dealing with a
general classification that applies to all the rail-
way companies. I do not know whether you
are aware of the Acts of Parliament of other
railway companies as well as your own ; but you
know, I think, that in the Acts which the Mid-
land and the Great Western companies have,
much higher minimum rates are authorised ?–
They are ; but I believe that those managers, or
some of them, may be called. -
Mr. Clifford.] I must object to this question ;
it is not a question arising out of my cross-
examination.
Mr. Bidder.] Certainly it is. My learned
friend pointed to a clause in the London and
North Western Act as showing what the powers
were at present. We are legislating for all the
companies.
Mr. Clifford.] But my learned friend should
have got that out in his examination-in-chief; he
has no right to interpose questions in re-examina-
tion.
Mr. Bidder.
3262. I rather think that my re-examination
arises directly out of the cross-examination. The
question was directed to show that the powers of
a great company were limited to a certain
charge. I asked to show that that only applies
to a part of the system of that company, and not
at all to other companies for whom your Grace's
Mr. Bidder—-continued.
Committee is legislating. (To the Witness.) I
see that the Great Western has 2 d and the
Midland has 2 d. for a great part of their system?
—Mr. Lambert, I hope, is coming, who will
speak to the Great Western.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I hope the Committee
will not accept that as Mr. Bidder's statement.
Mr. Bidder.] I think I understood you to
answer Sir Alfred Hickman that those rates
for shipment to which he referred are quoted
in four-ton lots 2—Ten-ton lots.
3263. Therefore, he in that traffic is in no way
prejudiced by going back to the old four-ton
limit?—No ; Sir Alfred Hickman, in common
with all other traders in Staffordshire, will have
continued to him the same principle in dealing
with his traffic for shipment that he has hitherto
had ; that is, at rates very much below the maxi-
mum rates.
Mr. Clifford.] May I ask Mr. Findlay one
question arising out of the questions put by my
learned friend in reference to the rates of the
Great Western Railway Company ?
Chairman.] What is it?
Mr. Clifford.] It is a question founded upon
the rate clause in the Great Western Act of
1847, showing that my learned friend is misin-
formed.
Mr. Pope.] We will call the Great Western
manager. There may have been an error in
Mr. Findlay's evidence with regard to that
Act.
Earl of Camperdown.
3264. I should like to ask Mr. Findlay one
question. (To the Witness.) In the evidence
you have given to us, you have limited your
evidence almost entirely to the article of iron,
which has been so far unfortunate because there
are further amendments which are going to be
proposed with regard to that particular article.
What your amendment proposes is that two tons
shall be changed into four tons with regard to
all the articles comprised in Class B.; that is so,
is it not ?—That is so.
3265. What is your reason for proposing that
in the case of “alabaster stone, in lumps, un-
ground,” which is the first instance 2–It is prac-
tically the same reason : that anything less than
four tons of alabaster stone would be an unpro-
fitable load, and that that class of traffic comes
from quarries, private sidings, and places where
the people load them ; and I think it would be a
hardship upon us to be called upon to carry a
load of stone or alabaster or anything else at
less than a paying rate.
3266. Of two tons?—Yes.
3267. Could not you carry anything else with
that ?–That class of traffic seldom comes to
railway stations; it is mostly dealt with in
quarries and other places. We have a large
trade in the High Peak of Derbyshire, where
that description of traffic comes.
Lord Belper.
3268. A propos of that, alabaster stone would
never be sent in two-ton loads, would it?—I do
not think it is a large trade.
3269. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
499
26 May 1891.]
Lord Belper—continued.
3269. But nobody would think of sending two
tons out of a quarry 2—It is very likely that it
would not be sent in great quantities, or pro-
bably in four-ton loads. I do not know that there
is any regular trade.
3270. I know the business pretty well. I
might ask you whether a two-ton load is ever sent
at all of that stone 2—You may see that difficulty
in selecting a particular article. I should be
inclined to agree with your Lordship, that two
Mr. FINDLAY.
| Continued.
Lord Belper—continued.
tons of alabaster is not a frequent load, because it
is not a great business at all.
Mr. Hambury.
3271. But special selected pieces of alabaster
are sent, that come in two-tons loads as I know 2
—Then they probably would go in a higher
class, and would require greater care in
packing.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. HENRY L.AMBERT, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Saunders.
3272. I Do not know whether you have heard
the examination of Mr. Findlay ?—I have heard
it generally.
3273. That may perhaps shorten your examina-
tion. Do you agree with him, as far as your
knowledge goes, with regard to the history of
the Clearing House Classification making the
limit four tons instead of two tons?--Yes; I may
say that I have got a copy of the old classifica-
tion of January 1852, in which for this mineral
class, as it was then termed, the term “full loads”
is used. .
3274. Up to so late as the year 1852 –This
is the earliest classification, I think.
3275. At the time the change was made, I
believe you had only one mineral class, had you ?
—In 1861 the term “full loads " was changed to
“four-ton loads”; it was found that difficulties
occurred amongst railway companies in determin-
ing what was a full load. The trucks varied in
their capacity; and in order to meet that difficulty
a four-ton minimum was adopted. That was
adopted in 1861. - -
3276. The principle then, as I understand
throughout has been, first of all that it should
be a full truck load, and then that there should
be an agreed sum showing what the full truck
load was 2—That was a full truck load fixed by
the figures of four tons.
3277. Have you turned your attention to the
question whether with regard to , the great
majority of articles in this Class B., it would be
profitable to the railways, in other words,
whether they could carry two-ton loads at a
profit at the same rate as the rate which is now
embodied in the Provisional Order P – It is
obvious that we could not afford to carry at the
low rates which are fixed for these articles in
loads of two tons only, and I may say that after
all that four tons arrangement has been the
result of experience, and has been found to
answer. I am not aware of any complaint from
the trade asking for lower quotations than the
four-ton loads of such articles as are included in
that class. -
3278. With the exception of the one article
that has been included in it which is now included
in Class B, of the Clearing House Classification ?
—I presume you are referring to iron
3279. Yes?—But the introduction of iron into
this Class B. has created the difficulty. There
was no difficulty before ; because with regard to
the articles that were included in the class,
Mr. Saunders—continued.
which were in the habit of being sent in full
truck loads, such as iron ore, bricks, undressed
granite, pig iron, slates, stone tiles, and all goods
of that class, which are usually sent in full truck
loads, the four-ton has been held to be a conve-
niently limit. +
3280. Then I understand that if the iron were
not now included in this class there would pro-
bably be no difference between the traders and
yourselves with regard to four tons being the
limit 2–I do not think there would.
Earl of Camperdown.
3281. Can you explain to me how it is that
they send loads at the present time of less than
four tons of iron, other then pig iron 7–Iron at
the present time is charged at what we call the
Class C. rate, for which the minimum load is
two tons, and therefore two tons of iron would
be charged at that rate, or at a special rate appli-
cable to the particular traffic.
3282. But does it frequently happen that loads
are sent which are less than four tons 2–Cer-
tainly with regard to iron, but not with regard to
other articles in that class; gravel, turf, and
things of that kind.
Mr. Saunders.
3283. Taking the articles which are described
as undamageable in this Class B., and which
really cover columns 1 and 2 in page 19, and
part of column 1 on page 20, a large number of
articles there described as undamageable; do
you find that the greater number of those are
sent in less quantities than four tons 2–If you
eliminate iron from the classification you will
have no difficulty with regard to all the other
articles. - -
3284. It was only in reference to a question
that the noble Lord put with regard to how iron
comes to be carried in such small quantities;
that is from the fact as undamageable iron is
here described as including a great number of
articles which in one sense are damageable 2–
Yes, and they are manufactured articles; for in-
stance, articles in the rough, bridge work.
Mr. Saunders.] Your Grace sees it includes a
very large proportion of the articles in Class B.
Chairman.] Quite so.
Mr. Saunders.
3285. (To the Witness). Taking the other
articles, and not iron articles in this class, is it a
(81.)
3 R 2 fact
500
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Saunders—continued.
fact that most of those articles are or are not
capable of being carried with other articles in
the same truck Y--It would be obvious that you
could not carry anything with distillers' grains,
and you could not carry anything else with
china, clay, and a variety of articles I might
menuion.
3286. Nor with manure in bulk — Nor with
manure in bulk.
3287. Then in addition to those articles with
which you could not carry other things, as a
matter of practice with regard to others where
perhaps they could be carried together, is it
found that they are not carried with other things
because they come mainly from sidings to
sidings —Not alone from sidings, but from sta-
tions. We find in practice that these various
articles are brought to us separately, and we are
not required to load two or three different articles
in the same truck. For instance, the china clay
manufacturer has nothing else but china clay to
send ; and so it is with other articles.
3288. We have marked, here, certain articles,
Taking them consecutively, let me ask you with
regard to these on page 20, after undamagable
iron whether any of these could be carried with
anything else, “iron-ore refuse for gas puriſy-
ing,” “kainit,” “lead-ashes, in bulk,” “lias lime,
in bulk,” “lime, in bulk,” “litter (moss or peat),
hydraulic or steam press-packed,” “ loam,”
“manganese ore,” “mangel wurzel, in bulk, for
feeding cattle,” “manure, other than street,
stable and farm-yard, in bulk,” “peat,” “pig
iron,” “pipes, draining, common, for agricul-
tural draining,” “pitch, coal tar, in blocks,”
“ plaster-stone;” down to that point could any
of those be carried with other articles 2–You
might put peat and pig iron together if you got
them ; , but you do not get them. Pig iron
comes from the furnace and peat from an agricul-
tural district.
3289. You do not do that; and they do not
have the same destination ?—Precisely.
3290. So that what you say with regard to
Class B. is that those are articles which are not
in practice combined – I do, most distinctly.
3291. I think there is one point in the history
of this Clearing House Classification with regard
to the mineral class which has a bearing upon
this matter. The mineral class was at one time
not divided, was it?—No ; all coal and kindred
traffics were dealt with specially by the com-
panies; they were not classified at all. But in
1882 the mineral class was split up into two; a
mineral Class A. and a mineral Class B. were
adopted ; the mineral Class A. comprising coal
and the various kindred traffics.
3292. And, I believe, that coal was not in the
mineral class at all at that time 2–It was not
named ; it was dealt with specially by the rail-
way companies.
3293. Up to this time then the mineral class,
except for Classes A. and B., for other purposes,
has always been on the same footing with regard
to the minimum load – Yes.
3294. The Provisional Order would then, for
the first time, be creating a distinction between
Classes A. and B. 2–It would, and it does.
3295. Would the result of that, in your
opinion, have any prejudicial effect upon the
Mr. Saunders—continued.
earnings of the company ?—I am quite sure it
would have a very serious effect. It is a difficult
thing to estimate the loss over, and therefore I
could not pretend to give a figure for it; but
there is no question that it would have a very
serious effect upon our earnings; we should be
obliged, as I have already pointed out, to send
the trucks away with two tons of these particular
traffics, not having any other traffics to make up
a load with as a rule ; and it is obvious that the
earnings of these trucks carrying two tons instead
of four, would have a very serious effect upon
our revenue. And, again, I repeat, that there
has never been any application by the traders for
this reduction. -
3296. Although the practice of the trade is to
carry as much as four tons in a consignment, yet
when a small quantity is sent it has occasionally
to go into two tons?—Yes; and it has been
subjected then to the change in the next
higher class.
3297. This would be, therefore, to eliminate
entirely those exceptional consignments which
would have to be carried by the company, if not
at a loss, at all events without profit 2–I did not
quite follow the question.
3298. It would have the effect of eliminating
from the class those exceptional consignments of
two tons (something between two tons and for
tons) which are now treated exceptionally 2–
Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
3299. I will ask you one question which I put
to Mr. Findlay. Under your existing Act of
1847, which I think applies to the main part of
your system 2–Oh, dear no ; it applies to the
main line between London and Bristol and
London and Birmingham; but that is only com-
paratively a small proportion of our entire mile-
age.
3300. But it comprises the most important
part of the system, does it not?—I could not say
that even, because South Wales, which is a very
important part, is higher too. ºr
3301. I do not want to put that to you; but it
comprises a very important part of your system
—Yes, undoubtedly the main line from London.
to Bristol will always be important.
3302. And from London to Birmingham 1–
Yes.
3303. Under your Act of 1847 you have no
minimum limit have you for weight?—We have
In Ot.
3304. Therefore what is now being conceded
to you is something in excess of your existing
statutory powers?—In that one respect cer.
tainly ; but I may say that the mileage covered
by that toll represents 265 miles out of a total
of 1,861 ; therefore as I said, it is a small pro-
portion of the entire system.
3305. A small but very important portion as
you have admitted. One further question, under
your Act of 1847 are you entitled to charge 14 d.
per ton per mile upon “coal, coke, ironstone, and
other articles hereinbefore classed”; and the
glass includes does not it iron-ore, pig-iron, bar-
iron, rod-iron, sheet-iron, hoop-iron, plates of
iron, slabs, billets and rolled iron, limestone,
lime, bricks, salt, sand, fire-clay, cinders, slag
and
ON, RAILW AY RATES
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 501
AND CHARGES
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford – continued.
and stone 2–I must take it from you; you are
reading from the Act, I have not a copy of it
before me. -
3306. I am reading from Section 47 of your
Act ; therefore all those articles are classed with
coal 2–No doubt.
3307. For the purposes of charge 2–On the
other hand I would point out to you that al-
though those particular articles are specified
there, there are only something like 60 articles
in the whole Act that are mentioned. All
other articles are subject to a higher toll of 3 d.
3308. That may be so 2–Therefore if the
railway companies are asked to adopt their
lower toll or the lowest toll for these few articles
that are named, same compensation will have to
be given to them for those articles that are not
named.
3309. That is a point that you are perfectly en-
titled to raise. My pointis that with coal at present
in your Act are classed the various articles of iron
that I have mentioned 2–Yes, no doubt.
3310. And for those articles your statutory
charge is 1; d. per ton per mile for any distance
not exceeding 50 miles, and above 50 miles seven-
eights of a penny ?–That is so.
3311. Taking the case of a distance over 50
miles the Board of Trade Provisional Order
entitles you to charge more, does it not, than you
are at present entitled to charge P – In what
section would that be
3312. I am now referring you to your maxi-
mum schedule?—But there are two sections, you
probably know ; in Class B., for instance.
3313. But I am now referring to Part I. 2–
Class B. would give us for 50 miles 1:40 d.
Chairman.
3314. What page are you on now 2–1 age 10
it would be.
Mr. Clifford.
3315. You are referring to the Great Western
Provisional Order?—Yes.
33 16. I have not the Great Western Pro-
visional Order before me ; but it is a fact that
under your existing statutory powers these rates
upon these articles that I have mentioned are not
subject to the minimum load which is now being
proposed ?–That is quite true.
Earl of Belmore.
3317. In those cases on that particular part of
the system, and for those particular articles you
only charge for what is sent P – No, the Clearing
House Regulation applies generally not only to
that portion of the line but to all other portions.
3318. But are the Clearing House Regulations
not governed by your statutory powers; if you
were sending one ton, for instance, could you
charge for four tons over that particular portion ?
—No, we should charge it at the higher rate
applicable to consignments of one ton.
3319. In another class 7–Yes; in a higher
class.
Mr. Clifford.
3320. That would be in excess of your statu-
tory powers, would it not?–That does not
follow; because the actual rate would be very
likely considerably less than the statutory power.
Mr. Clifford.] Subject to that chservation...it
would be so.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordship looks at page
10 of the Amendments you will see a corres-
ponding amendment to this.
Earl of Belmore.] But I asked the question to
clear up what was the present power of charge
on that particular part of the line of the Great
Western Railway. * *
Cross-examined by M r. Robert Capper.
3321. If I understand you correctly, in answer
to Mr. Clifford's questions you said that this Act
of 1847 only applied to about 67 miles of your
main line 2–Two hundred and sixty-fixe miles.
3322. And although apparently that Act
seems to be the old one, those very rates are re-
ferred to in your Act of 1867, which gives special
rates to the whole of the South Wales freighters,
referring to that classification ; that is to Say,
that 12 of the articles out of the 24 in what
corresponds to Class A., refer to rough
manufactured iron.
Chairman.] Could you put that in the form
of a question ? That is a speech you are making
In OW.
Mr. Capper.] I want to ask Mr. Lambert
whether that was not so; whether the rates in the
Act of 1847, and the classification in the Act of
1847, were not confirmed to the South Wales
fre ghters in the Act of 1867 ?
Witness.] I should like to have the Act before
IY162.
Mr. Capper.] It is Clause 22; shall I read
it 2
Chairman.] You had better give the Act to
the Witness. (The Act is handed to the Wit-
ness.)
Witness.] Which is the clause you refer to ?
Mr. Capper.] Clause 22.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Would you mind Say-
ing the name of the Act 2
Witness.] 30 & 31 Vict. 15th July 1867, the
Great Western Railway (Various Powers) Act.
This clause, as I read it, applies the tolls of the
Great Western Act, 1847, to certain lines which
were constructed jointly by the Great Western
and Rhymney Railway Companies.
Mr. Capper.] Look at the next page, and you
will find that it applies to all stations on the
Great Western Railway.
Mr. Saunders.] Which clause 2
Mr. Capper.] Clause 22.
Witness.] I was just looking at Clause 22.
You will see that it only refers to the line con-
structed jointly with the Rhymney Company.
Mr. Capper.] If I may read just half-a-dozen
lines that will make it quite clear.
Chairman.]. But you said you wanted to put
questionſ, to Mr. Lambert, and you should take
his answers and not make a speech upon these
things. He has told you that it applied to the
Great Western system and some lines.
Witness.] Constructed jointly by the Great
Western and the Rhymney Companies.
(81.)
3 R 3 [Chairman.
502
MINUTEs of Evid ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT CoMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Chairman.] Now, what is the next question ?
Mr. Capper.] The witness' answer is a flat
contradiction to my positive assertion. Here is
the Act 2
Chairman.] Then will you read the Clause
22.
Mr. Capper.
3323. “Provided always, that the maximum
charge for the conveyance (exclusive of waggons)
of coal and coke from any part of the said rail-
ways, including Dowlais to Cardiff, or other
stations in South Wales, on the railways of the
company and the Rhymney Company, may be,
but shall not exceed.” Our contention is that
that includes every station on the Great Western
Railway ?—That is a subject for legal argument;
but reading the clause as you have given it me it
appears to me only and entirely to refer to the
lines authorised by that Act, which were lines
constructed jointly by the Great Western and
Rhymney Companies.
Mr. Saunders.] And to traffic carried from
those railways to any points in South Wales,
Chairman (to Mr. Saunders).] You will have
the opportunity of re-examining on that. (To
Mr. Capper). What is your next question ?
Mr. Capper.
3324. (To the Witness.) Your contention, I
believe, is to insert the word “four * tons instead
of “two " tons, and to get the iron removed from
Class B. to Class C. P-We consider that if the
iron is transferred to Class C. there will be no
objection on the part of any one to the four-ton
regulation applying to Class B.
Ear of Camperdown.
3325. You say you consider that there would
be no objection on the part of any one ; are you
certain there would be no objection on the part
of any one 2–I could not put it so ; but I have
already explained that I am speaking from the
experience of many years, and that we have
been able to apply that condition without any
objection; I can only express an opinion.
Mr. Capper.] I have but one other question,
your Grace.
3326. (To the Witness.) If the Committee
grant your contention as to four-ton loads, will
you be perfectly satisfied to leave iron in Class B.
as in the Board of Trade Classification ?—No, I
could not say that.
Earl of Belmore.
3327. Why not? I understood that it worked
out that you would gain a little by it?—It
would mean a very substantial loss of revenue
to every company carrying iron.
3328. I understood Mr. Bidder to admit that
if the whole class was raised to four tons you
would gain something instead of losing 7–We
shall not gain anything over our present prac-
tice.
Earl of Belmore.] Then I
Mr. Bidder.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think I intended to say
SO. -
misunderstood
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Earl of Belmore.]. A witness was being exa-
mined, and I thought you admitted that there
would be a slight gain if the whole class was
raised to four tons.
Mr. Pope.] I think what is in your Lordship's
mind is what Mr. Findlay said in answer to Sir
Alfred Hickman; that with regard to South
Staffordshires rates they would have some one-
sixteenth of a penny ; that that would be the
effect with regard to two-ton loads.
Mr. Bidder.] But the South Staffordshire rates
are ten-ton loads for shipment.
Re-examined by Mr. Saunders.
3329. Just one question with regard to this
Act which has been quoted. As I read this Act
there were three railways which were authorised
by it, called Railways 1, 2, and 3. To understand
that clause we must just see what those railways
were. Railway No. 1 was a railway commencing
by a junction with the Taff Vale Extension of the
Newport, Abergavenny, and Hereford Railway,
terminating by a junction with the Dowlais Iron
Company's Railway; that is a short railway
34 miles in length. Do you know that railway ?
—Shortly it is what we know as the Taff Bar-
goed Line, which joins the Taff Vale Extension
Line at a place called Llancaich, and goes up to
Dowlais; it is really a line to the Dowlais Iron
Works. -
3330. Then there is another line which is five
miles one furlong in length, terminating by a
junction with the sidings of the Dowlais Iron
Company ?—Yes, it is all one branch really.
3331. The third railway is of the same
character, five furlongs in length —Yes.
3332. They are Dowlais branches, in fact 2–
Yes, branches from the Taff Vale Extension Line
to Dowlais.
3333. Now let us see what the Clause means.
“Railways Nos. 1, 2, and 3 shall vest in and
belong to the company and the Rhymney Com-
pany jointly ’’; they were made as joint rail-
ways 2–They were.
3334. “And on equal terms, but for the
separate and independent use thereof by each of
those companies and the tolls, rates, and charges
to be demanded and recovered upon or in respect
thereof.” are the same as those in your Act of
1847?—That was so. -
3335. “IProvided always that the maximum
charge for the conveyance (exclusive of waggons)
of coal and coke from any part of the said rail-
ways, including Dowlais to Cardiff, or other
stations in South Wales, on the railways of the
company and the Rhymney Company, may be,
but shall not exceed, as regards coal, seven-
eighths of a penny per ton per mile, and as
regards coke, one penny per ton per mile ”?—-
Yes.
3336. In the first instance, that applies only
to traffic upon these small Dowlais lines or traffic
going from the Dowlais lines to the particular
places which are mentioned in South Wales 2
Yes, that is what I understand clearly.
3337. And with regard to that last subject
matter, it is only coal and coke 3–Yes.
3338. Coal and coke is not in Class B. 2–
No.
3339. Has
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
503
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Saunders—continued.
3339. Has this any bearing therefore upon
the point now under discussion?—None what-
€Ver. e tº
3340. Only one other matter, and that is with
regard to my learned friend Mr. Clifford's cross-
examination as to your system. As you say:
that rate of the Act of 1847 only applies to 265
miles of the railway ?--Yes. -
3341. How many miles have you on your sys-
tem?–1,860 and odd. - -
3342. And that applies only to six or seven
different classes of iron which are mentioned in
that clause ?—Yes; there are a far greater num-
ber of articles in iron mentioned in the proposed
Classification B. than are dealt with in that
particular clause of our Act.
3343. That is exactly what I wanted to know.
What is in Class B. covers a vastly greater
number of articles than the articles mentioned in
the Act of 1847?—Yes, that was what I intended
to convey when I mentioned to Mr. Clifford that
if that particular clause is to be held as applicable
to those particular articles in iron, then we must
have compensation in those iron articles that are
not specifically mentioned, and which are governed
by the highest toll of 3 d. a ton.
3344. They would come under Class 52–
Yes.
3345. Then as regards the Act of 1847, can
you see what bearing the question as to whether
it shall be four-ton or two ton lots has
upon the fact that for that limited class
of iron there was the lower rate 2–No. The
arrangemenent under which traffic of this
kind has been carried at two tons and four tons
has generally led to lower rates than the
statutory powers admitted; and we have thought
that not only was it a reasonable thing as
between the traders and the companies to ask for
these minima, but that we were justified in the
concessions which we have made in the rates in
asking for a specific minimum quantity being
sent at those rates.
3346. What you are now applying for is mainly
with regard to all articles other than iron in
Class B. 2–We have had no difficulty in making
up four-ton loads.
3347. And your Act of 1847 was not excep-
tionally favourable to you in the sense in which
it was quoted just now in respect to those other
articles, save in respect to those seven or eight
classes of articles of iron that you mentioned 2––
No.
Mr. Clifford.
3348. Is there in any one of the company's
Acts any restriction as to the minimum load 2–
I would rather only answer for my own com-
pany.
3349. I am only asking as to your own
company ?—There is no restriction as to quan-
tity.
Mr. Capper.] Would your Grace ask Mr.
Lambert one question arising out of the re-
examination ? -
Chairman.] But it is re-examination. You
had the opportunity of cross-examining, and
then he was re-examined by Mr. Saunders.
Mr. Capper.] This is a matter that concerns
the question that was brought forward the other
day, where a piece of lime was given ul, for
special purposes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] A great deal has been
said, your Grace, about the iron trade on this
question. May I say that we quite support the
proposal of the railway companies, and are per-
fectly prepared to accept four-ton loads for the
iron trade 2
Earl of Camperdown.] Is that for the whole iron
trade 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] For the whole iron
trade.
Mr. Pope.] That is provided that the classifi-
cation as regards iron is maintained.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I make no provision;
but I say that we support the railway companies
amendment. e
Chairman.] Now we will hear Mr. Courtenay
Boyle. e
Mr. Saunders.] We propose to call some more
witnesses, your Grace.
Chairman] I know you do ; I am quite aware
of that, and I did not wish to curtail the number
of witnesses; you can call as many as you please.
But we wish rather to get from Mr. Courtenay
Boyle the views of the Board of Trade which led
them to make the alteration, then your witnesses
can be called afterwards.
Mr. Clifford.] May I make a statement on
behalf of the Mansion House Association with
regard to what Sir Alfred Hickman has just
said P. It is in the mature of a compromise. It
is that we also, on the part of the iron trade, so
far as we represent it, are willing that the four-
ton limit should apply to such articles as are
specified in Class B, of course provisionally upon
iron remaining in Class B ; but we do not of
course approve that the four-ton minimum should
apply to other articles.
Chairman.] Now, Mr. Courtenay Boyle, you
have heard a great deal that has been said, and
we should like to know why the four-ton mini-
mun was reduced to two tons.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] First of all, your Grace
so far as the Board of Trade are aware, in no
important Act is there any minimum consign-
ment. The ton mile rate is fixed, I will not say
in every single Act, because it is very difficult
to deny a negative, but in every Act of import-
ance that we are aware of there is no minimum.
consignment.
Mr. Hunter.] You mean except the 500
pounds 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Of course, the smalls.
I mean the tonnage rate ; smalls is a very
different thing. There is no minimum consign-
ment for tonnage rate. Giving a minimum con-
signment is pro tanto a concession to the com.
panies; that is the view of the Board of Trade,
to say that a particular rate can only be ob-
tained by a trader sending a consignment in
(81.)
3 R 4 Class A.
504
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.
------------
Class A. of four tons, and in Class B. of ten tons
is a concession to the railway companies over
and above the statutory powers at present en-
joyed by them. Then, comes the question, how
far should that concession go 2 In the first in-
stance, the Board of Trade accepted the proposal
of the railway companies that in Class B. as in
Class A. the minimum consignment should be
four tons; but on re-consideration, and on very
many representations which were made to the
Board of Trade during the interval which elapsed
between the issue of their report to Parliament,
and the issue of the Provisional Order Bills
which are now before the Committee, the Board
of Trade thought that four tons was an extreme
consignment to require the traders to send as a
condition of getting the rate set out in Class
B. I want to remove a small amount of mis-
apprehension. The condition is not a condition
necessarily of loading; it is a condition of con-
signment. The trader gets the Class B, rate if
he consigns in two tons and upwards; if he con-
signs in less than two tons he comes down into
Class C. It is a question of consignment, and
not I say necessarily a question of loading. Of
course if the Committee are satisfied that, as
regards all, or a very large majority, of the
articles in Class B. of the Board of Trade's pro-
posal, it is impossible for the railway companies
to load one article with another, then it becomes
not only a question of minimum consignment,
but a question also of minimum loading; to that
extent the two things hang together, but except
to that extent there is no connection between
Class 10 which provides for a minimum load, and
the condition in Class B., which provides for a
minimum consignment ; the two things, in the
opinion of the Board of Trade, are perfectly dis-
tinct.
Now as regards the quantum, it is almost im-
possible for the Committee to consider this ques-
tion (and I think that the course which the evi-
dence has taken to-day shows that it is so)
absolutely independently of the quantum of rate.
You have heard the Act of 1847 quoted. That
provides that the rate for a large number of iron
articles is 1-8th per ton per mile, and for dis-
tancs over 50 miles 7-8ths of a penny. It is per-
fectly right to contend (and you will hear the
contention very often during this discussion) that
those Acts only set out a certain number of
named articles and that all the other articles
which are not named are in Class 5, and not in
Class B. of the present statutory classification.
That is perfectly true. But on the other hand
the contention of the traders, which was urged
before the Board of Trade over and over again,
is that it was the intention of the Legislature in
the past by naming certain articles to include
articles, Fjusdem or éjusmodi generis, and that
when they named certain classes of iron it is
now, if it was not then, equitable that other
classes of iron should be carried at the same rate.
Therefore that contention of the traders, to
which the Board of Trade have given a certain
amount of weight, is that it cannot be maintained
that a concession is to be made to the railway
companies in respect of the unnamed articles
of the same nature as the named articles
for which a low rate is specified by the
present Statute. Several of the main Acts
provide rates for iron which compare, from
the point of view of the railway companies,
favourably with the rates set out in the Board of
Trade proposals. Presently we shall hear that
in many Acts the reverse is the fact ; but cer-
tainly as regards the Great Western and the
London and North Western Act of 1846 the
rate authorised by Parliament for undamageable
iron compares, from the point of view of the
railway companies, favourably with the rate pro.
posed in the Provisional Order. So far the
Board of Trade do not believe that in making
the minimum consignment two tons rather than
four tons, they are doing an injustice to the
railway companies. On the other hand, it was
represented to them that as regards a consider-
able number of articles in Class B. the consign-
ments are, and very often may be, and very often
ought to be, less than four tons. Several of the
iron articles, you have heard it admitted I think
by the railway companies, and several of the
other articles also are often sent in less than
four tons, and practically in two tons. Peat, for
instance, manure in bulk ; this is not farm yard
manure, it is artificial manure in bulk; turf.
turnips in bulk for cattle feeding, mangel wurzel
in bulk for feeding cattle, all these, so far as the
evidence given to the Board of Trade went, are
sent in consignments of less than four tons; and
it is in consequence of representations of traders
interested in those articles that the Board of
Trade reduced the consignment from four tons
to two tons. The whole thing is a matter of
quantum ; it is a matter of which the Committee
are absolutely capable of judging. The Board
of Trade's view is that the proposal that they
make now is a fair one to all parties, and they
are disposed to adhere to that opinion.
Earl of Belmore.] I did not quite follow what
you said about the undamageable iron. I am
afraid the impression I gathered from what you
said did not agree with your conclusion that you
mentioned afterwards.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle ] I do not know quite
what your Lordship's difficulty is.
Earl of Belmore.] You said that you thought
you had done no injustice to the companies from
what you have done. I did not expect that con-
clusion from your premisses on that particular
point. I cannot repeat what you said.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I may perhaps repeat
shortly, what I said. The rate for undamageable
iron in the Great Western Act for 1847, is
1 d. per top per mile, and for distances over 50
miles, 7-8ths of a penny with no minimum con-
signment at all. We give them not 1; d. but
13 d., which is far more than 1-8th of a penny
more per ton per mile, reducing as the distance
goes on, to 75 of a penny, which is ; d.
Earl of Belmore.] Then you think it is fair
that they should carry two tons for 2; d.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The trader cannot get
the Class B. rate unless he sends two tons.
Under the present statute he can get a lower rate
for sending only one ton.
Earl of Belmore.j Does he ever send one
ton P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Oh yes, often.
Earl
ON
505
RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORI) ER BILLS.
26 May 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] You heard the witnesses
state that the railway companies would lose with
regard to this article of iron by this proposed
scale as compared with their present scale, and
you have stated exactly the contrary to that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle ] No, I did not state
exactly the contrary all round. I quoted certain
named Acts in which the rates are lower than
the rates which we propose, but there are many
other Acts the rates in which are higher than the
rates we propose ; and it is in respect of those,
that you will hear hereafter, that the companies
will lose.
Chairman.] But the traders ssem to have con-
fined their cross-examination entirely to the
question of iron, and therefore, I assume that
there is no objection to the other articles being
raised to the four-ton limit, because the cross-
examination was entirely confined to iron.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The traders who are
here did, but not the traders who came before
UlS.
Chairman] That is all we have to deal with.
Mr. Bidder.] I was going to ask your Grace if
you would ask Mr. Courtenay Boyle how far his
recoilection agrees with ours that at the West-
minster Town Hall nobody asked that four tons
should be reduced to two, unless it was Mr.
Poyser in mentioning artificial manure.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Do
you reeollect that. Was there any application
made at the Westminster Town Hall that the
4-ton limit with regard to other articles should be
reduced to two 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I could not tell that
without reference to the index.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] But
the parties whom you represent, the traders,
have not objected to it, at least they have not
cross-examined upon the question of four tons
being the minimum with regard to the other
articles in Class B.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That, I think, was
principally because the witnesses confined their
attention to iron.
Mr. Beale.] No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But there is a sub-
stantial objection; and, in fact, with great respect,
if it is necessary, I mean to call evidence with
regard to those very things which were men-
tioned by Mr. Courtenay Boyle. It may be
true (I cannot remember all that took place in
the Westminster Town Hall), that nobody men-
tioned it there; but the oversight was very
quickly felt, and I understand representations
were made by the railway companies to the
Board of Trade on the one side, and the traders
did represent to the Board of Trade with respect
to mangel wurzel, artificial manure, and other
things; and it was upon those representations, as
I understand, that the Board of Trade made the
alteration.
Chairman.] But to-day we have had no cross-
examination with regaid to the other points.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Unfortunately our wit-
nesses were not here, and we were not properly
instructed.
Chairman.] But it is for counsel not for wit-
nesses. We must take it as it is brought before
us. We have it now that the only objection on
the part of the traders is as regards the iron.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not quite, because you
will remember that when Sir Alfred Hickman
admitted, with regard to iron, that he did not
object to a four-ton minimum, it was, as I under-
stood, because he always sends in four-ton loads.
Then my learned friend Mr. Clifford, for the
Mansion House Association, said, so far as iron
was concerned, he agreed with Sir Alfred Hick-
man, but with regard to other matters we still
think that two tons should be the limit.
Chairman.] But none of the railway managers
were cross-examined to that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It may have been an
oversight. -
Mr. Hanbury.] With regard to the iron itself,
do any of your clients support the two-ton mini-
nuum ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They do not, because
as a fact it does not touch them; but it would be
a very harsh and improper thing merely because
it does not touch a certain trade to raise it on
agricultural matters like mangold wurzels,
manures, and things of that sort that havs been
mentioned by Mr. Courtenay Boyle.
Mr. Hanbury.] With regard to iron, do we
rightly understand that the real issue between
the companies and the traders is not as to tonnage,
but as to what class iron shall be in 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I believe that is the
real fact. I will tell you why I think you should
consider it really as a matter of class, because
this two-ton is a very rough way, as I submit,
of correcting what they say is the error in classi-
fication. It is by putting on a double tonnage
for certain loads, instead of really dealing with
it intimately, either as classification and putting
it in the right class, or as rate and putting the
right rate upon it.
Mr. Hambury | Then with regard to the four
tons we have nothing further to do with iron; we
can limit ourselves to other articles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Chairman.] But you talk of other things, such
as mangolds. Are mangolds sent a good deal
about the country?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are in large
quantities I am informed, and they are sent in
loads varying from one to two tons, and even less
than that. -
Chairman.] Whereabouts, in what part of the
country P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I must ask instructions ;
I do not know your Grace.
Chairman.] Never mind.
Mr. Balfour Rrowne.] I have the agricultural
people, and I will tell you why they are not
here. You see this is taken, quite properly, out
of its order.
Chairman.] There may be parts of the country
where mangolds are sent away ; I should have
thought it was a limited part of the country.
(81.)
3 S Earl
506
‘MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
}
26 May 1891.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle). In your original proposal you had these
articles with a minimum of four tons 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] And upon the re-
presentation of the traders you subsequently
made a change from four tons to two tons. What
was your reason for not consulting the railway
companies in that case; how was it that you
made the change after consulting the one side
and omitting to consult the other side 7
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We knew the views of
the railway companies, that they were opposed
to it, and the reason why they were opposed to
it. We thoroughly understood that. In nego-
tiations of a very complicated kind it is very
difficult to consult everybody all round. We
were pretty certain, I think, of the views of the
railway companies and their reasons for those
views.
Lord Belper.] With respect to the article you
specified as being often carried in less quantities
than four tons, lithink you only specified four :
Mr. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILIKINSON,
Mr. Bidder.
3350. YoU are Goods Manager of the Great
Western Railway ?—Yes.
3351. The last article, as it happens, that was
mentioned just now was china clay in bulk. As
a matter of fact you are able to speak, in your
experience of the Great Western Railway, as to
how this proposal would work out. You do
carry china clay in bulk to a considerable
extent?—The Great Western Company are sub-
stantially the only carriers of china clay in large
quantities, and we always carry in full truck
loads, loads considerably more than the four tons,
which we contend should govern the traffic.
3352. To illustrate the working, or possible
working financially of this alteration, if you
would apply it to your traffic, china clay traffic
is from sidings, is it not, down usually to a
station or to a port for shipment 7–That is
SO.
3353. The run is a short one 7–Generally the
run is a short one.
3354. About how many miles?—It varies
from four miles up to 20 miles; 20 miles being
the maximum run of the traffic.
3355. Just taking your china clay traffic, you
have runs, for instance, of six miles?—Yes.
3356. How would that work out, applying the
proposed schedule rate for Class B, and the
2-ton limit in your china clay trade 2–To carry
two tons of china clay for a distance of six miles,
at 13, d. per ton, would give us 7; d. for the car-
riage.
3.357. Per ton?—Seven-pence halfpenny per
ton, presuming that we could charge a 1 d. for
the siding terminal at the starting end, and that
we could charge a terminal of 6 d. at the re-
ceiving end for the station; that would come
altogether to 1 s. 2% d. for one ton.
3358. Or for the two tons?—Two shillings and
five-pence.
peat, mangold, turnips, and manure. Are there
any other articles which you consider in that
class that are carried in less than four-ton
loads 2 -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, I should think
there were. China clay in bulk I should think
was carried in less than four-ton loads; coal
fuel, patent, I should think was carried in less
than four tons; compost for manure I should
think was carried in less than four tons ; furnace
lumps I should think was carried in less than
four tons.
Lord Belper.| Had you evidence before you
of that ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I cannot say that we
had evidence upon every single article.
Lord Belper.] But on a great many of
them.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly.
Chairman (to Mr. Saunders).] Now you may
call your witnesses.
is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder—continued.
3359. For which, of course, you would have
to provide the locomotive and waggons, take
them up, I suppose, deliver them at sidings
empty, take them down, and perform certain
operations at the other end of the journey 2–
Yes. For the incidence of the traffic we have
always to carry the waggons back empty to the
sidings where the china clay arises.
3360. In that traffic, what is the practice as
regards the waggons; are they occupied for some
time although the journey is short P−Yes, the
waggons are occupied generally for four or five
days, sometimes considerably more when wag-
gons have to wait for ships to arrive.
3361. For four to five days?—Four to five
days would be a fair average.
3362. In point of fact, would not the mere
rent of the waggon eat up nearly the whole of
2 s. 5 d, 2–Yes, the rent of the waggon would
more than cover the entire maximum charge
which we should he entitled to make.
3363. Therefore, to carry a 2-ton load of your
chima clay traffic would be a positive loss to the
company ?–Clearly. r
3364. As a matter of fact, nobody can answer
the question better than you can, because you
have on your system a very varied experience of
carrying these articles in Class B., have you not,
of all kinds 2—Yes, a very large experience.
3365. Would anybody be injured, according
to the course of trade, by fixing the limit at four
tons? — I think not.
3366. As a matter of fact, is traffic often
offered to you under the heading of Class B., in
less than four-ton lots 2–No, scarcely ever; and
although I am brought into daily communication
with all classes of traders, I do not remember
having had any difficulty in obtaining a minimum
of four tons per waggon. The articles that Mr.
Courtenay Boyle mentioned are china clay, I
have
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 507
26 May 1891.] Mr. WILKINSON. [Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
have spoken of that already, we always get full
truck lots of seven or eight tons ; compost for
manure we always get in full truck loads; furnace
lumps were mentioned ; those are a peculiar
shaped brick for lining furnaces, fire brick; those
we always get full trucks of ; and the same
thing, I think I may say, applies to all the
articles in Class B.
3367. Do you know anything about mangold
wurzel and turnips, which were mentioned just
now ; what is your experience with regard to
loads in that case ?—Those are articles put into
Class B. now for the first time, and we have had
no experience of them ; but l think that farmers
sending mangold wurzel for cattle feeding pur-
poses would send them in full truck loads, say,
of four or five tons.
3368. Although you have not got them under
Class B., you do, as a matter of fact, carry them
at the present time ; are they usually in full
truck loads P -- They are usually in full truck
loads. The experience of the Great Northern
Railway Company would be much greater than
that of the Great Western Railway, strange to
say, in regard to those particular things.
3369. Then with regard to those articles
generally, maintaining the four-ton limit is hurt-
ing no trade or practice of the trade 2 – To the
best of my knowledge and experience it would
be so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3370. As I understand at the present time,
you generally carry in full truck loads?—Yes.
3371. All those articles?—All the articles, with
the exception of iron.
3372. Then I suppose that that custom, that
habit, would go on in future ?—I cannot attempt
to say. I do not know what the future may bring
Out.
3373. If that did go on the two-ton limit
would do you no harm 2–1 really cannot answer
that, because I know that if the traders adopted
the habit of sending their consignments in two-
ton loads, instead of four or five tons as at pre-
sent, it would double my train mileage, and double
the number of waggons used.
3374. But do you think the traders would
adopt that habit merely to spite the railway
companies *—I do not think they would.
3375. It would be some interest in their own
account which would make them do that if at all ?
—Yes, I should say so.
3376. Have they any inducements in the mean-
time to send four tons instead of two tons 2–
Yes, they have inducements.
3377. What ?—The inducement of the lower
rate.
3378. Do you think it is reasonable that they
should have a lower rate for four tons than for
two tons 2–Clearly.
3379. Let me see if I can understand your
figures. First of all china clay : you say that
the Great Western carries more than any other
company ?–Yes, we are the only large carriers
of china clay.
3380. Sometimes for so short a distance as four
miles 2–Yes.
3381. That is principally in Cornwall?—Yes,
entirely in Cornwall.
*** - ---sºº.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
3382. Where the kaolin is principally got?—
"Yes.
3383. Often under four miles 2–It would be
higher than that ; but sometimes we carry as short
a distance as four miles.
3384. Could you tell me whether the bulk of
the traffic would not be under four miles?—The
bulk of the traffic would not be under four
miles.
3385. Can you give me what proportion would
be under four miles?—No ; but generally speak-
ing I should think it would average 12 miles, a
rough average.
3386. Wherever it is under four miles of course
you would get your short distance clause ?—We
should be entitled to charge the short distance.
3387. Is the kaolin, the china clay in packed
parcels -- No, as a rule we carry it in bulk.
3388. Sometimes it is in packed parcels —
I do not think I have ever seen it carried in
parcels ; it is always in bulk.
3389. When you carry it in bulk you say you
always get a 4-ton load 7–Yes.
3390. What do you mean by the rates you
have put in, a penny for siding ; is that the only
charge you think you would be entitled to get?
—The Committee have not yet settled that.
3391. And it depends upon that whether you
make a loss or gain 7–No ; whatever figure we
may expect the Committee to put in we should
only make a loss upon a 2-ton load of chima
clay.
3392. For a 6-mile run you made the total
you could get upon a 2-ton load 2 s. 5 d. 2–
Yes.
3393. What are you getting at present upon
a similar run for a similar load?--I have already
stated that we carry it at the full truck loads.
3394. What are you getting per ton; then we
can put on two tons for ourselves. What are you
getting for the carriage of clay for that distanee
—Perhaps 1s. 4 d. or 1 s. 6 d.
3395. That is the total you are getting 2—Per
ton.
3396. Including terminals and everything 2–
Yes.
3397. One shilling and fourpence to one
shilling and sixpence perhaps, you will say. Will
you pledge yourself to that?—I gave it as a
rough average; I dare say there are 20,000 to
30,000 rates altogether for china clay on my
books.
3398. Therefore some are lower than that ?–
I do not think we should carry for less than 1 s.
3399. If you get 2 s. 5 (l, then for two tons you
are not losing in revenue 2–Yes, 2 s. 5d. for two
tons as compared with 1s. 4 d. for one ton.
3400. You said 1 s. ?—I took 1 s. as the mini-
mum ; I gave the average higher than that.
3401. Can you tell me how much it would
cost to convey those two tons for that distance 2
— No.
3402. You cannot do that at all ?—No ; it
would require a considerable amount of working
Out.
3403. You cannot give me an idea of what it
costs?–No, I should want to see exactly what
the rate was on each particular consignment.
3404. If you cannot tell what it costs you are
according to this estimate (because it is nothing
(81.)
3 S 2 more)
508
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
more) going to get 2 s. 5 d, how can you sº.
whether you are going to lose revenue, ºr not ?
–If a waggon were used for five days for the
journey from the port to the china clay sidings
to obtain the china clay and to get back to the
port again then I say we should sustain a loss,
and that the 2 s. 5d. would not cover the actual
cost of the Great Western Company of the
waggon apart from the conveyance, or the use of
the waggon or any other service.
3405. What time does it occupy upon the
journey of six miles ; does it occupy five days?—
i have stated already that it occupies four or five
days.
3406. Four or five days always?—That would
be the average. e
3407. What do you place the waggon hire at
per day, just to show how you make up the loss?
—Seven-pence. *
3408. And supposing it is detained for five
days, that is 35 d. for the waggon hire alone *-
Yes. s: “
3409. How much for carriage 7–Two and
fivepence we might get as the maximum for the
entire service.
3410. That is in future; but to-day how much
do you get for the carriage 7
Mr. Pope.] The question is how nuch do yºu
put down in your calculation for haulnge, for
iocomotive power, road toll, and so on.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3411. I want to see what you are getting
yourself and what you are going to lose, by an
actual comparison, can you say ?-No, I cannot
tell.
3412. Then I may ask if you cannot tell that
how can you say there is going to be a loss,
Mr. Pope. Because 35 d. is a greater sum
than 29 d.; you need not try to puzzle the wit-
mess upon a mere question of arithmetic ; if you
only get 29 d. for what costs you 35 d, you must
be a loser. *
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3413. (To the Witness.) Is that the whole of
your calculation ?—I take it that the waggon.
hire would more than swallow up the figure that
we should have the right to charge.
3414. Because, as I understand you, the rate
is too little you want to double the load 2–No :
1 do not say that.
3415. You say the Board of Trade rate would
not pay you; therefore, in order to get sufficient
you'double the load and make it from two tons
to four tons. -
Mr. Bidder.] My learned friend has not the
right to put it to the witness in that way,
Witness.] The present practice under , the
Clearing House Regulations is to carry china
clay in four-ton lots.
Mr. Balfour Browne,
34] 6. The Clearing House Regulation has
nothing to do with it, that is as between com-
anies?— As a matter of fact, the clay is carried
eight tons to the waggon, therefore, at 1s. 4d.
per ton, I should get 10 s. 8 d. a waggon.
3417. You know that at the present time the
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued'
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
Clearing House. Classification does not enure to
the benefit of the trader. If a trader brought
you one ton of china clay he could have that
carried at the rate in the Act of Parliament. Is
not that so 2–Yes.
Chairman.] But the fallacy appears to me to
be that the witness says he never gets one ton ;
he always gets four tons.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3418. (To the Witness.) But if that is the case,
and you always continue to get four tons, you
will not be injured at all?—Not if we get four
3419. Therefore, as at the present time, a
trader has the right to have one ton carried at
the rate mentioned in the Act, is not the two
ton a concession in your favour?—I do not admit
that a trader would have the right to have one
ton carried ; that is to say, the railway company
would not provide a waggon for the one ton of
china clay; they would keep it till they could
get a load.
3420. Do you mean to say that you would not
be bound fo send on a consignment of a single
toll 2–I should not send it on at once.
3421. How long would you keep it 2—I should
keep it a reasonable time.
3422. You know you are bound to carry one
ton now under your Act; in future you would
only be bound to carry two tons, is not that a
benefit to you ?—I have already tried to explain
that we carry in much larger quantities than two
tonS.
3423. And if you continue to carry it in much
larger quantities than two tons you will be in
a better position than you are in to-day, if you
are bound to carry one ton at the rate in the Act
of Parliament?—Yes. -
3424. The Board of Trade have said you shall
not be bound to carry at that rate, unless you
get two tons; is not that a concession in your
favour
*
Chairman.] But what the witness wants is not
to be obliged to carry two tons at that rate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3425. (To the Witness.) But is not that a
concession to you ?–No, I do not admit that ; it
is the custom of the trade to carry in waggon
loads and the rate is based upon that.
3426. You are now bound to carry one ton, in
the future you will not be bound, you will be
only bound to carry two tons, that is a conces-
sion so far as it goes?–Yes, so far as it goes.
3427. Now you do not want that ; you want
the custum of sending four tons made obligatory
upon the trader 2–Yes; that being the custom
of the trade.
3428. You want not only the concession which
you admit you have got, but you want double
the concession which the Board of Trade has
given you, that seems obvious, making it four
tons instead of two tons, that is what you want?
—Yes.
3429. Now, although you may not carry things
on your railway in small lots, is it not the fact
that in a great number of the railways in this
country manure, coals, and other matters are
carried
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
509
26 May 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
carried in less than four tons 2—I never knew
coals to be carried in less quantities than the
full carrying capacity of the waggon.
3430. Have you ever known manure carried
in less quantities than four tons 2–Yes.
3431. Often ?—Yes, very often.
3432. So that so far as manure is concerned,
you are going to charge the trader for that more
than he is charged at present 2–No, manure is
carried in different circumstances; manure that
is carried in small lots would be a manure
in bags carried in Class C. of the Board of Trade
Classification. Manure in bulk which would be
substantially in waggon loads would be in Class
B. .
3433. Do you mean to say you have never
known of manure that would have been carried
in Class B, carried in less than four tons 2–
Never.
3434. I know your experience in English
railways; have you had experience of Scotch
lines 2–1 do not know anything about Scotch
lines.
3435. Do you know what was proved before
the Board of Trade 2
Chairman.] He does not know anything about
Scotch railways.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3436. Now you say the Great Northern ex-
perience in the carriage of the mangold wurtzels is
greater than your own 2–Yes.
3437. Have you carried any upon the Great
Western ?--Very little. &
2438. Is that carried in small quantities 2–No,
in full truck loads.
3439. Never in your experience in smaller
quantities than four tons ?--I do not recollect
any case in which we have carried it in two ton
lots.
3440. Do you think it is ever carried under
four-ton loads?—I should think four tons would
be about the minimum consignment.
Cross-examined by Mr. Capper.
3441. Did you hear Mr. Lambert's evidence 2
—Yes.
3442. Can you tell the Committee what con-
sideration was given or agreed for Clause 22 in
your Railway Act of 1867 ?—I have not the Act
before me, and I am not acquainted with it in
detail. -
3443. Do you happen to know whether several
miles of the railway forming your present rail-
way were given in exchange for Clause 22 of the
Act of 1867, which preserves the classification in
their Act of 1847?—Are you speaking of an
agreement between the Great Western Railway
Company and the Dowlais Iron Company ?
3444. No, I am speaking generally P-I would
like to answer that by saying that I am not
acquainted with the details of that arrangement.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3445. Just to clear up one or two points: my
learned friend, Mr. Balfour Browne, in the first
place has been talking to you about concessions
which the railway companies get by the two-ton
limit upon the assumption that you are bound to
Mr. WILKINSON.
| Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
carry one ton at present; you are not bound to
carry siding traffic at present, are you ?–No, I
believe not. .
3446. Take this present china clay traffic,
your obligation is only to carry it from station-to-
station ?—I believe that is so.
3447. As carriers we are only bound to carry
at station-to-station rates ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not admit that
at all. -
Mr. Bidder.
3448. Another thing you are not bound to do
is not to provide waggons, and keep them waiting
four or five days to suit the shipment?—That
is so.
3449. Therefore if it were a matter of obliga-
tion, a trader sending a consignment of this kind
would have to bargain with ihe company?—Yes,
I think so in each particular case.
3450. My learned friend puts this to you, that
no harm would be done to you because a trader
does not now send in less than four-ton lots; but
you have brought that about by offering a lower
rate as an inducement to that end ?—That is so.
3451. If you take away the 4-ton limit there
is no inducement to the trader to make the load
up to that which would leave a profit to the com-
pany ?—That is so.
3452. My learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne
also puts this to you : He said you wanted, if a
trader wanted to offer you less than a 4-ton lot,
to double the rate in order to make it up to a
profitable rate for the company. What would
happen according to the proposal of the railway
companies if a trader offered you two or three
tons of china clay, or of any other article in Class.
B. 2 What happens according to the existing
practice to begin with ?—We make the charge
according to the higher rate in the class above.
3453. You do not double the load, but you
charge according to the rate above 2–That is so.
Earl of Belmore,
3454. Do you do that by existing statutory
powers ?–No, by our railway practice. Our
actual rates are generally so far within our statu-
tory powers that we are able to make these
arrangements to suit the traffic.
Chairman.
3455. That is a private arrangement between
you and the traders ?—Yes.
Mr. Bidder.
3456. Upon china clay your maximum power
would carry you far above the power you are
actually seeking or quoting; is not that the fact 2
—Yes.
3457. Your actual power upon china clay is
3 d. a mile, is it not?—Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
3458. “Clay" is mentioned in your Act 2–
Yes.
3459. And you are assuming that “china
clay ” is not “clay ”?—China clay is not clay ;
china clay is decomposed granite.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I suppose clay is decom.
posed something else ?
(81.)
3 S 3 Mr.
5] 0 MINUTES OF
F.VIDENCE
JOINT COMMITTEE
TAKEN BEFORE THE
26 May 1891.]
|Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder.] I am referring to the Cornwall
Minerals Act. In that Act “clay ” is mentioned,
and the rate is 3 d. a mile.
Witness.] That is so. I have the detail of the
Act before me.
Earl of Belmore.
3460. Your present maximum is double what
you suppose your future maximum will be 2–In
regard to china clay upon the railway where we
principally carry it, it is not mentioned; but
“clay” is mentioned at 3 d. a mile. -
Earl of Belmore—continued.
3461. And you are going upon the assumption
that in future you will have to carry it at some-
thing like 1; d. 2–That is the rate the Board of
Trade propose to give us for Class B.
3462. Probably you and Mr. Lambert were
acting upon the assumption that you will be able
to get more that 2–We were hoping to get con-
siderably more that.
3463. That is the supposition you have worked
upon 2–Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows :
Mr. Saunders.
3454. HAVE you considered the question of the
minimum truck-load as defined at the top of
Class B. 2–-Yes.
3465. Have you heard the evidence which has
been given by the managers of several other
railway companies upon the subject of its being
raised from two to four tons?—I have.
3466. Do you, speaking generally, agree with
them with reference to the non-profitable nature
of the carriage of traffic in that class at minimum
truck loads of two tons 2–Yes, at those rates.
3467. With minimum consignments 2–With
minimum consignments.
3468. But upon the question of whether
minimum consignments and minimum truck
loads are practically the same in this class, have
you looked through the articles there to see if
they are generally of such a character as to be
carried with other articles 2–There are many
articles in this classification that you could not
carry with others. -
3469. Does that apply to a good many of the
articles 2—There are three or four which I have
taken out, tarred gravel, lime, coal, tar, pitch,
sugar, scum, and salt, and there are many others
that you could not carry with other things;
bricks, for example.
3470. We need not trouble about undamage-
able iron, because the question does not arise
with regard to that, as I understand 2–Leaving
out the iron, you may take it broadly that every
article in this classification is always sent in four-
ton lots, and that with regard to several of the
articles referred to by the learned counsel on
my left, as a matter of actual fact our mangold-
wurtzel trade, which is very large, both from
Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire, is seldom sent in
less than five tons, and as regards turnips for
cattle feeding we have recently made an exami-
nation, and the result of our figures which we
got out for the Board of Trade some months
ago, goes to show that there is only one case of
turnips for cattle feeding in which two tons were
sent, in every other case they were four tons and
upwards.
Chairman.
3471. A ton would go to a cart 2–Yes, about
that.
Mr. Saunders.
3472. Would the alteration from four to two
tons have any tendency to alter the practice with
regard to any of these articles, do you suppose 2
Mr. Saunders—continued.
—That would depend entirely upon the market:
it would afford the opportunity of a man sending
two tons instead of four, and at a rate at which it
would be unprofitable for us to carry it.
3473. What you have to look at is, whether
you can profitably carry articles in two tons,
instead of four tons in single consignments?—At
low rates, no, because the earnings of the truck
per mile would be too low, and for the bulk of
these articles here, there is no return load, so
that there is no compensating power to repay you
for the loss incurred in the forwarding.
3474-5. Has the tendency of the size of trucks
been to grow larger from year to year 2–Yes;
30 years ago the largest truck was six tons, now
they are 10, and of course the strength and
weight of the waggon have correspondingly
increased.
3476. Then if four tons was a fair proportion
to take for the trucks of 20 or 30 years ago,
would the making of two tons the limit of a
truck load at this day, be to aggravate the dis-
advantage 2–It would to that extent. We have
found four tons to be a commercial load. A man
can dispose of four tons. As I have explained to
you, we used to have a two-ton truck, but it was
agreed by the traders that four tons would be
better, and in consideration of their giving us four-
ton lots to increase the earning power of our
truck, we charged them a lower rate than we
could for anything less than four tons.
3477. Has any complaint been made with regard
to the four-ton limit, as between the traders and
your company ?—No, I never heard it suggested
until this morning.
3478. Did you ever hear it suggested to the
Board of Trade at the inquiry at the town hall,
that the practice of four tons should be altered to
two 2–No ; on the contrary, taking the agricul-
tural articles, it was urged there that mangold
wurtzel went in eight-ton lots, and that turnips
went in six-ton lots, and that therefore the rate
ought to be lowered. What has been done is
that we have lowered the class compared with
the Clearing House, and have lowered the rate
compared with our Parliamentary powers.
3479. What you ask is that what Lord Balfour
of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle determined,
should be restored so far as the minimum con-
signment is concerned ?–I put it upon the ground
that it is the reasonable commercial load, and that
it is an equitable bargain between the railway
companies and the traders, that at the rates those
- weights
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
511
26 May 1891.]
Mr. Saunders—continued.
weights should be always sent, and that if a less
weight was sent so that the earning power of the
truck was reduced then that the next class rate,
a higher rate should be chargeable.
3480. I suppose I may take it that it is con-
ceded on all hands that the railway companies
were never heard upon this question before the
alteration from four to two tons was made 2–
As far as we were concerned we were not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3481–2. The earning power of the truck is
reduced only in those case where you cannot
put two articles together?—Yes, that is true to
a certain extent, but you have this to bear in
mind: that the man who sends you mangold
wurtzel does not send anything else, and that
the man sending iron does not send bricks.
3483. Combination is possible in all trades 2–
There are articles in this list which you could
combine and where you could make up the load,
but as a matter of practice in these bulky articles
which are only one degree above raw material
combination is not often possible.
3484. Where combination is possible the
earning power of the truck is fully got?—It is
improved; I will not say it is fully got.
3485. But where you could pack and make a
full truck-load then the earning capacity of the
truck is got ?—In any event it would be im-
proved. º:
3486. You laid special emphasis in answer to
a question as to the proposal you make upon
these rates; these are the proposed rates for
Class B. 2–Yes, they are the proposed rates for
Class B, but do not take me as agreeing to
those.
3487. Are you going to propose increased
rates for Class B. 2–For the present I will
obey the behests of the Presidend and stick to
the subject of classification and not of rate.
3488. But this is really a proposal to increase
the rates ?--No, it is not, I beg your pardon.
3489. Let me follow it and see. Whenever a
man sends a cousignment of a thing which is in
Class B. under four tons you will then charge
the higher rates of Class C., is not that so?—Not
according to this proposal.
3490. But according to your proposal, that is
the proposal you make, that you should have the
power to charge him the higher rates; that is to
say of Class C. 2–With a higher rate ; I do not
say, what the higher rate shall be; but that I
shall be entitled to charge him a higher rate than
Class B. -
3491. This is for the purpose of increasing the
rate upon small consignments in Class B. 2–
Yes.
3492. Are you going to propose a general in-
crease of the rates in Class B. 2–I would rather
postpone that until we come to the rates.
3493. I want to see what we are going to have
to pay. I will get it in another way. The assump-
tion that you are going to lose revenue is upon
the assumption that those rates that stand in
Class B. are maintained ?–Not only that ; the
assumption of the reduction of revenue is com-
paring our present power with what is proposed.
3494. You are talking of the general question,
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
that is a different matter. Take Mr. Wilkinson's
illustration, he gave us a case of china clay car-
ried for six miles, and he compared the rates
they could charge if that schedule were passed
into law with what they can charge now. It does
not follow if you are going to double the rates in
Class B. that there would be any loss in revenue
at all —No ; but if you would double the rates
in Class B I should be quite willing to accept
the two tons minimum.
3495. So that the two things hang together?
—Eventually they must, but I am afraid you are
trenching upon a subject which is not before the
Committee, and therefore I prefer to adhere to
the classification.
3496. The two subjects are really before the
Committee, are they not?—I think not ; we are
upon classification now.
Chairman.] If this is not entirely a question
of classification then this is not the time to
discuss it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3497. Will you allow me to explain: The
whole proposal is that where a consignment under
four tons is sent, they should be enabled to
charge a higher rate than that in Class B. ; the
two things seem to me to hang together. (To
the Witness). You will not tell us at all what
rates you propose for these very articles in
Class B. 2–No, I would rather answer it in this
way : That whatever rate is fixed for this class
of article the limit should be four tons, and that
would assist in keeping the rate down.
3498. But you have said that whatever rate is
authorised by Class B., it should be a limit of
four tons; but it is not so, because you said just
now that it should be the rate for two tons; I
got the admission that a higher rate for the class
generally would still enable you to carry at the
two-ton minimum ?—But you have to look at
what rate the articles can afford to pay. At a
rate which would be reasonable and profitable to
the traders and the companies concerned the two
tons will not pay us.
3499. You find that the commercial load upon
your line at any rate is a minimum of four tons?
—Yes.
3500. There is only one instance, I think, of
mangold wurtzel being carried in less than four
tons —There is no instance of mangold wurtzel,
and only one instance turnips being so carried.
3501. I suppose that load is a convenient load
to the traders ?––Yes; and at the present rates
commercially profitable to the company.
3502. Have you any reason, leaving out the
question of rate which you are so anxious to do,
to suppose that the market will change, and that
it will become convenient to the traders to carry
in two tons instead of four !—No, but supposing
it were possible to carry two tons and the
market were changed, we should be left in a
very unprofitable condition. -
3503. At any rate if the market did change
then you would have the power to carry all these
matters which were sent in the then commercial
load of two tons in the higher class?—In the
higher class.
(81.)
3 S 4 3504. That
5 12
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE
26 May 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
3504. That is your proposal 2–Yes, to put it
in the higher class.
3505. You said that this particular matter of
return loads did not compensate for the low
rates ?—I did not put it so entirely inclusively as
that, but I said that in the bulk of those cases
there are no return loads to the places from which
the truck emanates.
3506. But in some cases the truck might be
utilized on the backward journey even for the
matters and articles mentioned in Class B. P−It
might be of course. For instance, vegetables
might go, and probably would go, to a busy town
where iron is manufactured ; in that case we
should have a return load.
3507. Let me ask you (apart from the mere
question of Class B.), as a general proposition,
return loads do compensate the companies for
low rates?—Yes, that is one of the elements that
we always consider in fixing the rate. Is there
going to be a return loan P
3508. If there is a chance of a back load, in
taking the truck to a big town, the rates can be
lower than where there would be no chance of a
back load 2–That is not quite certain, because
in all big towns there is a certain percentage of
trucks always sent away empty, because it is a
consuming point. It must be a manufacturing
point as well as a consuming point to give a back
load.
3509. Where there is a chance of a return
load the rates can be lower than where there is
no chance of a return load 2–Yes, you will find
that applies all through the country.
MR. JOHN HENRY LLOYD, is called in ;
Mr. Clifford.
3515. YoU are a member of the firm of
Messrs Lloyd and Lloyd, iron tube manufac-
turers, of Birmingham 2–I am.
3516. You are also here as representing the
tube trade generally *—I am.
Mr. Bidder.] I thought we had agreed that
the iron was out of the question?
Mr. Clifford.] We offered a compromise,
which you did not seem to have accepted.
IJ'itness.] I am also a member of the Com-
mittee of the Birmingham Trader’s Association.
3517. Are you speaking on behalf of the
traders of 23irmingham 2–Yes.
3518. With regard to your traffic, by what
railways is it conducted 2–The North Western,
the Midland, and the Great Western.
3519. Your firm pays a very considerable
amount, does it not, yearly to the companies upon
the traffic 2–Yes, we do.
3520. Will you tell us under what conditions
the large part of your traffic is sent, I mean as to
weight?— A very large part of our traffic is sent
in two-ton loads and under four-tons. Taking
out a month by chance, I took the month of
November last, when our total traffic amounted
to 1,042 tons, and of those 211 tons, or in other
words, 20 per cent. of traffic, was in consignments
of between two and four tons, it would, therefore,
be affected to that extent by the proposal.
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Re-examined by Mr. Saunders.
3510. That governs the amount of the rate,
not as between the two or four tons, but the
minimum ?–That is so : I have tried to keep
clear of the question of rate.
3511. Before you can mix two lots under
Class B. in the same truck, you must have two
consignments from the same place to the same
place, practically, and that means a consignment
of articles which will mix 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3512. Not absolutely necessarily to the same
place, because they might unload the truck two
miles short of the destination ?–No, that cannot
be done ; a truck must carry its load from point
to point ; there must be no intermediate unload-
ing ; that will never suit us.
Mr. Saunders.
3513. The bulk of the traffic will be going to
towns?— Vegetables will be going from the
country stations to the markets,
3514. Would you find it possible to load two
articles together even though they were recon-
cilable in material if they were not from the same
point to the same point 2–Certainly not; they
must go from the same point to the same point.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] The railway companies hace fur-
nished their witnesses.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We will call some evi-
dence before you with regard to this matter.
and having affirmed, is Examined, as follows:
Chairman.
3521. Of what traffic are you speaking 2—Of
iron tubes and fittings.
Mr. Clifford.
3522. In other words that amount of traffic
will be relegated from Class B. to Class C. under
the proposal 2–Yes.
3523. I will not ask you upon questions of
rates and detail, but the effect of that would be
very considerable, would it not upon your traffic 2
—Yes, we should be in Class C. and then we
should be paying much higher than the Act of
1846 authorised.
3524. You would be paying much higher than
the rates authorised und the 1846 Act of the
London and North Western Railway Company?
— Yes.
Chairman.
3525. What is the maximum under the Act 2
—One penny for over 50 miles for undamage-
able iron and 13 d. for under 50 miles.
Mr. Pope.
3536. But are you assuming that wrought iron
tubes are undamageable iron 2–I am glad Mr.
Pope has mentioned the matter, because I under-
stand the railway companies wish to go in ac-
cordance with the Clearing House Classification.
The Clearing House Classification distinctly
Says,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
513
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LLOYD.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
says, taking page 56 of the 1890 book : “Pipes,
cast-iron or steel (exclusive of rain water pipes),
gas, water, air, and steam. In lots of two tons
and upwards, 1 d.”
Chairman.
3527. That is Class I. 2–But you will see a
note to that. I want to show that “two tons"
is specially mentioned there. Taking tubes,
which is my own actual manufacture, on page
75, “tubes, iron or steel, except as under ’’;
there is a note at foot of page 75, “included in
iron list, Class B.” Following that to page 39.
“Iron list, Class B.” you will find there a con-
siderable number of articles of iron indicated by
a double dagger throughout the book and you
will see the word “tubes" with an asterisk
‘‘Tubes, iron or steel” and “fittings for wrought-
iron tubes to be charged same rates as the
tubes they accompany,” and the asterisk declares
that “all articles marked thus may be declared
either by consignor or consignee (before sending
at owner's risk, in which case they shall be
charged as articles in Class A,” and it distinctly
says in “Iron list, Class A.” of the articles
therein, “ quantities of not less than two
tons.” -
Mr. Pope.
3528. This may be relevant to the classifica-
tion of iron tubes, but it has nothing to do with
the question of two tons 2–At page 37 in line 2,
it says “ two tons.”
Mr. Bidder.
3529. That is Class C. 2–That is the “iron
list " in the old classification.
Mr. Clifford.] Will you let the witness give
his explanation.
Witness.] If you look at the first page of the
classification it also dwells a great deal on the
question of the two tons,
Mr. Clifford.
3530. There has been a suggestion that these
articles are in the classification in Class 1. and
Class C. Now as to the actual rates you pay do
they come within the rates for Class B. 2–I con-
sider they do. I have tried some and they
appear to me to be within the rates that we now
pay. The rates we now pay are less than those
proposed.
3531. In other words, they are covered by the
rates which would be payable under Class B. P-
I believe they are.
3532. And you have gone into the calcu-
lation ?-- One has to deduct cartage, and I have
taken the amounts for cartage which were con-
sidered fair in the inquiry before the Board of
Trade.
3533. Therefore, notwithstanding the classi-
fication in the Clearing House list, your rates
actually paid are within the rates covered by
Clsss B. P−I assume them to be so.
Chairman.
3534. Now let us know what the rate is 2–
Here is the rate from Birmingham to Liverpool.
If you take that 15 s. 6 d. rate it is collected
Chairman—continued.
upon the canal. I therefore deduct 2 s. for that,
which reduces it to 13 s 6 d., the net rate, station-
to-station.
3535. What is that for ?—That is for iron
tnbes under two tons.
3536. What is that per mile 2–The rate on
the bill for 97 miles at 1:45 d., plus 2 s. station
terminals, and 8 d. loading and unloading, cover-
ing and uncovering, which makes the proposed
rates station-to-station 14 s 5 d., as against the
present rate of 13 s. 6 d. Taking the 1846 Act,
and adding the terminals which are now in the
bill of 2 s. 8d., it works out at 10 s 9 d. as the
rate from Birmingham to Liverpool.
Mr, Clifford.
3537. Would those rates not only be within
the Class B. rates but leave a very considerable
margin 2—They would leave a very considerable
margin.
Chairman.] We wander into the rates every
now and then.
Mr. Clifford.
3538. We do, but it is hardly possible to avoid
it. (To the PWitness.) Now coming back to the
minimum rates, what is the practice of the rail-
way companies in Birmingham 2–To quote as for
two-ton loads and not as for four-ton loads. With
the exception of the North Eastern Company, for
certain places, Newcastle, Darlington, Edin-
burgh, and Glasgow, and other towns served
either by or through the North Eastern, they all
give us two-ton loads.
Chairman.
3539. You mean to say that the London
and North Western Company decline to quote
anything below a four-ton load 2–They do not
quote anything lower than a four-ton load to those
places, so far as I am aware.
Mr. Clifford.
3539.” But they do not oblige you to send the
four tons 2—No, they give us the benefit of the
two tons; they give us the benefit for most places
of the two-ton load.
3540. Can you give the Committee an instance
of the rate so quoted in that particular month —
I had some rates quoted last December ; there
were 63 rates given us, and in only seven in-
stances were there quotations given for four-ton
loads; all the others were given for two-ton
loads.
Chairman.
3541. You send your traffic in two-ton loads?
— We send when we can in two-ton lots and over;
that is to say, fully two tons; but we have to
send in accordance with what the customers want.
We cannot make up a consignment to suit our-
selves always; we have to send in accordance
with what is required.
Earl of Belmore.
3542. Supposing you had been obliged to make
it up to four tons, would it have been very diffi-
cult 2 — It would not have been very easy, but
(81.)
3 T there
514
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE. THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. LLoy D.
[Continued.
26 May 1891.]
Earl of Belmore-—continued.
there is a clause in the classification which permits
the trader when he sends consignments of less
than two tons weight, and when they weigh
collectively more than four tons and are forwarded
in the same waggon from one station to another
station and from one consignor to one consignee
that they are not to be charged more than à four-
ton lot, that is to say, added together.
Mr. Clifford.
3543. The practice of the railway companies in
Birmingham then, is conformable to what the
Board of Trade proposes now, namely, the two-
ton lot system 2-— It is.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3544. Is not that putting it in rather a mis-
leading way ?—I do not think so.
3545. At present your iron is carried under
what is called special class, corresponding to
Class C. of the schedule P— I do not know what
it is carried under. w
3546. At owner's risk *—At owner's risk.
They give us the choice of sending it in “Iron
list, Class B.” when they take the risk or in
“Iron list, Class A.” when we take the risk.
3547. Perhaps I had better take your own
case. This iron you gave us the rate for from
Birmingham to Liverpool, 15 s. 6 d. What rate
or what class is that carried under at present; is
it not under special class 2—That is the rate
under the ordinary iron list.
3548. What do you mean by “the ordinary
iron list”?—Your classification, the Railway
Clearing House Classification page, 37.
3549. Does it come under Class A. or Class
B. 2 -
Mr.
List A.”
Witness.] Our written instructions to the rail-
way companies are that whenever it is an owner’s
risk, article we send at owner's risk because we
consider there is no risk to tubes.
Mr. Bidder.
3550. How is your 15 s. 6 d. rate arrived at ;
take the illustration you gave 2–I took it out
of the railway company’s accounts, the 15 s. 6 d.
rate under, two tons. h -
3551. That is under two tons 2–Yes.
3552. The 15 s. 6 d. rate is for a quantity
under two tons 2–Yes. *
3553. Now if it were over two tons, I under-
stood you to say that the rate was covered by
the proposed Class B. rates now before the
Committee ?—Yes; I work it out so. º
3554. Just let me follow your figures again;
how do you make that 15 s. 6 d. rate out 2—That
is the rate collected on the canal, therefore we
deduct 2 s. for the cartage at one end.
3555. Is that a recognised and agreed figure ?
—That reduces the present rate station-to-
station net to 13 s. 6 d., the present rate which
we are now charged.
Chairman.
3556. That is for how much 2–That is for
under two tons.
Courtenay Boyle..] In the interest of
fairness, let me say it is not Class A.; it is “Iron
Chairman—continued.
3557. You had better keep to your own illus-
tration first : now the 13 s. 6d. is the station-to-
station rate, and the mileage is what?—The
mileage is 97 miles, and the rate is 1:45 d.
3538. Before we go any further, turning to
the Schedule before their Lordships at page 11,
I want to see whether you are accurate in stating
the fact the mileage rate in Class B, for distances
between 50 and 100 miles (which 9, miles would
be) is 1 d. per ton per mile 2–Yes.
3559. Surely you are not accurate in telling
their Lordships that your present rate of 1:45.
is covered by a rate of 1 d ?—I am comparing
the present rates for under two tons and for over
two tons, and, under ten tons with what is pro-
posed under the Bill. That was the first; that
is under two tons.
3560. You told their Lordships that your
present rate was covered by the Class B. rates;
it is clear that it is not ?–It is covered by the
proposed rate for tubes. This lot is under two
tons, and therefore they charge us at Class C.
rates already. .
3561. But in order to compare with Class B.
we ought to take the over two-ton rate 2–Very
well, that is the next one. I was stopped in
giving you the second one.
Chairman.
3562. But we are discussing now a clause
which proposes to apply to consignments of two
tons and upwards, not of under two tons?–Very
well. May I give one over two tons 2
Mr. Bidder.
3563. Take the over two tons rate 2. — The rate
from Birmingham to Liverpool is 10 s. -
Chairman.
3564. For what ?—For tubes, the same.
3565. But for how much of them ; what
weight P-Over two tons and under ten tons.
Mr. Hunter.
3566. How much is the rate 2—Ten shillings
per ton is the rate. - 8–5
3567. Is that station-to-station ?–Collected
on the canal. Deducting again the 2s. for the
terminal at one end, that reduces it to 8 s.
Mr. Bidder.
3568. Which works out to 1 d. 2–Taking the
97 miles at 1 d, plus I s, for terminals, equals
9s. 1 d. , giving a station to-station rate of 1s. 1d.
more on 8 s. than our present rate. .
3569. That is the rate for shipment, is it not ?
That is the ordinary rate for Liverpool; it is not
especially for shipment.
3370. I suppose that is what you generally go
to Liverpool for from Birmingham Pi—No.
3671. Can you give me any rate not to a ort
which is covered by the present rates?—I did
not know we were going into a great number of
these from two to four tons; but I can give you
some more; May I give you one to Plymouth 2
3572. That is another port. 4
... Chairman.] Plymouth is another port; at least
it used to be when I was there last year.
Mr. Pope.] I believe it still is.
ſ Witness.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
5 15
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LLOYD.
—ºr
[Continued.
Witness.] I find I have mostly taken ports.
Mr Bidder.
3573. I thought you had 2–I thought you
would want large important places.
3574. I invite you to challenge this statement
iſ you can : that in no case, except for ports for
shipment, are your existing rates covered by the
proposed rates in Class B. 2–I am speaking on
the two to four-ton question; I cannot give you
a great number of these.
3575. 1 invite you to challenge that statement
if you can. You have rather led me away from
the point that is really before the Committee, of
the two and four-ton limit. In the first place, I
gather that you have no interest in anything but
iron 2–No.
3576. You have not a word to say upon the
evidence as to all the other articles in Class B.
—No, except that I presume, if they are unim-
portant, as I gathered from some of the
evidence——
Chairman.] But from your own experience
and knowledge ; you had better stick to that *
- Mr. Bidder.
3577. You gave in your own experience 1,042
tons in the month of November, of which 211
were between two and four tons. Is that the
right figure ?—That is the right figure.
3578. Can you tell me what was the average
of that 211 tons; it was not all down to two
tons, I take it 2–I cannot tell you that at all.
3579. You cannot give me this, I suppose.
Taking your traffic generally, inland and port,
and assuming, of course, that your iron remained
in Class C., there you would get obviously the
two-ton limit?—You mean if we were put into
Class C. P. We are now in Class B. in the Bill.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace remembers that this
question arises as regards iron, because it has
been put down from Class C. to Class B. In
Class C. the two tons is the limit.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.
3380. (To the Witness.) Are you prepared to
answer this question. Assuming that you were
left in Class C. with your two-ton limit, you
would, under the proposed rates, not be paying
anything more than you are paying at the present
time 2—If we are put in Class C
3581. Yes, that is my question ?–On that par-
ticular rate we have taken P
3582. No, taking your traffic generally your
traffic by railway, not confining yourself to rates
to ports for shipment where we know the railway
companies quote lower rates ; but taking your
trade generally, if you were left in Class C. as
the rates are proposed in the schedule you would
not be paying any more than you are paying at
the present time?—I have not compared what we
should be paying if we were removed to Class C.
in that particular way.
3593. But you must have looked at the ques-
tion. Do you not know as a matter of fact?—
We should be paying much more than under the
1846 Act.
3594. Oh, never mind the 1846 Act. As a
matter of fact you must have looked into this
question, if you could get down into Class B.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
with your two-ton limit, that means a very large
reduction in the amount you would pay the rail-
way companies annually for the carriage of your
iron 2–1 do not know that it does at all.
3585-6. You have not looked into that ques-
tion?—Even if it does the rates are very high
to the ports.
Chairman.] I wish you would answer the
question. -
Mr. Bidder.
3587. Have you not taken any trouble to
ascertain that ?—I have taken a good deal of
trouble.
3588. Could you not tell the Committee
whether in fact the effect of putting your iron
down into Class B. with the two-ton limit would
not be a very large reduction in the amount you
would pay the railway companies annually for
the carriage of your iron P--I think on some
instances there would be some reduction. :
3589. Take the whole of your business?—I do
not think there would on the whole business.
3590. No reduction at all ?—I cannot say for
certain.
3591. Have you worked it out 2 – Not the
whole business, not the whole of the consign-
ments. My impression is that the Class B. for
tubes and the two-ton limit proposed by the
Board of Trade is fair.
Re-examined by Mr. Clifford.
3592. And your calculations go to show, so
far as they do go, that it would be a fair com-
promise 2– Yes.
3593. What do you say as to the rates at
present?—I consider them very high for inland
trade. We have the competition from abroad,
and we hoped that this Railway and Canal
Traffic Act was going to help us rather than
make worse rates.
3594. My learned friend invites you to dismiss
from your mind the Act of 1846; but that is,
and must be, very much in your mind as bearing
upon this question of classification and rates too !
—Yes, certainly.
Mr. /3idder.] Are you referring to the Great
Western Act of 1847?
Mr. Clifford.] No, for the moment I am re-
ferring to the London and North Western Act of
1846, and I am assuming you are.
Mr. Pope.] I will not dispute that ; if tubes
under the Act of 1846 of the London and North
Western Railway are rightly considered by you
undamageable iron, then they do come under the
exception an exceptionally low power of charge ;
but if they are not undamageable iron but are
damageable iron, sheet iron, hoop iron, and all
other similar descriptions of wrought iron, then
they are not within the low rate you speak of.
Mr. Clifford.] My learned friend did not cross-
examine upon the question whether it was
damageable or undamageable.
Mr. Pope.] But that is your claim.
(81.)
3 T 2 3595. (To
516
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.]
Mr. LLOYD.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford.
3595. That is your claim no doubt. (To the
Witness).] Let me ask you upon that one point,
are your tubes practically undamageable 2–
Practically ; we make no claims upon the railway
companies for damage.
Mr. Pope.] I should think they were no more
undamageable than hoop iron.
Mr. Clifford.] Let us take that practical test.
Have you made within the five years any claim
whatever against the railway companies in
respect of damage 2
Mr. Pope.] How could they when they send
at owner’s risk.
Witness.] We send at owners’ risk whenever
we can because we consider them undamageable.
Mr. Clifford.
3596. And if you were relegated to Class C.
by this provision how would your rates then
compare with the statutory rates under the Act
of 1846 –They would be very much worse than
we have at the present time, as I understood it
in every way.
3597. In other words you would then be pay-
ing in excess of the rates which the company are
authorised to charge under their Act of 1846 2–
Yes, and also in excess of what they are charging
at present. Before this inquiry went any long
distance in 1889 we had an interview with a
good many goods managers of railway companies
at Euston, and asked them whether they would
guarantee us that if We withdrew our opposition
our rates should not be increased ; but they did
not see their way to do that ; they told us to go
to the Board of Trade.
Earl of Belmore.
3598. I should like to ask you a question
again which I asked you before, because the
answer you gave did not convey what I want to
know 2–I am very Sorry.
3599. Supposing that the number of tons in this
class were raised from two to four tons what I want
to know is whether you think your trade would
under those circumstances adapt itself to four-
ton consignments?–No it could not at all, for
this reason : that the custom more and more of
the country over in manufactured articles is to
expect the manufactured articles is to expect the
manufacturer to keep very large stocks, and for
those who use the articles only to keep as small
stocks as they can of the great variety of the
individual articles they have to do with.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Clifford.] That is all the evidence we
propose to call, your Grace. Unfortunately we
might have had witnesses from the representa-
tives of the agricultural interest; but we did not
suppose that this particular question would be
reached.
Chairman.] You have had a fortnight to know it.
Mr. Clifford.] No doubt ; but we did not sup-
pose that this question would come on to-day.
From the order in which it stood it seemed to be a
question that would be postponed for several days.
Chairman.] But we decided before we ad-
journed last Friday week, that we would sit to-
day for classification.
Mr. Clifford.] But we are not taking classifi-
cation in the order in which it stood in the list of
a mendments, that is my point. I only want to
point out to the Committee that this is really, as
the clause stands in the Provisional Order, a
considerable concession to the railway com-
panies. As regards the Act of 1846, the London
and North Western Act, and the Great Western
Act of 1847, there is no power on the part of
those two companies to impose even a two-ton
restriction, they are compelled to carry any consign-
ment which may be tendered to them at the tonnage
rates provided in those Acts, any consignment
over 500 lbs.; and therefore whatever now is pro-
posed in the way of exceeding that limit of weight
is a very substantial concession to the railway
companies. Now, that being so, is not this an all
round arrangement which upon the whole may
be considered as fair P. It is quite possible. I do
not deny that there may be some of the articles
mentioned in Class B. which it would not be
possible to fill up with ; but on the other hand,
there are many articles which do not come under
that description, and it would be quite pos-
sible with a small consignment of two tons, to
fill it up and to make it a good profit-carrying
weight. You must look at this arrangement as
an arrangement all round. Upon one class of
traffic, upon one description of goods, the com-
panies may lose ; upon others they may gain, and
would gain ; and the concession, the compromise
that we offered, would enable them in the case of
iron to make the four-ton limit applicable there,
we offered that as afair compromise ; and we
believe it still to be a fair compromise ; we are
willing to abide by it if the company think fit to
adopt it.
Chairman.] What did you offer, I do not un-
derstand. Do you say you offered or now offer ?
Mr. Clifford.] We offered and we still offer it
as a compromise if the railway companies are
Willing to accept it as a compromise.
Chairman.] What is the offer and what are
the terms? .
Mr. Clifford.j. The offer is as regards the
articles now specified in Class B.
Chairman] The whole of them 2
Mr. Clifford.] No, those coming under the
head of iron ; that to all that list the four-ton
limit shall apply upon condition, however, of
course, that iron remains in Class B., and is not
relegated hereafter under the proposals of the
railway companies to Class C. We think, your
Grace, that that would be a fair compromise, and
so put it forward.
Chairman.] With regard to the witnesses
whom you said you were going to call, and you
were taken rather by surprise, you mention
especially agricultural witnesses. What articles
in Class B. were you going to call witnesses
about -
Mr. Clifford.]. There is manure and mangold
wurtzel, and I think there is turnips.
Chairman.] Only mangold wurtzel and manure.
Mr. Clifford. Especially manure.
Chairman.] You mean manure in bulk, those
are the only three points 2
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
5 17
26 May 1891.
Mr. Clifford.] Those were the only points
upon which we proposed to call evidence.
Chairman.] Then the only other points you
wished to bring agricultural witnesses about were
mangold wurtzels, turnips and manure in bulk?
Mr. Clifford.] As to those.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have you any witnesses
with regard to draining pipes 2
Mr. Clifford.] No, we have not.
Chairman.] Then there is nothing to be said
against any of the other articles except iron and
mangolds.
Mr. Clifford.] And manure, your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] Iron is conceded, except as to iron
tubes.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] May I ask on
the evidence you were going to call were you
going to show that mangolds and turnips ought
to be carried in two-ton loads
Mr. Clifford...] That would have been the effect
of the evidence if we had called it.
Chairman.] Do you know that a ton-load of
turnips would be contained in one small dung
cart, or a little over.
Mr. Clifford.] It may be so, I confess, your
Grace, I do not quite know. Perhaps, your
Grace will allow me to say that, as I am now in-
structed we do not press the point as regards
mangolds and turnips, but as regards the ques-
tion of manure, we should like to receive full in-
structions from our clients, with a view to
evidence if we think it necessary; but if we do
not produce evidence the first thing to-morrow, it
may be assumed that we shall not press that
point either.
Mr. Pope.] I am not astonished that my
learned friend does not press mangolds after the
evidence of Mr. Barry, who was his agricultural
witness before the Board of Trade.
Mr. Capper.] May I ask your Grace what the
Committee’s pleasure is with reference to the
case that you suggested that each side should
draw up as to agreements? We have drawn up
a case, which we are quite ready to hand in.
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace will remember the
question was that you thought it might be de-
sirable to have the opinion of the Attorney
General as to effect of the proposed Provisionai
Order upon existing agreements. I do not know
whether any case has been drawn up on our
side.
Mr. Clifford.] A case has been drawn up by
the clients whom I represent.
Mr. Pope.] The ordinary course would be you
know to submit that case to the other side, who
would return it either with amendments, or as
agreeing to it, and that would be the case that
would be submitted.
Chairman.] Until that is done we cannot deal
with it.
Mr. Pope.] Of course you cannot.
Mr. Clifford.] Probably Mr. Mason has
received ours.
Mr. Mason.] Mr. Beale has received it, and
is preparing amendments which you will have
to-mCTTOW.
Chairman.] Is Mr. Capper's case another
case ?
Mr. Capper.] Yes.
Chairman.] Until it is reduced to one case we
cannot go into it.
Mr. Capper.] This is a case where an agree-
ment was come to by a clause. (Mr. Capper
hands in his case to Mr. Mason.)
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I am afraid we shall
have to ask to look at that.
Mr. Mason.] Certainly.
Mr. Darlington.] I should like to mention one
small matter, your Grace. In the list of amend-
ments which I have had handed to me I see that
one small amendment has no place; I think it.
must have been omitted by mistake as I had it
handed to me on Friday week last with the in-
formation that it had already been sent in.
Mr. Pope.] Who is “our small amendment”
by ? -
Mr. Darlington.] On behalf of the North
Wales quarry owners.
Mr. Pope.] Not all of them.
Mr. Darlington.] The amendment was printed
by them, and a copy of it was handed in.
Mr. Pope.] Are you the Nantlle owners ?
Mr. Darlington.] Yes. They call themselves
the slate quarry proprietors and traders from the
Nantlle Valley.
Chairman.] Is this an amendment on classifica
tion ?
Mr. Darlington.] The amendment is on classi-
fication, and it is to this effect: at page 20,
coiumn 2, line 17, strike out “in the rough.”
Here is a copy of the printed amendment.
Chairman.] At what page of this amendment
is it 2
Mr. Darlington.] At page 6 it ought to come
in, your Grace, in Class 13.
Mr. Mason.] It is a miscarriage, your Grace,
on behalf of the printer. We have not received
it, and therefore it does not appear on the col-
lated amendments; but we will put it in its place.
Lord Houghton.] Does it refer to slate slabs?
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, it refers to slate slabs.
Chairman.] When the proper time arrives we
will discuss it.
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, your Grace ; but it does
not appear in the amendments, and I thought it
better to ask your Grace's leave to put it in.
Mr. Pope.] “Slate slabs in the rough.”
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, we want “in the rough *
struck out.
Mr. Clifford.] Then perhaps under the cir-
cumstances your Grace will allow us to-morrow
to decide whether we shall bring forward the
question of manure.
Chairman.] What is the particular manure
which you say ought to come in two-ton lots and
not four-ton lots 2
Mr. Clifford.] All sorts of manure.
Chairman.] But all sorts
descend to particulars.
You must con-
(81.)
Earl
3 T 3
5
l
S
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
26 May 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] Besides, all sorts are
not included.
Lord Belper.] All the manures specified
separately.
Chairman.] Then I think we must decline
your proposal.
Mr. Pope.] I have only a very few words to
say in reply, your Grace.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] Do you wish to speak, Mr. Pope?
Mr. Pope.] Not if the Committee have made
up their minds.
Chairman.] We have made up our minds to
strike out “two " and insert “four.” We are
quite ready to hear you now if you wish it.
Mr. Pope.] No thank you, your Grace, I am
happy to Say.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES
519
AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
Die Mercurii, 27° Mail, 1891.
PRESENT :
DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMoR.E.
Earl of CAMPERDown.
Lord BELPER.
Lord Houg HTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTE Iz.
Mr. WODE HOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUICE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] BEFORE
we begin, with regard to mangold wurtzels in
bulk for feeding cattle, why do you limit it to
“for feeding cattle "?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I think it is classified
in another way.
Chairman.] Why are sheep not to get it.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Mangold wurtzel, except
for cattle feeding, is classified in Class C.
Chairman.] But why cattle ; why not sheep !
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think that is an
omission; “animal feeding ” would be better.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is the same phrase
in the Clearing House Classification, if I remem-
ber right,
Earl of Belmore.] What is the other mangold
wurtzel, E.H.O.P. 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Turnips and mangold
for all other purposes.
Earl of Belmore.] But what are the “other
purposes?”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think you had better
ask the traders about that ; I cannot say with
any certainty.
Mr. Pope.] Will you allow me, your Grace,
just to mention what has recently taken place.
A most important question, which will have to
come before the Committee, or would have come
before the Committee, if we were to proceed now,
will be this question of iron which was shadowed
yesterday, and would involve not merely the
taking of a certain number of articles out of
Class B., but their admission into Class C.; and
in a similar manner taking some out of Class C.
and raising them to the class above. That in-
volves a very complicated issue, and must of
necessity involve a very important discussion ;
but without saying more than this, we have re-
ceived a communication from the representatives
of the South Staffordshire iron interest, which is
of course the interest for which.I, for the London
and North Western Company, am more immedi-
ately concerned, in other words, from my friend
Sir Alfred Hickman, who represents the iron
interest of South Staffordshire, to the effect that
it is not impossible that the desires of the railway
companies and the traders may be adjusted if a
short time is given for negotiation in the matter ;
and I would venture to ask that the Committee
might proceed, if they think it right, with any
other articles excepting iron that are dealt with
in the classification, and give us till Monday to
see whether, by putting our heads together, we
cannot come to some fair and equitable adjust-
ment which would be fair to both parties, and
thereby save a prolonged discussion of the
question.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I take it that Sir
Alfred Hickman does represent those people,
but I represent some people at Birmingham in
the same interest, and I concur that it is quite
possible from what I hear that a very little con-
Sultation between the railway managers on the
one side, and the traders upon the other, would
relieve your Grace and the Committee from the
necessity of dealing with this point altogether.
Mr. Pope.j Of course, as I observed, the
South Staffordshire interest is more specially a
Ilondon and North Western interest than of
others; it is, however, also a matter of interest
to the Midland and the Great Western com-
panies, but it really arises, as you were informed
yesterday, from the position in which the London
and North Western Company are placed by their
old Acts of Parliament; therefore, as to the
London and North Western, it would be very
much better settled upon the discussion of the
company's Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I should hope that
the discussion might take place and the matter
be dealt with, not merely upon the North Wes-
tern, but upon the other Bills as well.
Mr. Pope.] Certainly, by all the companies.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The only point I should
like to mention is that Mr. Pope did not mention
hardware; I take it that hardware is included.
Mr. Pope.] Clearly.
(81.)
3 T 4 Chairman.]
4 ºf
*
520
MINUTEs of EvrDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comwitt EE
27 May 1891.
Chairman.] The only question that was
occurring to me was whether Monday would
not be rather late to postpone it to ; whether it
would not be better taken on Friday.
Mr. Pope.] I always endeavour to be fair with
the Committee, especially when I am asking for
a favour from the Committee. In view of the
communications that are proceeding, it would be
convenient to adjourn it until Monday if the
Committee can proceed with the discussion of
other points in the meantime. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The Committee does
not sit on Monday.
Mr. Pope.] Then Tuesday. . I have no doubt
we could come to some conclusion by Friday if it
were thought desirable to put it forward by that
time. - -
Chairman.] I think we had better leave it in
your hands; if you find that you can come to
some arrangement by Friday, so much the
better; if not then we must take it later.
Mr. Pope.] If I come to the conclusion that
an arrangement is not likely to take place, then I
will not ask for any further postponement beyond
Friday.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think our interests
would be facilitated by the adoption of that
COU11'S6. *
Mr. Bishop.] May I ask that certain other
interests may be taken into account in these
negotiations?
Chairman.] We have nothing to do with the
negotiations; we can only take what is brought
before ourselves.
Earl of Belmore.] Cannot the parties all meet
together ? -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend Mr.
Pope distinctly stated that the other railway
companies would be consulted, therefore the
case of other traders would have the oppor-
tunity of being considered of course. w
Mr. Pope.] With regard to the Monmouthshire
traders, special provision would be made to con-
sider their interests, the same as those of the
South Staffordshire traders.
Mr. Bishop.] And I suppose that would mean
those upon the Great Western line as well as
the Swansea traders.
Mr. Pope.] Certainly. If any body represents
a substantial interest in the question, they shall
certainly be consulted. -
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] Then we will
leave it in your hands, assuming that you will be
discreet.
Mr. Pope.] Then the iron question is not to
come on before Friday ? -
Chairman.] Certainly. Then what have we
now P -
Mr. Pope.] Ammoniacal liquor.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I make a sugges-
tion upon that. My learned friend proposes to
take ammoniacal liquor out of Class. B. and to
put it into Class C.; that is the effect of your
proposal? * -
Mr. Pope.] It is.
*
f
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am informed that
there is no objection to that. I will just read
what Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company say,
that it is desirable to “define that the article meant
to be placed in Class C. is a manufactured article
usually carried in small quantities and in carboys
or drums, and not the impure ammoniacal liquor
usually carried from gas works.” I would have
no objection to remove ammoniacal liquor from
one class to the other if you put in the word
“pure” before “ammoniacal liquor,” or if you
add. “ ammoniacal liquor in carboys, drums, or
casks in railway company's trucks.”
Mr. Pope.] If you can really find a word which
will distinguish that which is the real character-
istic of the two classes, that is to say, the crude
material from the manufactured material, that
would meet all the difficulty.
Earl of Camperdown.] If that is put in,
what would happen to the impure ammoniacal
liquor 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It would still be carried
in Class B.
Chairman.] Then, possibly, we had better
leave ammoniacal liquor out of consideration
for the moment, until you can get the proper
word.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether your Grace
caught the distinction between the two classes.
According to our view, Class B. is the class
which deals with crude and unmanufactured
articles; Class C. is the class which deals, with
the same article. in a more or less manufactured
condition. Therefore, if my learned friend says
he is dealing with ammoniacal liquor which has
gone through a purifying process, that should go
into Class C.; but if you deal with the crude
material that should remain in Class B.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so ; and why I
suggested the word “pure” was that it was sug-
gested by Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Com-
pany. r
Mr. Pope.] “Refined” is the word which
generally signifies “pure,” in the ordinary ac-
ceptation of the phrase.
Chairman.] What is the next?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am told this is exactly
the same point ; that creosote and coal-tar when
of a refined nature ought to be in Class C.,
whereas that which is crude ought to be kept in
Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Then let that remain over with the
ammoniacal liquor.
Mr. Bidder.] But there is also creosote, and so
on, in Class A.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is in owners' wag-
gons; those things in Classes B. and C. are in
your waggons.
Chairman.] Then how about distillers' and
brewers' gains 2
Mr. Pope.] The companies do not press that.
Something has been done which has met the
difficulty, and given satisfaction on both sides.
Then the next thing is iron and steel, which is
postponed.
- [Chairman.
ON It AILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
27 May 1891.
Chairman.] “Litter (moss or peat), hydraulic
or steam press-packed.”
Mr. Pope.] That amendment is promoted also
by the Yorkshire coalowners, apparantly.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I only want to put it
into Class A., a lower class. But we are now
dealing with yours; it is not the same amend-
ment. They have been classed together because
we want them put into a lower class, whereas the
º companies want them put into a higher
Cl8l,SS.
Mr. Pope.] With regard to peat litter, this is
the memorandum which the companies have laid
before us as their counsel : “ This article
especially classified in the Clearing House
Classification as Class M. (b).” It is necessary
that there should be just one word of explanation
as to the mode in which the matter was presented
to the Board of Trade. The railway companies
met, and with considerable difficulty agreed upon
a general classification which they thought
applicable to all the companies; they did not
simpliciter adopt the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, but took the Clearing House Classification
with certain amendments and extensions; and
the schedule as submitted to the Board of Trade,
instead of taking the nomenclature of the
Clearing House Classification, was submitted to
the Board of Trade as Classes A., B., and C.,
and 1, 2, and 3, and so on, not following the
momenclature of the Clearing House Classifica-
tion. In this classification the Class B. practically
represents that which in the Clearing House
Classification was Mineral Class; and, therefore,
the article being specially classified in the Clear-
ing House Classification in Class M., really
practically represents the same class as now
appears in the Board of Trade Classification as
Class B. It was then classified “plus 20 per cent.,
with a minimum of four tons per truck.” It was
placed in Class C. of the companies’ suggested
classification which was submitted to the Board
of Trade; the Board of Trade have degraded it
to Class B. That is really the history of this
peat-moss litter question.
Class C. of the companies’ deposited classi-
fication.” That should be as we say raised from
Class B. to Class C. of the Board of Trade
Classification, because that is the nearest equiva-
lent to its old class under the Clearing House
Classification. Our memorandum proceeds,
The average loading of the traffic is under four
tons per truck, and there is great risk in its car-
riage ; it is liable to damage by wet, and has
therefore to be sheeted, and careful attention has
to je paid to the loading of it in order to prevent
the loads from breaking loose.” Applying those
principles to the classification which the Board
of Trade specify in their Report, it ought, we say,
to be placed in Class C. instead of remaining in
Class B. On the other hand, the South Wales
coalowners say it ought to be still further de-
graded and placed in Class A.
“It was placed in
Lord Belper.] What is the meaning of “and
20 per cent., with a minimum of four tons per
truck, ” in the Clearing House Book.
Mr. Pope.] The rates applicable to Class M
as a class, plus 20 per cent. in addition.
Earl of Belmore.] That you say should bring
it up into Class C. P
Mr. Pope.] Yes, that and the special cir-
cumstances attending the traffic itself.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade any-
thing to say upon this point.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The facts are really as
stated by Mr. Pope, we were very much pressed,
in Ireland, to classify it in Class B. It is an
article which was very much carried in Ireland,
and we were strongly urged to keep it in Class
B. if it were press packed, not loose.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle).] Would you tell us how, putting it in
Class 13., would affect the rates at which it is at
present carried ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It undoubtedly reduces
the power of the railway companies as compared
with the Railway Clearing House Classification,
because it cuts off the 20 per cent.
Mr. Pope (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle.)] I believe
the fact is that the Local Irish Clearing House
Classification has always differed from the
English Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It is not the same.
Mr. Pope.] And this would practically be a
reduction of the English Clearing House Classi-
fication, because of its appearing in the Irish
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, not quite so.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope.)] On the
other hand, if your proposal is adopted, would
that be equivalent to raising the Irish Clas ifica-
tion ? - S
Mr. Pope..] We say not.
Mr. Courtenay Boyſe.] My impression is that
if Class B. is adopted it lowers the Clearing
House Classification ; if Class C. is adopted it
raises it.
Earl of Camperdown.] For Ireland 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] For both. The Eng-
lish Classification for press-packed litter is
Class B., with 20 per cent. added; if you put it
into Class C. you raise the classification ; if you
put it into Class B. you lower it; it is impossible
absolutely to compare the English Clearing
House Classification with the Irish Clearing
House Classification ; the whole numbers of the
classes are different, and the circumstances are
different ; but speaking broadly, our opinion is
that if you put it into Class B. you lower the
classification, if you put it into Class C. you
raise it. On the whole we decided to lower it.
(81.)
3 U
522
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMX ITTEE
27 May 1891.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is again called in ; and Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
3600. YoU are the goods manager of the
London and North Western Railway Company ?
—Yes.
3601. Will you explain to the Committee, in
figures, if you can, what will be the effect of the
proposal of the Board of Trade in reducing this
peat-moss litter to Class B. 2–I am afraid I have
not worked out any figures that would convey
that result at all. The rates that we charge for
Class B., to-day, are considerably higher than
those proposed by the Provisional Order for that
class, and for peat-moss litter we charge 20 per
cent. above our rates of to-day.
3602. Above your present Class B. rates ?—
Yes; therefore the Provisional Order, B. Class,
if you take the rates attached to it, is materially
lowered.
3603. Would you kindly follow the statement
that I made. What would the rate for peat or
moss litter, calculated at Class M., plus 20 per
cent., amount to per ton per mile 2–I will take
it in this way: our ordinary rates to-day for
mineral Class B., we will say for a distance of
40 miles, would be 7 s. 4 d., plus 20 per cent. for
peat-moss litter.
3604. What would it work out at, supposiug
it were in the proposed Class C.?
Earl of Belmore.
3605. Would you just add the two figures
together?--I make 9 s. 2 d.
Mr. Pope.] Can you give the same calculation
for traffic carried in Class B. with the terminals
in the schedule, and for traffic carried in Class
C. with the terminals in the schedule, and show
us how that works out?
Mr. Pember.] Instead of 9 s. 2d. I make it
8 s. 10 d.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] What I
understand you to say is, that in putting it in
Class B, lowers it; and do I understand you to
say more than you think it advisable, but that
Class C. would make it too high
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Class C. makes it too
high ; and Class B. makes it, I will not say too
low, but makes it low.
Chairman.] Supposing you were to add the
percentage to Class B, as in the Clearing House
Classification, would that bring it right?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] There is no intrinsic
reason why that should not be done, but that re-
opens the whole question of classification; it
makes an entirely new class.
Chairman.] No, pardon me, it does not, be-
cause you are dealing now with the article of
moss litter, one party says it is too high, and the
other that it is too low ; the question is whether
you cannot strike a balance between them.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] You would have to do
that with the whole 3,000 articles.
Mr. Hanbury.] It was done in the Clearing
House Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I know that ; but this
would make another class of it. h
Mr. Pope.] It is this fatal desire for uni-
formity.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We have endeavoured
to arrive at uniformity, and if the Committee see
their way to a modification of this sort, it would
be possible; but I must warn the Committee
that if they make a change as to one article, it
may be necessary to do it as to all.
Mr. Pope..] Mr. Findlay tells me that there
would be no real difficulty about it; that if any
suitable form of words could be adopted it might
be amended.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] With
regard to the addition which I have suggested,
are there many articles which that would apply
to, and which that is applying to now, in the
classification of the Clearing House ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.]. Certainly, a very large
number of articles; and I am afraid you will
have applications from this side of the room
to
Chairman.] But that is another matter, I
think. (To Mr. Pope.) Then we will proceed
In OW.
Mr. Pope.
3606. (To the Witness). Your present rate for
a ton for 40 miles is what, 8 s. 10 d. ?–Eight
and tenpence.
3607. Now what would it work out under the
schedule 2—Four and tempence.
3608. And what would it work out if it were
put into Class C. at the rate of Class C. you
know 2–Seven and eightpence I make it at
Class C.
3609. Then, according to your calculation if it
is left where the Board of Trade have placed it,
you will get 4 s. 10d. for what you now charge
8 s. 10 d.; and if it is raised to Class C. as we
ask, you would get 7 s. 8d. instead of 8 s. 10 d. 2
—Yes.
Mr. Dickson.
3610. Do you know the Irish classification for
peat moss 2–I have it here ; it is on a very
different basis from the English classification, as
it provides for no less than waggon loads; it is in
Class 2.
3611. But take waggon loads?—In waggon
loads, the owner to load and unload up to 50
miles, it it is 6 d. a waggon a mile; from 61 miles
to 60 miles it is 25 s. a waggon.
3612. Take 40 miles; 40 miles is the basis of
your calculation ?–Forty miles would be 6 d. a
waggon a mile.
3613. That would be l l for four tons of peat
moss; that would be 5 s. a ton 7–Four tons
would be a very fair load for a waggon. -
3614. That would be 5 s. a ton, and you pro-
pose to increase that to 7 s. 8d, or to 8 s. 10 d. ;
why not keep to the waggon load, as in the Irish
classification ?—I need hardly say that the traffic
in Ireland does not come to England much in
peat-moss litter.
3615. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISIONAL ORIDER BILLS. 523
27 May 1891.]
Mr. Dickson—continued.
3615. But are you aware that peat moss has
now become a very important source of traffic in
Ireland 7
Earl of Belmore.
3616. Does this include terminals in England?
—Yes.
3617. And in Ireland it does not, because you
said “loading and unloading by the owner’?—
The terminal in England includes station termi-
nals, not the loading.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3618. You made a comparison with the 8s. 10d.,
sº you state is being charged at present 2–
Yes. +
3619. Is that the present rate 7–Yes.
3620. You compared that with what you
might charge under the Schedule, 4 s. 10 d. 2–
Yes.
3621. Does that include the terminals 2–The
same descripticn of terminals. -
3622. Will you tell me how you make that
up P-Forty miles at 1:15 d. per mile, plus two
terminals of 6 d., that is one at each end.
3623. No station terminal P-That is the 6 d.
3624. And no service terminal at all 7–There
is no service terminal provided for in the
schedule.
3625. Now let us see whether your comparison
is a good one. My learned friend opened that it
was usually carried under a four-ton load ; there-
fore, if one ton was carried it would go into Class
C., under the decision of the Committee yester-
day ?—I did not quite follow that Mr. Pope
intended to say that it was usually carried under
the four-ton load.
Mr. Pope (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] If you
had used the word “consignment * instead of
“ load " that would have been more intelligible;
consignment and load are not necessarily the
same thing. -
Witness.] “Carried at a minimum of four-ton
load” would be correct.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3626. Will you tell me whether it is not the
fact that consignments are usually less than four
tons?—Decidedly not. I should say that where
there is one consignment of less than four tons
there are 50 or 60 in which there it is a greater
quantity.
3627. Litter “moss or peat,hydraulic or steam
pressed packed,” that is what we are dealing with
in the classification ?—Yes.
3628. “Peat " I find also in that same class,
and you do not propose to move it out of that
class; is there any distinction between “peat-
moss litter ’’ and “peat,” except that the one has
been torn up and then pressed and packed 2–
“ Peat” is a traffic which is practically unknown
in England. “Litter’ is a traffic which is con-
stantly increasing and being developed by
foreign importation, and by being worked up in
different parts of the country.
3629. Peat is largely carried both in Ireland
and Scotland, as you know ; is there any distinc-
tion made there between “peat” and “peat-moss
litter ’’’
Mr. HARRISON.
| Continued.
– sº-
Chairman.] Before you say it is “largely
carried in Ireland and Scotland,” I think that you
should ascertained whether that is so, or not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Especially compressed
peat.
Chairman.] But you were drawing no distinc-
tion between the compressed peat and the peat
that goes loose. You asked the witness whether
he was aware that peat was carried largely in
Scotland. I do not think it is.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3630. (To the Witness.) At any rate, do you
know whether it is carried either in Scotland or
in Ireland 2–I do not think it is carried much.
3631. Is there any distinction between peat
and peat-moss litter, except that which I pointed
out, that the one is torn up, or as it is called in
the trade devilled !—I should say that peat-moss
litter is more valuable.
3632. Is there any distinction between the
two, except that the one has been torn up : with
regard to the value, do you know that moss litter
is about 12 s. per ton 2–I do not know exactly
the value, but I do not think peat is extensively
used for the same purpose as the litter that is
being used now. " -
Mr. Pember.] We hear a very different story
here ; we hear that it is valued at 40 s.
Earl of Belmore.] What do you mean by the
article that is sold at 12 s. a ton.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The peat-moss litter;
not the turf that is burned.
3633. (To the Witness.) With regard to the
20 per cent. in the Railway Clearing House
Classification, you are aware that several of the
railway companies do not take the 20 per cent.
in addition –Of course the Clearing House
Classification applies generally, but where there
are special rates arranged between the different
companies they are different from those. But
going back to peat as compared with peat-moss
litter, for a moment, there is a lower classifica-
tion in the Clearing House to-day for the peat
than for the peat-moss litter.
3634. Is it not the fact that the Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company,for instance,
charge the Class B. rates, or whatever it is,
without the 20 per cent. 2–No ; where the Man-
chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company
carry in connection with us unless we have under
the special circumstances of a particular case
arranged a special rate, they do charge the 20 per
Cent.
3635. That may be for a through rate ; but do
you know whether upon their own line they
charge the 20 per cent. 7–I cannot say.
3636. Is peat-moss litter more easily handled
than peat, do you know 2–I do not know much
about the handling of peat ; I do not know it as
a traffic really.
Chairman.] It must be as a matter of practice,
it cannot help being different. You have the
peat-moss litter in bales, whereas you have the
peat in little bricks —That is so.
(81.)
3 U 2 3637. Does
524
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3637. Does your present rate of 8 s. 10 d. in-
clude loading and unloading 2—No.
3638. Are you sure ?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Pope.
3639. Does the peat-moss litter require cover-
ing?—-Yes.
3640. You would think if it were hard pressed
it would not receive much damage from the wet?
—No, it is not always covered.
Mr. Pember.] With regard to the prices for
peat-moss litter here ; I see it ranges from 35 s.
a ton at Cardiff and Birkenhead, to 30 s. a ton at
Newport, and 26 s, at Swansea.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3641. (To the Witness.) When you do cover
it, do you charge for sheeting 2—Not in addition
to the rate.
3642. Do you make no charge for sheeting 2–
No, not in addition to the rate.
Mr. Pope.
3643. I should think the southern companies
are more likely to get some of this traffic than
you are ?—Yes; but we get some of this traffic
at the present time from Hull, and we are getting
it from Chat Moss; they are working it up
there.
Mr. Hunter.
3644. Between what stations have you any
actual traffic in this article? — I cannot tell you
the receiving stations at the present time, but
from Chat Moss we are carrying the traffic now.
I could not tell you off hand.
Earl of Belmore.
3645. Northamptonshire, I presume * — No ;
I think it is more in the neighbourhood of Lanca-
shire.
Lord Houghton.
3646. You carry the litter to the coal districts,
do you not, a good deal 7–Yes. -
The Witness was directed to withdraw.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is again called in ; and Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Pember.
3647. YoU are the goods manager of the Great
Western Railway ?—Yes.
3648. In the first place it was from a Paper
which you furnished me that I made my state-
ment as to the price of peat-moss litter, and,
therefore, I will ask you whether it is not the
fact that a little while ago the prices per ton of
this peat-moss litter were at Birkenhead 35 s. a
ton ; at Swansea, 26 s. ; at Newport, 30 s. ; and
at Cardiff, 35 s. ? — We made the inquiry
specially, so that I might be able to give the
information to the Committee if it were required,
and those were the figures furnished to us.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All I can say is that
the gentleman who was called before the Board
of Trade told us quite the contrary.
Mr. Pember.
3649. We are not responsible for the gentle-
man called before the Board of Trade. (To the
Witness.) Those four places I have mentioned,
Birkenhead, Newport, Swansea, and Cardiff, are
four ports upon the Great Western line?—Yes,
they are four ports upon the Great Western line
from which we actually carry this class of
traffic.
3650. Imported from foreign countries mainly 2
—Yes; that is all imported from foreign coun-
tries; from Holland chiefly.
3651. Do you carry that in considerable quan-
tities 2—We carry it in very considerable quan-
tities.
3652. Is it a growing trade 2 –It is a growing
trade. We carry it not only in large quantities
but also in small quantities for gentlemen who
use it in their stahles; suburban places very
largely.
3653. I suppose you carry it long distances? --
We carry it considerable distances; from 130 to
160 miles.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3654. Just let me understand: the prices that
you have got; where did you get them?—From
inquiries made of the merchants at the four ports
named.
3655. But that is not the price of the peat-moss
litter at the place of manufacture ?–It is the
price at the ports at which it is landed to the
railway company for conveyance.
3656. And you have given us the cost of the
freight in the price of the goods 2—Yes, cer-
tainly. -
3657. Do you know that at the place of manu-
facture 14 s. a ton is the price that is quoted P
Chairman.] What place do you mean by “the
place of manufacture''} -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This that was spoken of
is manufactured on the Manchester, Sheffield, and
Lincolnshire line; and the gentleman who spoke
about it sent it all by that company’s line.
Mr. Saunders..] What was his name *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Davis. Upon the 14th
April he gave evidence; he said this litter, at the
time we dealt with the objection, was 20 s. a ton,
but now it is only worth 14 s. a ton at the place
of manufacture. (To the Witness). You do not
know the price at the place of manufacture of it
at all, do you ?—No, I do not.
3658. Do you know that the Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company have always
treated it in exactly the same way as peat 3–
No. I should say it was not possible to do so.
3659. Never mind about possibility ; do you
know the fact 2–I do not know the fact with
regard to the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln-
shire Company, but I do know the fact with
regard to the Great Western Company, we carry
peat from the New Forest in connection with the
South Western Railway for gardening purposes.
That
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
525
27 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
ſ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
That is the ordinary peat referred to in Class B. ;
but the peat packed is always carried in large
bales.
3660. The peat for gardening purposes is
under the word “Peat,” is it 2 – Yes.
Earl of Belmore. -
3661. How is that carried ?—It is carried
loose in the broken up form. -
3662. Not in the form of bricks 7–No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3663. That is what is spread over plots in a
garden 2–Yes. -
3664. Is not that much more difficult to handle
than pressed packed litter?—No ; the loose
peat is easily shovelled in and out.
3665. The pressed peat is exceedingly easily
handled, is it not ?—No ; as a matter of fact, we
require as much care with pressed packed litter
as with almost any other article that is carried.
Any railway manager will fell you that it has
to be specially roped and protected in order to
enable it to be carried safely. *
3666. The last railway manager told us that
it was not specially couered 2–Roping is not
covering, but the bales being iron-clamped, are
very slippery; there is no adhesion, and it is very
difficult to load aud unload them.
3667. You do load and unload in all cases?—
Yes.
3668. A good deal of this peat-noss litter goes
on your line to the collieries. I suppose, for the
horses that are kept there 2–Yes.
3669. All that goes on to the colliery sidings
is not touched by you ?—As a rule that would
go to the colliery sidings. -
3670. Now let me ask you this. Adding 20
per cent. above Class B. does not bring it up to
the Class C. rates; it does not bring it up one
class higher. It is obvious it would not, other-
wise you would not have put it up 20 per cent ;
you would have carried it in the other class 2
—That is so. -
3671. If it had been up to the other class it
would have been simpler to put it in that class
instead of putting it up 20 per cent.”—That
IS SO.
Mr. Hunter.
3672. How much do you charge for 160 miles 2
—I should think from about 10 s. to 12 s, per ton
for the 160 miles; but the rates of course vary
very much.
Re-examined by Mr. Pember.
3673. Could you tell at all what the rate would
be for 40 or 50 miles?—I should think about 5 s.
3674. Perhaps you could find that out for us?
—I could give it you later.
Lord Belper.
3675. With the rates under Class B. for 150
miles you would be getting a great deal more
than you are getting at the present moment 2–
I think not ; I said about 12 s.
3676. Should you not be getting more under
this ; would you give us what you would get under
Class B. P-I have before me the Great Western
Railway Act, and that would give us for distances
exceeding 150 miles a penny per ton per mile.
. Mr. Pember.] If you look Class B. would
i. 0.70 d. as the rate per ton per mile, I
think.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; 0-75 d.
Mr. Pember.] That is on the Great Western.
Lord Belper.] Then you have the additional
terminal.
Mr. Pember. It is 0.75 d. in the case of the
Great Western.
Lord Belper.] 0.75d., is it not ?
Mr. Pember.] No, you have the London and
North Western. This is the Great Western, it
is 0°70 d.
Lord Belper.
3677. (To the Witness.) It would not be a
very material difference at all events?–No.
Mr. //ickson.] At present what would your
rate be for conveying 40 miles.
Mr. Pember.] It would be 9 s.9 d.; my learned
friend Mr. Bidder has worked it out under
Class B.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is 0.75 d.
Mr. Pember.] Not under Scale I.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Witness.] Answering the honourable member's
question, the present rate would be for 40 miles
somewhere about 8 s. 4 d. per ton, but that
would of course, include loading and unloading
and station terminals.
Mr. Pember.
3678. That is the present rate 2–Yes.
3679. What would it be for 160 miles?—The
scale rate is 8s. 4 d.; but, as a matter of fact, we
should not charge quite so much as that.
Lord Belper.] I think what you gave before
was what you were actually charging.
Mr. Pember.] That was the witness's impres-
sion, my Lord, at the time, but he had not got the
Paper before him. I thought it was wrong, and
that is what made me say, Will you get them for
me presently 2 I see now that the scale rate is
8s. 4 d., and in the other case 16s. ; so that the
rate in Class B. would be about half the present
rate.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For that purpose you
have taken the Great Western Company’s lowest
charge. Upon most of their line you will find it
is much higher ; you must compare it with the
0-75 d., which is the right charge.
Mr. Pember.] I will take 0-75 d. ; it does not
make such a serious addition as all that comes
to.
Lord Belper.] It makes a shilling more.
... Mr. Pember.] At all events it is obvious that
it is far below the Clearing House Rates.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pember.] My learned friend Mr. Balfour
Browne cited the evidence given before Lord
Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle
on this point, with regard to the Manchester,
Sheffield, and Lincolnshire rates charged. I see
there, that speaking of that low rate which the
(81.)
3 U 3 Manchester,
526
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891. |
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Com-
pany do charge for peat moss made in England,
it was said, “We deal with the company repre-
sented by Mr. Davis, and carry this litter from
their works. In order to foster this traffic, we
“did carry it at mineral class rates locally, but only
locally, and we make an extra charge for the use
MR. JABEZ LIGHT, is re-called;
Mr. Bidder.
3680. YoU are the goods’ manager of the
South Eastern Railway ?–Yes. 3
3681. Do you carry a great deal of this peat-
moss litter upon your line 2––Yes ; at times we
carry large quantities from our wharf on the
river from Angerstein. The quantity, of course,
varies, chiefly according to the price of straw in
the district. -
3682. Have you compared the maximum rates
that would be chargeable under the proposed
Schedule for Class B. with what you are actually
charging at the present time, and getting for the
carriage of peat-moss litter —Yes; I have a
statement before me showing traffic actually
carried and the rates, comparing the Provisional
Order figures as against the rates actually charged.
Over a large number of consignments to a con-
siderable number of stations there is a net loss of
23.63 per cent.
Mr. Hanbury.
3683. Are those picked instances, or taken
generally 2–They are general ; they are simply
taken as they occur, out of our books.
Mr. Bidder.
3684. May that 23.63 per cent. be taken to
represent the loss that would be sustained by the
company on the whole of their actual traffic of
this character 2–That would be so.
Earl of Camperdown. , -
3685. As the actual charges 2–As the actual
charges against the highest amount which they
can make under the Provisional Order, including
full terminals in each case. -
Mr. Bidder.
3686. What period have you taken in that
statement?—I have taken them at odd times. I
Thave taken some in February, some in March,
and some in April.
3687. Fairly taken 2–Yes. I simply gave
instructions for them to be extracted from our
books and worked out.
3688. If the schedule had been in force you
say, and you were compelled to classify those
goods under Class B., you would have lost
23.63 per cent. of the actual receipts?—That is
so ; and that shows pretty nearly the difference
between what is proposed to be given by the
Board of Trade under Class B. as against Class C.,
that is to say, that if the Class C. were adopted
as the classification the difference between the
rates under Class B. and Class C. would repre-
sent about 20 per cent. ; therefore our loss then
would be reduced to about 6 per cent.
3689. Will you allow me to follow you for one
minute : what case are you speaking of?—I do
of the sheets, and in many cases at the receiving
stations we, as has been stated by Mr. Twelve-
trees, do the unloading. They have a private
siding into their works, but at the receiving sta-
tions we practically have to do the unloading.”
So you see it was a specially low rate given to
foster the traffic. i -
and further Examined, as follows:
not know whether you have the South Eastern
list before you.
3690. No, I have not got the South Eastern
Schedule 2–It is somewhat different from the
London and North Western tolls. I will read
them if that will do. As between the Metro-
politan stations and about 10 miles from London,
the , Class B. rate is 2 d. per ton per mile ; the
Class C. rate would be 2:20 d. Outside the
10 miles radius from London our tolls are some-
what less. Those figures would be 1:60 d. for
. Class B. and 1.75 d. for Class C.
3691. At what page is that in your Schedule
—That is at pages 9 and 10 in our Schedule. It
will be seen, therefore, that so far as the South
Eastern is concerned (and of course it would
apply also to the London, Chatham, and Dover
line), even by the adoption of the Class C., that
would leave us with a loss.
3692. That is so, is it 2–Yes.
3693. Then just let me ask you this. Having
regard to the nature of the article, do you con-
sider that it falls more naturaliy under the
classification with the articles that are in Class C.
or in Class B. P-I think it is undoubtedly the
case that it comes in Class C., for this reason:
taking the loading, for instance, the loading has
to be done very much more carefully, and there
is much more risk in transit than there is in
regard to any of the other articles in that par-
ticular class.
3694. Why?–Because of the character of the
goods, they have to be sheeted in nearly every
case ; that is our experience, and in some cases
we have had to rope them; when they are press-
packed bales they are exceedingly slippery to
load. -
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Bidder).] I
gather from the evidence of this witness that in
the schedule of the South Eastern Company
the rate charges in the South Eastern Schedule
are different from those, for instance, which are
contained in the London and North Western
Schedule.
Mr. Bidder.] I think that is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then will not the effect
be this : that if we remove a particular article
(let it be any article you like) from Class B. into
Class C., or vice versá, the result will be to pro-
duce a different effect on different railways 2
Mr. Bidder.] That must be true to some ex-
tent, a difference in degree. That is why I would
rather, I confess, put the latter question, which
seems to me, if I may say so respectfully, more
distinctly germane to this point: classification
turning rather upon which group of articles it
falls naturally into. The other point of the rates
is really a question strictly of rates, and not
of
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
527
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
of classification. Classification really primarily
means defining the family with which the article
ought naturally to be associated; then afterwards
in each particular railway comes the question how
the rates are to be adjusted.
Witness.] Would you allow me to add, your
Grace, that relatively I think the percentage of
differences would be the same 2
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think it is so; I think
his Lordship is right.
Chairman.] Let Mr. Light go on.
Witness.] Although the tolls generally may be
lower on the northern lines than on the southern
lines, the percentage of differences does not vary
much.
Mr. Pope.] It is a difference of scale, not a
difference of relative proportions.
Earl of Camperdown..] But the three lines we
have had before us so far have been all different.
Mr. Pope.] A different scale of rates applicable
to each one.
Earl of Camperdown.] And a different scale of
differences, too P
Mr. Pope.] The percentage would be pretty
much the same.
Mr. Courſenay Boyle.] No, it is not so, indeed.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not the fact.
Earl of Camperdown.] I will just give you the
figures. Mr. Light said (you will correct me if
I am wrong) that for a short distance, say under
20 miles, I think 10 miles near the metropolis his
charge would be something like 2 d. for Class B.,
and that for Class C. it would be increased to
2.20 d. Then, if you take that for the London
and North Western it is 1:25 d. for the 10 miles,
and it is 1-80 d. if you put it into the next class,
into Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is a very large
difference. •
Mr. Pope.] Yes, it is a larger difference than
2 d., and 2'20 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] Quite so ; 1:25 d. and
1-80 d. I am not a great mathematician, but
there is no doubt about it.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Lordship is quite right.
That classification, I think I am right, applies, as
Mr. Light says, only to short lines near London.
JWitness.] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.
3965. The main figure, in justice to Mr.
Light, I ought to say the corresponding
figure for the longer portions of their lines, which
would be fairly comparable with the London and
North Western, would be, in the case of Class B.,
1-05 d. from 50 to 100 miles, and in case of Class C.
1.04 d. (To the Witness.) But I should like to
go a little more carefully into this. I take it
that you are thoroughly familiar with the articles
in Class B., and the characters of them generally *
—Yes. 's
3696. And similarly with those in Class C. 2–
Yes.
3697. Looking at the character of the articles
in the two classes, the trouble of handling,
Mr. Bidder—continued.
loading, and carriage, and so on, and the value,
do you say unhesitatingly that this falls naturally
with those articles in Class C. and not with those
in Class B. 2–Certainly.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
3698. Is there anything in Class C. that is
more like this litter than peat 2–It is peat manu-
factured of course, if I may so term it.
3699. Now, let me see those instances please
which you put in 2–Do you want to see the
whole P
3700. Yes, certainly 7–Shall I explain it to
you ?
3701. I will see if I can understand it without.
(The Witness hands the table to Mr. Balfour
Browne).
3702. In those cases that you have been com-
paring, have you compared the rates alone, or
have you taken into consideration the terminal?
In both cases; that is to say, the terminal is
included of course in the actual rate, and I have
put in the full terminal of the Provisional
Order.
3703. And that works out as you say upon
those special cases. I do not find the dates
given ; are they given 2–You will find them at
the top of the return.
3704. In February, March, and April 1891.
That was not all that you carried in these three
months 2–Oh dear no.
3705. How were they selected ?–They were
not selected in any way, they were simply
extracted from the books as they came.
3706. As I understood Mr. Wilkinson, he
said that this litter was invariably carried in
consignment of over four tons. Is that your
experience 2–So far as we are concerned the
consignments vary considerably. I think you
will find some there five tons in the truck.
3707. There may be, I have not come upon
one yet. Yes, there is one of five tons. Most
of them are below four tons?—There is another
of four tons four cwt., and something like that.
3708. Most of them are below four tons?—
Yes; then in that case we are getting a higher-
rate of course.
3709. Have you put on the higher rate in
these calculations or have you put on the Class
B. rate 2–As regards the consignments of a ton
we have put on the higher rate applying to that.
3710. You have not put on the Class C. rate
—I have put the actual rate charged.
3711. That has nothing to do with it. You.
are comparing the actual rate charged with what
you may charge if this schedule comes into force?
—Yes.
3712. Until yesterday you did not know that
you were to be entitled to charge for a four-tons
minimum ?–No.
3713. So that this calculation is all assuming
that it is carried in Class B. P−Yes.
3714. I will hand this in to the Committee.
I should like to see how many are above four
tons ; but by far the largest number are under
four tons 2–Yes.
3715. Therefore by far the largest number of
these would not be charged at the rates you have
(81.)
3 U 4 here,
528
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.] Mr
. LIGHT.
[ ontinued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
here, but at the Class C. rate 2—Not under the
alteration of the four tons.
3716. Does not the alteration of the four tons,
so far as your company is concerned, take the
sting out of the matter altogether ?–I am not so
sure of that.
3717. How many cases are there here?—I
have not the slightest idea; I have not counted
them.
3718. (After counting them.) There are 24 on
the first page, and I suppose there are as many
on the second, and about half the number on the
third 2–Yes.
3719. That is about 70 altogether?—Yes.
3720. I will count the number that are over
four tons. (After counting them.) Out of the
70 cases there are only eight that are four tons
Or OV er.
Earl of Camperdown.] How does that touch
peat litter 1 Are his consignments usually under
four tons in the case of peat litter?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is traffic in moss
litter.
Mr. Hambury.
3721. Do you say that those are fair average
specimens —Yes, they are extracted from our
books; they are actual consignments.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] I think I have correctly
counted them ; they are about that ; eight cases,
four tons, or over, and the rest under four tons
(handing in the table).
Earl of Belmore.] Would they be entitled to
be carried in Class C. P
Mr. Balfour Browne. Every one of those ex-
cept the eight cases under four tons.
JPitness.] But I submit that that does not get
me out of my difficulty; for the very moment the
sender knew that he could cut my rate down to
the Class B. rate by sending over four-ton lots he
would do so, and my loss would be just the
S8,11) 62.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3722. But how could he do that; supposing I
have ordered one ton or under one ton, if I have
ordered it the sender cannot send more than I
have ordered 2–That may be true; but you may
depend upon it that arrangements would be made
at once by which two or three senders would
have their orders sent down together.
3723. To the same place?—Yes.
3724. And you think that possible 2–Not only
possible, but you will find it is done.
3725. I do not see that you are out of your
difficulty yet as you say. Supposing that three
senders did combine at any place, then you would
get a good load for your truck?—I should ; but
I should be getting the Class B. rate instead of
as now when I am getting more than the Class C.
rate.
3726. But you would be getting a good load
for the truck. At the present time you have to
send your truck more than three parts empty
with your one ton; is not that so?–Quite so.
Earl of Belmore.] That is what I was trying
to get from a gentleman yesterday about his iron
tubing ; and he said it was impossible.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They said yesterday
that it was impossible to get people to combine,
but now they say that they can.
Witness.] There is no difficulty whatever so
far as peat-moss litter is concerned. The sender
iu London —
Earl of Belmore.
3727. You mean the receiver?—The senders
of peat moss in the country would have no diffi-
culty whatever in employing a man in London as
agent to receive the stuff and deliver it to the
consignee. The practical result to the South
Eastern Railway Company would be that if that
is put into Class B. the traffic will go in future in
four-ton loads. I admit that there will be a
difference in a full load against an empty load;
but I submit that that will in no way compensate
us against the loss.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
3727*. What would be the dead weight of a
truck carrying four tons' — Perhaps 4 tons
15 cwt. in itself; or five tons.
3728. The truck itself?—Yes.
3729. So that at the present time for that one
ton you have to haul that dead weight, and only
get your Class B. rate, with the 20 per cent.
additional 2–Necessarily so. You have to haul
the truck in any circumstances.
Lord Belper.
3730. You spoke of a loss of 23 per cent., I
think?—Yes.
3731. Do you mean by that that if you car-
ried at Class B. rates you would lose by the
traffic actually, or would you be simply carrying
at a profit?—I say that we should be losing 23
per cent upon our present receipts
3732. Would you still carry at a profit on
that?—That is a very difficult question to answer.
I have no doubt i should be carrying at a profit
if I carried a very big train-load under favour-
able circumstances ; but if the same quantity
was divided into half-a-dozen trains, I am afraid
my profit would not be very large.
3733. You could not say, on an average 2–It
would be impossible.
Mr. Hunter.
3734. But if you carry four tons at the scale of
Class B., you would get for 20 miles 12 s. 4 d. 2
—Yes.
3735. And under the scale of Class C. for one
ton you would get 5 s. 8 d. 2–No, the scale of 2 d.
per mile does not apply beyond 10 miles from the
metropolitan circle.
3736 But it is obvious that you must gain
more from the large quantity than you could lose
by the small rate 2–I quite admit, of course, the
advantage of a full load.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
3737. If I follow this table ; I have only had
a minute or two to look at it ; take, for instance,
your loads which are over four-ton loads; for
example, Ashford : I see here is a loadjust under
five tons; you show that, compared with your
actual rates, there would be a loss there?—Yes,
and that loss cannot be compensated for.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 529
27 May 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether my
learned friend Mr. Balfour Browne follows
that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I admit that.
Mr. Bidker.] If you take the loads of over
four tons.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I said. But there
were only eight cases out of the whole over four
tons.
Mr. Bidder.] If you take the loads over four
tons, and try it by the rates, the Schedule B.
rates would leave a loss on the actual rate carried
in that case.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I admit that.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is re-called.
Chairman.
3738. (To Mr. Harrison.) WHAT is the pro-
portion of lots that you carry; are they over
four tons, or under four tons, as a rule 2–1 should
say decidedly over four tons.
Earl of Camperdown.
3739. And is that for a single consignor 2–At
present it almost always goes in single consign-
ments, because they are not mixed lots at all.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] That is all the evidence we pro-
pose to call, your Grace.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee are not prepared
to place this litter in Class C.
Mr. Pope.] The next aniendment is on page 6,
the last but one.
Chairman (to Mr. Balfour Browne).] Then
cannot we get rid of your amendment now P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If your Grace will give
me a minute.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so; I had forgotten that
there was a contrary one.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have taken the in-
structions of my clients as to their proposed
amendment, your Grace, and they are perfectly
content to leave the classification alone. -
Mr. Pope.] It remains in Class B.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Subject, of course, to
your minimum, which was settled yesterday.
Mr. Pope.] I may say that I think that answers
the question your Grace put. Then the next
amendment is by the railway companies; but a
great number of these amendments will be
disposed of when you dispose of the general
question.
Earl of Belmore.j Manure is the next, I
think.
Chairman.] No, page 20.
Mr. Pope.] Page 20, line 34, omit “merchan-
dise comprised in Class A. if sent in quantities of
less than four tons.” I was endeavouring to see
whether I could make out how far that would be
affected by the decision of last night. It is
possible that that amendment may not be material.
I do not know how far it is affected. I think
those words must come out altogether now.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, those words are in
your favour.
Mr. Pope.] “Merchandise comprised in Class
A., if sent in quantities of less that four tons,”
must come in Class C. ; but now the minimum of
Class C. is four tons.
Earl of Belmore.] That will not alter the
rate.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is in your favour; it
enables you to charge a higher rate for articles
consigned in Class A., if they are sent in quantities
of less than four tons.
Mr. Pope.] So it does.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is distinctly in your
favor.
Mr. Pope.] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Otherwise you would
fall back upon the Class A. rates.
Mr. Pope.] You are quite right, my Lord.
Mr. Poyser.] I do not know whether this
would be a convenient time to take the amend-
ment on that.
Chairman. No,
Mr. Pope.] The proposition was that it should
go into Class C. not into Class D. ; but it does
not seem to me that it is sufficient to justify me
in taking up the time of the Committee.
Mr. Clifford.] I do not quite understand what
the effect of my learned friend's amendment is.
Mr. Pope..] We will not press it. The effect
of it would be this: that goods in both Classes
A. and B. if sent in a less load than four tons,
would, according to the proposition that we have
formulated, be chargeable at the rates of Class
C.; but I do not think we ought to press it
because we have argued upon the principle right
through that the want of a maximum load would
raise the rates one class.
Mr. Clifford..] Therefore small consignments
in Class A. will fall into Class B., and not info
Class C.
Chairman.] Mr. Pope does not press it.
Mr. Pope.] Therefore Class B. will become
Class A. in quantities of less than the maximum
four-ton loads. Then ammoniacal liquor is post-
poned, and creosote is postponed.
I think, if your Grace will just go back for one
moment to that question of the operation of the
maximum load, it will want some little amend-
memt I think ; because otherwise what we are
anxious to provide against is sending, say, 5 cwt.
of coal at the rate of Class B. That would be
done by altering the phraseology, “merchandise
comprised in Class A. if sent in quantities of less
than two tons"; then below two tons we might
raise it to Class C. ; but between four tons and
(81.)
3 X tWO
530
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.
two tons it should be in Class B., otherwise
5 cwt. of coal or a small quantity of coal might
be sent at Class B. rates.
Chairman.] We should like to hear what the
Board of Trade think.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think, subject to what
the learned counsel may say here, that that is a
tolerably fair suggestion: that Class A. should
be for lots under four tons; that articles in Class
A. should go into Class B. if under four tons
and over two tons, and into Class C. if lower
than two tons.
Mr. Pope.] That will meet the difficulty.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] Have you any-
thing to say as to that ?
Mr. Clifford.] I only say this, your Grace :
that it is a change upon the proposal in the
Provisional Order, which certainly is, as it stands,
that all small consignments under four tons in
Class A. should go in Class B. Now the pro-
posal is as to certain consignments in Class A.,
if under two tons that they should be put into
Class C., which is a different thing.
Chairman.] But we altered Class B. yesterday
and made it from two tons up to four tons.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The Committee are
aware that the Board of Trade promised to con-
sider a clause which was suggested to the Com-
mittee at an earlier stage of the inquiry, to pre-
vent the operation affecting the question of ter-
minals. I do not know whether the Committee
would consider that amendment now or hereafter,
whichever is convenient.
Mr. Poyser.] It would be convenient to con-
sider it now if I might suggest it. It is my
amendment that stands on the paper that would
remedy it ; and I think it would be very advis-
able to consider it now when we are dealing with
this particular matter. I do not think that my
learned friend here is quite right.
Mr. Hunter.] What is your amendment 2
Mr. Poyser.] The amendment is in Class A.
Chairman.] What page?
Mr. Poyser.] The amendment is on page 3.
It is to add a note, so that, instead of altering the
classification, the article shall be kept in its own
class, but the conveyance rates shall be made
applicable to it that are applicable to the higher
classes.
Mr. Pope.] A higher class.
Mr. Poyser.] A higher class. If you follow it
I think it can be made to fit in with what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has just suggested. “When
merchandise specified in Class A. is consigned
in quantities of less than four tons the company
may charge for such consignment the conveyance
rates applicable to Class B.” Now owing to
what Mr. Courtenay Boyle says (and it is prac-.
tically agreed upon), we should have to add to
that : “And if less than two tons the conveyance
rates applicable to Class C.” That I think
would meet the point entirely, because the ques-
tion of terminals, it has been admitted now prac-
tically by the other side, should not be altered
merely because the amount of the consignment
varies the actual labour and the actual station
accommodation for one ton.
Mr. Pope.] I think that is fair. I think that
my learned friend's suggestion is the right one ;
that is, that it would read at the end of Class A.
“When merchandise specified in Class A. is
consigned in quantities of less than four tons, but
more than two tons, the company may charge for
such consignment the conveyance rates applic-
able to Class B.,” and then when we come to
Class B. it would read “when merchandise con-
signed in Class B.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Class A.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Class A.
Mr. Poyser.] No ; Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Cannot it be done without the
note, because the words of the Board of Trade
are more easily dealt with then P
Mr. Poyseº.] No ; because they have a totally
different effect with regard to terminals.
Mr. Pope.] Wait one moment. We can just
make the literal amendments that are necessary
to make it applicable to both classes.
Mr. Poyser.] Quite so. You have to sub-
stitute four tons for two tons to make it appli-
cable.
Mr. Pope.] What we contend is that
terminals should follow the class, not the
articles.
Mr. Poyser.] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.j It is not only that ;
you introduce a higher rate for the article that
you put in Class C. ; it is not merely the rate, it
is also the increased terminals.
Mr. Pope.] Clearly.
Mr. Poyser.] I only want to suggest to your
Grace that on page 6 it should read four tons
instead of two tons, owing to the amendment
made yesterday, that this amendment should read
four tons instead of two tons. -
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] It has
been contended by Mr. Pope that the terminals
should follow the class and not the articles.
Have the Board of Trade considered that
point? t
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Quite so ; but this is
an exception to that principle. The principle is
that the terminal should follow the class and not
the article ; but the contention was that the
sending of the rather smaller consignments than
of four tons in Classes A. and B., and of two
tons in Class C., ought reasonably to raise the
conveyance rate but ought not to raise the
terminal. That was the contention laid before
the Committee at an earlier stage of the pro-
ceedings. We understood that the Committee
certainly favoured that idea, and it certainly
commended itself to the Board of Trade. The
Board of Trade undertook to consider and
suggest certain amendments to carry out that
view. By sending a smaller consignment the
cost of conveyance is undoubtedly increased to
the railway companies, but the cost of the ter-
minal service is, we submit, not increased ; and
therefore it is perfectly reasonable that quoad
conveyance rate small consignments should be in
a higher class than a large consignment, but we
do
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
531
27 May 1891.
do not think it equitable that it should be in a
higher class quoad terminal.
Chairman. Then what words would you
suggest to carry it out 2
Earl of Camperdown.] Here are the words:
“The conveyance rate excludes terminals.”
Mr. Poyser.] I think that amendment carries
it out absolutely.
Mr. Cripps. Your Grace, before the Com-
mittee decide upon this point I hope you will
hear the evidence. I propose to call Mr. Lam-
bert upon it, to speak from the railway companies’
point of view.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] That is to say, to support what
my learned friend Mr. Pope has said, that the
terminals should follow the class and not the
article. - -
Mr. Poyser.] That is what we agree to.
Mr. Pope.] No, it is exactly what they pro-
vide against, and what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
has explained ought not in his judgment to be
the fact; that the difference of loading should
affect the conveyance rate, but not the terminals.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is the view of the
Board of Trade. It is quite open to you to com-
ment upon that view.
Mr. HENRY L.AMBERT, is re-called; and further Examined.
w Mr. Cripps.
3 740. YOU know, I think, what the discussion
is, whether the terminal should follow the class,
or whether the terminal should not be altered,
although the class rate is in respect of small con-
signments 7–I so understand it.
3741. Would you just state your views, as a
railway manager, why, in your opinion, the
terminal should follow the class 2—If the ter-
minal does not follow the class, and we are to
have a different terminal for each consignment,
that means that we must have a mineral class
rate multiplied by three all over the country,
which seems to me a very serious result. We
have already eight classes, and the effect of this
proposal, if carried out, would mean that we
should have an additional two classes. And I
cannot see that it is at all unreasonable; it is
our present practice that if a small quantity
is sent the terminal and the rate go together;
there is no distinction made between them; and
it is obvious that the terminal charges are in-
creased in dealing with a small quantity, com-
paring it with a large one. You have to deal
with a large truck weighing from four to five
tons. If it only carries a ton it is proportionately
more expensive to deal with certainly.
3742. Just let me ask you about the three
charges.
charges as regards minerals?—Quite so.
3743. In this way you mean. First of all you
will have your charges, the conveyance rate
under Class A., and the terminal rate under
Class A. 2–I do not know whether there is a rate-
book in the room, but if there is a rafe-book in
the room it will show exactly what I mean.
Earl of Camperdown.
3743*. Would you not take your schedule,
because that it what you have to deal with ?—No
doubt, my Lord.
Chairman.] The witness wants to show what
they do now.
Earl of Camperdown.] What we have to do is
with the future.
Mr. Cripps.] Can you explain this upon the
face of the schedule 2 (A rate-book is handed to
the Witness).
Witness.] May I bring it, your Grace, and
explain it !
First of all, you mean that your rate
would be complicated by trebling the number of
Chairman.] If you please. (The Witness
takes the rate-book to the Committee table).
Witness.] That column represents the present
mineral class rates, and if an article in the
mineral class is sent in a smaller quantity it
rises either to the special class or first class
according to the quantity, and therefore at the
present moment the terminal rises with the con-
veyance rate. If we are to have separate rates
for the terminal for the mineral classes, varying
according to quantity, that column becomes three
columns instead of one, and it really becomes a
very serious matter when you carry it out. I
think the Great Western Company have about
a thousand rate-books at Paddington Station
alone, apart from all the rate-books scattered
over the stations in the country. .
Chairman.
3744–5. Why would it be three columns 2–
Because, your Grace, we should have to start
with one column as the rate for four tons and
upwards; then for quantities exceeding two tons,
but not up to four tons, we should want another
rate ; and then for quantities less than two tons
we should want a third rate, because the calcula-
tions are not made at the stations, they are made
for the station clerks, and are issued to them in
this form.
Earl of Camp erdown.
3746. But you will want those three columns,
anyhow 2–No.
3747. Yes, you will, on the decisions of the
Committee. The Committee have decided to
make three different charges, aid it is at your
own request that it is done 2–I submit that it
will introduce a very serious element into the
practice of the companies.
3748. But it is at your own request ; your
own counsel did it?—I am afraid there has been
a little misapprehension on that point if that is
SO.
Mr. Hunter.
3749. This is the actual rates, and what we
are dealing with is maximum rates. So long as
your actual rates are right it does not matter?—
No ; but the actual rates would have to be
governed by your legislation.
3750. Not necessarily P-What we hope you
will do is that there will be as little disturbance
(81.)
3 X 2 of
532
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN. BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*—
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued. w
* Mr. Hunter—continued.
of these present figures as possible, both in the
interests of the public and in the interest of the
railway companies.
Lord Belper.
3751. But would you prefer small lots to be
charged in Class A. rather than to put them in
Classes B. and C. 2–No, certainly not ; we want
a higher rate for the small lot ; but all we are
contending for is that the terminal should follow.
the rate.
Earl of Camperdown.
3752. In other words, you have asked that
there should be more columns than one, the very
thing you are now protesting against 2–No.
3753. Yes?—Your Lordship will forgive me
for saying that I have not asked for it ; the rail-
way companies have asked for it.
3754. I do not mean you yourself; I mean
the railway companies?—I venture to submit
that there was some misapprehension on that ;
we could not have fully understood it, because
the moment it is brought to us now the managers
are quite of one opinion about it.
Chairman.
3755. But what are you of one opinion about 2
—That it would introduce an element of loss and
confusion if a separate charge is made for the
terminal apart from the conveyance rate.
Earl of Belmore.
3756. But we have not come to the terminal:
so far the discussion is on the conveyance ; then
the terminal is something to be added to that?—
As I understand, the suggestion is that the ter-
minal shall be a fixed quantity always, and that
the conveyance rate shall be in three items.
3757. That is what Lord Camperdown was
discussing for the moment 2– But all these rates
include the terminal.
3758. I see you do not break them up now,
and you will have to break them up in future?—
Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
3759. But you will not break them up in .
future ?—We hope not.
The Committee deliberate.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Cripps).] The
Witness made a statement to us just now which
I do not think quite conveyed all that he meant.
He said to us that it would be a very objection-
able thing in the interest of the companies if
instead of one column of conveyance rate they
are obliged to have three columns of conveyance
rate according to the quantity of the articles
which they carry ; but I think what he meant
to say was to make an addition to that and to
say that it will be bad enough to have three
columns of conveyance rate, but even in addition
to that we are going to give them three sets of
terminals,
Mr. Cripps.] I think the difficulty arose in
this way, that the rates quoted here include the
terminal. -
Rarl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] Therefore of course you get the
Class A. and Class B. with the other classes with
the terminal included ; but if you have the Class
A. conveyance rate and Class B. terminal, you
must have another column ; and you must have
two more colums with regard to Class C.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is so.
Mr. Cripps.
3760. (To the Witness.) That is what I think
you intended to point out?—That is what I
intended to convey, certainly.
3761. Apart from the rate column, is it more
expensive as regards terminal accommodation and
terminal services to deal with the smaller quan-
tities of traffic 2–I think so. Take for instance a
five cwt. consignment instead of being loaded out-
side in the yard, where a full truck-load would
be loaded, in all probability it would have to be
taken into the shed and handled, and therefore
the terminal service would be increased propor-
tionately. -
3762. Let me take first of all the question of
accommodation. I suppose it is pretty obvious
that two waggons with two tons each in them.
would take up as much of your accommodation
space as one waggon with four tons in it?—
Obviously they would take double the space.
3763. Therefore when you have a small con-
signment, as regards station accommodation, you
might be taking up double the room ?—We
might.
3764. Double the room and double the number
of trucks?—Certainly. Well, the trucks are
paid for ; it is double the room that is the ter-
minal question. The trucks are paid for sepa-
rately, as well as the conveyance ; but the room
occupied is double in extent by two trucks of
what it is by one.
3765. With all the movement of trucks about
within your terminal accommodation you would
have double to do?—Yes, and the shunting and
marshalling would be increased in proportion.
3766. Then as regards the questiou of loading
and unloading, apart from the moving of trucks
about and the accommodation they require, you
point out that a smaller lot would require to be
dealt with in the shed ?–Yes.
3767. That must be a source of additional
expense 2–Certainly.
3768. May I take it generally that in your
view, both as regards rate-book (which question
we have discussed) and also comparing services
and accommodation with accommodation and
services actually supplied by the railway com-
panies, the terminal should follow the class 2–
That is my own distinct view, and I believe I can
be supported by the managers generally.
Cross-examined by Mr, Poyser.
3769. Just a question or two about this. . The
book that you produced here is a book of
actual charges 7–Yes; the rate-book in fact in
force for Bristol.
3770. With regard to the rates as at present
fixed, you are not obliged to distinguish your
terminal from your charge; at least you have
got no fixed terminal 2–If we are challenged we
have to explain; but the rate, as arranged and
issued,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
533
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
ssued, is one figure which includes the terminal
and the conveyance.
3771. But now then with regard to this ter-
minal from Exeter here in the schedule, the
amounts for conveyance rates and the amounts
for terminals are distinguished in the schedule to
the Act with which we are dealing 2—They are.
3772. And that distinction, taking the case of
station terminals, is based upon the different
accommodation required for the different sorts of
articles in the classification ?—No doubt.
3773. Take the instance of a ton of coals. The
present rate of that is 3 d. for the station terminal P
—Yes.
3774. I suppose the tom of coal would come
from a siding just in the same way as the
four tons would come from a siding 2— It all de-
pends. I do not suppose that the colliery would
load a ton of coal from their own siding for a
moment.
3775. Take a ton of bricks. A ton of bricks
would come just the same as four tons from a
siding, would it not —Nor would a brickmaker
send out a ton of bricks. A ton of bricks might
be carted into the station.
Mr. Hunter.] But bricks are in Class B, P
Mr. Poyser.
3776. Bricks are in Class B. ; but I am
trying to test this. (To the Witness.) Then in
Class A., do I understand that no one will send
less than four tons from their siding 2—I am
speaking of the ordinary course of business. In
my experience, a colliery proprietor studying his
own interest does not load a truck with a single
ton of coals; he prefers to load the truck to its
capacity.
3777. Do you suggest that nobody who sends
goods from Class A. would ever send less than
four tons from a siding 2—I have answered the
question with regard to coal.
any other article I will deal with it, because the
various articles are dealt with in various ways.
3778. Dealing with all the articles in Class A.
for a moment, do you suggest that nobody send-
ing goods from Class A. would ever send less than
four tons from a siding 2
Chairman.] Could you not distinguish some
one article ; the witness says each article varies,
therefore he cannot give you a general answer.
Mr. Poyser.
3779. I will ask you any one article in Class A.
if you will select one ; if you can say there is one
that goes in less than four-ton lots?—I say,
generally, that there are none of those articles
travelling in less than four-ton lots.
3780. Then you do not want this clause at
all ?—If none are sent, of course the clause be-
comes inoperative. *
3781. Then there is no reason for inserting it
at all according to your view 2–With that reser-
vation. -
3782. But supposing that, unknown to you,
there were some articles sent out in that Class A.
from a siding in one-ton lots or two-ton lots, will
you tell me why in that case you are entitled to
a greater terminal than if it is four tons; I mean
to say what greater accommodation do you
If you will name
Mr. Poyser—continued.
supply 2—Forgive me for saying that I think
there is a little confusion in the matter. You
assume that all these articles are sent out of a
private siding.
3783. No 7–If they are sent out of a private
siding there is no terminal chargeable. There
is only a charge for services, whatever they
may be.
3784. With regard to the unloading of the
article, will you tell me whether there is a dif-
ference according to the nature of the article in
the amount of tonnage rates that should be
charged for unloading, say coal 2–There is no
provision, if I remember rightly, for a charge
for loading or unloading coal.
3785. But you want to make a charge now of
3 d. per ton for loading and unloading according
to putting it up 2—it the railway company is
asked to do the service, they want power to make
a charge for it.
3786. You say only if they are asked ?–Cer-
tainly ; because the course of trade is that the
companies do not, as a rule, load or unload coal.
There are, of course, exceptions to that, where
coal is tipped into barges and ships. -
3787. With regard to the loading and unload-
ing, and with regard to the station terminal, do
you suggest that whereas four tons requires
accommodation to the amount of a shilling, a
single ton should also have the same amount of
station terminal 2–I do not quite follow your
question. I have pointed out that if we have
two consignments of two tons each —
3788. Will you try and understand the ques-
tion. If there are four tons delivered at a
station, do you suggest that one ton of the same
article requires the same amount of accommoda-
tion as the four tons 2—I say that if the four tons
were delivered in four separate lots of a ton each
undoubtedly they would require the room of four
trucks instead of one.
3789. I will take your instance, that is to say,
four separate lots of one ton. You would get
then a station terminal of 4 s. ; whereas if it were
delivered in one lot, you would get 1s. ?—And
we should provide accommodation for that.
3790. But I understood you to say that four
tons were delivered in seperate lots, they would
require four times the accommodation of one ton?
—Yes.
3791. We know four tons is a l s.
terminal at 3 d. a ton 2–Yes.
3792. Then four tons, you suggest, would
require 4 s, for loading and unloading if delivered
separately 2–It would follow the ton terminal
whatever it is.
3793. One shilling per ton in Class C. ----
Yes.
3794. Do you suggest that it would require
4 s, for the four tons separately?—Certainly. We
have to provide the accommodation, and we have
to provide the truck. The detention, supervision,
shunting, and marshalling, and all the services
are proportionately increased if we have to deal
with four trucks as against one.
3795. Shunting and marshalling are included
in the conveyance rate ; the only thing you can
charge for in the station terminal is station
accommodation ?– And such services as are
common to all traffic.
station
(81.)
3796. Such
3 X 3
534
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
27 May 1891.]
Mr. Poyser—continued.
3796. Such services other than those included
in the conveyance rate 2–Yes. s • . •
3797. Taking that instance, you say that it is
fair (it is for the Committee to judge) that for
four separate tons there should be a º of
4 s.; whereas if it is delivered in one truck the
station terminal would only be 1 s. ?—I submit
that.
Mr. Hanbury.
3798. You are assuming four tons carried in
separate trucks?—Yes. -
Mr. Poyser. -
3799. Why do you assume, with regard to
these articles, that they are all to be carried in a
separate truck – If you have two consignments
of a ton of coal each, it would be very difficult to
separate them out for the satisfaction of the
trader. -
3800. I should think nothing would be easier
in the world if they have to be weighed out.
Take these articles in Class B. ; there are a
large number of articles in Class B. that can go
together in the same truck?–But as a rule they
do not come together, you know.
3801. But there is nothing in the world to
prevent them * w
Chairman.] But, as a matter of fact, the
witness says they do not come together.
Mr. Poyser.
3802. There is iron and a large number of
things there; there is nothing incompatible in
themselves with their going in the same truck #
—-You could not put china clay and manure
together. º -
3803. No, you could not put chima clay and
manure together; perhaps you would not
attempt it?—You would not put bricks and
manure together. As a matter of fact the
articles do not travel together.
3804. Do you never pack more than one Con-
signment of these articles in Class A. and Class
E. in one truck 2–I should almost say never.
3805. Every consignment in Class B. has to
have a separate truck, you say?—I am speaking
of the course of trade. {
3806. Is that the course of trade 7–All these
articles are large consignments in themselves,
taking one truck. o
38ö7. But I am taking the small consign-
ments 2—It is very rare indeed that we get two
articles of this class which we can load together
at the same station for the same destination.
3808. You can start them together, can you
not ?–It is no use, if they have to be taken out
at an intermediate point.
3809. Do you not drop them on the road?—
Not articles of this kind.
3810. Do you wish the Committee to believe
that the course of trade is such that none of the
articles in Class B. are packed together when
they come in small consignments?—I say that
every article in Class B. as a rule travels by
itself, and that very rarely are there two articles
of this Class B, going from the same station to
the same station.
3811. But they often start together, and are
dropped on the way?—Not articles in Class B.
3.812. None of them —No, the articles that
Mr. Poyser—continued.
are dropped on the way are small consignments
of general merchandise, such as a crate of earthen-
ware, or a cask of wine, or a case of wine, or
articles of that kind which can be loaded together
and are distributed in the course of the journey.
3813. But then, with regard to this station
accommodation that you have spoken of for one
truck and two trucks, is that the only difference;
is there not much more accommodation required
for unloading things that are in the higher classes,
like feathers or flowers or light weighing articles
of that description, than for these articles in
Classes A. and B. 2–They, of course, are going
to a shed and are obliged to be dealt with under
cover, and . I have already said that we might
have a small consignment; or I will assume that
we have a small cónsignment of 5 cwt. or 10 cwt.
We should in all probability deal with that in a
shed, because that would be a more convenient
way of dealing with it than in the yard.
3814. If you had 5 cwt. or 10 cwt. of coal, do
you think you would deal with that in a shed 2–
That is putting a case which never occurs. I
would rather deal with a practicable case.
3815. The articles in Class A. and Class B. I
am suggesting to you are unloaded in the open,
and it does not matter to you (whether they are
five tons or ten tons) whether they are unloaded
in the open or not? — But I have explained to
you why there is more station accommodation
given for small lots than for full truck loads.
3816. Then the terminal is fixed with regard
to the sheds and with regard to securing the
goods in the sheds in these higher classes 2–Not
alone. g -
3817. That is one of the elements P – That is
one of the elements; as I say, not alone.
3818. That element you wish to do away with,
and to claim a higher terminal because it is a
small quantity ?—All we desire to do is to con-
tinue the existing practice, which has worked
without objection as long as I can remember;
that fle terminal follows the class.
3819. With regard to that work of yours, there
are three rates down, actual rates for these goods;
three quantities I mean for coals, three charges 2
–No, there is only one rate for coal in lots of
four tons and upwards.
3820. Then there is another rate P – There is
another rate for the next class.
3821. For coal 2–..Not for coal.
3822. Is there not for each article a distinctive
figure?—No. * -
3823. Is it only a reference to the class : —
That is all. -
3824. Then if there is not a distinct figure for
each of these articles, I do not understand that
the difficulty is here, beccause it is only the one
figure that we want to alter now P-- I may ex-
plain to you, as I endeavoured to explain before,
that this column which represents the rate for a
mineral class is for 4-ton lots and upwards.
Assuming a smaller quantity than four tons, then
the next column rate would apply, because,
if the terminal is to vary according to the quan-
tity, we must have three columns in lieu of that
OD.C.
3825. But now you are obliged to have an
additional column in which to set out the termi-
mals, are you not ?–No.
3826. Not
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
535
27 May 1891.]
Mr LAMBERT.
{ Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
3826. Not under Section 33 °--No. I take it
that we shall quote our rates as we have done
hitherto, comprehensively in one rate ; because
the pnblic do not care to know how much is for
terminal, and how much for conveyance; they
simply want to know what is the gross rate for
their traffic. Then if we are challenged we shall
have to set out the component parts of the
rate.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
3827. As I understand it, your objection,
founded upon your rate-book, and the existing
mode of charge, depends upon the increased in-
convenience to the company : to you, as the
manager?—No, upon the confusion that would
arise to the public. -
3828. You are not putting it mainly upon the
ground of the additional inconvenience of stating
the alteration in your rate-book 2–No doubt that
is a substantial objection ; but I venture to say
that the public would also be confused by the
quotation of various rates.
3829. The public would have a right to defi-
nite charges then ; it is incumbent upon you
to make those definite charges?—Yes. -
3830, And simply you are putting it before
the Committee as a matter of , increased in:
convenience in keeping accounts?—I have said
that that is a substantial reason ; but the public
will be affected in the same way as ourselves.
3831. The issue, beyond that point, is just
this, is it not, that you are proposing not only
that you should get an increased conveyance
rate upon the shifting of Class A. into Class B.
and so on, but that the same principle should
apply to the terminals?—That the terminals
should follow the class.
3832. You know that is not the principle
adopted in the Board of Trade Provisional Order?
-—I have heard what Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
said. -
3833. Therefore you are proposing to depart
from that principle in your new proposal?—We
are simply asking to continue our present
practice.
3834. You are proposing to depart from the
principle that the Board of Trade has laid down
in the Provisional Order 2—I take it to that
extent.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
3835. Is there anything in your rate-book to
show that when less than four tons is sent the
increase is on the rate only, and not on the
terminal; in other words, you do not separate
rate and terminal?—We do not.
3836. So that there is nothing here to show that
the increase is on the rate only, and not on the
terminal?—The rates here are inclusive rates.
3837. So that there is absolutely nothing to
show what is the increase upon the terminal, and
what is the increase upon the rate 2–No.
3838. You simply say that at present it is so
much rate; there is nothing in the figures to
show that ?
Chairman.] The witness has said that over
and over again,
M. Shaw.
3839. What is the difficulty, or what would be
the difficulty, if the Committee pass this scheme
of the Board of Trade, putting one column for
rates and one column for terminals, to prevent
you, if anybody is foolish enough to send 5 cwt.
of coal, from taking the late from the rate column
applicable to Class C., and the terminal from the
other column applicable to Class A. 2–1 should
be very sorry to be the invoicing clerk who had
to contend with that. If you had any idea of
the pressure under which the invoicing of traffic
is carried on you would see that it would be
impossible. What we should have to do, if that
were carried out, would be that we should have
to furnish every station with a list of rates for
every contingency ; and that would be a most
formidable undertaking.
3840. Is not this document (holding up the
Schedule) a list of rates and a maximum power P
—No doubt; but that is for the purpose of
testing our rates as I understand. If a trader
comes to you, and asks for a rate, he does not
ask how much is for conveyance and how much
is for terminals; he asks, “What are you going
to charge me from a to b for certain consign-
ments of goods?”
3841. All I asked you was, what is the diffi-
culty if anybody sends you half a ton of coal,
and asks what is your station terminal in looking
out the rate applicable to Class C. You have it
all here. It is a very simple calculation : ter-
minal, Class A.; conveyance, Class C. P-I have
explained that it will not be possible for us.
Mr. Pope.] It may not be the rate.
Mr. Shaw.] That is the maximum power.
Mr. Pope." But it does not follow that it is the
actual rate. -
Chairman (to Mr. Shaw).] You are speaking
now of half a ton of coal.
Mr. Shaw.] I gave the instance of half a ton
of coal.
Chairman.] But is half a ton of coal ever sent?
Mr. Shaw.] The railway companies say——
Chairman.] I want to ask the witness.
Witness.] No, it is not.
Mr. Shaw.
3842. Just one more question. The terminals
for the higher classes are based upon very expen-
sive machinery sometimes, are they not ?–Yes.
3843. In Class C. the terminal would be
based upon a much more extravagant class of
station than is necessary for coal, for instance 2–
No ; I take it that coal would require sidings to
accommodate the trucks. -
3844. Open yards 2—And the same would
apply to timber.
3845. You said just now, in regard to these
small quantities, that you would have to take
them into a shed 2–I said that it might happen
that if such a circumstance were to arise as that
a small quantity of any article in Class A. were
sent, in all probability it would be dealt with in
the shed, and not in the open.
3846. Coal would certainly not be dealt with
inside 2–I told you that we never had five hun-
dredweight or 10 hundredweight of coal.
(81.)
3 X 4 3847. Is
536
MINUTES OF F.VI DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Shaw—continued.
3847. Is there anything in Class A. that would
be sent in small consignments of five hundred-
weight or 10 hundredweight?–Assuming, for
the sake of argument, that a sample of any of
these articles were sent, that would not be dealt
with in the same way as a full consignment.
Mr. Hanbury.
3848. But, as a matter of fact, I take it it is
very seldom that any of these articles are sent in
these small quantities?—Rarely, if ever ; as a
rule they are sent in four-ton lots. Really, the
arrangement has followed the course of the
trade.
3849. If so, why do the railway companies lay
so much stress upon this point, if in practice it
is found to be so seldom that these small quanti-
ties are sent 2–We should have to incur a large
amount of labour of clerkage in preparing rates
to meet a possible contingency, which we desire
to be spared.
3850. Is that your sole difficulty, the difficulty
about preparing a rate 2—It is an enormous diffi-
culty, I can assure you.
3851. In practice, if you got over that diffi-
culty of preparing the rates, it would not affect
you ?–I do not suppose the money result would
be very large; but it would be an enormous
question to issue rates to meet all the possible
circumstances.
Mr. Humter.
3852. But I do not understand at all how
your actual rate is to be affected by the question
whether the maximum is to include 2 s. 8d. for
terminals, or only to include so much for con-
veyance P--We must issue to the stations the
rates that are necessary for their business.
3853. The actual charges?–Yes.
3854. This is the maximum altogether ?–No
doubt; but in some cases, so far as we can see,
we shall require the maximum, and, therefore,
we shall be bound to issue the three sets of rates
to the stations. -
Mr. Poyser.] Then they can enter them in the
book.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps. .
3855. But if the terminal did not follow the
rate you would have differing maxima according
to what terminal you applied ?—Certainly.
3856. Would you, as a matter of business,
have, as regards actual charges, to consider these
differing maxima in the different classes 2—We
should.
3857. And I understand you to say that in
order that you should keep your charges within
appropriate maxima you would require to have
additional columns in the rate book 2–Yes; and
every rate would have to be tested. Whenever
this legislation is finished we shall have to test
every rate in our books to see how far it is within
the maximum rate.
3858. And you will have to test it with regard
to what I call these maxima unless you keep the
terminal with the class?—Exactly.
3859. With regard to Class A., as a matter of
business, consignments of less than four tons are
seldom sent you say ?—Very rarely.
3860. Does the same apply to Class B. ?–Not
to such an extent; but in Class B. the articles
are usually sent in full truck loads of four tons
and upwards.
Mr. Poyser.] That is entirely the reverse of
the argument yesterday.
Lord Houghton.
3861. Supposing that to be so, these provisions
are hardly needed at all. Why not strike out
the words altogether. A higher charge-for a
smaller quantity would hardly be needed at all if
it was never sent 2–We have simply endorsed
the existing practice which has been found to
work satisfactorily on both sides, both to the
public and to the companies.
3862. The point is not a very large one 2–In
the money result it is not large I confess; but
in the labour I can see a very enormous
difficulty.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, is re-called ; and further Examined.
Mr. Saunders.
3863. I THINK I may say that the only ques-
tion here under discussion, to which l will ask
you to turn your attention, is whether for small
quantities below two tons in the several classes,
when they are moved up to the next class but
one higher, the terminal should be the same as
the class into which they are moved, or whether
it should be separate from that and at a lower
class than the class into which they are moved ;
have you turned you attention to that question ?
-—Yes.
3864. What is your opinion upon it 2-—I am
very clearly of opinion that the terminal should
follow the class, and for these reasons: for the
reason that additional expense is imposed upon
the companies by the receipt or carriage of small
quantities of these low class articles. If we have
Mr. Saunders—continued.
a truck of four tons carrying four or five tons,
we get a terminal of so much per ton, say 3 d.
If we carry only two tons of that same article,
all the terminal expenses in shunting, probably
with a horse and with a man, all the occupation
of the ground, the removal of that truck
when it is emptied, are precisely the same as
if the truck contained four tons. Consequently
the actual cost to the company of the small con-
signments is equal to that of the larger; and we
should only be paid if we received the terminal
of the higher class, because that covers the
practical cost of moving the bulk, the load, and
truck. There are some of the articles in Class
A., and many of the articles in Class B., that do
come in less weights than four tons ; and, as the
same principle applies to Class B. as to can A.,
all ll
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
537
27 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Saunders—continued.
I am happily able to put instances before the
Committee where articles in Class B. have been
actually carried in very much smaller weights
than the limit to the class. Now, bricks,
I have cases here of 6 cwt ; 1 ton 5 cwt.
(they are in Class B.); 12 cwt. ; 1 ton 3 cwt.
Creosote, 1 ton 4 cwt. ; 3 tons 4 cwt. Rock
salt, common slates, and stone in the rough,
all instances of consignments less than the mini-
mum assigned to the class. The company does
not load or unload those ; the truck has to be
put in a place where the trader can reach it, and
can unload it; and when it is done with, emptied,
it has to be removed. If we were limited to
the terminal of the lower class, it is quite clear
that we should not be actually repaid for the
physical labour of bringing the truck to the
place where it can be dealt with because of the
small weight in each truck; and, the terminal
being calculated at the rate per ton, we should
only get practically 3 d. or 4 d. in some cases
(well, 6 d.) where we have to move a truck,
occupy the ground, provide the road, and
remove it again when emptied. I have not a
doubt, therefore, that the principle is right that
where there is a case of reduced load, the ter-
minal, which is calculated on the tonnage rate,
should follow the class in which the goods are
paid for.
3865. Taking the two heads which are mentioned
in the maximum station terminal clause, as the use
of accommodation provided (that is the one head),
and the duties undertaken by the company, for
which no other provision is made in the schedule,
at the terminal station, you say that under both
those heads a larger requirement will be made
upon the Company in respect of small consign-
ments than of large consignments; the difference
being between two tons and four tons?—Yes, in
proportion to the reduction in tonnage.
3866. And the one as a rule will always
follow the other ?---The cost will be increased al-
most mathematically in proportion to the reduc-
tion in tonnage.
3867. Then in regard to the system of pay-
ment, you can see no reason why the station
terminals should not follow the class?—I say
distinctly and clearly that it ought to do so in
order to repay the company for the expense
incurred.
3868. Now, we will take another head in that
matter, another point. With regard to the rate-
book, probably you heard what Mr. Lambert
said with regard to the necessity of quoting extra
rates, involving the alteration of the terminals?
—Yes.
3869. Do you agree that it would be con-
venient that you should have in your rate-book
different rates, the terminal being the only item
of variance, from the ordinary class rate 2–Cer-
tainly it is indispensable. Taking it in the way
in which we want it, there would be simply the
ordinary Class A. rate and the Class B. rate,
and a clerk would know that consignments, say, of
less than two tons of the A. Class would be
charged the Class B. rate ; he would have no-
thing further to do than to take the Class B. rate
for the two tons. If he has to calculate the
separate terminal, we shall have to give him
Mr. Saunders—-continued.
another column showing two tons of the A. Class
at the Class B. rate, with the Class A. terminal.
3870. Then the same would apply to the C.
Class with the Class B. terminal 2–Precisely.
So far as Classes A. and B. are concerned, there
probably is not much money in it, but this ques-
tion raises a principle which may be applied in
regard to every article in the Classes B. and C.
3871. And taking those three classes, there
will be the Class A. rate, that will be in one
column, the Class B. rate in another column, the
Class C. rate in a third column, the Class B.
rate with Class A. terminal a fourth column, and
the Class C. rate with Class B. terminal a fifth
column 2–Yes. -
3872. Practically, not only raising the columns
but the rates which would have to be quoted for
each article that may be carried in small lots of
two or four tons, as three is increased to five 2–
That is clear that is what we should have to do.
But I want not to put it so much upon that
ground as upon the actual hardship that it would
be upon the company to be paid at the lower
terminal per ton in the case of the smaller ton-
nage when the same work is unavoidably in-
volved in dealing with the truck.
Chairman.]. Before there is any cross-exami-
nation, I should like to ask Mr. Courtenay Boyle
a question upon what has rather appeared to the
Committee to require a little explanation. The
note on page 20 says, “merchandise comprised
in Class A. if sent in quantities of less than
four tons.” That would rather look as if, when
that was put down, the Board of Trade thought
that the terminal ought to follow the class. Now,
as I understand, the idea is that it should follow
the article.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I forget who addressed
the Committee, whether it was Lord Balfour or
myself upon the point; but we are both of the
same opinion. This particular point had not
been raised ; it did not occur to the Board of
Trade that in raising a small consignment from
Class A. to Class B., from Class B. to Class C.,
and from Class C. to Class 1 (Mr. Saunders
did not refer to that), in raising small consign-
ments from class to class respectively, they were
altering not only the conveyance rate but the ter-
minal. That point had not been raised in any of
the discussions, or any of the representations to
the Board of Trade; it came as a new point
when it was raised before the Committee.
The Committee were kind enough to ask
the Board of Trade what they thought
about it. Lord Balfour and myself consulted
together, and we thought that there was a great
deal in the point, namely, that they should not
raise the whole charge, that is to say, the con-
veyance and the terminal charge, but should only
raise the conveyance.
Chairman.] But that would be contrary to the
paragraph at the end of Class B.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It is an amendment; it
is an alteration in the schedule undoubtedly.
Chairman.] Then, “merchandise comprised in
Class A., if sent in quantities of less than four
tons,” would get the ter...inal of Class B. according
to the schedule.
(81.)
3 Y Mr.
538
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY
| Continued.
ass-
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Certainly, according to
the amendment which is now being considered, it
being considered because it was represented to
the Committee that that was unfair.
Chairman.] When the Board of Trade drew up
the schedule, did they contemplate that “mer-
chandise comprised in Class A., if sent in
quantities of less than four tons,” would be taken
out of the terminal charge of Class A. and put
in Class B.
Mr. Cou, tenay Boyle.] That point had not
been suggested to them ; it was not raised before
them.
Chai, man.] It had not occurred to them.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.} It had not occurred to
them. I think it ought to have, but it had not
occurred to them ; it was a new point.
Chairman.] As a matter of fact, it had not
occurred to the Board of Trade when they put
that note into the schedule, that such would be
the effect of it. r
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] All the arguments
addressed to the Board of Trade, so far as my
recollection goes, in favour of raising small con-
signments from one class to another were all
arguments based upon conveyance and not upon
terminal.
Chairman.] Now the learned counsel can cross-
examine Mr. Oakley.
Cross-examined by Mr. Poyser.
3873. ] will just ask a few questions about
this. You were telling us about moving the
tonnage, one ton and two tons, and so on; that
might vary, and affect the rate that should be
charged for terminals at the station, and the
quantity ?—Yes, because the terminal is calcu-
lated, not by the truck, but on the tonnage rate;
and if the truck is very lightly loaded the propor-
tion which we should receive of the 1 s. terminal
might only be 3 d., 4 d., or 6 d., which would not
actually pay the cost of doing the work.
3874. But then your argument, if it is carried
out to its full extent as to a tonnage charge for
the terminal, is altogether erroneous.-You will
excuse me for avoiding a discussion of that.
3875. That is the logical result of your argu-
ment, that terminals should not be charged by
tonnage, but by truck, or whatever it may be 2–
I do not think I should object to any mode of
payment so long as it was sufficiently high.
3876. But your argument would be to the
effect that the tonnage rate is altogether a wrong
rate for calculating terminals 2–No, I do not put
it so high as that.
3877. With regard to this terminal, is not the
terminal charged for the accommodation actually
rendered ; is not that the basis of it !—Yes, cer-
tainly; the accommodationismeasured by the space
in the yard, the occupation of the rails, the time
they are occupied, and by the cost of the works
necessary to enable one of the public to reach the
truck with his cart.
3878. Was not the basis on which these station
terminals were fixed, the accommodation pro-
vided at the station for the different classes of
goods, that is to say, shed goods, as opposed to
yard goods?—Yes; 1 am referring especially to
yard goods.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
3879. But there was that distinction made as
the basis of this charge for each station terminal;
the distinction between shed goods and yard
goods 2—That was one of the elements of con-
sideration.
3880. That was the great distinction ?—I
think I drew it myself; that there were two
classes.
3881. With regard to this class, as it at pre-
sent stands, the effect of it is to put yard goods
up into the category of shed goods, with regard
to station accommodation ?—No.
3882. Take one ton now, and just tell me
whether, if one ton of bricks is conveyed to a
station, you admit that that is yard goods 2–
Those are yard goods. .
3883. Under this scheme, at the present
moment, would they not be charged 1 s. 6d. as
station terminal?—One shilling.
3883.” One shilling and sixpence 2–No, the
Class B. terminal is ls.
3884. But I am asking you about one ton of
bricks; you put that into Class C., and say that
because it is not two tons it must go up into
Class 1, so the charge will be 1 s. 6 d. 2–Yes, I
beg your pardon, you are speaking now of from
º B. to Class C., not from Class A. to Class
3885. Speaking of one ton of bricks, you admit
that they are yard goods?—Yes.
3886. Unless the class is altered the result will
be that yard goods will have to pay shed ter-
minal?-No, not yard goods; but a particular
consignment of one ton of bricks would have to
pay a higher terminal, because of the inordinate
expense imposed upon the company by reason of
the lightness of the load.
3887. You told me a moment ago they were
yard goods 2—Certainly.
3888. Then it is correct, as I say, a top of
yard goods would have to pay a shed terminal of
1 s. 6 d. 2–No, it is not described as a shed ter-
minal.
3889. I will call it the terminal, then 2.
Chairman.] You put a question and you must
take his answer. You put it as shed goods; Mr.
Oakley disputes that.
Mr. Poyser.
3890. You say it would have to pay a 1 s. 6d.
terminal 2–Yes.
3891. Is not the l s. 6 d. terminal the terminal
fixed for all classes of shed goods?—Yes.
3892. So that it would have to pay the same
terminal as shed goods 2—As high a terminal,
because, as I have just now said, of the inor.
dinate expense it imposes upon the Company ;
and for this reason, that it involves the whole of
a truck, whereas of shed goods one truck will take
the whole lot, three, four, to five tons, as the
case may be ; therefore you are only paying for
your unlucky one ton the same as the other more
expensive goods pay, because they are in larger
quantities.
3893. Do you say that one ton of these articles
in Class B. cannot be packed with other goods
in Class B. 2–Practically not. 8–5
3894. They require a separate truck 2–Y €S,
they come from different places, you see. A
brickyard
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
‘539
27 May 1891.]
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
brickyard is not a place where you can get
other goods to pack with the bricks.
3895. And they require a separate truck?—
Inevitably.
3896. Then you are entitled to charge a
minimum truck load in that case ?–No. Under
two tons it would be paid at the higher rate ;
and all I ask is that the higher rate for con-
veyance should be accompanied by this higher
rate for terminal; for the same reason that
justifies the higher rate for conveyance.
3897. Just one other question about keeping
the accounts. The terminal for each station has
to be a fixed terminal from that particular
station, has it not ?—It will be for all stations :
the same terminals will be applicable to all
stations under the schedule.
3898. Then you could have one entry, and
that would do for all the stations on your
line 2—But you really do not appreciate the
enormous amount of preparation that has
to be made to supply a station with the
rates that it has to charge. A clerk at the
station has not the time, and he could not be
trusted to calculate the rate for every convey-
ance ; he has the rate sent to him from head-
quarters showing the conveyance as it will be in
the future, the station to station, or terminal,
and what has to be charged for loading or un-
loading where done. All that has to be prepared
and sent to the clerk; so that if he does not
know from daily practice what he has to charge
he goes to the book and sees in a line.
3899. Then you are going to send him the
conveyance rate and terminal rate, besides the
loading and unloading 2—I am afraid we shall
have to do that. I would not do it if I could
help it.
3900. You would not do it if you could help
it I am quite certain ; but I am afraid you will
have to do it anyhow 2–Yes.
3901. Then how is that this is any increased
burden 2– For this reason: that taking the
article of bricks in Class B. I shall have a rate
with one terminal, and when I have less than
the authorised quantity I shall require, as I
suggest, to have a rate with another terminal.
3902. But you told me a moment ago that you
were going to send him down the rate for con-
ueyance, and the rate for terminal, why cannot
he add the Class A. rate to the Class B. terminal
just as simply. It would be perfectly impossible
for him to do anything of the sort; he has to
look at his book C. 27s., and post it to invoice.
Lord Belper.
3903. I understood that the rates in the rate-
book were the rates actually charged 2–Yes.
3904. Then there would be no necessity for put-
ting in the rate-book the items under the different
heads. All you have to do is to prove, if inquiry
is made, that your rates are within the maximum
charges chargeable by law -–Quite so. I should
not, as I said just now, give the detailed informa-
tion on every rate unless I was legally obliged to
do so; but if I am obliged to do so that is the
inevitable consequence. If not I should only
have to supply him with one additional rate.
3905. Then so far as the clerk at the station
goes, all you have got to do is to give him a rate
Lord Belper—continued.
which, when it is analysed, will have to include
these different charges, and will have to be
pº to be under the total maximum charge 2
- L. GS.
3906. Therefore you need not keep them under
different heads 2—But I shall have to give them
two different heads.
3907. The point I want to make clear is that
your own rate-books, the complications of which
seems to be made rather a point of, only contain
the actual rate, and not the heads of all the
maximum rates under separate heads 2—Ouite
so. Now we will limit it to entry in the rate-
book of the actual rate. I should have under
Class B. to have two actual rates per ton, one
containing the ordinary class rate for Class B.,
and another containing the total of the convey-
ence rate for Class B. and the terminal of Class
A. Therefore, I should have for the same
article in Class B. to have two rates.
3908. You have to do that now, because for a
lower rate there is a lower conveyance rate 2–
Yes.
3909. Therefore, it will not add to your own
rate-book in any way, it will add to the compli-
cation of making out the terminal if you are
asked for it by a trader?—Quite so.
Re-examined by Mr. Saunders.
3910. Is that quite so. Will you have to go
beyond the maximum of the lower rate 2—You
will have to give a separate rate clearly for your
Class B. with the ordinary terminal, and for the
Class B. with the Class A. terminal. But Lord
Belper points out out to me we should have to
prepare that beforehand, and that it would not
necessarily be the work of the clerk at the station
at the moment of the consignment. That is
right. -
3911. Still, that would involve an extra entry
of an extra rate in your book 2–Yes.
Earl of Belmore.
3912. Supposing that you have to deal with
the contingency of its being in three classes,
would you have put three columns were you now
put one in the book you send to the clerk 2–
Yes, I should ; because I should have three
separate tonnage rates, one for ordinary tonnage
rate, one for the Class A. tonnage ; and in case
of Class C., one for Class C. tonnage.
3913. And at present you only make one
column 2—That is all.
Lord Belper.
3914. Thai you would have to do whether
this amendment passes or not?—I think not, as
you will see in a moment. I have got the
Class B. tonnage rate now, and I have got the
Class A. tonnage rate. If the Class A. load is
less than two tons it is charged the Class B.
tonnage rate ; therefore the man has got the rate
in his books without any addition, But if I am
to alter the terminal of the Class B. I must pro-
vide an additional column showing the Class B.
rate with the Class A. terminal.
3915. I understand that the rate-book will be
drawn up on the Class A. terminal and the
Class B. conveyance rate instead of the Class B
terminal and the class B. conveyance rate; and’
3 Y 2 therefore
540 z
TBE JOINT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE
27 May 1891.]
\
Mr. OAKLEY.
—º
Continued.
Lord Belper—continued.
therefore, so far as the rate book goes, there will
be no more items ?—There will be another
column.
Chairman.
3915. As you would draw it up now, you
would have your rate book with the Class B.
conveyance rate and the Class B. terminal P-
Yes.
3917. That would be one column 2–Yes.
3918. If this amendment were accepted, you
would then have to add to that the Class B. con-
veyance rate with the Class A. terminal; and
that would give you another column 2 – That
would require another column.
Earl of Belmore.
3919. And when you come to Class C. and the
higher classes you would want another column P
—Yes. *
3920. So that when the clerk now has to take
a higher rate he looks at the column and takes
the rate there 2–Yes. -
Chairman.
3921. In the one case it would be Class B.
whole rate, and in the other case Class B. con-
veyance rate, coupled with Class A. terminal 2–
Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
3922. That could only apply to the Class B.
rate where it is at its full maximum ? — Not
necessarily.
3923. Surely if the Class B. rate is below the
maximum, no difficulty would arise ?—Then that
would be simply that I was intending to charge
for these lower quantities the maximum rate. I
should not want to do that. I should prefer to
keep them in the same relation as the higher class
rate.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cºpps.]. That is all the evidence we
propose to call for the railway companies.
Mr. Poyser.] I have only a very few words
to say in reply upon this amendment.
regard to the position of the affair as it stands
now, the railway companies have tried to depart
from the very fair light in which this matter was
looked at by Mr. Pope when he began the dis-
cussion. I understand my learned friend has
answered on behalf of the railway companies.
Mr. Pope.] I have not taken any part in this
discussion.
Mr. Poyser.] I do not mean you, but the
counsel on behalf of the railway companies. I
was saying that my learned friend, Mr. Pope,
looked at this matter in such a fair light at the
beginning, but now two railway managers have
been called to try to disabuse the minds of the
Committee of the fair view displayed by Mr. Pope
at the beginning. Mr. Lambert, who was the
first witness, said accounts were everything, and
the money did not matter; and the last witness
says that the money is everything, and accounts
do not matter. Taking the evidence of these
two witnesses, who are both witnesses against
me, together, I think we may arrive at the con-
With
clusion that the fair view, that which Mr. Pope
took at the beginning, is the correct one.
Chairman.] I think you had better leave out
Mr. Pope.
Mr. Poyser.] I will leave out Mr. Pope. I
say that conveyance is one matter, and should be
treated as one matter, and it is not right that the
railway companies should take for things like
bricks, that only use a yard, the same terminal
as they charge for a ton of such things as feathers
or artificial flowers, that use all the higher and
more expensive machinery. Mr. Lambert admits
that they must separate conveyance from ter-
minals, and he admits that that must be deter-
mined at the station; so that the only thing that
the clerk has to do is to add A. conveyance rate
to B. terminal, which he has before his eyes at
the time he makes the charge, if it is above the
maximum.
Mr. Saunders.] May I call your Grace's atten-
tion, with regard to the question of the terminal
being the full sum, to the fact that the proviso
added by the Committee to Clause 3 deals with
that: “Provided that in case of dispute the
actual sum chargeable as station terminal in
respect of each consignment shall be such reason-
able sum within the maximum as shall be deter-
mined by an arbitrator to be appointed by the
Board of Trade.”
Mr. Poyser.] That is to say, arbitration is less
trouble than an alteration in the book,
Mr. Saunders.] The Committee will observe
it may be less than the maximum.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
Some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee accept the amend-
ment as applied to Class A., but this is not to
be considered as binding them with reference to
the other classes. I will read the amendment
which we have agreed to. This comes at
page 17, after line 35, add “Where merchandise
specified in Class A. is consigned in quantities
of less than four tons and not less than two tons,
the company may charge for such consignment
the conveyance rates applicable to Class B., and
if less than two tons the conveyance rates applic-
able to Class C.”
Mr. Pope.] Then the next amendment will be
an amendment which arise on Class I., with
reference to fruit, and, therefore, before you
come to that, in all probability we must discuss
the similar clause at the end of Class C.
Mr. Poyser.] Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Class B. and Class C.
Chairman.] I ought to have added Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace's
Classes A. and B.
Chairman.] What we have dealt with (and
my colleagues will object if I am stating that
which they do not agree with) was Class A:
articles.
Mr. Pope.] Very good. Then your Grace
has accepted the note to Class A., with the
modification that you read as to two tons, which
was practically proposed by my learned friend
Mr. Poyser.
decision settles
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
541
27 May 1891.
Chairman.] Yes, that is the note at the end of
Class A.
Earl of Camperdown.] And the word “con-
veyance" limits the amendment of yesterday on
Class A. to conveyance alone, and does not grant
the terminal of Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so; that obviously is the
meaning of my learned friend's use of the word
“conveyance.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The amendment of
yesterday had reference to Classes C. and B. I
understand that your Lordships decide only to
touch Class A., so that it does not touch the
amendment of yesterday.
Mr. Pope..] If my Lord Camperdown will
forgive me, Mr. Courtenay Boyle is strictly
accurate because there was no amendment pro-
posed as to the maximum load in Class A. ; it
was conceded on all hands that the maximum
load must be four tons, and the amendment of
yesterday extended the limit in Class B. from
two tons to four tons, and this amendment only
affected Class A., and raising it to the conveyance
rate of Class B., does not touch the amendment of
yesterday at all. What really we have to deal
with now is in what form shall a similar provision
appear at the end of Class B., or whether it is to
appear at all.
Mr. Hanbury.] We have taken it in a different
form really ; we have taken it in a note at the
end of Class A. instead of in the Board of Trade
form.
Mr. Pope.] Clearly that is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] We have settled the
Class A. articles, and it is for you to consider
whether you will address to us any arguments
with regard to Class B. articles.
Mr. Pope.] I will leave it to my learned friends
who have argued it so successfully.
Chairman.] What is it that you propose 2
Mr. Cripps.] With regard to the difference
between Class A. and Class B., your Grace, the
only point upon which I will address the Com-
mittee now is this: Taking Mr. Lambert's and Mr.
Oakley's evidence, it was that as regards articles
in Class A. the matter was of less importance,
because they were seldom sent in consignments of
less than four tons, but that as regards Class B.
Mr. Oakley gave a number of instances where
articles in Class B. were sent in consignments of
less than two tons, and therefore, as regards Class
B., he pointed out that not only on the question
of the rate-book, but also on the question of actual
consignments, this matter was a matter of consider-
able importance to the railway companies; and
that except on that question (that is to say, that
the actual consignments of less than two tons as
regards Class B. were considerable, but the
actual consignments of less than four tons as re-
gards Class A. were inconsiderable) there would
be no great difference of principle. As regards
the general matter which was discussed in re-
ference to Class A., I do not know whether
your Grace would like to hear Mr. Oakley
further upon that point, because it was a point of
distinction which he drew. And when we get to
Class C. and to Class I. and the other classes, the
matter is still more important. It was in Class
A. that, as regards actual consignments, Mr.
Lambert and Mr. Oakley pointed out that it was
rather a question of the rate-book than a question
of actual traffic; but in Class B., Mr. Oakley
pointed out the great importance of it in regard
to actual consignments; and in Class C. and
Class I. the matter will become still more im-
portant as regards consignments actually sent.
If your Grace would like to hear Mr. Oakley
further upon that point I will call him.
Chairman.] That is upon Class C. and
Class I?
Mr. Cripps.] And Class B.
Mr. Poyser.] We have dealt entirely with
Classes A. and B. before, your Grace.
Chairman.] I think the Committee do not re-
quire more evidence upon this point; but they
would like to hear it argued (and perhaps Mr.
Poyser will commence) why the clause which has
been inserted at the end of Class A. should be
inserted at the end of Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Might I just say one word, your
Grace P It may have an effect on the discussion
which has been postponed, because as the class
at present stands, iron is included in Class B.,
and we have already had some evidence which
shows that as regards iron tubes there are con-
siderable quantities consigned in lots of less than
four tons, and therefore it might be that if we
failed to agree as to the adjustment of the classes,
the question might have to be brought up again,
supposing iron to be maintained in Class B., as
regards the short loading of that commodity.
Therefore I cannot help thinking that it would
be well to postpone the final decision upon Class
B. until we have arrived at a determination as to
the classification of iron in bulk. I hope that the
Committee may not be troubled with it ; but it
would be a pity that you should have the trouble
of discussing it now, and then have it re-opened
in the event of necessity arising.
Chairman.] Then I think we will postpone
any consideration of this, as Mr. Pope says there
is some difficulty.
Mr. Pope.] Then, your Grace, if that is so,
he next amendment, which is not either post-
poned or likely to be dealt with by agreement,
will be found on page 11. There you come to
Class I. That is a question, as you will see,
about fruit ; and that is a question which the
southern companies are so much more interested
in than the northern companies that I do not
propose to intervene in the discussion.
Mr. J.ittler.] Your Grace, I appear for the
South Eastern Company, and I am going to
undertake the argument on this question of fruit.
I will just say one word, and that is this, that
there is some little difficulty between rate and
class here, but we think that without going into
any question of rate, and reserving it to its
proper place, the fruit both in this and some of
the higher classes, when your Grace comes to
look at them, are not at all in appropriate com-
pany. The classes are of course a sort of family,
as it were, and there ought to be some consan-
guinity amongst them. Here we have such
things as chimney pots, earthenware, fireclay, in
proper vicinity with drain pipes, and then we
come to apples, gooseberries, and pears, and we
(81.)
3 Y 3 certainly
542
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.
certainly think that they are not matters that can
be conveniently dealt with in the the same class
in common. We propose in point of fact shortly,
I will not say it is absolutely accurate, but as
they are classified in the different classes, to
remove them one class up. We propose to
remove this class of fruit into Class II., that is to
say, to remove apples, gooseberries, and pears
into Class II. : and we propose to remove black-
berries, cherries, raspberries, strawberries, and
currants from Class II. to Class III., and to
remove fruit pulp in casks from Class II. to
Class III. Then with regard to the other fruits
we propose to remove certain very perishable kinds
from Class IJI. to Class V., and other kinds from
Class III. to Class IV.
Mr. Hunter.] I do not see apples in Class II.
Mr. Littler.] In the amendment.
Mr. Clifford.] Can we be supplied with copies
of this proposal -
Mr. Dittler.] Certainly,
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] May it be explained to
the Committee what is the classification that is
proposed ? It would help the Committee very
much.
Earl of Camperdown.] Apparently the amend-
ment is not put in that you wish to insert.
Mr. Littler.] I am afraid that is so ; that is an
oversight. But what is proposed, is on this little
paper that will be handed to those on the other side
(handing in the same). I think it would be better
before I say what I have to say, having said so
much, if you Grace were to allow me to call Mr.
Light, our goods manager, who will explain the
whole position.
There is another thing my learned friend Mr.
Worsley Taylor reminds me; there is also the
same argument; and the same points arise with
regard to hops; and as they are very much of the
same nature as fruit, I think probably the best
plan will be to give Mr. Light's evidence on both
points at once.
Mr. J A BEZ LIGHT is recalled; and Examined, as follows :
Mr. Littler.
3924. YOU are goods manager, are you not, of
the South-Eastern Railway Company ?—Yes.
3925. The South-Eastern, the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover, and the London and Brighton
Companies are in a somewhat different position,
and a considerably different position, from the
northern companies in this matter –Entirely so
as regards fruit.
3926. And partially so as regards hops?—Yes.
3927. Up to the present time I think you
have not for your local traffic, either you, the
Brighton Company, or the Chatham and Dover
Company, adopted the Clearing House Classifi-
cation, have you ?–No, neither of us.
3928. You have worked under a local classifi-
cation of your own 2–Yes.
3929. Would you just, as shortly as you can,
say how the general character, first, of the traffic
south of the Thames differs from the northern
goods traffic 2–The practice with the South-
Eastern Company, as also with the London,
Chatham, and Dover Company, has been
throughout to carry the whole of the fruit
packed in sieves, half-sieves, or quarter-sieves, at
a special rate per package, not per ton. If the
fruit is loaded in any other way than in these
particular sieves, then we charge the actual ton
weight. But of course we know pretty nearly
what the average weight of each package is, and
therefore we have taken great care in making the
charge per package to be within our present Par-
liamentary powers.
3930. The adoption of the Clearing House
Classification would in itself in a large number of
articles result in a reduction of your revenue,
would it not?—A very large reduction indeed
in our revenue. I should explain that at the
time when the general classification was first
considered, the southern companies had to look
and see what their positions would be by making
so large an alteration as the adoption of the
Clearing House Classification in lieu of their
local classification.
Chairman—continued.
3931. And they determined to adopt it in con-
sequence? –We ultimately arranged to adopt it,
of course foreseeing that a certain loss would
OCCUll’
3932. The Board of Trade Provisional Order
Classification still further reduces you ? – Yes.
3933. I think there are some 482 articles that
are below the Clearing House Classification ?—
Yes.
3934. I am not going to deal with how you
propose to meet some of those that will come
hereafter, but tell me with regard to fruit; you
carry, do you not, a very large quantity of fruit 2
—A very large quantity indeed.
3935. And the weight, of course, varies almost
as largely in fruit in different seasons as in any-
thing 2—The weight itself.
3936. And your receipts also, I think, vary
very much 3–Considerably so.
3937. Is it the fact that they are sometimes as
high as 24,000 l. and sometimes as low as 10,000 l.
in a season 2–Yes, they vary between those two
points. The average figure I might say is about
18,000 l. a year, or rather 18,000 l. in the season,
because the season is only a few months.
3938. You have described to the Committee
your system of charge. That has been in opera-
tion for the last 30 years, has it not ?—I believe
since the South Eastern Company existed.
3939. You have not increased your charges,
although your expenditure has considerably in-
creased ? — I cannot say that we have not
increased our charges during the last 46 years;
we have not increased them of late years.
3940. How long ago is it since the last in-
crease ?—I think the last increase was made some
16 years ago.
3941. The whole of your Acts of Parliament,
except your Croydon and Oxted Act, which is
very immaterial to your system, give the power
to charge the highest class for fruit *—Yes; and
the Croydon and Oxted gives us 4 d. per ton per
mile.
3942. The
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
543
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Mr. Littler—continued
3942. The Provisional Order, as the Commit-
tee see from the table, classifies them generally
in the firt, second and third classes 2–Yes.
3943. Just tell me, before we go into a com-
parison of rates, is it the fact that the traffic, in
addition to being uncertain in the whole year, is
irregular from day to day in its weight and
quantity ?—That is so. For instance, under
ordinary circumstances, the sendings on Friday
night for Saturday morning will be very con-
siderably more than, say, on Wednesday. I may
tell you, as an idea of the way in which it varies,
that on a Saturday we might have from 180 to
200 teams in the markets, and on the following
Monday morning we may not have more than 25
Or 30.
3944. Still it is necessary for you to maintain
a staff, with regard to teams and other matters,
sufficient for the heaviest days?—The whole of
the staff has to be maintained throughout the
week to meet the maximum requirements.
3945. Then, again, a great part of the traffic
is from the country to London, not even from
One country station to another, nor from London
back again –There is absolutely nothing done
from London to the country.
3946. And very little from station to station
in the country 7—Scarcely anything at all.
3947. Is it the fact that very frequently the
empty trucks have to be worked empty to the
place from whence the fruit has to come 2—It is
not an unusual thing for us to have to work
trucks from the extreme end of our line, say,
from Dover to Paddock Wood, which is 40 miles,
and we have frequently had to send special trains
away from London empty to load the fruit. The
difficulty is that it is impossible to tell, after all
the arrangements we may make, what the send-
ings will be on the following day.
3948. Is it not a fact that a very large pro-
portion of that fruit has to be worked by special
trains?—That is very frequently the case.
3949. I see that in one year you ran over
19,000 miles of special fruit traffic? — That
W 8LS SO.
3950. Your average special mileage over 12
years has been over 6,000 miles a year?—Per
S622 SOI).
3951. Is the ripe fruit also particularly liable
to your having claims for damage 2–Yes. I
may tell you that we issue special instructions as
regards receiving, checking, and loading fruit,
but with all the care we use the damages are very
considerable,
3952. And in many instances the cases are
clear where the company are liable and have to
pay —Yes, we are obliged to pay.
3953. And are the expenses of conveyance
exceptional and special 2–Yes.
3954. And the expenses in the way of damages
and so on are exceptional 2–The circumstance
of conveyance as well as the handling of the
goods are entirely exceptional as compared with
ordinary goods, or as compared with fruit
supposing it was going from London to the
country instead of coming to London for the
markets.
3955. If the fruit could be worked as ordinary
traffic, requiring neither special handling or
Special carriage, it would not be of this excep-
Mr. J.ittler—continued.
tional nature ?—No, it would take its ordinary
COUll’S6.
3956. Does the pressure of the fruit traffic
happen at the same time as the largest pressure
of the passenger traffic and the country traffic to
London 2–Yes, and that necessarily involves the
special working and special mileage I have spoken
of.
3957. There is one other matter, the cost of
conveyance, I have overlooked. The terminal
services have all to be rendered at night 2–Yes,
the whole of the services are done between 10
o'clock at night, and on an ordinary morning by
5 to 6 o'clock the next morning.
3958. You propose, therefore, for the purpose
of rectifying the position in which you fear to be
placed by the Board of Trade's classification, the
alterations in that Table before the Committee ?
—Yes. This Table shows in black ink the
classification as given in the Provisional Order of
the Board of Trade ; and the red ink shows the
alterations which the companies propose.
3959. I think the shortest way will be if you
have anything special to say, just to go through
it and make your own comment on that proposal
as you go through 2–In the first place we ask
that apples, gooseberries, and pears should be
chargeable as in the second class, irrespective of
weight. The Board of Trade Provisional Order
makes the load 20 cwt. per waggon as one class
lower. So far as the South Eastern, and the
London, Chatham, and Dover are concerned, we
have always charged second class for apples and
pears when sent other than in sieves; and I
might say that they come in quantities at times
above a ton; and therefore the alteration pro-
posed would mean a reduction in that class. But
we go somewhat beyond that, we say that the
apples and pears are wrongly classified if you
look at the ouher articles in the same class.
3960. That is what I was going to ask you to
deal with ?–They are rather a large number,
but if we start at A., ale and porter in casks; B.
bagging old in bundles for paper making. Bags,
paper in bags or bundles. Bones packed; broom.
and brush-heads and blocks, clog soles, crab
winches, and so on. There are no end of things.
that you could not possibly lay side to side with
fruit, and particularly when you take the apples
and pears. At some seasons the apples and pears
are selling retail at 4 d., 5 d., and 6 d. per
pound.
3961. Is there anything in that class in which
they are put in the Board of Trade classification
which is in any way comparable in its nature to
fruit 2–We submit not.
3962. Will you take your next observation ?—
Then the next is apples, gooseberries, pears,
e, o, h, p, second class. As plums and currants
are not mentioned, that would mean our carrying
the currants and plums second class.
Mr. Clifford.] May I intervene for a moment
Would it not be more convenient that the wit-
mess should confine his evidence to the amend-
ment actually before the Committee, or else wº
shall get into confusion by-and-bye when we
come to call our evidence, because we shall have
to traverse the whole of matters not covered in
this 2
(81.)
3 Y 4 Chairman.]
544 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
–amsº
Continued.
Chairman.] What we are on now is the omis-
sion of apples, gooseberries, and pears, from
Class I.
Mr. Littler. If it is thought more convenient
I will confine myself to that.
Chairman.] I think so.
Mr. Littler.] If your Grace pleases, then I
have nothing more to add on that, I think.
Witness.] Except that we might perhaps ex-
plain once and for all as to the mode of carriage.
Chairman.] Yes, that would apply.
Mr. J.ittler.] You might do that.
Witness.] That would apply not only to apples
but to all the other fruit that comes afterwards.
I think after all you have picked up the whole
of the points.
Mr. Littler.] Yes, I think we have gone through
them. I think that is all we need ask on those
three items which we propose to raise from
Class I. to Class II.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
3963. I understand from your evidence that
you do not work under the Clearing House
Classification ?—No, by local classification.
3964. But as a matter of fact these articles,
apples, gooseberries, and pears, are all classed
Number I., are they not, in the Clearing House
Classification ?—I am not so well up in the
Clearing House Classification as in our own.
Chairman.] At what page is that in the
Clearing House Classification ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] At Page 7.
Mr. Clifford.] I think you will find them at
different pages. On Page 7 is apples, which you
will find classed I. ; that is apples not specified.
Chairman.] At owner's risk?
Mr. Clifford.] No, apples purely, there is a
different classification for dry pippins or pine
packed.
Chairman.] What page is that?
Mr. Clifford.] Page 7. Apples, Class I.
Chairman.] They are in Class III.
Mr. Clifford.] Class I., apples. Then on
page 54 you will find pears also classed in
Class I. ; and gooseberries at page 31 are also
classed as Class I.
Witness.] Subject to the condition of one-ton
lots.
Mr. Clifford.
3965. Lots of under one ton in Class II., lots
of one ton and above in Class I. (To the
Witness.) Of course you notice that the pro-
posed classification of the Board of Trade only
applies to these three, apples, gooseberries, and
pears in quantities of a ton P--Yes.
3966. Therefore, all quantities under that
would go in Class II., as you propose they should?
—Yes, just the same. Perhaps you will allow
me to explain as regards the Clearing House
Classification, that there is a large quantity of
apples that go for cider-making purposes in the
West of England, and that at the time the
alteration was made, no doubt it was to meet
Mr. Clifford—continued.
that case. The Great Western company do not
bring into the market the same relative quantity
we bring in, or the same character of fruit. Our
unfortunate position is this: that apples at 6 d.
per pound, or 2 s. per cwt. for making cider. are
classified in the same manner.
3967. You said something about the difficulty
of handling ; but, as a matter of fact, are not
these three fruits very good loading P – You
must take great care when the apples or goose-
berries are at all ripe not to pack them too high.
I should think three sieves high would be as
high as you could possibly put them with any
degree of safety.
3968. Do you in point of fact take that care
in packing and loading 2–Yes, we take every
possible care, otherwise our claims would be very
much heavier than they are now. As I have
explained, there are special instructions issued to
the stations.
3969. The loading does not occur, does it, in
sheds?—In certain weathers, of course, the fruit
would have to be loaded in the shed, As a rule
it is loaded outside, for the convenience not only
of the company, but of the public as well.
3970. Mainly is it not for the convenience of
the company, so that the sheds should not be
occupied ?–No, not so much ; it is for the con-
venience of the public. If the truck is outside,
the farmer's waggon can be backed close to it,
with the result that you can take the consign-
ments direct from the waggons and put them
down into the company’s truck, instead of taking
them out of the waggon on to the platform, and
from the platform to the truck, which would
cause damage.
3971. That would rather point to the fact that
it is convenient to the company ?—I think it is a
greater convenience and advantage to the public
because it avoids all damage of every kind.
3972. It is for the convenience of the com-
pany that the waggons should be close to the
truck – Partly for the companies, as I ex-
plained, and partly for the public. I think it is
a greater advantage on the part of the public.
3973. You mean on the part of the trader ?—
Yes, because the trader and every one will
admit that the less number of times the packages
are handled is of great consequence to the con-
dition of the fruit.
3974. And of course it is for the convenience
and advantage of the company that there should
be as little handling as possible 2–Yes.
3975. Again, there is no crane required at all?
—No, the sieve weighs for apples about 60 lbs.,
I suppose.
3976. Are not the whole conditions of the
traffic such as are very simple and easy 2–As
compared with what?
3977. As compared with other articles. For
instance, in the same class 2–No. I should say
that the care and the labour required in loading
fruit is very much more expensive than would
be the case in loading blockheads or such articles
as beer, for instance.
3978. It is simply the lifting of a sieve from
the waggon to a truck —Certainly there is very
much more labour in that than in loading a barrel
or a hogshead of beer into a truck.
3979. Are
() N RAI LWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, O. R. DER BILLS.
545
27 May 1891.]
Chairman.
3979. Are the station terminals the same 2—
They are all in the first class.
Earl of Camperdown.] So that in whatever
class these things are, the station terminal will be
the same.
Mr. Clifford. -
3980. No doubt. (To the Witness). These
sieves can be easily stacked, can they not, in the
truck 2–They are the ordinary round packages
that have to be handled with care and loaded with
Cà). G,
3981. What weight of packages can be put
into a truck 2–It depends upon the size of the
truck. I suppose a large 10-ton truck would hold
perhaps three sieves more along the bottom and
the same relative number above.
3982. Is it the fact that sometimes the apples
go lose 2–We carry but very few lose ; indeed,
the whole apples from our district can, as a rule,
get a better price. They are sent in sacks
sometimes, and sometimes in bags.
3983. You have referred to the irregularity of
the traffic; but is not the practice this, that the
local station master, upon the arrival of a con-
signment of fruit at the local station, telegraphs
to London, and you provide your staff accord-
ingly 2–No, it is not a fact.
3984. It is not a fact 2–No.
would be perfectly delusive.
very soon dropped it.
3985. But it is not possible to telegraph from
the local station as to the quantity which will
arrive and which has arrived at the local station,
and will in course arrive in London 2–The
station master could telegraph at a reasonable
time, say five o’clock in the afternoon, what
number of packages he had received.
Chairman.] What is it you are wanting to
prove through these questions?
Mr. Clifford.] The easiness with which the
Those telegrams
We tried that, and
traffic is worked as opposed to the statement of
the witness in his examination-in-chief, that the
traffic is difficult to work. He assigns that as
the reason for highering the class.
Chairman.] You mean in the handling 2
Mr. Clifford..] Not only in the handling but
in conveying, on account of the irregularity of
the traffic. Mr. Light, for instance, has stated
that they have to run special trains from time to
time; that is clearly conveyance.
Chairman.] That is not what you have
touched; that is a different thing, you have not
touched that.
Mr. Clifford.
3986. I was going to that. (To the Witness.)
What do you mean, exactly, by special trains?
I mean that the ordinary trains would not meet
the necessities of the traffic. For instance, at a
country side station we may receive to-day a
larger quantity than could be brought forward
by the ordinary goods train, and we should have
to bring it forward because it would not do to
keep it for the next goods train.
3987. But do you suggest to the Committee
that every train which does not run all the year
round must be regarded as a special train – No.
Mr. LIGHT.
-wis
l Continued.
--sº
Mr. Clifford—continued.
I call a special train a train run for some special
purpose, which the ordinary goods service would
not neet.
Chairman.] Surely we do not want to have a
special train defined. We all- know what that
means; a special train is well known to any-
body
Re-examined by Mr. J.ittler.
3988. With regard to the provision of teams
in London, would it assist you in getting teams
to carry the traffic to market at three o'clock in
the norming if you had got a telegram at five
o'clock at night to say that so much goods were
coming 2—If we had a telegram at five o’clock at
night, there would not be much difficulty. Dut
the difficulty is that after the station-master has
sent his telegram two or three other loads, might
be brought in, and you must adopt one of two
courses: either you must receive the traffic and
send it forward when it would arrive at the
Bricklayers' Arms' Station without previous
advice from the sending station ; or the sending
station must refuse to receive the consignment.
3989. You would carry all that fruit which
has to be carried early in the morning, and carry
it probably by your own vans and horses 2–We
do a very large part of the work with our own
vans and horses, but there are times when it be-
comes essential to make extra provision.
3990. I was coming to that very point.
times you have even to provide extra —Yes.
399 i. But for the ordinary fluctuations of the
traffic you are obliged to keep your own vans
and horses ready, although some days they may
not be half occupied ?—That is so.
At
IEarl of Belmore.
3992. But the difference in class will not affect
the terminals, will it; the service is the same for
all classes 2–The station terminal is the same, not
the services.
Earl of Belmore.] What you were asking
about was service terminals. Your last question
was with regard to services and delivery.
Mr. Littler.
3993. Simply as showing that this is such a
class of traffic as we are actually oblige to pro-
vide our own staff for. Of course we are paid
for it out of our terminal, but it is just to show
what a special kind of traffic it is. (To the
Witness.) My learned friend has asked you about
the Clearing House Classification. As I under-
stand it you have a great deal more fruit to
begin with, of a considerably higher quality as a
rule than the northern companies 2–Yes.
3994. Therefore whatever may apply to them.
and to Class I. being high enough for the classes
of fruit that they carry it is not high enough for
yours ?—No.
3995. For that reason it has been that you
have always kept your classification higher ?—
Yes, we thought our classification logically met
onr circumstances better than the Clearing House
Classification.
3996. Looking at other articles now placed in
Class I. by the Board of Trade Classification, do
(81.)
3 Z y Oul
546
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Mr. Littler—continued.
you think that fruit ought to be in a higher classi-
fication ?—I think so, undoubtedly.
3997. Any fruit?—Yes. -
Mr. Littler.] I should have liked, your Grace,
to have called somebody for the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Company, but, unfortunately,
their manager is ill with the influenza, and the
chairman has gone abroad. Therefore I am
obliged to rely on Mr. Light, and it would only
be reduplicating evidence.
Mr. Clifford.
3998. Is it not the fact that fruit forwarded by
you goes afterwards through London upon the
northern lines, and is there subjected to the
northern charges 2 – I cannot say what is done
with it after it has gone to the market. We deliver
it to the market. Whether it is sent on afterwards
by the northern lines or not, I cannot say.
3999. There is a through traffic, is there not ?
—There is a certain amount of through traffic,
but that is altogether dealt with differently. We do
not deal with that in the goods stations; that is
dealt with at the passenger stations at different
times of the day.
Mr. Littler.
4000. The bulk of that goes in vans, either
your own, or special ones provided by you, to
Covent Garden, Spitalfields, and the other Lon.
don markets 2–Yes, nearly all of it goes to the
London market.
4001. And you send it as fast as it comes up
by the early morning deliveries, and other deli-
veries throughout the day ?—No ; it is nearly all
done by 10 in the morning.
4002. With regard to the Spitalfields Market,
is there not often a good deal sent in again about
2 o'clock in the aſternoon 2–No, not fruit; it is
all done in the early morning.
4003. It is done through the London markets 2
—Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Dittler.] I do not propose to address the
Committee upon this matter. I think Mr. Light
has placed the matter before them. I will just
say this. It is an important matter to the com-
pany having a small goods traffic, and an excep-
tionally small goods traffic, like the South
Eastern, that it should not be deprived of any
portion of a trade that is for it important, though
it is not important, perhaps, with regard to the
northern companies. -
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade any
suggestion to offer P
Mr. Clifford.] I have to call a witness, your
Grace.
Chairman.] We will hear Mr. Courtenay
Boyle first.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] A great deal of what
has been said, your Grace, I think applies more
to the classification of fruit that will come
hereafter than to the classification of fruit
which is the subject of the present amend-
ment. The articles which the Committee
are now considering are these : apples,
pears, and gooseberries in consignments of
of 20 cwt., that is one ton to the waggon; in the
opinion of the Board of Trade that cannot be a
high class fruit, because a high class fruit as a
rule is not consigned in 20 cwt. to the waggon ;
the very high class fruit is consigned, so we are
informed, in rather less quantities. The intere
tion of the Board of Trade was that in Class I.
the coarser kinds of apples, the coarser kinds of
pears, and the coarser kinds of gooseberries,
which are most packed, as I think you will pro-
bably hear presently, in very strong baskets, or
sieves, or hampers, and which are very easily
handled, should be placed, but not the more ex-
pensive classes of fruits. Will the Committee
just allow me for one moment, without arguing
the other points, to call their attention to what
the proposal of the Board of Trade about fruit is ;
I do not know whether the Committee have
looked at the various classifications of fruit; I
think it would be convenient that they should know
exactly what the proposals are. The proposals
of the Board of Trade are that in Class 5, the
highest class of all, there should be ripe hot
house fruit; that in Class 3 (there is no fruit in
Class 4) there should be other ripe fruit of a less
high class, apricots, I think, cherries, raspberries,
nectarines, peaches, and strawberries. I beg the
Committee's pardon, pineapples are in Class 4.
In Class 2 other kinds of ripe fruit, plums and
so on, cherries, &c., packed in tubs for jams;
and apples, gooseberries, and pears in less
consignments than 20 cwt. per waggon; those
are the proposals of the Board of Trade. It
is contemplated that in Class 1 should be the
coarser kinds of apples, probably for cider-
making, and the coarser kind of pears for perry-
making, and the coarser kinds of gooseberries. I
do not know what they are for ; somebody
suggests champagne, but whatever purpose they
are used for that they should be in Class 1. They
are in Class 1 of the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, which applies to all the Northern companies
at the present moment without any limitation of
consignment. As a concession, partly in conse-
quence of the representations of the southern
companies, but as a concession, the Board of
Trade proposed that they should only be in
Class 1, with a minimum consignment of 20
hundredweight. That is a change from the Clear-
ing House Classification, which is absolutely in
the interests of the railway companies. We are
of opinion that on the whole the proposals of the
Board of Trade are as fair as they could make
them. At any rate, that this classification of
those particular articles is fair.
Now, it is not ad rem to say that the other.
articles in the class are of a different kind. So
they are in the Railway Clearing House Classi-
fication, and so they must be in any classification
that any human being can devise. You must
have articles of a totally different genus and
species in the same classes. In the Railway
Clearing House Classification ashpans are in
Class 1, and so is fruit, and so they must be. I do
not think that is an argument. Certainly it is not
an argument that affected the Board of Trade, to
say that fruit must not be in Class 1, because
other things are in Class 1, which are of a totally
different kind. We have endeavoured, so far as
we can, to make a graduated classification of
fruit according to its excellence and high class,
and
()N RAILWAY RATES AN ID CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORD ER BILLS.
547
27 May 1891.
and varying, as far as possible, in a manner that
isjust and reasonable.
Mr. Richards.] May I say one word with
regard to this?
Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to ask
Mr. Courtenay Boyle a question. You have
placed these kinds of fruit with a minimum of
20 cwt. in Class I. How do those rates compare
with the rates which are at present in force for
the northern railways *
Mr. Courtenay Boyle." As a matter of classifi-
cation, the class is the same.
Earl of Camperdown.] I know.
Mr, Courtenay Boyle.] It is in Class I., but
without any minimum.
Earl of Camperdown.] But how do the rates
which in the first place the northern railway
companies are entitled to charge at the present
time compare with the rates which correspond
with Class I. P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] To answer that question
exhaustively I should have to examine every Act
of every company.
Earl of Camperdown.j I presume you com-
pared the two things at the time the schedule
was before you.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We shall be in a posi-
tion to show your Lordship.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We have a schedule of
-
the actual rates for fruit, but as regards the
maximum powers I do not think that fruit is
named in a very large number of instances.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I answer that to
some extent 2 I cannot speak as to fruit, but
generally with regard to this class we will show
that the actual rates that are being charged by
the northern lines are very much under the rates
that have been allowed for this class of articles
by the Board of Trade.
Chairman.] But it is fruit that we are dealing
with.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I cannot speak of
that.
Chairman.] Where is Mr. Light 2
. Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think fruit
is mentioned in the Acts of most of the com-
panies.
Earl of Camperdown.] Secondly, with regard
to the southern lines because the two cases are
different. -
Mr. Cripps.] Might I say with regard to the
northern lines, in which would be included the
Great Western for this purpose, I suppose, that
I am instructed that fruit is not specified in the
rate schedules; therefore it comes in a higher
class.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is so as to the
London and North Western too.
MR. JABEZ LIGHT, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Chairman.
4004. WITH regard to this fruit that is classed
here in Class I. with a minimum of 20 cwt., apples,
gooseberries, and pears, is that the coarser kind of
fruit that is used for cider, and so on ?—I do not
think any of the fruit grown in Kent is ever
used for cider. I think the worst that becomes
of the fruit grown in Kent is the costermonger's
barrow. I do not think it goes below that.
Earl of Camperdown.
4005. Do you often send apples, gooseberries,
and pears in quantities of less than 20 cwt. 2–
That depends entirely upon the season. If the
season is a very heavy one we get them in
those quantities, but if it is a moderate one we
should not get them in those quantities, and
not if the season was a light one.
Mr. Littler.] Would your Grace kindly ask
this question for me ; whether the quantity of
fruit in a consignment is any test of quality. I
understand that we have often very large con-
signments of a very high quality of fruit.
Chairmam.
4006. Will you answer that question ?-That
is so. It depends upon the season. In some
seasons we have very large crops of apples.
4007. Does the bulk of the fruit which comes
from Kent to London go to the London markets,
and is it disposed of there for consumption in
London and the immediate neighbourhood 2–
I am not aware of any single consignment on the
Sºuth Eastern line to deliver other than to one
Chairman—-continued.
of the markets, Covent Garden, or Spitalfields,
not to private individuals. It is a very excep-
tional case indeed for a consignment to be
addressed to a private individual.
Earl of Camperdown.
4008. I dare say you could tell us what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle did not know. How do your
present rates for conveyance compare with the
rates for conveyance given to you under Class I. ?
—The loss would be very considerable to us. I
sbould think, the loss on the fruit traffic would
in one season amount to 3,000 l. of absolute loss.
4009. What would be the difference on articles
above a ton ; these species of fruit above one
ton ; take two tons.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Would your Lordship
ask between what?
Earl of Camperdown.] Say a distance of 30
miles.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Between what ?
Earl of Camperdown.] Between the actual
charges at the present time, and coming a dis-
tance, say, of 30 miles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] He could get that out,
of course 2
Witness.] I think I could give you two or
three distances. I can take a distance of 41
miles. In the Provisional Order the first class
would give us 11 s. 3 d. ; the present charge is
16 s. 7d. Taking 38 miles as another dis-
tan Ce——
(81.)
3 Z 2 4010. Is
548
yf INUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
27 May 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown.
4010. Is that over 20 cwt. 2–That is any
quantity. #
4011. That is why I said a quantity of two
tons in the first instance. I am coming to the
other presently 2–We have no rates applying
to any particular weight; for instance, above 20
cwt., or two tons, they apply to all consign-
ment S.
4012. A rate of 16 s. 7 d., for what ?–Forty-
one miles would give 11 s. 3 d. per ton for apples
first-class; our present charge being 16 s. 7d.
from station to station.
Mr. Littler.
4013. Then you have another different charge
for half-sieves 7–Yes. ...
4013*. Will you give that upon 70 miles?––
|Earl of Belmore.
4014. Does that 16 s. 7 d, include terminals?
—It includes everything in bo h cases.
Earl of Camperdown.
4015. And what would the charge be under
this schedule 2–For what distance
4016. For the same distance?—I say 11 s. 3 d.
under the Board of Trade schedule. We should
receive 11 s. 3 d. as against 16 s. 7 d. at the pre-
sent time. -
Mr. Littler.
4017. Before you leave that, that is if it is
more than a tom, you have given for the
Board of Trade 11 s. 3 d. if more than a ton and
13 s. 7d. if less than a ton ; that is what is given
to me as being your quotation ?–Less than one
ton would give us 13 s. 7 d. by the Board of
Trade's schedule.
4018. Over a ton it is 11 s. 3 d. 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4019. Would you let me look at that table 2–
There are some private memoranda upon it.
4020. The last one we found was exceedingly
useful. I daresay you will show it to Lord
Camperdown. It seems to have an answer to
that question upon it?—I shall be most pleased
to do that (handing in the table to the Noble
Barl).
Earl of Camperdown.] What do you want me
to extract from that ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Whatever you like.
Earl of Camperdown.] I did not ask for it.
Mr. Littler.
4021. Now will you give the Noble Lord
Paddock Wood, that is 33 miles?—I have not
got 33 miles here. I have got 38.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is not quite fair.
Apparently upon that table the Witness has a
great number of instances of distances, and some
of them may turn out in our favour. I should
like to see them all. You are picking out those
in your favour.
Mr. Littler.] I am not.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. iight is.
Earl of Camperdown.] I asked for two dis-
tances. I said either 20 miles or 40.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But if there are others
surely your Lordship would like to see them too.
Earl of Camperdown.
4022. Can you give me for 40 miles?—- I have
41 miles if that will do. The Board of Trade
schedule gives us 11 s. 3 d. or 13 s. 7d. whether
it is above or under 20 cwt. against our receipts.
of 16 s. 11 d.
Mr. Littler. \
4023. That is in sieves, 18 s. 6 d. in half-
sieves?—Yes.
4024. Those of course are actual rates ?—Yes,
those are actual rates charged and paid.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is all I wanted.
Lord Belper.
4025. Can you tell me what your actual rate
in your proposed schedule is, whether it is the
same as in the Ilondon and North Western
schedule for Class I. P-I think it is a little in
excess, but I am not sure.
Lord Belper.] Is there a great difference 2
Mr. Littler.] We will see if we can fin l out.
Lord Belper.
4026. If you have the schedule of your Com-
pany, take Classes I. and II. as those are
the two in question ?—For any distance not
exceeding 20 miles on the South Eastern, 2.25 d.
4027. 220 d. is the London and North
Western ?—In the London and North Western,
the Great Northern, the Midland, and the Great
Eastern it is 2°20 d. -
4028. And Class II. 2–For any distance not
exceeding 20 miles it is 2.75 d. in the South
Eastern schedule.
4029. And 2.65 d. in the North Western ?–
2-65 d. There is a difference, but it is slight.
4030. It is not very large 2–No.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr. Richards).] Did you not
want to say Something 2
Mr. Richards.] I understand, your Grace, that
my learned friend Mr. Clifford proposes to call
evidence, so I suppose I ought to address the
Committee afterwards.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Littler).] Are you going
to call no other witnesses
Mr. Littler.] I hoped to call the manager of the
London, Chatham, and Dover Company.
Chairman.] The point is that we are now
dealing with witnesses connected with the
Southern lines alone, and we are not dealing with
them, but the Bill before us is that of the
London and North Western Company, and the
general scheme for the whole country.
... Mr. Dittler.] That is true, your Grace; still if
the classification gets fixed without our having
in the case of the London and North Western
pointed out our views we might find ouselves in
jeopardy hereafter. I do not know whether
your Grace has a memorandum that was made
for the Board of Trade at one time as to fruit,
which was that the fruit being more the interest
of the southern companies the northern com-
panies
ON RAIL WAY RATES
BILLS. 549
AND CH_ARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER.
27 May 1891.
panies objected rather in the interests of the
southern companies than in their own. And
that really is the condition of things; I can do
this ; I can call some one from the northern
companies to show that the bulk of their traffic is
apples flung into a truck to make cider and pears
for making perry; but I think that that is
common knowledge.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then in that case I
suppose it would tend to lower rates and
charges.
Mr. Littler.] I suppose it would. For a class
of traffic of that kind I do not suppose they
would have very much to say. But we are
really the people who are interested in upholding
something that will really somewhat approach to
our present rate of charge.
Chairman.] Then what would the Board of
Trade have to say upon that ? We are asked
now you see to put the South Eastern fruit, or
rather all the fruit, into higher classes which
might be, I do not say whether it is or not, appli-
cable to the south eastern district, but which
might not be applicable to the northern districts.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] You are asked to make
a classification which shall be uniform throughout
the country. Of course in doing that you are
met with little difficulties of this sort; I hope I
am right in using the word “little * difficulties
that the carriage of certain classes of goods
differs in one railway company from the carriage
of the same classes of goods by another railway
company. You will be met with that over and
over again ; you would be met with that in
iron and hardware and all sorts of articles.
If you are going to have uniformity you must
sacrifice something to that. If you are not going
to have uniformity there will result such an
extaordinary variation of classification as will
leave the system very much where it is at the
present mement. -
Mr. Littler.] That is no consolation.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] A system I undertake
to say that nobody can understand. We have
attempted to carry out the principle of uniformity
so far as it is possible to do so, and in doing so
of course you have little difficulties. Un-
doubtedly, fruit, which is conveyed on the
southern lines is, as a rule, higher class fruit
than the fruit which is conveyed on the northern
lines; and I think all the general managers
would admit that ; and I think I see it in Mr.
Littler's observations. But the articles you are
considering are apples, pears, and gooseberries in
minimum consignments of 20 cwt. per waggon;
and we believe that that will satisfactorily pro-
tect the southern companies and also prevent the
fruit growers from being charged the higher rate
on the northern lines.
Mr. Dittler.] Your Grace will remember that
there is nothing in the Act of Parliament about
all the classification being uniform. I perfectly
follow what Mr. Courtenay Boyle has said ; but
I should like, before you decide anything on it,
to point out that to secure uniformity by sacri-
ficing a company is hardly what the Act of
Parliament intended.
Chairman.] I think it is quite possible ; I am
not pledging myself one way or the other, but
assuming that we were inclined to agree with
the views you have put before us, after hearing
the evidence which Mr. Balfour Browne pro-
poses, that it might be special to your Act, and
not touching the other northern companies.
Mr. Littler.] I am going to venture to ask the
Committee at some time or other, whether with
regard to that and some other anomalies that is
not the true way out of it, but I will reserve
that until after my learned friends have had their
turn. - -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Only the railway com-
panies themselves suggested that this was to be
applied to everyone of the companies, and that
was the reason for taking it generally.
Chairman.] Oh, no.
Mr. Balfour Browne.]. Distinctly. Mr. Pope
laid that down as a principle that was to be
applied generally to all the companies.
Chairman (to Mr. Littler).] The Committee
are not prepared to insert this as a general
amendment for the whole of the Bills; but we
are prepared to hear what you may have to say
when we are discussing your Bill upon this
point.
, Mr. Littler.] May I ask whether the same con-
clusion would apply to the remainder of the fruit
and the hops? If so, we can guide ourselves.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do the northern com-
panies want to make any representations to us?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They take the same.
view of that as of the other matters.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not represent
them. Are they going to call evidence 2
Mr. Littler.] So far as I know. I do not
appear for the London and North Western Com-
pany.
Mr. Cripps.] No, your Grace, we do not want
to raise any point upon that.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at half-past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)
3 Z 3
550
( 551 )
Die Jovis, 28° Mail, 1891.
PRESENT :
DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOwn.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HoughTon.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Cripps.] You R Grace, the next amend-
ment of the railway companies is on page 12, to
omit “pigs dead for curing purposes.”
Chairman.] That is at page 27 of the Bill.
Mr. Cripps.] Page 27, column 2, line 16.
The reason why we ask that this should be
omitted in that place is because fresh meat and
bacon and ham fresh or green are dealt with in
Class 4, and pigs dead for curing purposes would
come within those definitions, and that in our
opinion would be the proper place where pigs
dead for curing purposes should be classified.
They were never mentioned, I think, at an
earlier stage of the inquiry as a special matter to
be specially dealt with, certainly not in the
specifications put forward by the railway com-
panies 2 if your Grace has Class 4, has your
Grace got “meat fresh ’’’
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] Pigs dead for curing purposes
would, as it appears to the railway companies,
come under meat fresh; they would be fresh
meat, they would be pigs dead for curing pur-
poses.
Earl of Belmore.] But it is not fresh.
what it is ; it is an Irish matter.
Mr. Cripps.] It is an Irish matter, I believe,
chiefly ; but so far as the English railway com-
panies are concerned (we are speaking now of
English companies, our view is, and we do not
know what has influenced the Board of Trade to
the contrary, that pigs dead for curing purposes
would come under the heading of fresh meat, and
that there is no reason for any special classifi-
cation. Whatever the reason of the special
classification might be, perhaps your Grace would
ask for that to be explained by the Board of
Trade.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).j Can you
tell us anything about this?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] My Lord Duke, Mr.
Cripps is perfectly right in saying that the
carriage of dead pigs is purely an Irish concern.
I know
We had a great deal of evidence in Ireland and
in Richmond Terrace, when we were considering
the classification, so far as regards Irish witnesses,
about the carriage of dead pigs. Dead pigs are
carried in truck loads in Ireland ; they are
carried, I may say, almost wholesale. This is
what Mr. says: “ The accommodation
required by the trade to be given by the railway
companies, is of the smallest and simplest kind;
in fact, the waggons have merely to be placed
on the siding so that a van or cart can
draw alongside, and the pigs are just lifted
out of the vans into the waggons ; they
may be either coal, cattle, timber, or manure
waggons; they are not covered, but are perfectly
open, and there is no tarpaulin or covering of
any sort required. The waggons can carry a
full load. Under these circumstances I am
instructed to ask that they should be in, say,
Class C. if carried at owners’ risk, or in Class 1
otherwise.” Then Mr. Harrison (I do not think
Mr. Harrison is here at the present moment) for
the London and North Western Company said:
“With regard to the dead pigs, I do not think that
the traffic prevails in England to any extent, except,
of course, what comes from Ireland, and that is
regulated by the English Classification, on
account of the far greater interest that the English
companies have in the traffic than the Irish com-
panies. We have in England a large trade in
fresh hams which are one portion of the dead pig,
and that is classified 4th Class ; it is a very large
traffic.” That is not what is dealt with on the
present occasion, your Grace . The dead pigs
carried in Ireland are distinct from any article,
so far as we know, that is carried in England.
The method of carriage is totally different. The
work done by the railway companies is of the
simplest kind; the article itself is of a common
or coarse character; and on the whole the Board
of Trade thought that dead, pigs Cught properly
to be in Class 1. Now, if the English companies
do not carry much of this article, they cairnot be
in any way injured by the fact of its being in
Class 1 ; if on the other hand dead pigs, in any
considerable quantity, come from Ireland, and
are carried as dead pigs whole by the English
(81.)
3 Z 4 Railway
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint committ EE
28 May 1891.
Railway Companies, then we submit that Class
1 and not Class 4 is the proper place for the
article. It is a matter to which the Irish trade
attach very much importance, and certainly I
hope the Committee will not alter the classifica-
tion as proposed, without hearing something at
any rate from the persons interested in Ireland.
Mr. Cripps.] Perhaps, in answer to what has
been said, I ought to have pointed out that fresh
meat in the Clearing House Classification is in
Class 4 the same as it is here. So far as this is
an Irish question we would not seek to discuss it
now ; but so far as it is an English question (and
we are now talking about classification common
to certain English railway companies) it is, I am
told, a matter of importance. Although there
has been no suggestion as regards the English
traffic, so far as I understand from Mr. Courtenay
Boyle, that it is not proper to class dead pigs
under the fresh meat class, which it would natu-
* rally come under as being in that class at the
present time in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, yet in any decision which your Grace or
the Committee might give upon the point now, I
would ask that it might be with full reservation
of course of the Irish question in that we are
now dealing with the English Companies Classifi-
cation; but I am told, and if your Grace desired
to hear the evidence, Mr. Wilkinson will go into
the box for the Great Western Railway-Com-
pany, and explain that this is a matter of import-
ance to the English companies, although the
alteration in classification has only been raised as
I understand it when it regards the Irish com-
panies.
Earl of Camperdown.] If a pig was cut up, it
would then become fresh meat, would it not ?
You are surely not arguing that a whole dead
big is the same thing as a piece of fresh meat.
}. is several pieces of fresh meat fastened to-
gether by natural means.
are more prepared.
te.*
Mr. Cripps.] But I suppose that a dead ox
for instance, would come under fresh meat; and
I do not think there is any distinction here.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Lordship is quite
right. The intention is that if the dead pig is
cut up it is carried as fresh meat; it is only
when it is carried whole, in the method by which
it is carried in Ireland, that it comes under the
category here.
Chairman.] Would that answer apply in the
Same way to the meat that comes from the North,
because they are sent up in carcasses; whole
bullocks are sent up, not cut up 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes; but I think they
Chairman.] No, they are not prepared.
Aberdeen sends up a quantity, a regular meat
trade. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] If it is so, the carcasses
ought to be in the same category as the dead
D19. - -
Mr. Cripps.] Perhaps your Grace would like
to hear evidence on that point. I am told that
the fresh meat traffic is not in carcasses as regards
railway companies.
Chairman | We will hear any evidence you
please to call.
Earl of Belmore.] I know the trade well; it
is done in a town close by me. These are whole
carcasses with a bit of stick stuck behind the hind
legs, and not prepared in any way, with only the
skin scalded or scraped, and handled as you.
might handle bricks.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Lordship understands,
with regard to the Irish question, that I am not
really in a position to discuss it; but with regard
to the English question I will put a question to
Mr. Wilkinson.
*
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is recalled ; and further Examined,
as follows : —
Mr. Cripps. •x
4031. YoU know that fresh meat is classified
in Class 42—Yes, it is in Class 4 of the Clearing
House Classification at the present time.
4032. In the Clearing House Classification on
page 48; and the proposal of the amendment
also is to classify it in Class 4 in the new sche-
dule 2—That is the case. *
4033. A suggestion has been made that pigs
dead for curing purposes should be classified in
Class 1 ?–I think that the answer to that has
been given by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, that it is
entirely an Irish question. So far as regards
the custom in England, we carry pigs very
largely now in whole carcasses, and we get our
4th class rates for them.
Mr. Hanbury.
4034. In what class are they carried now 7–
In Class 4.
Mr. Cripps.] You will find that on page. 48
of the Railway Clearing House Classification,
“ Meat, fresh.”
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Earl of Belmore.
4035. Are they fit for cooking at once,
or are they intended to be cured after-
wards 2—It is quite impossible for us to tell.
No doubt they would be sold fresh if possible ;
but if the markets were not favourable on the
day they arrive, no doubt they would be cured,
lightly cured.
Mr. Cripps.
4036. Take the case of other carcasses which
have been mentioned ; take the carcass of a
bullock, for instance, or a sheep, would they be
carried under the fresh meat class 2–Certainly.
4037. Is most of your traffic, which is carried
under the fresh meat class, carried in carcasses
or cut up, as is suggested, in joints?–Pigs are
carried generally in whole carcasses; sheep are
carried generally in whole carcasses; beef, as a
rule——
4038. Do
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
553
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[C ontinued.
=-
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4038. Do you carry a large traffic in dead
meat from the West of England?—Yes, a very
large traffic from all parts of the West of Dngland
to the markets in Birmingham, London, and else-
where.
4039. Do you carry that as carcasses, or as meat
cut up 2–Pigs we generally carry in whole car-
casses; sheep we carry generally in, whole
carcasses, and beef generally in sides. The rail:
way companies of late years have constructed
special meat vans, in order that the carcasses of
small animals, or the sides of larger, may be hung
from the roofs, and not be handled.
Chairman.
4040. Sheep are skinned, I conclude –They
are skinned. e
4041. Pigs are not ?–No, pigs are simply
scalded ; scraped or scalded.
Earl of Belmore.
4042. Do you send pigs in covered vans, or
open trucks; I mean the carcasses ?--We send
them in covered vans, and we take a great deal
of care with them, precisely the same as we do
with beef and mutton.
4043. Are you aware that in Ireland they send
them in open trucks as they do coals, in spite of
the weather?—I am aware of that.
4044. They send the trucks off with nothing
but pigs in them?—That is quite a different trade
in every shape and form.
Mr. Cripps.
4045. A question has been asked you, as re-
gards skinning in the case of cattle and sheep,
and no similar process in the case of pigs; does
that at all effect the question of the carrier 2–
No, I do not think it does. I explained before
that the meat is sent with the intention of being
sold fresh ; it is precisely the same value ; per-
haps a little more than the value of beef or
mutton. - -
4046. And as regards carriage, is it carried
under the same conditions so far as the railway
companies are concerned 2–Precisely the same
conditions in every shape and form.
Chairman.] But not of necessity?
Mr. Cripps.
4047. Perhaps you will just let Mr. Wilkinson
answer that. (To the Witness.) IIis Grace sug-
gests that you do not of necessity carry the dead
pig under the same conditions as you might the
carcass of a sheep or half-carcass of cattle 2–
Indeed, we do in all cases. We carry very largely
pigs for the London markets from Cornwall and
from the bottom of South Wales, and we carry
them in all respects in the same way as if they
were dead sheep.
4048. I think the question I wanted to ask you
would go a little further than that. You have
stated what you do in fact, but is it necessary for
the purposes of the traffic that you should carry
the dead pig under the same conditions as the
dead sheep or half-bullock 2–Yes; it is perishable
in precisely the same way, and needs the same
attention.
Choirman.
4049. Surely a pig merely scraped, and with
his skin on, is not so perishable as a sheep or
bullock that has got no hide or fleece 2–I think
the best answer to that is the practical one of our
actual experience. We receive dead pigs prepared
for the London market in carcasses, but scraped
and ready to be cut up in the afternoon, say at
3 o'clock. If those things are not in the London
market next morning when the market opens, we
get petty claims for damage owing to the loss of
markets and deterioration.
4050. Loss of market is another thing. The
question is whether the dead pig with the skin
on requires as much care in the train as the sheep
or bullock. You could, I suppose, send the car-
cases of pigs in an ordinary truck, which you
could not do with sheep 2–No, we do not as a
rule.
4051. You do not ; but could you not ?—No,
I am afraid not; because they do not arise at any
Qne place in sufficient quantities to justify a
through waggon.
4052. That is another matter ?--A farmer
sends in two or three carcasses; then we carry
them all. A dealer will send the best parts only
to the London market, and keep the poorer parts,
the less valuable parts, for home consumption.
4053. Then that is not a carcass 2—In that
case it would not be a carcass.
4054. We are dealing with carcasses. You
surely do not mean that a pig requires as much
care with the skin on as a sheep or bullock.
You may for your own convenience deal with it in
that way?—Well, we have always dealt with them
in that way invariably; and I venture to think
that any alteration would meet with great oppo-
sition from the traders; all the traders expect
that we will treat the dead pigs equally well with
the sheep.
Mr. Cripps.
4055. you have stated how you treat the dead
pigs. Have you ever had any complaints from
your traders as regards the charge for the dead
pig being on the same scale as for other fresh
meat 2–No ; the value of one is the same as the
value of the other, pound for pound.
4056. Do you ever carry the dead pigs in
cloths like you do sides of meat or sheep 2–Yes,
we do frequently in cloths and frequently also
both in cloths and hampers.
4057. And I think l may put it to vou from
your acquaintance with these proceedings that
the question has been raised as an Irish ques-
tion and not as an English question ?—That is
so, clearly. The English railways had no
knowledge of this matter during the Board of
Trade inquiry.
4058. And, whatever the fact may be, you
carry in the way that your traders desire, and at
rates with which they do not find fault 2 —Yes, I
think so, subject to this that traders are never
quite satisfied with railway rates.
4059. I know ; but have the traders ever sug-
gested to you that a dead pig should be carried
on a different scale, or at a different rate, from
other fresh meat P --No, they have not. I know
of no instance of the kind.
(81.)
4 A 4060. Are
554
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
*
Cross-examined by Mr. Yates.
4060. Are not the pigs that you are talking of
as being sent up to the London market, sent up
to be used in the shape of pork, and not sent to
be cured ?—Yes. I answered that question
before, I think, by saying that if the market
were favourable they would be sold as fresh meat,
but failing that they might be cured, and pro-
bably, at least, the hams would be cured.
4061. But then if they are sent up as pork, to
be eaten as pork, that would be very different
from those that are sent up to be cured. This
only deals with pigs dead for curing purposes?
—At present I am not aware of any pigs being
carried in England under the circumstances that
have been explained. g
4062. Then this will not hurt you if that is
the case ?—I also said——
4063. What I mean is that if there are no pigs
carried for curing purposes in England it will
not hurt you to have this put in P-I am quite
sure that they would be consigned for curing
purposes to-morrow if this is passed. .
4064. You mean that the traders would com-
mit a fraud upon you ?—The trader would
describe them as being carried for curing pur-
poses.
4065. When they were not?—Possibly.
4066. That means that they would commit a
fraud upon you ; that is the railway companies’
view 7–No; they would say that they did not
know whether they would be cured or not, and
therefore they would give themselves the advan-
tage. *
4067. Is this a traffic that you carry by
passenger train or by goods train 7–Largely by
goods train. -
4068. For the London market?–Very largely
by goods train for the London market.
4069. Meat from Cornwall?—From Cornwall,
we have a train put on purposely for meat and
fish, running every night.
4070. Charged at what rates, the rates for
perishable goods or passenger rates?—Charged
at varying rates according to the circumstances.
4071. Not goods rates ?—They are charged at
rates that are somewhat between the parcel
train rates and goods train rates. --
4072. A higher rate than the goods rate and
ower than what ?—Lower than the parcel rates.
4073. They are carried at an extra charge be-
cause they are brought in that way 7–In other
words they are carried at special rates arranged
for the purpose.
Earl of Belmore.
4074. It is a fact I know, that you have traffic
arrangements with the Waterford and Limerick
Bailway Company ?–Yes.
4075. You are aware that Limerick is a very
large pig market 2—Yes.
4076. Do you not get from Limerick whole
carcasses of pigs to be taken to curing establish-
ments in England?—No, I think not. The pigs
are cured either at Limerick or Waterford, and
I think, almost without exception, sent to
England in the shape of sides of bacon.
4077; You do not get any sent to the curing
establishments on the Great Western Railway'ſ
—I am not acquainted with any. *
Lord Houghton.
4078. Are they not sent to Calne, for instance,'
to Messrs. Harris: are not large consignments
of pigs sent from Ireland to them?—Yes; but
they are live pigs always; they get the pigs.
alive; that is the English custom. g -
Lord Belper.
4079. Then this: “Dead pigs for curing pur-
poses,” would not affect your railway at all?—I
do not want to say anything to offend our trading
friends; but we do find that if they can get an
advantage in a particular form of consignment,
they do not hesitate to take advantage of it.
4080. But you would be equally capable of
taking care of yourselves if a fraud were com-
mitted upon you ?–No, I think not, because the
traders would at once accommodate themselves.
to the circumstances; they would arrange perhaps
to cure parts.
Mr. Dickson.
4081. You mentioned your experience in con-
nection with the Great Western Railway in
carrying dead pigs. I suppose that the meat
that you refer to is carried in closed waggons
and covered waggons 2–Not always, but as a
rule.
4082. Do you carry any meat on your line of
railway exposed to the weather and the atmos-
phere without being covered 2–No.
4083. Have you been in Ireland?—Yes.
4084. And have you ever seen a train load of
pigs in Ireland coming from the market in coal
waggons and manure waggons 2–I have seen a
very mixed kind of train carrying pigs.
4085. I suppose you are aware that this is en-
tirely an Ulster trade, that the trade of dead pigs
is peculiar to Ulster 7—I believe it has been
stated by Mr. Courtenay Boyle that it is an
Irish question almost entirely.
4086. And that the railway companies carry
pigs from the markets to the curing establish-
ments without any cover, and in coal waggons or
manure waggons, or whatever may turn up 2–I
have seen, as I have said, very mixed looking
trains containing pigs in the north of Ireland.
4087. Do you think it would be fair to put
that sort of traffic in Class 4 or in Class I ?–I
think Mr. Cripps rather suggested that in this
matter he thought a special entry might be made
in the Irish Classification, and let it be erased en-
tirely from the English Classification.
4088. I thought we were going for uniformity
of classification in dealing with all these Bills 2–
We understood that the Committee last night
promised to consider a suggestion to make an
exception in favour of the Southern Companies
in the matter of fruit. There would not be many
GàSéS. •. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards.
4089. You have told the Committee that the
pigs which come for the London market come at
the ordinary perishable rate, the same rate as the
* meat that comes to Smithfield market?—
6S.
4090. Do you mean to say that there are no
curing establishments in London ?—I know of
many drying establishments, but I do not know that
there are many curing establishments.
4091. You
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS. 555
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Richards—continued.
4091. You suggest that the traders would con-
sign them in future as for curing ; but you would
have every check because you would know
whether they were going to the market or to the
curing establishment?—I venture to suggest that
that would not be a check; because the trader
could either sell the meat as fresh meat, or send
it to be cured.
4092. You have heard the question of the
Honourable Member from Ireland that pigs for
curing are generally sent in open waggons —
Yes, in Ireland.
4093. Therefore, if this classification stood,
pigs consigned for curing would not be carried in
the same way as ordinary fresh meat P--I am
afraid I do not quite appreciate that question.
4094. Pigs sent to the London market in cloths
are carried at the ordinary perishable rate, and
are charged for as other fresh meat 2–Yes.
4095. If this classification stood, the pigs for
curing could be carried by you in open waggons
on the Great Western Railway, the same as in
Ireland?—No, we should not think of carrying
pigs in that way; the trade does not require it.
4096. But you guarantee, in sending fresh
meat to the London market, to take it either by
passenger trains, or by a train at the speed of a
passenger train. That would not be so with pigs
in the lower classification—pigs for curing 2–
No ; I am compelled to be guided by the English
custom, with which I am perfectly acquainted ;
and I say that at the present time the dead pigs
given to us for carriage require to be treated pre-
cisely the same as dead sheep. -
4097. I put it to you that if they are consigned
to you for culing you can carry them in open
waggons in England, the same as is done in
Ireland.
Chairman.] But what Mr. Wilkinson has said
is that he does not know whether they are to be
cured or not until they get to their destination,
whether there is a market for them ; and he did
not say they were carried at passenger speed, or
the contrary.
Mr. Richards.] Then I put it to this witness
that if this classification stands, pigs consigned
for curing can be carried in England the same as
in Ireland, in open waggons and at lower rates.
Witness.] I do not think it could be so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.] I think, your Grace, that the
facts are sufficiently before the Committee;
namely, the Irish standard.
another witness could only say the same. I
should like to point this out : It seems to be
admitted on Mr. Wilkinson’s evidence that
there is this difference in the treatment of
pig carcasses in England and in Ireland and
for this reason, as I understand it, that the
pig carcasses are carried with greater care in
England because the railway companies carry
them either for the fresh meat market, or, if
there is not a market at the time, the same pigs
may be used for curing purposes. And what has
been suggested as regards the Irish custom seems
to me to be the strongest argument in favour of
the English companies; namely, that we have
the fact admitted that they do carry this form of
traffic under better conditions which the trader
likes, and of which the trader, as regards charges,
has not made any complaint. Now, for instance,
the suggestion of my learned friend Mr. Richards
is, that instead of carrying pigs as the railway
companies now carry them, in conformity with
the requirements of the English market, we
should conform as it were to a lower standard,
But although the
Irish standard may be perfectly suitable where
pigs are carried to large establishments and for
curing purposes only, Mr. Wilkinson has stated,
as I submit in the clearest way, that the same
conditions are not applicable to the English
traffic. And surely I suggest to your Grace
and the Committee that it is better that the
English traffic should go on being carried
as it is at the present moment, as every one
desires it should be carried, and at the
class with which no fault has been found, and I
suggest now to your Grace, if I may with
submission as I did before, that whatever the
decision of the Committee may be on this point,
as regards the English Classification and as
regards the English method of conducting this
traffic, the same obviously would not apply in
'Ireland ; because that is an admitted point here;
that the conditions under which this traffic is .
carried in Ireland are different from the con-
ditions under which it is carried in England.
Earl of Camperdown.] How do your present
rates, your rates under Class 4 of the present
classification compare with the rates which it is
proposed to give you in this classification, that
is to say the rates of Class 1 ?
Mr. Cripps.] We have Class 4 in the clearing
House Classification and we have Class 1 in the
Provisional Order Classification.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] Mr. Wilkinson can answer that.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is recalled; and further Examined, as follows:–
Earl of Camperdown.
4098. IN the first place do you carry those
animals by the ton at the present time; under
what system do you carry them 2–Under the
system of weight, so much per ton.
4099. How would the rates which you at
present charge under Class 4 in the Clearing
House Classification, compare with the rates of
Class 1 in the proposed schedule 2—I will answer
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
4100. For 100 miles?—Yes.
§ 4101. What would the new rate be 2
Mr. Lush Wilson.
4102. Is that the scale rate or actual rate 2–
That is the scale rate.
Mr. Yates]. That is the scale rate, my Lord,
not the actual rate.
Earl of Camperdown.
that by taking the distance of 100 miles. The
present rate would be 35 s. g
4103. What is your actual rate 2—I will try
(81.)
4. A 2 and
556
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TFIE J OINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
—º
| Continued.
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
and answer that in a minute ; but I may say
that I am answering from what we call our
Normanton scale, which is the scale lºractically
governing the actual rates (after making a
calculation). I can now answer your question,
my Lord. What we should be entitled to
charge at Class 1, under the proposed London
and North Western powers, would be, for con-
veyance, 15 s. ; for terminals, 3 s. ; for loading
and unloading, 10 d. ; for covering and uncover-
ing, 3 d. ; making a total of 19 s. 1 d.
Mr. Dickson.
4104. That is Class 1 ?—That is Class 1.
Earl of Camperdown.
4105. And your present charge is about 35 s.?
—About 35 s.
Earl of lHalmore.
4106. Would this meet your difficulty: if the
words were added in the schedule to “pigs dead
for conveyance purposes,” “when carried in open
waggons.”?--I do not think it would ; because I
venture to think that the description alto-
gether is too indefinite for a permanent classifica-
tion such as is about to be imposed upon us.
I would refer your Lordship to page 43 of the
London and North Western Provisional Order.
There you will find an entry, “bacon and hams
fresh or green, fourth class.” The proposal is to
accord to the railway companies the power to
charge for bacon and hams fresh or green, fourth
class; that is certainly not consistent with the
idea of carrying the pig quite fresh in the first
class.
Lord // oughton.] You could not carry bacon
in an open truck, could you ?
Mr. Dickson.
4107. Do you think it would be consistent to
carry dead pigs in the fourth class, the same as
the cured bacon and han;?—No. I think that this is
one of the cases where the Committee will find it
difficult to reconcile the different circumstances
in different parts of the country, unless, they
make a deviation from the principle of one
classification.
Earl of Camperdown.
4108. To revert to the point that I was upon,
namely, your charge; you said, just now, that the
Normanton scale was 35 s., and you said that the
Normanton scale was approximate to your actual
charges. Is that so *—Yes. I will supplement
that by stating that I have now one volume of
the Bristol rate book before me ; and from
Dristol to Slough, which is just about 100 miles,
the actual rate is 38s. 4 d. “s
4109. What is your rate for 50 miles?
Mr. Hunter.
4I 10. Is there any traffic to Slough from
Bristol; that is, in the pig carrying?–It is the
rate available for all articles in Class 4.
4111. But is there any actual traffic in pigs
from Bristol to Slough 2–No, I should not think
there would be.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is your rate
from Bristol to London ?
Mr. Yates.] That is it, or I might suggest
from Birkenhead to London as a very good illus-
tration.
Witness.] Forty shlllings,
Bristol to London.
Earl of Camperdown.
4112. What is your actual rate from Birken-
head to London; that is probably Irish pigs 2–
I have only the Bristol book with me. We
have, I think, about 25 millions of rates in my
charge.
4113. You cannot answer the question ?–Not
at the moment. -
my Lord, from
Mr. Hunter.
41 14. Is that 40 s. a collected and delivered
rate 2–That is a collected and delivered rate.
Mr. Crisp..] We take that at 5 s. all round
you will remember, Sir, for collection and
delivery.
Mr. Yates.] I wish to ask whether the rate
from Birkenhead to London is not 25 s. the
actual charge at the present time to people in
the London Meat Market—200 miles.
Witness.] For dead pigs do you mean?
Mr Yates.] Dead meat.
Chairman.] We are talking of pigs.
Mr. Yates.] But the witness says that pigs
are carried as dead meat.
Witness.] At present I think the Birkenhead
rate is also, for dead pigs, about 40 s.
4115. That is your maximum ; is the actual
rate 25 s 2—The actual rate is not 25 s. I be-
lieve the actaul rate is about 40 s.
4116. What is the rate from Dublin to Lon-
don, vià Bristol then 2–Rorty shillings.
4117. Is that what you carry at. I know
what the maximum is ; I want to know what the
carrying rate is?—I cannot answer your ques-
tion about the Dublin rate at present.
41 18. Is it less than 40s. 7
Chairman.] If he says he cannot answer it,
what is the use of putting it 2
Witness.] I am inclined to say it is 57 s. 6d.,
but I will answer that presently.
Mr. Yates.] The figures work out 43 s. 6d.
in Class 4.
Mr. Cripps.] The only new point would be
that if this were put in Class 1 it would be
approximately 19 s. 1 d. maximum, whereas the
actual rate, now is about 35 s. or more, including
cartage and delivery. Even if you take off 6 s.
for the services suggested, it would be 29 s.
actual as against a proposed new maximum of
19 s. 1 d.
Earl of Camperdown.
4119. What is about the total value of the
trade, roughly speaking, in these dead pigs on
the Great Western Railway, within 10,000?, ?—
One night, not very long ago, I had occasion to
watch the trains coming to Paddington for the
whole of the night. On one train from South Wales
there
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL O'RDER BILLS.
557
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown — continued.
there were three trucks of dead pigs; on a train
from Cornwall there were one or two trucks also
of dead pigs, and there were innumerable small
lots coming from various parts of our great
system. - -
4120. Do you think that would be a fair
average night?—I have no reason to suppose it
was not.
Lord Belper.
4121. What time of year was that ?—That
was in November last.
4122. And should you have had the same in
the middle of a hot summer ?—Certainly not.
4123. Then that was hardly an average for
every day in the year – Subject to that obser-
vation, I ought to have explained to the Com-
mittee that, no doubt, pork is eaten much more
largely in the winter than in the summer, and it
would be fair, perhaps, to divide my figure by
half, if you like. *
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Earl of Camperdown.] Has any other railway
company in England a large trade in these
matters?
Mr. Cripps.] I should not like to answer the
question without consultation on that subject.
I am told that the London and South Western
Company, which is one of the English companies,
has a large trade in pigs.
Earl of Camperdown.] Has the London and
North Western Company a large trade in this
article 7
Mr. Mason.] I have not the general manager
or the goods manager here, my Lord. I am not
able to answer the question.
Mr. Cripps.] I can call Mr. Owens, the
London and South Western goods manager, if
your Lordship likes to hear him, to show that it
is a material traffic so far as they are concerned.
It would not be necessary to go all through the
questions put to Mr. Wilkinson again.
Earl of Belmore.] But if we can have a
London and North Western gentleman, that will
be more to the purpose, from what Mr. Dickson
tells me.
Mr. Dickson.] I will remind counsel that this
is a London and North Western trade between
Ireland and England, and we should like to have
some information as to the rates between I reland
and England for dead pork.
Mr. Cripps.] The only difficulty, I under-
stand, Sir, is, that at the present moment neither
Mr. Findlay nor Mr. Harrison is present. Mr.
Findlay, I am told, your Grace, has been very
busy discussing the iron question, but he will be
over here shortly. Unfortunately Mr. Harrison
has had to go away on business, and Mr. Findlay
has been engaged in that discussion. This is
what Mr. Harrison said when this question was
discussed, I see, before, and in reference to the
Irish question ; it is on page 475 of the
Board of Trade inquiry; it is on page
411 of the official document: “With re-
gard to the dead pigs ’’ (addressing Lord
Balfour of Burleigh at the time), “I do not
think that the traffic prevails in England to any
extent except of course what comes from Ireland,
and that is regulated by the English classifica-
tion on account of the far greater interests that
the English companies have in the traffic than
the Irish companies. We have in England a
large traffic in fresh hams, which are one portion
of the dead pig, and that is classified fourth
class; it is a very large traffic.” I take it, my
Lord, that that represents the position of the
London and North Western Railway Company.
Of course, as regards the interests of the traffic
and the amount of it, the Great Western Com-
pany have a different interest, as Mr. Wilson has
explained, from that of the London and North
Western Company. I think if you read that
evidence it does suggest that the Irish pigs are
carried to a certain extent by the London and
North Western Railway.
Earl of Camperdown..] Does it not give any
description of what did come from Ireland?
Mr. Cripps.] Mr. Harrison not being here I
can only find that one passage.
Earl of Belmore.] But that passage refers to
hams.
Mr. Cripps.] Pigs and hams, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then he speaks of hams
later.
Earl of Belmore.] He says hams is part of the
dead pig.
Mr. Cripps.] I would say this, that the whole
9f the Irish traffic coming to England, so I am
instructed, not only the question of dead pigs
but all Irish traffic coming to England is carried
in England under the English classification; that
as a general principle, and not merely in the case
of dead pigs. *
Mr. Yates.] That has nothing to dowith the
actual rate. -
Mr. Cripps.] Mr. Harrison states that with
regard to pigs; but I am instructed that that is
so with regard to the traffic generally.
Chairman (To Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] I see
that the pigs are dead for curing purposes." Why
is it limited to curing purposes, because we
understand that when they arrive in London it is
doubtful whether they are to be cured or fresh 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The Irish evidence,
your Grace, went to show that there was a very
large traffic in pigs consigned purely for curing
purposes, that these were packed in layers two
or three deep, that they were not covered but
simply banged into the truck and carried in the
coarsest possible manner. The evidence showed
(and I think your Grace has seen some of it) that
there was a very considerable traffic in Ireland
of that kind. I admit that in England the general
traffic of English pig carcasses is somewhat of a
different kind ; that they are treated in a some-
what different manner ; but I am not at all sure,
and I think the Committee should ascertain if
they possibly can, whether, these Irish pigs
coming from Ireland to England are not carried
at a much lower rate than anything of which the
Committee have yet heard, and carried in a far
coarser manner than applies to pigs for con-
Sumption as pork.
Lord Belper.] Might I ask you whether you
See any practical objection on general grounds to
(81.)
4. A 3 putting
558
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAR EN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.
putting in such words as were suggested by Lord
Belmore : “carried in open trucks " ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] None whatever. If
the Committee can find any limiting words of
that sort I think that might possibly meet the
difficulty.
Mr. Cripps.] With reference to what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has said to your Grace on one
point, Mr. Twelvetrees is in the room, who
knows how the Irish traffic is dealt with in Eng-
land, and (I am only of course speaking upon
instructions now) he could give the Committee
information on that point, showing that in Eng-
land the Irish traffic is dealt with on what I may
call the English system, not by the Irish system :
that is with the greater care with which this
traffic is dealt with on English railways.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] On the Great Northern
Railway ?
Mr. Cripps.] From Ireland.
Chairman.] What railway would he speak
for 2 - -
Mr. Cripps.] For the Great Northern, which
would deal with traffic, I am told, coming by way
of Liverpool from Ireland.
MR. RICHARD HARPER TWELVETREES, is re-called ; and further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
4124. YoU have given evidence as the goods
and traffic manager of the Great Northern Com-
pany ?–Yes.
4125. Do you carry, over the Great Northern
system, dead pigs which, so far as carriage is
concerned, come from Ireland 2–In small quan-
tities, not so large of course as the London and
North Western Company ; but the traffic which
we carry from Ireland in dead pigs comes in in
hampers, the same as ordinary English meat.
Earl of Belmore.
4126. Then that does not apply to this case ?
—It may possibly come in crates.
Earl of Belmore.] In Ireland it is not carried
in hampers at all, it is carried in nothing.
Mr Cripps.] That is the distinction which I
thought Mr. Twelvetrees would make clear
between the Irish and the English mode; he
says, when it come to England they are not
carried in an open truck, but in hampers.
Earl of Belmore..] But the point is, how we are
to deal with the traffic when it is carried in the
Irish fashion.
Mr. Cripps.] As I understand, it is never
carried in the Irish fashion in England.
Earl of Belmore.] Then my suggestion, when
it is carried in open waggons, I think, ought to
meet the case.
Chairman.
4127. (To the Witness). When you say that
the pig is carried in hampers, can you state at
what period it is put into the hamper, whether
it is put into the hamper on the Irish or the
English side?— At the place where they slaughter
the pigs they are put into hampers, and they
come direct from the slaughter houses in Ireland
by way of Belfast and Liverpool to the English
market.
4128. Then do you carry any pigs in carcasses
on your line 7–Not loose, not in the open, they
all of them in hampers or wrapped up, some of
them in canvas.
Mr. Hanbury.
4129. Do they come over in such large quan-
tities that they fill an open truck, as they do in
Ireland 2–We do not know that traffic in open
trucks. -
Chairman—continued.
4130. But do they come in large quantities,
so that, if you were to put them in an open
truck, they would fill the truck?—We may get
two or three trucks of a night from Liverpool.
Mr. Wodehouse.
4131. Could you say whether the Irish pig,
when it reaches England in a hamper, is in the
same condition as it is when it is carried in an
open truck in Ireland 2–I should think so. I
think it is the same article.
Lord Houghton.
4132, You do not carry on the Great Northern
Railway, as I understand, any of the pigs spoken
of as being carried in open trucks in Ireland 2–
We do not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Yates.
4133. Can you tell me the actual rate from
Belfast to London 2–I cannot ; I should think it
is about ——
4134. Unless you know, perhaps you had better
not say?—I could give you within 10 s. ; I
should think it is between 80 s. and 85 s, to
London.
4135. For pigs?—Yes.
4136. That would be how many pigs to a ton,
about 10 2–I do not know, 20 I should think,
perhaps 25.
4137. That is the perishable rate, is it, 80s.?
—I really cannot tell you.
4138. Perhaps you can tell me this. Will
you take pigs as the typical article to guide the
rate to apply to Class 4, in which you propose to
put them 2–No, I think not.
4139. If it is an article that ought to be in
that class it ought to be governed by the same
rate as the other articles 2–No, I take fresh
meat as a typical article.
4140. Pigs is what we are dealing with at
present for curing purposes 2–We treat the pigs
in England as fresh meat.
4.141. Will you take pigs for curing purposes
as a typical article to guide the rate for Class 42
—I think not.
Mr. Yates.] I think you are wise.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILWAY RATES AFD CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
559
28 May 1891.
---------" "
Mr. Cripps.] It really comes back to this,
vour Grace, whether, looking at the conditions
of the traffic, this ought not to be dealt with
differently as regards the English companies and
the Irish companies. If not, you will have one
class for services which are admittedly Very
different in the two cases.
Chairman (to Mir. Yates).] Do you wish to
call witnesses 2 -
Mr. Yates.] No, your Grace, I would only
liked to have pointed out to the Committee
that no one practically has given us actual rates
with which we could guide and so compare with
the rates attached to Class 4, &c.
Chairman.] Mr. Wilkinson gave us those.
Mr. Yates.] Not the actual rates, it was only
guess work, it was only scale rates.
Chairman.] He gave us both.
Mr. Yates.] No, not from Liverpool.
Mr. Cripps.] With regard to Bristol, and
Slough and Bristol and London, Mr. Wilkin-
son gave us actual rates.
—w-
Mr. Yates.] He selected Slough because there
was no traffic.
Chairman.] Mr. Wilkinson gave us the actual
rates to London.
Mr. Yates.] Not from Birkenhead.
He said he could
Cbairman.] From Bristol. º
But you said he
not give us from Birkenhead.
gave none.
Mr. Yates.] I would like to point out that the
articles in Class 4.
Chairman.] You really have had your speech.
Mr. Yates.] I have not made one yet.
Chairman.] You have been talking.
Mr. Yates.] I cross-examined, I did not speak.
Mr. Cripps.] If the Committee want any in-
formation from Mr. Findlay I would propose tº
call him, he happens just to have come in ; if
your Grace wishes to hear further information
about the London and North Western traffic he
will give it.
Chairman.] I think it would be very valuable.
Mr. GEORGE FINDLAY, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
4142. ARE you conversant with the conditions
under which the dead pig traffic is carried on in
lreland 7–Yes, generally I am.
4143. I will just read this out to you, as we
have the Irish evidence here to freshen you up
about it. This is the evidence of Mr. Black
dealing with the carriage of pigs: “They may be
either coal, cattle, timber, or manure waggons;
they are not covered, but are perfectly open, and
there is no tarpaulin or covering of any sort re-
quired. The waggons can carry a full load.”—
ls that the case with regard to Ireland P
4144. I am taking it from the Irish evidence.
—My experience and observation with regard to
Ireland would tend to confirm that very much.
except that by far the largest proportion of the
rolling stock, that is, the waggon stock in Ireland,
is covered waggons, and it is carried in full truck-
loads, and covered, of course, from the weather.
There are very few tarpaulins used in Ireland.
4145. Taking that as the correct description of
the carriage of this traffic in Ireland, is the traffic
carried at all in the same way by your company,
the London and North Western, in England 2–
—No ; we have a very large what we call dead-
pig traffic between Clones, lnniskillen, Monaghan,
and Belfast, and England, and that is chiefly
carried in hampers, what we call dead-meat
hampers, holding from five to seven or eight or
perhaps as much as ten hundredweight carried in
hampers for convenience of transhipment, being
carried partly by sea and partly by land.
Earl of Camperdown.
4146. Are those whole pigs, pigs in carcass 2
—Pigs in carcass.
Mr. Cripps.
4.147. When the pigs in carcass, carried in
hampers and packed as you say, come on to the
English system, the London and North Western,
Mr. Cripps—continued.
are they carried at the English classification, and
at the English rates ?—All through traffic be-
tween England and Ireland is carried according
to the conditions of the English classification.
In Ireland proper, that is for local traffic in
Ireland, up to now the Irish companies have a
separate and distinct classification.
4148. Therefore has this traffic been carried
according to the Clearing House Regulation
heretofore under the Class 42–I should say
that, generally speaking, the rates are special
rates from Ireland to England, and not deter-
mined so much by the rate according to the
classification.
4149. Can you give instances of the actual
rate. Could you give the Birkenhead rate that
has been asked for, I do not know whether you
can give the Committee the Birkenhead rate to
London or the Liverpool rate to London 2–The
Liverpool rate for dead meat which would in-
clude pigs, supposing it to be landed at Liverpool,
is 25 s, for three tons and upwards, and if less
than three tons at 40 s. a ton. I should say
that the rate from Belfast, where we carry by
way of Fleetwood as well as by way of Liver-
pool, would be perhaps a little more than 50 s.,
(I have not got that rate before me), and from
the interior, Inniskillen, Clones and that district,
it would perhaps be between 55 s. and 60s, a
ton.
Earl of Camperdown.
4150. How would that compare with this rate
in the Clearing House classification for fresh
meat 2–That is classification.
4151. Yes, with the rate that is laid down as
belonging to this Class 4. Let us take Innis-
killen.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. There is no rate laid
down applicable to each class of the classifica-
tion.
(81.)
4. A 4 Mr.
560
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps.] Jt is classification, but without
the rate attached to it in the Clearing House
classification book. Your Lordship wants the
fourth class rate, I understand.
Earl of Camperdown..] I want the fourth class
rate ; that is what I mean.
Mr. Cripps.
4152. (To the Witness.) What would the
fourth class rate be, if I understand his Lord-
ship's question, apart from any special arrange.
ments under the Clearing House classification ?
—I have not got the rates from Belfast ; but the
fourth class rate from Liverpool——
Earl of Camperdown.
4153. I should like an Irish one presently 2–
Unfortunately I was not aware that the question
was going to be asked, and I have not got the
actual rate from Belfast; but I have from Li-
verpool, and the fourth class' rate from Liver-
pool is 50 s. as compared with the special rate of
25 s, in three-ton lots and upwards, and 40s, for
under three-ton lots; and it would probably be about
the same difference to Belfast, and to the interior
parts of Ireland.
Earl of Belmore.
4154. Are you aware that Inniskillen traffic
going to you would not go to Belfast at all, that
would go to Dundalk?—We are interested in
both routes, both by way of Greenore and by
way of Belfast; the through rates apply by both
TOuteS.
4155. They are the same 2—They are exactly
the same, and we carry by both; we have two
ways.
Earl of Belmore.] I know your route.
Mr. Cripps.
4156. Just to follow up another question;
could you give the distance from Liverpool to
London, just to compare it with the proposed
schedule rate 2—It is about the same thing, 200
miles.
Mr. Cripps.] In answer to the Earl of
Camperdown's question, I have had given me
here the Class 1 rate; that would give the first
class maximum rate for 200 miles as we work it
out (and it will be criticised by the other side) as
25 s. 9d. ; the actual rate now charged, as regards
Liverpool, is 25 s.
Witness.] That is a special rate subject to a
quantity of three tons.
Mr. Cripps.
4157. Yes, for three-ton lots; and for less than
three-ton lots 40s. ?—Whilst the class rate is
50 S.
4158. Are there special reasons why, as regards
large quantities, Liverpool is in a good position
as regards the rate to London 2–It is the port of
import for nearly all the American dead meat
traffic, not only that which is brought over as
dead meat, but the cattle traffic which comes to
the abattoirs there, and is slaughtered and carried
forward to London to the great markets. I
suppose there are some 40,000 to 45,000
tons of dead meat carried principally in full
train loads from Liverpool to London. The
Mr. Cripps—continued.
rate is fixed at a very low rate be-
cause, from actual inquiry and experience,
we have found that if 5 s. a ton were added to
that apparently very low rate, it would have the
effect of sending the dead meat direct to London
by steamers instead of its being brought to Liver-
pool and carried on by railway.
4159. May I put it in this way: that if you
were testing the proposed maximum as against
the existing actual rate, Liverpool would be the
worst test, if I may put it, so far as the railway
companies are concerned, because you have a
very low rate 2—I will answer it in the other way,
it is the most favourable to the trader.
4160. But even there the difference would only
be 9 d. 2–I have not followed that calculation,
but I presume it would.
4161. I have one other question to ask. At
the present time you carry the dead pig in the
fresh meat class, do you not ?—Whenever it has
to go long distances we make special rates. . It
is not a large trade; but there is this remarkable
fact with regard to it, especially in the neigh-
bourhood of Birmingham and Staffordshire, that
there are a large quantity of pigs fed there, and
we carry them in S or 10 waggons almost every
evening down to Carlisle and Cumberland, for
the purpose of making Cumberland bacon, and
then they come back again cured according to
the Cumberland recipe, I suppose, and enhanced
in price in consequence. That is about the only
trade I know of pigs on this line.
Cross-examined by Mr. Yates.
4.162. Does the 25 s. include collection and de-
livery 2–Yes.
4163. What do you take off the 25 s. for col-
lection and delivery before you get the actual
rate, 7 s. for London, or what?—No. In Liver-
pool we collect with our own teams; and in
London we deliver partly by our own teams and
partly by Pickfords.
4164. Could you give me a figure that you
deduct from the 25 s. for collection and delivery,
I mean anything in London or Liverpool, so as
to deduct it from the whole rate 2–I should
think the cost of collection in Liverpool is from
1 s. 8 d. to 2 s. per ton, and the cost of delivery
in London, cartage in London, would be abomt
5 S. per ton. -
4.165. Then we may take 6 s. 8d., or 7 s., or
whatever you like off 25 s., to get the actual rate.
namely, 18 s. 7–I give you, as near as I can, of
course, the average cost of those services.
4166. That is the rate, of course, to compare
against the Board of Trade's proposal, which does
not include collection and delivery 2—But I
have said that in taking the exceptional rate that
is quoted for very special purposes it is taking
one that is most
4167. Unfavourable to the company 2–The
imost in your favour ; and it would be manifestly
unfair to level down all other rates in that par-
ticular class, or that particular article to the
level of the lowest rate.
4.168. Supposing that you put it up in Class
4, and you know without the collection and
delivery the rate will be 43 s. 6 d. from Liver-
pool?—I have told you that the existing rate is
40 s.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs.
561
28 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Yates—continued.
40s, for smaller lots and 50 s. according to the
ordinary rate.
4169, That would be a difference of between
18-s. 4d. and 43 s. 6 d. 7
Mr. Cripps.] No.
Mr. Pope.] It is actual under conditions; but
you are not proposing to limit your quantity ?
Mr. Yates.] No, I am not proposing any-
thing; I am only showing the unfairness of this
proposal. *
Chairman.] But the 25 s., as I understood it,
was a special rate 2
Mr. Yates.] Yes,
delivery.
including collection and
Chairman.] But it is a special rate 2
Mr. Yates.] Yes.
Chairman.] But you are comparing it with the
maximum rate 7
Mr. Yates.
4170. With the proposed rate in the Board of
Trade's proposal that will come before you when
we come to deal with rates. (To the Witness.)
Can you tell me at all what proportion of the
London and North Western traffic is carried at
special rates ?—It was mentioned at the inquiry.
Chairman.] What are you asking about?
Mr. Yates.] To show that it is nearly all con-
veyed at special rates.
Chairman.] You had better confine yourself to
the pig question.
Mr. Yates.] My object is to show that this is
not special, if everything is carried at a special
rate.
Chairman.] Mr. Findlay has told us that it is
carried at a special rate, and we are bound to
take that as truth.
Mr. Yates." Unless I can show that it is not
so from Mr. Findlay's own mouth. -
Chairman || You cannot show that.
Mr. Yates.] I do not know that ; I have not
tried. (To the Witness.) Would you take this
as a typical article of Class 4 by which all the
rates in Class 4 shall be guided ?
Chairman.] Why do you put such a question
as that ?
Mr. Yates.] It is most important when you
come to deal with rates as you will find.
Chairman.] We are dealing with classification.
Mr. Yates.] But the effect is to double the
rate.
Earl of Belmore.
4171. (To the Witness.) Do I gather ſrom
your answer that the pig trade from Inniskillen
carried in open waggons so far as you know does
not cross the channel and come on to your
system 2–Yes.
4172. Are you aware that there is a large
traffic carried in open waggons 2–There is a
large traffic carried in Ireland both to Belfast,
which is a great curing centre, and to Limerick
which is a great curing centre.
4173. It does not come in that form to you ?
—No. . . ."
Lord Houghton.
4174. Those pigs you carry are not the
identical pigs carried in the open waggon -—
They are packed before they come from the
consignor. We have tens of thousands of
baskets for the purpose of carrying this des-
cription of traffic.
Chairman.
4175. Let me understand you : the pigs that
are carried in Ireland in open trucks and in
carcasses are cut up and put into hampers before
they come on to your system 2–No, those that
are carried in carcasses locally in Ireland are
carried in full track loads, generally in covered
trucks, going to some great curing centre such
as Belfast and Limerick. Those that are
destined for consumption in England are packed
at the point of delivery to the railway company
by the consignor, before they are actually put
upon the waggons in Ireland.
4176. Then no pig in carcass comes from
Ireland to England 2–Unless it is packed in
hampers.
Mr. Hanbury.
4177. Are those sent for curing purposes?—
I think that the largest proportion of them are
good-sized pigs, sent for pork for consumption in
Manchester and Liverpool and Birmingham and
South Staffordshire and elsewhere.
4178. But we are dealing with pigs dead for
curing purposes; are the pigs that you are
speaking of, that arrive in England, consigned
for curing purposes, or merely for pork?—A
certain proportion may be: but, speaking from
my own experience, those that are sent for
curing purposes are generally sent over alive,
and then sent to places where they are cured
afterwards. If I might be allowed to suggest it,
I think the words “for curing purposes” might,
with advantage, be left out altogether. It
makes no difference whether they are for curing
purposes or for pork purposes
Mr. Mason.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle has ex-
plained that he put that in to meet the Irish
trade.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4179. Would you, as carriers, know the
purposes for which the pig, are consigned, say
pigs consigned in hampers?—No. A dead pig
would be all the same to us, whether it was for
consumption as pork, or whether it was for being
cured.
4] 80. And it would be handed to you, I
suppose, under the same conditions and in the
same hampers?—From Ireland to England they
would.
4.182. Is there any traffic of this character
from Ireland to England not in carcasses, but in
pigs cut up 2–No.
4183. It is all a carcass traffic 2–It is all a
carcass traffic, and packed in the manner I have
described.
Mr. Hunter.
4.184. As I understand, from the way in which
this trade in pigs for curing purposes, as carried
on in Ireland, you do not think it is unreasonable
that in Ireland it should be carried in the first
(81.)
4 B class 2
562
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Hunter-—continued.
class 2–I am not altogether conversant with the
circumstances of the Irish railways; I know that
they like to have as high rates as they possibly
can for the conveyance of this particular traffic ;
but, speaking generally of dead meat carried in
full truck loads, such as I know it to be the case
in Ireland, I do not think it would be an unfair
proposition ; but do not take me as conclusive.
The Irish managers would like to be heard upon
the question.
Mr. Dickson.
4.185. Did I rightly understand you to say
that you carried this dead meat in England 200
miles from Liverpool to London for 18 s., station
to station ?–Yes, that would be about it.
4186. Are you aware that under the Board of
Trade proposal for Ireland in the case of dead
pigs for curing purposes, the Irish trader would
pay 19 s. 1 a. for 100 miles? — I am not
aware of that; but I am not sure that you are
comparing things that are quite alike. I have
already said to the Committee that the total
weight of dead meat carried from Liverpool to
London is nearly 45,000 tons a-year, and that is
sometimes two and three train loads in the course
of a day, according to the arrival of the
Steamers. -
4187. Are you not aware that the dead pig
trade coming from all the centres in the province
of Ulster to Belfast daily, and other towns, for
curing purposes, amounts to about the same 2–1
was not aware of that fact. I know it is a large
trade.
4 / 88. Some millions of pigs, are there not 2–
I have not thought of millions, but I know it is
a very large trade.
Chairman.
4189. The proposal of the railway companies,
you know, is to strike out “pigs dead for curing
purposes,” for the purpose, I conclude, of put-
ting them into another class, as we have been
told, in fact. But would this meet the view of
the companies: “ dead pigs in carcasses carried in
open waggons at owners request”? That would
be the same way as they are carried in Ireland 2–
If your Grace would allow us to consult with the
other general managers for a minute or two, I
should be glad to give an answer to that ques-
tlOn.
Chairman.] Yes, you may consult.
After a short interval.
Mr. Cripps.] If we might put three or four
words into the suggested definition I think that
would carry it, only with the view of making the
system similar in Ireland and in England. After
“dead pigs in carcass" we propose to put in
these words, “not packed or wrapped carried in
open waggons at traders’ request.’
Chairman.] Very well, have you anything to
say upon that, Mr. Yates.
Mr. Yates.] I do not think there is any-
thing to object to in that.
Mr. Richards.] I would suggest, with great
deference to your Grace, that the words, “ or
wrapped " should not be in.
Chairman.] No, that is the whole point. Then
we strike out the words “pigs dead for curing
purposes * and insert those words. Then the next
amendment is after “ timber * insert, “except
round timber.”
Mr. Cripps.] The point there is this, your
Grace, that round timber when sent by measure-
ment weight differs from actual weight in a much
greater percentage than sawn or square timber
when sent by measurement weight. By applying
measurement weight to round timber you get a
greater inaccuracy as compared with actual
weight to what you do when you send square or
sawn timber by measurement weight. It is more
easy in fact to make an accurate measurement of
sawn or square timber than it is of round
timber ; the result being that the percentage
of difference between the measurement weight of
round timber, and the actual weight is greater
than the difference between actual weight and
measurement weight, in the case of square or
sawn timber, and, your Grace, this distinction
was recognised in the schedule originally put
forth by the Board of Trade and submitted to
Parliament, because in that schedule (I do not
know whether your Grace has it before you),
under Class l, was put timber, except round
measurement weight, which is what we seek to
do now, and in Class 2 it is “ timber round
measurement weight”; so that what the railway
companies ask for is that the same difference
should be maintained in the schedule now before
this Committee; it was recognised in the original
schedule of the Board of Trade ; and from the
railway companies’ point of view they think they
are justified, and that the original proposal of the
Board of Trade is the right one, because when
you measure round timber you get a greater in-
accuracy as regards actual weight than you do
when you measure sawn or square timber. I do
not know whether your Grace has before you
what I call the original schedule, but that has in
it exactly the words that we are now proposing
on behalf of the railway companies.
Chairman.] At what page is it 2
Mr. Cripps.] Page 62, your Grace; that is
the second reference.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is so; I will
admit that.
Mr. Cripps.] At page 56, first of all, some-
where about half-way down, you will see “tim-
ber, except round measurement weight °; and
then if your Grace turns to page 62 you will
see “timber round measurement weight.” Now
what we propose is that that distinction should
be maintained, or should be reinstated in the
schedule now before the Committee, and rein-
stated for this reason : that in measurement
weight, when you are dealing with round timber,
you may get a difference of as high as from 50
to 100 per cent. from what the actual weight
would be ; whereas in dealing with square or
sawn timber the difference between actual
weight and measurement weight is something
like 12% to 15 per cent. Now your Grace
and the Committee are aware that timber when
sent by actual weight is now in Class C. : that
is a lower class, and the railway companies con-
sider, and it is in accordance with the original
design
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
563
28 May 1891.
design of the Board of Trade, that the difference
between actual weight and measurement weight
for square timber is about the same, or some-
what in the same proportion, as taking
measurement weight between square and round
timber, and that, therefore, the three classes
as originally proposed by the Board of Trade
are a fair classification as between the railway
companies and the traders, because, of course, a
fair classification means that a fair sum should
be paid in reference to what is actually carried, or
the services actually rendered ; and upon this
point of view I propose to call evidence to show
that there is that distinction which was recognised
in the first place by the Board of Trade, and of
which we ask for the reinstatement.
Chairman. Before you call your witnesses, as
this is an alteration made by the Board of Trade,
we should like to hear what Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has to say upon the subject.
Mr. Clifford.] Before Mr. Courtenay Boyle
speaks, might I suggest that the whole question
affecting the rates for timber should be con-
sidered together; because your Grace will see .
that the next amendment upon the paper is an
amendment by the Mansion House to omit timber
measurement weight; and the issue between the
railway companies and the timber traders is just
this : that while they propose to divide the timber
into three classss, it being now under a Pro-
visional Order in two classes, we, representing
the timber traders, propose that timber should be
classified in one class (Class C.). That is the
simple issue between us, and I thought it might
be more convenient perhaps that that issue should
be tried now. -
Mr. Cripps.] I submit, your Grace, that we
should deal with the amendment like the other
railway companies' amendments now subject to
what your Grace said generally just now about
any traders’ question arising.
Chairman.] Yes, I think so.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Your Grace, the point
is as stated by Mr. Clifford; that there is a very
considerable difference of opinion as to the
methods upon which the classification of timber
should be settled by Parliament. As your Grace
heard yesterday, the Mansion House Committee
are willing not to press their amendment if the
classification as it stands remains settled by the
Committee. Now with regard to what Mr.
, Cripps has said I do not think it is necessary to
furnish much evidence to the Committee to show
that the difference between machine weight and
measurement weight of sawn and square timber
is very different from the difference between
measurement weight and machine weight of
round timber. Of course sawn timber can be
measured either by calipers, or by string, or by
tape, and the accuracy of that measurement is
much greater. Mr. Cripps is unquestionably
right, and I do not think it is matter for
argument at all that the accuracy of that
measurement is much greater than the accuracy
of the measurement of round timber. Round
timber is measured either by tape that passes
over the bark or by string which goes into the
interstices of the bark or in some instances by
calipers, but whatever the method adopted is,
and after the measurement whatever the method
of calculation is, the difference between measure-
ment and machine weight measurement of round
timber must be greater than the difference
between, measurement and machine weight of
sawn and square timber. That being admitted,
it was contended, and is contended now by the
railway companies, that the round timber measure-
ment weight should go into a higher class of the
classification than other timber at measurement
weight. Now it is impossible for the Committee
to decide that question entirely as a matter of
classification. I am afraid that they must look,
although I should be very glad if it could be
avoided, also at the question of rate. It was
pressed upon the notice of the Board of Trade,
after the issue of the Report to Parliament, that
the rates prºposed in the Provisional Order as
reported to Parliament would, in certain classes
of timber, actually be increasing the statutory
powers of certain of the railway companies.
Now in the Blue Book which is before your
Lordships, at page 86 you will find on the
London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, on
which a great deal of timber is carried, that the
through rate for timber is 2 d. a ton a mile.
Chairman.] Where abouts is that ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is column 13, your
Grace, on the top line of all. On page 64, on
the principal line of the London and North
w estern Company, for sugar, grain, flour, hides,
timber, etc., under 50 miles it is 24 d., and ove:
50 miles 2d. Now, the rate proposed in the
Provisional Order for Class 1 begins at 2:20 d.,
which is more than 2 d., and goes down to 1.30 d.
upon the long distance; and in addition to that,
service terminals and station terminals are
arranged. It was stoutly argued before the
Board of Trade that there was no justification
for increasing the statutory powers of the com-
panies in respect of timber carried by measure-
ment weight. Well, now, I am nearly certain
that some of the learned gentlemen will take
this point, that in the Acts of Parliament “tim-
ber" means timber and deals, that is to say, that
it means hewn timber and sawn timber, and that
“ timber " does not in any Act of Parliament
mean round timber. That was a contention that
did not commend itself to the Board of Trade in
the interest of the traders. They were of opinion
that the Acts of Parliament fixing 2 d. per ton
per mile covered round timber as well as sawn
timber, and that, therefore, the rate in the
present Acts of Parliament is 2 d. a ton.
per mile. That being so they did not see
any justification for raising the statutory
powers of the company from 2 d. a ton
per mile to the rate in Class 2, which is 2.65 d.
Consequently, after the issue of the Report, they
put all timber measurement weight into Class I,
instead of leaving round timber measurement
weight in Class 2. That was a reduction of the
proposals as against the railway companies; but
as it stands now, it is more in accordance with
the present statutory powers of the companies
than it was when the Report was presented to
Parliament. I do not know whether I have left
out any point that has occurred to the Committee.
Those were the main reasons that influenced the
Uoard.
Chairman.] When you say it is more in favour
(81.)
4 B 2 of
564
MINUTES OF EVIDENUE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.
of the railway companies, the charge is about
half is it not ? I understand you say that it is
2 d. iiow.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle ] The present statutory
powers are 2 d. ; we began with 2:20 d., which is
more still.
Earl of Camperdown.] Might I ask you this
question : In the first instance, apparently, in
the old Acts there was a fixed sum for all classes
of timber, you, in your original proposal, pro-
posed three classes; why did you for the first
time, or what was your reason for the first time
instituting a difference of charge between the
various sorts of timber ? -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] You will find that, my
Lord, very clearly set out in the report. We
believed that where timber was consigned at
machine weight, it was reasonable that there
should be a lower rate than where timber was
consigned at measurement weight.
weight is far more accurate than measurement
weight, and it is impossible that the railway
companies should be asked to carry more than
they are paid for by machine weight. If they
carry by measurement weight, it is possible that
the charges and the actual work done will not
perfectly agree ; consequently the Board of
Trade proposed three different classifications
before. Now they have reduced those three
classifications to two.
Earl of Camperdown.] But when you inserted
the difference for the first time between round
and square timber. What was your reason for
making that difference 2 Prima facie it would
appear that you saw a reason for charging more
for round than square timber. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We were influenced
first by the reason referred to by Mr Cripps,
that there is a greater difference between
machine and measurement weight in round
timber than there is in square timber ; and in
the first instance we thought it would be fair to
recognise that difference. Then it was pointed
out to us that in doing so we should be so in-
creasing the statutory powers of the company
that it would not be fair to the company.
Mr. Hunter.] In what class is round timber in
the Clearing House Classification ?
Mr.
Classification is rather involved about timber.
If you will look at page 99 you will see that the
conditions laid down in the Clearing House
Classification are very complicated, and we did
our best to simplify then and we venture to think
that we have.
Mr. Clifford.] There is one point that Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has inadvertently omitted
which is of extreme importance, and that is that
in the existing acts there is no recognition what-
ever of actual machine weight. The system
there is measurement weight universally.
Chairman.] But you will have an opportunity
presently of addressing the Committee upon that
point.
Mr. Cripps, Your Grace, first of all, of course
there is no discussion between the Board of
Trade and the railway companies that as a
Machine
Courtenay Boyle.] The Clearing House
matter of correct principle this distinction ought
to be made, that is admitted on both sides ; but
it is suggested that if a distinction is made,
which is of course only fair——
Mr. Clifford.] We do not admit that.
Mr. Cripps.] I am discussing the matter as
between us and the Board of Trade.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I beg your pardon,
you went a little further than I went. I
admitted that the difference did exist. Whether
it should be recognised in the classification I am
not quite certain.
Chairman (To Mr. Cripps).] I think you had
better call your witness.
Mr. Cripps.] There is just one point upon
which I think it is necessary to call a witness,
although it is hardly a point of evidence, but
I would first call attention to this, that the diff.
erence is admitted, and of course as between
trader and trader if there is a difference, in order
to put all traders upon a fair basis, it should be
recognised, but as Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
suggested that, recognising this fair distinction,
the result might be that as regards round timber
measurement, the railway companies would get a
greater maximum rate than they do at the present
time. Now, your Grace, there are two answers to
that. First of all the existing charges for timber
in the existing schedules have reference to what
I should call now machine weight, that is to say,
you are entitled to charge a given rate per ton
for timber, and you are entitled to take the
actual weight, of course. We know that the
computed rate is different to the actual rate; you
are entitled to take the actual rate whenever you
are in a position to ascertain it.
Mr. Clifford..] I do not like to interrupt my
learned friend, but this is a little irregular. My
learned friend is going to call evidence and he
will require to speak again.
Chairman.] You shall have every opportunity
of speaking, Mr. Clifford. Mr. Cripps is now
commenting upon what Mr. Courtenay Boyle has
stated to us.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, your Grace, that is so; and
if my my argument so for is right, and if there
is the difference, which is admitted, as between
round measurement and machine weight, it is
obvious of course that no question arises as
regards a new maximum being given to the
railway companies greater than their existing
maximum, because the difference is made on what
I may call a difference in fact, or a difference
in principle, which would merely adjust what now
may be a certain inequality as to actual differ-
ence as between trader and trader. But I would
point this out as far as I followed the instances
given by Mr. Courtenay Boyle; I think as
regards the London and North Western Com-
pany, which was the instance he gave, the
maximum rate per ton for timber under 50 miles
is 23 d., and over 50 miles is 2 d. That is the
General Act and the lowest rate. Now, if your
Grace will take the proposed schedule, and apart
from the difference in the question of measure-
ment under the class, if this timber under round
measurement was put up to Class 2, as we
propose,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEE PROVISIONAL OF DER BILLS. 565
28 May 1891.
propose, the maximum rate for over 50 miles is
23 d. ; no doubt, for smaller distances it goes up
to 2-65 d., and for over 100 miles it is 2 d I
admit that there is a certain difference, but it is
a very slight difference indeed as between
the present maxima, and the maxima to be
applied where you have round measurements,
and, as Mr. Mason tells me, taking the Shrews-
bury and Hereford Line, which is the chief
timber district on the London and North West-
ern system, there you have a maximum of 3 d. ;
therefore clearly this alteration as regards the
London and North Western Company, in some
cases does not bring it up to the maximum,
and even where it slightly exceeds the
maximum, it is to a very small extent
indeed. Then, your Grace, I have here
before me the Great Western maximum rates
with regard to timber, and the prevailing rate is
3 d. or 4 d. as the maximum rate, although in
one instance for over 50 miles it is 2 d., but for
under 50 miles it is 2; d., just as in the case of
the London and North Western Act, although
in a large majority of cases I have 3 d. or 4 d. as
the maximum rate. Therefore, your Grace and
the Committee will see that there is a distinction
here which would be fairly recognised as between
trader and trader. A distinction which, according
to the contention of the railway companies, would
still generally be within the existing maxima.
They say these maxima do not necessarily apply
to measurements of round timber, and even on the
maxima pointed out by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, it
would be only in very few exceptional cases that the
new maxima would exceed the maxima which we
now propose. That is the argument. Of course
upon this point we can call witnesses before the
Committee to carry out what I have stated; out
it seems to me to be chiefly argument upon the
admitted facts.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] You have not mentioned
what the 2 d. Act of the Great Western is. It
is the Act of 1847, the main Act.
Mr. Clifford.] And in the other Act you
have quoted of the Great Western it is not 3 d.
Lord Houghton (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).]
Why do you assume that supposing round timber
weight to be uncertain the error should always
work out in favour of the traders and against the
railway companies?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The measurement
must be larger than the actual weight.
Lord Houghton.] Why? .
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Because the tape goes
round the bark, and it is more than the actual
cubical contents.
Lord Houghton.] But I suppose a similar de-
duction is made.
Mr. Hunter..] It would not apply to oak,
would it 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, not to oak if sawn,
but to oak in bark. I think everybody, even
the railway companies themselves, contend that
the measurement weight always works out larger
than the machine weight.
... Chairman.] But oak is never sent with the
bark upon it, it is always barked.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I know, your Grace,
but then even so, all the evidence before us went
to show that measurement weight worked out
as a rule larger than machine weight. I think
º learned counsel on the other side will admit
that.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, that is the basis of making
the difference in the classification.
Lord Houghton.] Your observation was that
the variation in measurement weight was more
than the variation in machine weight.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, my Lord, there is
a greater variation between machine weight and
measurement weight in the ease of round timber,
than there is between machine weight and mea-
surement weight in the case of square timber,
because it is easier to measure perfectly accu-
rately square timber than round timber.
Lord Belper.] Is not measurement weight
always in excess of the machine weight?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The measurement
weight is nearly always in excess of the machine
weight.
Lord Houghton ] But surely, if a large quan-
tity of bark is measured on timber, and allow-
ance duly made after taking that measurement
for the bark that is on it, no one could measure
an inch of bark on timber and then take that
full measurement as the measurement of the
timber.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] You will find, my
Lord, that there is a great deal of difference be-
tween tape measurement and string measure-
ment, simply because the tape goes over the
bark, and the string goes into the interstices.
Lord Houghton.] That is very true, but then a
deduction is made.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It always works out
that measurement weight is in excess of machine
weight.
Mr. Cripps.] In regard to what Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has said, I think it was taken as almost
admitted on both sides.
Mr. Clifford.] No.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes; I think it was taken as
almost admitted that when you put the measure-
ment into tons, which, of course, is a question of
cubic feet, the measurement weight always works
out higher than the actual weight.
Mr. Clifford.] As a matter of fact, with regard
to sawn timber, I believe the evidence already
given shows that the measurement weight gives
the margin in favour of the company; so far from
it being unfair towards them, it gives them a
margin. I am speaking of square timber, not
sawn timber. That is all the difference there is,
Chairman.] You said “sawn º' timber. There
is a difference between sawn and square timber.
Mr. Clifford..] Yes, your Grace, I am speaking
of square timber.
Mr. Cripps.] That is, of course, our point
that there is a difference between the square and
the round.
Lord Houghton.] Does the trader measure the
timber in all cases ; is it not checked by the
railway company 7
(81.)
4 B 3 Mr.
566
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.
Mr. Cripps.] I presume it would be checked
by the companies; but it is a system of measure-
ment, and the application of the feet to the ton,
particularly on round timber, which makes the
measurement weight work out to a higher figure
than the machine weight.
Ilord Belper.] Not much.
Mr. Cripps.] On the average, I think that was
assumed almost after discussion.
Mr. Clifford.] I am told, as a matter of fact,
that the railway companies frequently keep their
OWI) IQ @*SUll’éS.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, but that merely enables them
to check the solid contents of the log, whatever
it may be.
Chairman.] The main point, Mr. Pope, is
whether by accepting your amendment we do in-
crease your statutory powers with reference to
round timber 2
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Chairman.] I think that has been admitted by
Mr. Cripps.
Mr. Cripps.] Well, your Grace, with submis-
sion, if I may say so, it was pointed out that on a
certain section, I admit a large section, of the
London and North Western, to a very small ex-
tent and under particular heads the maximum
might be exceeded; but you have to take against
that all the other sections, taking for instance the
London and North Western Railway, and more
particularly the Shrewsbury and Hereford sec-
tion, our present maximum is 3 d., whereas the
proposed maximum would be between 2 d. and
2-65 d. ; and the same applies in fact to the Great
Western Railway. A large part of the Great
Western Railway is subject to the maximum of
2} d. and 2 d. ; or, as regards very small distances,
the new maximum might exceed it ; but on the
other part of their system it is 3 d. ; I think if the
maximum were fairly worked out, the new maxi-
mum so far from exceeding the old maximum, would
belower. Ihave the Midland Act here and over a
great part of their system it is 3; d., and in the
case of a large number of other big systems it is
3 d., although I must point out that in one case it
goes down as low as l; d., for a short distance
comparatively, for 10 miles, and in another case
as low as 1, d. ; but over the great majority of
the system it would very much exceed the pro-
posed maximum we are on now.
Mr. Hunter.] On the Great Eastern Railway,
what is it 2
Mr. Cripps.] I have the Great Northern
before me now, and it is 3; d. and 3 d., except
in one case, and there again in one case it goes
down to 2; d. and 2 d.
Chairman.] I think the Committee are not
prepared to accept your amendment. What is
the next amendment P
Mr. Cripps.] The next one, I think, must
stand over, it is at the bottom of the page to
omit Class C., and insert instead Classes A., B.,
and C. I fancy that must stand over until the
iron question has been settled one way or the
other.
Chairman.] I see “Algerian fibre.”
you just explain what that is ?
Will
Mr. Cripps.] I think that had better stand
over, your Grace, for the moment, because it
comes very much under two important instances
we have to deal with with reference to hay and
Straw. It is generally classified, I believe,
under the head of “straw,” and it would be more
simple to take them first. Then the same applies
to china, glass, esparto grass, and flax straw ;
that might stand over until we have discussed
the hay and straw question generally. Then
the next, e. O. h.p., has to do with the fruit ques-
tion, which is standing over for the southern
lines; we discussed it yesterday. And then the
next amendment has to do with the southern
lines, cherries and raspberries; and then there
are two further amendments dealing with fruit;
and then there is the hardware amendment,
which will stand over for the present.
Mr. Clifford.] With submission I would submit
that the amendments referring to fruit should be
out of the list, because they now refer specially
under the decision of the Committee to the
Southern companies, therefore they should not be
in the general list.
Mr. Cripps.] Very well, we will pass them by.
Then, your Grace, the next amendment is an
exceedingly important one.
Chairman.] On what page?
Mr. Cripps.] On page 15 to omit “hay,
e. 0., p. h., minimum load, 30 cwt. per wag-
gon.” This is an exceedingly important amend-
ment raising this question in substance whether
hay should not be raised from Class 2 to
Class 3. When the Board of Trade first of all
submitted their classification to Parliament, hay
was placed in Class 3, and I should just explain
to your Grace that the words, “except otherwise
herein provided,” apply in this instance to hay
which has been machine pressed or pressed by
hydraulic method. So what we are dealing with
here is all the ordinary hay which may be carried
as between the farming districts and large towns,
but it does not deal with hay pressed either by
hydraulic machinery or by ordinary machine
method. That is in Class C. and Class 1., I
think.
Chairman.] What distinction do you draw
between machine pressed hay and other hay?
Mr. Cripps.] It is in Class C., I think, when
it is hydraulic pressed, and when it is machine
pressed only I think it is in Class J. Now,
your Grace, this hay is merely sent in trusses.
There is no pressure at all. It is merely
hay cut in trusses and sent for consumption
as between different districts in the country or
as between the country and the towns. It is
not submitted to any pressure, but merely sent
as cut from the rick, partly in farmers' waggons
to the station and from the station to the various
consuming centres. When the Board of Trade
first of all submitted their schedule to Parlia-
ment, they put hay in Class 3., which we are
now asking to be done, but with this distinction:
when hay was in Class 3. there was no mini-
mum load of 30 hundredweight per-waggon; and
when hay was raised from Class 3. to Class 2.
by the Board of Trade.that new provision was
for the first time inserted.
Chairman.]
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
567.
28 May 1891.
Chairman.] Lowered.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, your Grace, lowered ; and
in regard to that I should like to say that of
course your Grace will have a good deal of evi-
dence upon this point, because it involves very
large pecuniary interests of the railway com-
panies, but the trade is carried on under such
conditions that it is very seldom that a less load
than that of 30 hundredweight per waggon is in
fact sent ; so that looking at the conditions of
traffic as they are now carried on this provision
of a minimum load will affect, if at all, only to a
very slight degree the existing course of traffic,
and the business from whatever reason, probably
in reference to the nature of the hay, is not sent
or only sent to a very small extent in less than
this minimum load of 30 hundredweight per
waggon. Now, your Grace, I propose to com-
pare for this purpose the proposed maxima with
the existing maxima, the proposed maxima with
the Clearing House classification, and as far as
we can, from instances taken, the proposed
maxima with the actual rates now charged. And
just let me give an illustration upon that point to
start with. The Great Northern Company,
which I will take as an illustration, comparing
the proposed maxima with the existing actual,
calculate that the loss to them alone upon their
system would be from 3,000 l. fo 4,000 l. a year.
I have also the figures on the Great Eastern
system, that is, comparing actual with maxima,
which would work out to nearly as large a sum ;
whereas on the Great Western it works out to a
very much larger sum indeed; and taking those
three railways as railways very much interested
in this question of the actual rates which they
now charge, and with which no special fault has
been found by the traders, there would be a loss
to them of 20,000 l. a year as between the pro-
posed maxima and the existing actual. Now,
your Grace, of course you have the maxima
before you as regards Class 2, the maximum
rates in Class 2 being given in the schedule.
Chairman.] Take the North Western Pro-
visional Order.
It is on
that the
Mr. Cripps.] I will, your Grace.
page 11. Your Grace sees
maxima there in Class 2. are 2-65 d.,
according to distance, 2-50 d. ; 2.20 d., 2 d.,
and 1.60 d. That is in Çiass 2. Now
on the Great Northern system (comparing now,
for the moment, maxima with maxima) the lowest
maxima which I have been supplied with are
3; d. and 3 d. beyond 50 miles, whereas in many
cases upon the Great Northern the maxima run
up as high as 4 d. and 5 d., as regards the hay
traffic ; and, in the same way, I have the maxima
on other systems, but probably it would be more
convenient to put it before the Committee in
evidence.
Earl of Camperdown.] How is hay classed in
these railway maximum charges; how does hay
appear 2
Mr. Cripps.] It would appear in the highest
class wherever it is not classed. -
Mr. Hunter.] You assume that it is to be
in the same class as toys, and all that sort of
thing.
Mr. Cripps.] It is not quite that, if I might
say so, for this reason, that in a grº at many Acts
it is not mentioned, and therefore it has been
taken in that case that you may put it into the
highest class, but that is not so by any means
universally. There are Acts in which it is men-
tioned, and in which it is specifically mentioned.
The Great Eastern is one.
Earl of Camperdown.] When you were speak-
ing of the Great Northern, I could not find it
under the Great Northern ; and that is what
made me ask in what class did you charge it
under in the case of the Great Northern ?
Mr. Cripps.] What class it is to be under, my
Lord, I will come to in a minute, on the Clearing
House classification point. Just for the moment
I was dealing with the maxima. If the maxima
which have been given to me as regards the
Great Northern are not given on what I may
call the actual mention of hay, no doubt they
are taken as on the highest class, and as the
honourable Member has pointed out (I was going
to give that as a further illustration) on the
Great Eastern where the hay class is specially
named-I think it is 4 d.—ſ am instructed by
Mr. Birt that I am right. Therefore while we
have the hay actually classified as against the
2-65 d, going down to 1:60 d., we have in the
case of the Great Eastern 4 d., corparing maxima
with maxima, and in all other cases where hay
is either mentioned or where it is not mentioned,
and therefore taking the highest class there is a
very large difference between the proposed
maxima in Class 2, and the existing actual
powers of the company. c
Mr. Hunter.] Is there any other Act than the
Great Eastern in which hay is mentioned 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.j In the Act of the
London, Tilbury and Southend Railway.
Mr. Cripps. I have an Act before me in .
which it is mentioned in the case of one of the
local lines of the Great Western, where it is 3.
Earl of Belmore..] In the Clearing House
classification it is Class 2.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, I am going to explain how
that is. In the Clearing House classification it
is in Class 2, but it is carried under Class 2
only from station to station at collection and de-
livery rates; collection and delivery rates mean
charges for collecting the traffic at ône end, and
bringing it to the station, and for taking it from
the station and delivering it at the other end.
Earl of Belmore.] Terminals 2
the tº e -] º * e - ~ : º -
Mr. Cripps. Not terminals; outside terminals
altogether. They are cartage charges.
Lord Belper.] Just like the collection and de-
livery of luggage and goods in London 2
Mr. Cripps...] Yes, my Lord, just the Same ;
and it is very important to note that hay, which
is in Class 2 of the Clearing House classific
tion, which includes collection and delivery, is
not as a fact collected and delivered for 'the
traders at either end. Of course that makes a
much greater difference to hay than we propose
by raising hay a class, and I think I can show,
that in a minute. If we raise hay a class, and
(81.)
4 B 4 S3 ".
568
MINUTES OF EV IIDENCE L'AKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE .
* >
28 May 1891.
we take 50 miles, , that is a very little distance
to take, instead of having a maximum power of
2-50 d., we shall have a maximum power of
2.90 d., that is to say, we should have a maxi-
mum power greater by 0:40 than what the
schedule now proposes to give us.
Chairman.] Although you raise it a class, it
comes out to 3.10 d. 7
Mr. Cripps.] But, your Grace, I was dealing
for the sake of convenience with the 50 miles,
which is about the average distance which hay is
in fact carried, from 2-50 d., to 2-90 d. If you
took collection and delivery, as has been, i think,
admitted in this room at about 5 s., you would
have to carry hay 150 miles before the 0:40 in
the proposed difference of maxima made up for
the collection and delivery rate in accordance
with the Clearing
Class 2. * -
Mr. Hunter.] I do not see that mentioned
here.
Mr. Cripps.] It is mentioned as a station to
station rate. And therefore our proposal would
put us in a much less favourable position than we
are in now under the Clearing House classification,
because, supposing the average distance at which
hay is carried is about 50 miles, and I think the
evidence will be that it is carried a somewhat
shorter distance than that, then the 0:40, which is
the margin we are now asking for, as between
Class 2 and Class 3, would only give us a
third of the advantages we now get under the
Clearing House classification if we take 5 s. as
the approximate all round cost of collection and
delivery.
Earl of Belmore.] When you say collection
and delivery, does not “...S. to S.” mean station to
station only, without collection and delivery.
Mr. Chipps.] Yes, my Lord, that is so.
Earl of Belmore.] That is Class 2.
Mr Cripps.] Yes, that is Class 2, but the
station to station rate there in Class 2, includes
the class which, except as regards hay, is collected
and delivered, and all the classes there include:
bollection and delivery. -
Earl of Belmore.] I see that that class includes
other things.
Mr. Cripps. That is so, my Lord. Therefore
hay is charged there as much without collection
and delivery as other articles are with collection
and delivery; and if we take that as a test,
and I am told that it is a fair test to take, if we take
the 5 s. as an all round fair price for collection
and delivery then I say, that in order to put usin
as good a position under Class 3 as, we are in
the Clearing House classificatiºn under Class 2,
we should have to carry for an average distance
of 150 miles, whereas as a matter of fact the
average distance is under 50 miles. We shall
have a good deal of evidence upon this point,
your Grace, because it is a very, important one
to the railway companies; but there is another
point which I should like to say a word about as
regards the carriage of hay. Whether under
Class 2 or Class 3, if your Grace has the
table before you, the covering and uncovering
would be charged 4 d.; your Grace sees that
House classification in
it is 2 d. for the covering and 2 d. for the
uncovering. Now as regard hay this a very
expensive matter indeed, because you have to
provide, as regards hay chiefly, for questions
of insurance as regards any risk of fire you
have in each case to provide two sheets and not
only have you to provide the sheets but the
hay has to be very carefully covered and
to stand for a certain time at the station in order
that it may settle down and that there may not
be any risk of its getting off the truck during
transit or anything of that kind; and there is the
case of Coxon against the North Eastern Rail-
way Company, where as regards the provision of
sheets and covering and uncovering at the two
ends, one 4 d. was allowed by the Railway Com-
missioners as a fair charge for the Railway Com-
pany, whereas here of course we must admit as
regards covering and uncovering we should get
4 d. only.
Earl of Camperdown.] You would only
the same under Classes 2 and 3.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, my Lord, we should only
get the same under Classes 2 and 3. There-
fore, as regards the rate, we should be in a dis-
tinctly worse position than under the Clearing
House classification as regards covering and un-
covering terminal, I am not making a complaint
against that, and in a very much worse position
than we are at the present time. Now, your
Grace, the only comparison which I said I would
make (I will not give the actual figures now) is .
as between the maximum in this Class 2 and
the actual rates, putting out of sight class rates
altogether, and all the evidence will be upon the
highest adjusted allowances (there is always that
difficulty in these cases) that as regards the
Great Western, the Great Eastern and the Great
Northern, which are the three cases taken and
which have been carefully tested, the companies
would lose no less than 20,000 l., the three to-
gether, as between the actual rate and the pro-
posed maximum, though, of course, as your
Lordship knows, those are not really the right
comparisons to make. You ought to compare
maxima with maxima as far as possible and
having some margin with regard to the actual.
get
Now if I have explained sufficiently what the
position is, I propose to call evidence upon this
point with regard to those three companies.
Earl of Belmore.] With regard to what you
said just now about a fair comparison ; you mean
the loss is not quite so much, because the charges
are not quite so much as the maxima at pre-
Sent. - --
Mr. Cripps.] No, my Lord, it was not quite that.
I said when you are proposing to compare actual
charges with new maxima there is always a cer-
tain difficulty in the comparison to show that
you are comparing similar services in the two
cases and that you are comparing all the maxima,
terminals and all, as against all the actual. That is
a difficulty which I think has occurred through-
out the whole course of this inquiry. Therefore
there is always a necessary adaptation in dealing
with the actual and making a comparison with
the new maxima which is a matter of estimate, in
getting at it as closely as you possibly can ; I
think that always occurs when you have to com-
pare
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL oRDER HILLS.
569
28 May 1891.
pare actual with maxima. Then, your Grace,
might I correct one statement. I did not know
at the time, but I am told that with regard to
the 20,000 l., which I mentioned in the case of
the three companies as the loss on hay, there is
very much the same point about straw, but I
wish to keep it distinct.
Earl of Camperdown.] Could you not take
the hay and the straw together.
Mr. Cripps.] I think it would be better and
more easy, my Lord, to take hay by itself.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Are not the two very
much together?
Mr. Cripps.] I think, perhaps, we might take
them together as his Lordship has suggested,
but I do not know that I need go through the
same argument again, because, no doubt, very
much the same argument would apply ; and as
regards the actual figures, which we think of
great importance in this case, they will be
given by witnesses under both heads, and it will
not be necessary to state them in the first
instance. Very much the same applies in both
C&S6S.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] This is a matter, your
Grace, very much of quantum, and one which
I should think every member of the Committee
certainly will be better able to form an opinion
about than I am, I do not say than Lord
Balfour is ; but the final decision of the Board of
Trade was to put hay when it was not
pressed into Class 2, with a minimum
consignment of 30 cwt. per waggon. I do not feel
disposed to contend that that is not a diminution
of the present statutory powers of the companies,
speaking generally ; I think we must admit that
it is a curtailment of the present statutory powers
of the companies. We also believe that it cuts,
or that the proposal of the Board of Trade in
this respect cuts, a considerable number of actual
rates; I will admit that frankly. As far as we
could gather from the actual rates returned by
the companies, a schedule of which I hold in my
hand, the charges per ton per mile vary from
2.5 d, to 3-48 d. I believe they work out to
something like 2.38 as an average; whereas the
proposals of the Board of Trade involve a re-
duction of that amount. The only point for the
Board of Trade to consider was whether this
particular item, hay not pressed, was an item in
regard to which there should be a revision, and
an admitted curtailment of the powers of the
railway companies. The Committee are thoroughly
aware that from no interest throughout the
country has there been greater pressure put
upon the Board of Trade, and I may say
also upon Parliament, than from the agricultural
interest; and as a concession to those interests
it was decided by the Board of Trade to curtail
the powers of the railway companies; but to be
perfectly frank, and to state that that was the
intention and is the intention of the Provisional
Order, it is a curtailment. To what extent it is
a curtailment is a matter of evidence and argu-
ment. I am not quite prepared to admit that it is
so great a curtailment as Mr. Cripps has said,
but that it is a curtailment I perfectly agree.
Earl of Camperdown.] I think there is a prin-
ter's error here. If you look at page 26 of the
London and North Western Order you will see
that you put there “hay, minimum load 14 cwt.
per waggon.” Then if you turn to page 35 you
see that you put your second minimum load
as “30 cwt. per waggon * but you had not got
that difference in your original proposal. Your
original proposal was 14 cwt. I think in that
second case.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We thought on the
whole that 30 cwt. was sufficient, which is the
Clearing House classification. -
Earl of Belmore.] That is not pressed.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not pressed.
Earl of Belmore.] Quite loose.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Yes, but the fact of
the 30 cwt. involves a certain amount of hand
pressure.
Mr. WILLIAM BIRT, is called in; and having been sworn, is Examined as follows:
Mr. Moon.
4190. YoU are the General Manager of the
Great Eastern Railway Company ”—I am.
4191. And upon your railway you carry large
quantities, do not you, of hay and of straw Ż
–Yes, it is well known that the Great Eastern
traverses an agricultural district, and there is no
doubt that the hay and straw traffic is an im-
portant point to us.
4.192. Perhaps you will tell me what the
average distance is which the hay and straw
travel upon your system —I may say that we
carry no straw in our district for a longer dis-
tance than 50 miles. The average distance that
it traverses I should say would be 35 miles.
4.193. Does that apply to both hay and straw Ż
—To both.
4194. And what is the average weight of a
full truck of hay?—Hay is a very bulky article as
everyone knows, and we have had taken out
the number of trucks of hay which arrived in
Mr. Moon--continued.
London during the month of February last.
The number was 1,052. The average weight in
the whole of those trucks was just under 31 cwt.;
806 of these contained 30 cwt. each, or less,
and 233 of them contained from 30 cwt. to
36 cwt. each.
4.195. But practically a ton and a half con-
stitutes a full truck does it not?–Yes, it does.
Lord Belper.
4196. That is unpressed hay?–Yes.
Mr. Moon.
4.197. Is it the fact that you do not get any
consignments of less than 30 cwt. to the truck?
– Practically, you may say that that is so. The
farmers are in the habit of bringing consignments
to the station in 30 cwt. loads.
4.198. Now will you give me the average
weight of a truck load of straw 2–Here we have
(81.)
4 C * also
570
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. Moon—continued.
also the result taken of the trucks which arrived
in London during the same month of February
containing straw. The total number received
was 410. The average weight in each truck was
22 cwt. ; 113 of them contained 20 cwt. each or
a little less, and 258 of them contained weights
varying from 20 cwt. to 23 cwt. I should like
to add that, whilst they are the maximum
weights of hay and straw that we can get into
our trucks, the carrying capacity of our trucks
varies from six tons to nine tons and the average
may be taken at something like nearer eight tons
than seven tons.
4199. Now you have given us evidence with
regard to the average weight of a truck ſoad of straw
and hay; is it also a somewhat risky traffic and a
traffic that has to be carefully and expensively
dealt with ?—Yes. First of all, the great objection
to hay and straw traffic, so far as railway transit
is concerned, is that its bulk is altogether out of
proportion to its weight; and then again there is
no doubt that it is an article that is rather risky
to convey. There is not only the danger of fire,
and most fortunately practice shows it to be
little, but there is also the fear of a load shifting
in transit. Hay and straw are such difficult
articles to bind tight, and unless you get a
skilled man well up to the packing of hay and
straw in a truck, and the application of the rope
there will be extreme danger of something hap-
pening on the road.
4200. As an illustration of what you have
said with regard to the danger of the shifting of
the hay and straw after it is loaded, is it the
fact that after the truck has been shected in-
structions are given that it shall remain at the
station for some time to settle, and then for the
ropes to be tightened r–Yes, that is so upon the
Great Northern Railway, but we have no such
regulation upon our railway.
420.1. Then coming to the classification as
proposed by the Board of Trade, first of all are
straw and hay in the same class in the Clearing
House classification ?—No.
4202. It is proposed that they shall be in the
same class in the classification of the Provisional
Order, is it not?——Yes that is so.
4203. In what class in the Clearing House
classification is straw at the present time 2—In
the third class.
4204. And in what class is hay in the Clearing
House classification ?–In the second.
4205. But although, taking hay first, it is in
the second class in the classification, it is carried
at station to station rates, but the charge that you
make is a charge for the second class, plus the
addition for collection and delivery?—Yes. Take
for instance a 15 s, rate, the second class rate,
fhat we may assume to be divided in this way,
10s. for conveyance by rail and 5 s. for cartage.
Now, as railway companies do not cart the hay
or straw, that is neither collect or deliver, they
have 5 s, over and above the 10 s. to remunerate
them for conveyance, although they get the 10 s.
only for the conveyance of the other articles in
the second class, which includes cartage.
Earl of Belmore]. I think you made a mistake
in your question. You said that you carried at
station to station rates. You meant, that you
Mr. BIRT.
[Continued.
carried from station to station at collection and
delivery rates, did you not ?
Mr. Moon], Yes, my lord. The rate charged
is really all for conveyance, but as compared with
other articles in the class that includes collection,
and delivery.—Yes.
4206. Now as regards straw, is that the same
in the case of straw 2–Yes. But I should say
there is just this difference in the case of straw.
Straw being in the third class, the amount to
deduct from the third class rates for cartage
would become 7 s. instead of 5 s., which is the
Cartage charge for the second class.
4207. Have you compared the rates which are
proposed in the schedule to the Provisional Order
with the rates which are now actually in force.
upon your system 2––Yes; we estimate, and I
should say that the estimate is formed upon the
actual traffic carried for February in the current
year, the actual charges at the owners’ risk rates
(they are owners’ risk rates that we charge)
amounted to 10,272 l.
Chairman.
4208. For what distance?—For the whole
weight we carried to London. Practically the
large bulk, or in fact the whole of it comes from
distances within 50 miles.
Mr. Moon.
4209. That is upon your total traffic 2–This is
our London traffic; I have not worked out the
other traffic because it is so very small, Our
hay and straw traffic is to London. If to that
figure which I have given of 10,272 l. as the earn-
ings per annum, we add 15 per cent. to cover
carriers' risk, that earning would become lifted to
11,820 l. a year; under the proposal of the Board
of Trade we should only receive 10,524 l., so that
our loss would be 1,296 l, a year, which is rather
more than 10 per cent. upon our total hay €3.]"]] -
Ings.
4210. Now, with regard to straw, have you
made the same comparison 2–Yes; the actual
charges we received for 12 months were 4,230 l.
If to that you add 15 per cent to cover carriers’
risk, the earning would become lifted to 4,860 l ;
but adopting the Board of Trade figures we
should only earn 3,012 l., or we should sustain a
loss of 1,848 l. a year, which is between 35 and
40 per cent. of our gross earnings.
Chairman.
4211. Why do you add 15 per cent. 2–.You
see, your Grace, that the rates we charged were
at owners’ risk. The figures tabled by the
Board of Trade were at the companies’ risk, and
therefore we add the 15 per cent. to the owners’
risk in order to get a level comparison.
Lord Belper.
4212. Is that the usual calculation ?–Yes, it
is my Lord ; that is according to the Clearing
House rate.
Mr. Moon.
4213. Will you please now tell me what your
powers are in your Great Eastern Act 7–Hay
and straw are specifically mentioned in the
Great
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL or DER BILLS.
57.1
28 May 1891.]
Mr. BIRT.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
Great Eastern Act, and they are placed in the
highest class, the highest class giving 4 d. a ton
per mile.
4214. Fourpence a ton per mile in comparison
with 3:10 d. for the first 20 miles, diminishing
to 1-95 d. in the Provisional Order ?—Yes.
4215. That is what you are asking for 2–
Yes.
Chairman.] That is a difference between 4 d.
and 2 d. practically.
Mr. Moon. The Board of Trade proposal is
2.65 d., diminishing to 1.60 d. What Mr. Birt
is asking for is that these may be in the next
class, Class 3, and the rates then would be
from 3:10 d. to 1-95 d. ; and in the case of straw,
which we ask to have in the 4th class, 3-60 d. to
2-2.5 d, -
Witness.] That is right.
Mr. Cripps.] I do not know whether your
Grace has followed that. We are not asking for
hay and straw to be in the same class in the
future. They are, no doubt, proposed to be in
Class 2. We ask for the hay to be in Class 3,
and straw to be in Class 4.
Mr. Moon.] Now what is the nearest equiva
lent in the schedule to the Clearing House
classification ?
Chairman.] It has been suggested that unless
you can keep them separate we shall get into
difficulty, because you see your proposal is to
put hay into one class and straw into another.
We shall have to go over the whole ground again
if you do not keep them separate. Cannot you
keep hay and straw separate 2
Mr. Moon..] I thought it was understood,
your Grace, that they should both be dealt with
together,
Mr. Cripps.] I think your Grace's suggestion
would be more convenient.
Chairman.] We did not anticipate the diffi-
culty when we suggested that they should be
taken together ; but J think they should be dealt
with separately, upon their own merits, as they
are going into different classes.
Mr, Moon.
4216. If your Grace pleases (to the Witness).
Confining yourselves now to hay, what is the
nearest equivalent for the present Clearing
House Class in the Board of Trade schedule 2–
The nearest possible equivalent is the third
class.
4217. That will give you an additional 0:40 d.
upon the proposal, as it stands at present, of the
second class for hay ?—Yes, for distances ex-
ceeding 20 miles, but not exceeding 50 miles.
4218. That is to say, the average distance 2–
Yes.
4219. On the average distance travelled, will
that 0:40 d. amount to 5 s., which represents the
collection and delivery charge in the Clearing
House classification ?—No, taking that 0:40 d.
and multiplying it by 40 miles, as representing
the distance the traffic is carried, you would get
an addition of 1 S. 4 d. per ton over and above
the tolls provided for in the second class, as com-
pared with the 5 s. representing the cartage
cost of articles generally in the second class.
Chairman.
4220. Is it the fact that hay is carried at
owners’ risk and straw is not ; or is it the other
way, that hay is not carried at owners’ risk but
straw is ?—That is so, your Grace, according to
the Clearing House Classification. But we on
the Great Eastern Railway have a special scale
of rates for hay and straw and they are at owners’
risk for both articles.
Mr. Moom.
4221. Then going back to that question of the
5 s., on a consignment which travels 60 miles,
that 5 s. collection and delivery charge would
represent an additional 1 d. per ton per mile,
would it not ?— It would.
Mr. Hanbury.
4222. But that 5 s. is for hay delivered in
London, I take it because we have heard that
the delivery in London was much more expen-
sive than in the country 2— No. The same 5 s.
being an ordinary second class rate, whilst it
does include cartage of all articles in the second
class other than hay, when applied to hay, does
not include cartage at all.
4223. But you are taking 5 s. as the average
delivery charge, whereas that is only for the
deliveries in London 2–All the figures I have
given, are for London traffic.
Mr. Cripps.
4224. I think 5 s. was taken as the all round
cartage, London and country, and in London
something more ?–Yes, but for the purpose of
the second class traffic, I have assumed the
cartage at both ends to be covered by the small
sum of 5 s. only.
Mr. Moon.] We are adding both ends in
charging 5 s.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
4225. Did I rightly follow your figure, that
your estimate of receipts upon your actual traffic
in February to London as regards hay was
10,272 /. P-No, that was the earning for the entire
year based upon the actual traffic for the month
of February.
4226. Your receipts from actual traffic in
February for the carriage of hay to London were
10,272 ſ. ?--I do not think you and I quite
mean the same thing. That is the earning for the
entire twelve months based upon the month’s
traffic.
4227. The total of your receipts for the year
would be upon that basis 10,272 l. 2–Yes, pre-
cisely.
4228. That is assuming the hay carried at
owners’ risk *—Yes, precisely.
4229. Then you say that under the Provisional
Order, assuming in the same way the hay car-
ried at owners’ risk, it would be 10,524 l?—It is
not at owners’ risk; it is at the companies’ risk,
according to the Provisional Order. The com-
parison is not level as you put it now.
Earl of Belmore.
4230. Why did not you take it at owners’
risk in making the comparison for the future
as well as for the past?—Because, my Lord,
according to the Provisional Order the tolls
provided for are at the company's risk.
(81.)
4 C 2 4231. Do
572
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMILTEE
2 May 1891.]
Earl of Belmore—continued.
4231. Do you intend to carry at the com-
pany’s risk?— Yes, we have power to do so at
all events; whether we should do so or not is
another thing.
Mr. Clifford.
4232. But the question is this : is it not the
fact that hay, and, as I am instructed, straw too,
are usually carried at owners’ risk 2–I admitted
in answer to a question put by a member of the
Committee, that upon the Great Eastern Rail-
way we have got in operation a special scale for
the conveyance of hay which is at owners’
risk
4233. Then the comparison which you have
put before the Committee is hardly, as you
yourself said, a level comparison 7–I made them
level, as I told you, by adding 15 per cent. to
the earning which was derived from the rates at
owners’ risk.
4234. I want to ascertain, if possible, for the
information of the Committee, upon what basis
you have estimated this 10,272 l. ; have you taken
into account both conveyance rate and terminals?
—Certainly, it is the total earnings.
4235. But now, with regard to your future
earnings under the Provisional Order, have you
taken into account there terminals?—I have taken
there into account the station terminal, and the
terminal allowed for covering and uncovering,
but nothing more.
4236, Then you have not taken into account
the terminals for loading and unloading 2—No ;
because we do not load or unload hay or straw.
That is a condition of the existing rates that the
labour is to be done by the owners.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4237. It has been suggested that 5 s, is not a
large enough deduction for collection and
delivery 2—I quite agree with that. I inten-
tionally put the amount deducted at so low a
figure, that I thought no one could quibble with
it.
4238. The higher it is, the less would the new
rate cover the rate you can now charge P.-Pre-
cisely.
Mr. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is
Mr. Cripps.
4247. YoU have of course considered this
question of the hay traffic as it affects the Great
Western system —I believe we are the largest
carriers of hay and we have considered it very
carefully.
4248. I will jnst ask you generally, so as not
to go through the questions again, do you agree
with what Mr. Birt has said with regard to the
conditions under which this traffic is carried and
as regards the amount you can load in a
waggon 2–I do quite agree I made a number of
experiments myself this morning and I found
that it was not possible to put more than about
30 to 32 cwt. of hay upon a 10-ton waggon.
4249. In your Railway Acts, excepting in one
or two minor instances, I think hay is not a
specified article 2–Hay is only mentioned once
Mr. BIRT.
[ Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4239. If it was a 7 s. difference, you would
have to run up to 200 miles before you could
recover it 2–Yes, and more than that.
4240. Therefore you put it as low as possible
for the purposes of comparison ?—Yes.
4241. A que2tion was also asked you about
the 15 per cent. Have you added the 15 per
cent. to the charges you now actually make —
Yes, for the purpose of getting, as I said, a level
Comparison.
4242. But supposing, as the noble Lord has
suggested, instead of adding 15 per cent., you
took 15 per cent off the proposed maxima, so as
to make the comparison in that way ; it would
make very little difference would it not ?—
Practically it would be just the same.
4243. But you must either add to the one or
subtract from the other?—Certainly.
Mr. Clifford.
4244. Perhaps my learned friend will not
object to my asking the witness a question. It
is as to the average weight in each truck. (To
the Witness). Will you kindly give me those
figures?–Which will you take first, hay or
straw P
Mr. Clifford.] Hay, if you please.
Mr. Cripps, Only hay?
Chairman.] Have you hay alone 2
Witness.] The average weight per truck was
just under 1 ton 11 cwt., ; 806 of them contained
30 cwt. or less, and 233 of them contained be-
tween 30 and 36 cwt.
Mr. Clifford.
4245. Then the whole of those trucks con-
tained less than two tons 2—Undoubtedly, it is a
very low average indeed.
4246. Would this compromise satisfy you on
the part of the Great Eastern company; to
change the 30-cwt. minimum load to a 40-cwt.
minimum load?–It would be an impracticable
thing to get 40 cwt. of hay into a truck.
The witness is directed to withdraw.
recalled; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps—continued.
out of our 74 Acts, on one of the smallest
lines.
4250. And that, according to the contention
which the railway companies have always put
forward, would entitle you to charge in the
highest class?—That is so.
4251. You have considered, have you not, the
actual charges which you have been making
in comparison with the proposed maxima 2–
Yes.
4252. Would you just explain to the Com-
mittee how you have taken out the actual charges
for the purposes of your comparison?—We show,
upon the carriage of hay alone, an estimated loss
of about 14,000 l. per year.
Mr.
ON, RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
573
^
28 May 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But we must see
how it is shown ; we cannot take it in that
way. * -
Mr. Cripps.
4253. What was the figure you gave of the
loss P-About 14,000 l.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But we want to see
how it is arrived at.
Mr. Cripps.
4254. You have given the figure; will you
just state how you arrive at the estimate that,
teking your actual charges as compared
with the proposed maxima, it would
mean a loss to you on hay of 14,000 l. P—
We took out the actual traffics for a day
in each month, and made a calculation for the
year upon the basis of that. We adopted the
same method as that named by Mr. Burt, ex-
cepting this : that we made a deduction of 15 per
cent. from the Provisional Order powers in re-
spect of taking the risk.
Earl of Camperdown.
4255. What day did you take 2–We took one
day of the week in one month, another in the
next and so on, to take one day in each month.
Mr. Cripps.
4256. Do you carry hay on your system at
owner's risk *—Largely. -
4257. In the same way as Mr. Burt explained ?
—Precisely in the same way.
4258. But I understand that instead of adding
15 per cent. to the actual charges you have taken
15 per cent. off the proposed maxima to compare
like with like 2–Yes. We had no consultation
with any other company; each adopted its own
method and we adopted that.
4259. And the result works out at a loss of
14,000 l. a year 2—Yes, it does.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would you mind saying
how you worked that out.
Mr. Cripps.
4260. Have you got it there 2–Yes, it has
already been put in to the Board of Trade.
The Witness hands a copy of his table to Mr.
13alfour Browne.
Mr. Cripps.
4261. These figures of yours have been before
the other side before this 2–Yes, for some long
time now.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
4262. Just let me understand one or two
things. First with regard to hay, what is the
weight do you say to the truck —Thirty cwt.
is the average general weight; but sometimes
we can get as much as 32 cwt in a truck. I
took a list of 100 waggons which we have carried
within the past few days, and I can give you the
actual figures if you wish.
4263. Is there a difference between hay
loose and hay hand-pressed ?–So far as we are
concerned, we do not carry hay loose.
4264. Do you always get it hand-pressed ?—
No, we get it in the ordinary trusses as cut from
ricks generally.
4265. You take it in the ordinary trusses 2
Chairman.] That is what we are dealing with
In OW.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Quite so, although this
would give them power to charge for hand-
pressed hay exactly the same as for the trusses ;
that is the point.
Chairman.] What
do you call hand-pressed
hay ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4266. There is hay which instead of being
pressed by machinery is hand-pressed and can be
got into a considerable less bulk in consequence.
(To the Witness.) That is a fact; you know that
there is hay which is called hand-pressed that is
got into less bulk —Yes, that is the case.
4267. Tell me how much hay hand-pressed can
you get into a truck 2–It depends entirely upon
the amount of pressure ; but on a regulation-
size waggon and overlapping to the extent of about
half-a-truss and loaded up four or five feet above
the top of the waggon, about 50 cwt.
4268. As I understand, you say that you have
made out a loss on hay, if it is kept in this
particular class, of 14,000 ſ. ?—That is so.
4269, You are right in saying that we have
had your estimated loss before us for some time.
I have the schedule that was sent in by the
Great Western Railway. What class is this.
in, Class 22—The Board of Trade proposed to
place it in Class 2.
4270. And when you estimated the loss, the
loss would be worked out under Class 2 in your
return to the Board of Trade P-Yes.
4271. I find that the whole loss you show to
the Board of Trade under Class 2, which must
include hay, is 3,570 l. ; where is the 14,000 l. in
that ?—I made a mistake in saying it was in
Class 2; it was shown as arising under Class 3.
4272. I will take you on Class 3. I find that
in Class 3 the total loss on all articles was shown
as 9,155 l. 18 s. 8d. Where is the 14,000 l. in
that?—Your question has reference to some
previous calculations of a more limited character
than that I had before me.
Earl of Camperdown.] There might be gains.
in some articles. -
Mr. Balfour Browne | They never proposed
to put in gains at all ; they have only calculated
losses.
Chairman.] You are not confining yourself
to hay.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is hay.
Chairman.] You are asking him now to com-
pare that with another sum altogether.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, your Grace, he
says that the loss on hay is 14,000l.
Chairman.] How could you work that out 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am asking him to
work it out. He says to the Board of Trade that
the loss on the whole class is less than 14,000 l.
It is the only way I can test it. I cannot
take his ipse divit as absolutely conclusive.
Chairman.] But you can compare that with
the figures.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what I am
asking.
(81.) - -
4 C 3 Mr.
574
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORF THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.
Mr. WILKINSON.
Mr. Cripps.] At that time when those figures
were made out, was not hay in Class 3?
Mr. Bolfour Browne.] Very likely. Then the
whole loss in Class 3 is 9,000 l., which cannot
contain 14,000 l
Mr. Cripps.] But I presume since that calcu-
lation was made, as I have pointed out to the
Committee, the class of hay has been altered from
Class 3 to Class 2, the original proposition of the
Board of Trade having been Class 3.
Mr. Balfour Browne (to the Witness).] Can
you show me, because this is all I have before
me, how it is made out now 2–Yes. w
Chairman.] That is what we want to deal
with. (The Witness hands a paper to Mr.
Balfour Browne).
Mr. Balfour Browne.] These were their own
figures I have been dealing with. Very well, I
see how it is done. I will leave this if you do
not mind.
Chairman.] Let us have the benefit; we really
do not understand how it is done.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It does not tell; you I
will read it.
Chairman.] No, you have been asking him
Various questions, and saying this represented
9,000 l., and the other 14,000 l., but I do not know
what evidence you have extracted from him.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4273. As I understand what I have been
examining him upon has been corrected, and
another table has been put in. I have now got
it, and this table shows this: that for distances
exceeding 20 and not exceeding 50 miles their
loss would be 3,214 l. ; for distances exceeding 50
miles and not exceeding 100 miles their loss would
be 9,859 l. ; for distances exceeding 100 and not
exceeding 150 miles their loss would be nothing
at all. (To the Witness.) Is not that so *—Yes,
that is on the statement.
4274. Would you mind telling me; I suppose
on that class of 150 miles it does not absolutely
balance ; there must have been a profit upon it 2
—You are quite right. The calculation that we
made shows that on those distances there was no
Joss.
balance in your favour 2–There probably may
have been ; but the same circumstances that have
made us charge low rates in the past will keep us
to low rates in the future, so that we calculate on
a profit.
4276. You did not give us the benefit of any
profit in that column 2–Because there is none.
4277. There is a profit to-day. You say it
does not result in a loss, so it must be something
other than a loss in that column.
Chairman.] I do not know about that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4278. Unless it exactly balanced, which I do
mot think is likely. You said that it did not
result in a loss; therefore there was a profit 2–
There is no profit. I do not think that is the
right way of putting it. I say again, that we
should not be able to charge higher rates in the
future than in the past, because the same circum-
4275. That is to say, there must have been a
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
stances that have made us charge low rates in
the past would make us charge low rates in
future. -
4279. But why did you not calculate what
you would have got between 100 and 150 miles?
—This was the statement showing losses.
4280. And it does not show the other side of
the calculation ?—It would not.
4281. Can you give me the gross receipts from
the traffic 2–I cannot for the moment, but . I
can get them for you in a very short time.
Chairman.] The traffic of what?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Hay, (To the Witness.)
If you could give me the gross receipts for the
traffic we should be able to get at your profit
instead of loss. - t
Mr. Bidder.] Do not you see that we cannot
avail ourselves of any profit; we cannot put the
rates up; the trade prevents us.
Witness.] I should like, with the permission of
the Committee, to say that I shall not be able to
give you that information ; it would take a long
time to work it out; but I will tell you what I
know: that our average daily number of waggons
into Paddington of hay and straw is 110, amount-
ing to a traffic of about 50,000 l. a year.
Mr. Balſhur Browne.
4282. Can you give me the amount of traffic
that is represented by those figures over each
distance 2—I have answered that ; I cannot give
it ; it would be an enormous thing to work out.
4283. But you could not get those figures un-
less you had taken it out 7–We have made a
calculation, an estimated calculation, in the way
I have explained. I have a mass of papers of
many cubic yards containing this information.
4284. I do not see the necessity of many cubic
yards if it was only an estimate. I understood
that these were actual figures 2–They are
figures founded upon the actual figures of certain
days. -
4285. Now you said that you took a day in
each umonth. What distances did you take the
traffic over, and what weight of hay did you take :
can you show that ?—I have not the information
here to show that.
4286. Without that I cannot, of course, test
one of those figures?—I do not know whether
the offer is of any use, but if you like—
4287. I am perfectly willing to take any offer,
but without these materials of course I cannot
test one of your figures 2–No, you must take the
statement for what it is worth.
Be-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4288. As I understand it, you did not take
any special distances; you took the actual traffic
on those days?—That was so.
4289. Whatever the distance was you tool: the
actual consignments as you said for different
days in the week in the different months?—
Yes,
4290. Then you worked out the actual amounts
you received as against the proposed maxima P-
That was the way in which the calulation was
made.
4291. Making the allowance as you have
explained, as regards owner's risk *—Yes. M
T.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
575
28 May 1891.]
*-
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Would you ask him for
me, please, how much is at owner's risk, and how
much is at company’s risk; he did not say that
the whole was at owner's risk.
Mr. Cripps.
4292. I will put that question to you ; how
much of this hay traffic was carried at the owner's
risk, and how much at the company’s risk 7–
Practically the whole traffic is carried at owner's
risk. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is just what you
said before ; you cannot give us the quantities.
Mr. Cripps.
4293. Then taking your actual figures and
comparing them with the proposed maxima, they
worked out at this loss?—That is the case.
4294. That is to say that if in the future, as is
now proposed, you are actually charging your
maxima, you would lose this amount as compared
with the actual rate P-Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
4295. We are dealing now with the minimum
load of 30 cwt. As a matter of fact how much
of your hay is carried in loads of 30 cwt., and
how much below 30 cwt., because below 30 cwt.
willcome into Class III.?—The traffic is all carried
in lots of 30 cwt. The incidence of the business
is this: that a farmer's four-wheeled waggon
takes 30 cwt. of hay, and a ton of straw. Our
waggon takes precisely the same thing; and this
arrangement has been made by the Railway Com-
panies and embodied in the Clearing House
arrangements, both for our convenience and
for the convenience of the farmers. All this
traffic is carted into the stations at the sending
points by the senders, and carted away from the
receiving stations by the consignees.
Lord 13 eſper.
4296. The last witness told us that a very
large proportion of the actual loads he had taken
out were 30 cwt. and under. I do not mean to
say that your case necessarily is the same ; but
would there be a considerable proportion of your
cases that would be 30 cwt. and under P-No ; so
far as we are concerned, and I took a lot of
trouble this morning to get my information
up to date; I found that we did carry
the 30 cwt.; I took 100 waggons at random ; I
told the man to make me out a list of at least
100 waggons, and it works out in this way : 1
ton 10 cwt. ; 1 ton 10 cwt. ; l ton 10 cwt. ; 1
ton 10 cwt. ; 1 ton 10 cwt. ; 1 ton 12 cwt. 4 lbs. ;
1 ton 10 cwt. ; 1 ton 11 cwt. 2 qes. ; 1 ton 15
cwt. 2 qes; 1 ton 10 cwt ; 1 ton 10 cwt. ; and
generally it is 1 ton 10 cwt.
4297. Yours are all 30 cwt. all over ?—That
is so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4298. Wait a minute; there are a good-number
of these that are one ton 2–Those are straw.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I venture to ask the
leave of the Committee to mention one fact
before Mr. Wilkinson leaves the chair which I
should like to mention in his presence. On the
11th December 1890, when negotiations were
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
going on between the Board of Trade (as dis
tinguished by Lord Balfour of Burleigh and
myself) and the railway companies, an interview
took place with the President of the Board of
Trade between them and the representatives of
the Great Western Railway Company. The
Great Western Railway Company were repre-
sented by Mr. Lambert, Mr. Nelson, and Mr.
Wilkinson. In the course of the proccedings,
Mr. Lambert asked Sir Michael Hicks Beach,
in dealing with the question of hay and
straw, to give the maximum which I think
Mr. Oakley suggested, of 30 cwt. for hay
and 20 cwt. for straw per truck, going on
to say that it was the usual practice
Then Lord Balfour pointed out that hay was
in Class 2 of the Railway Clearing House
classification now, and he said to Mr. Lam-
bert this : “If that were done would you
have uncompressed hay put back into the
Clearing House class 2 At present we have
put it in Class 3, and it is in Class 2 ” of the
classification. “My remarks" (says Mr. Lam-
bert) “as to 30 cwt. for hay refer to the hay as
it is usually sent, cut out of the rick; but where
we can get hydraulic or machine-pressed hay we
put it into a lower class. (Lord Balfour of
Burleigh ) Yes, I know ; but your present condi-
tion (1 think there is no dispute about this) for
uncompressed hay is Class 2, with a certain
minimum weight? (Mr. Lambert). Yes. (Lord
Balfour of Burleigh.) We have put it into
Class 3 You are now asking, in addition, for
a minimum weight, and my question was, if a
minimum weight were given, would you be
willing to have it put down a class, to make it the
same as in the Clearing House classification ?
(Mr. Lambert.) I think if we ask for only 30
cwt. to a truck the class should not be disturbed.
(Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) Which class 2 The
Clearing House classification ? (Mr. Lambert.)
Yes, the second class. (Mr. Courtenay Boyle.)
Then you would be willing to have it in the
second class instead of in the third as we proposed?”
To which Mr. Lambert replied, “Speaking
only for myself, I do not know that I should
have any objection to offer to that, if you attach
that condition to it. Of course you understand
I speak only for myself and not for other com -
panies that may have other views.” I think the
Committee should understand that was a
material factor in the ultimate decision of the
Board of Trade.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, I am much obliged
to Mr. Courtenay Boyle for calling our atten-
tion to that at the present moment. I think as
Mr. Lambert is here perhaps he may as well just
go into the chair and explain his present views
upon the point.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.j Your Grace, I propose to call
Mr. Twelvetrees first ; Mr. Lambert is refresh-
ing his memory.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Lambert is coming;
he has refreshed his memory.
Chairman.] Whom will you call first
Mr. Cripps.] Mr. Twelvetrees.
(81.)
4 C 4
576
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN B F FORE TIHE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. RICHARD HARPER TWELVETREES, is re-called ; and further Examined, as
follows:
Mr. Cripps.
4299. Do you carry a large hay traffic on the
Great Northern Railway system 2–We do about
14,000 tons a year, based upon the actual carry-
ing for four week taken during a week in January,
a week in April, a week in July, and a week
in October.
4300. Have you at the present time in your
Great Northern Acts a maximum rate for hay,
or is it unclassified ?–It is unclassified ; it comes
in the “other matters and things.”
4301. That would give you, I see, from 3 d.
up to 5 d. according to your various Acts 3–Yes,
it varies from 3 d. up to 5 d.
4302. Have you calculated what the difference
would be to the Great Northern Company
between your actual charges which you are
making now and the proposed maxima under
Class 22—I have.
4303. First of all, perhaps you would give the
figures, and then explain to the Committee how
you have made the calculation ?–In the case of
hay, I have got here the actual carryings during
those four weeks, amounting to 14,025 tons.
The actual amount charged was 7,710 l. at
owner's risk; it was all carried at owner's risk.
4304. I understood you to say just now that
your total annual of traffic was about 14,000
tons?—That is so.
4305. Then have you calculated from this par-
ticular month as for an annual traffic 2–Yes,
multiplied by 13. The amount of the rate in
the Provisional Order for the second class, plus
3 s. terminals, and 4 d. per ton for covering and
uncovering, brings out an amount of 6,880 l., or
showing a loss of 830 l.
Mr. Hunter.
4306. How much did you take for terminals 7
—Three shillings.
4307. What about loading and unloading and
covering and uncovering 2—I have taken 3 s.
for terminals and 4 cl. for covering and uncover-
ing, but nothing for loading and unloading,
because we do not perform the service of loading
and unloading.
Mr. Cripps.
4318. The loading and unloading, as I under-
stand with regard to hay, does not come into the
calculation on either side 2–No.
4309. You do not do it now, and have not
estimated for it for the future ?–That is so.
But I may say that the Provisional Order rate
at the second class is at the company’s risk and
not at owner's risk ; therefore, althongh the loss
shows about 830 l. there is the question of risk
to be added to that.
4310. Have you calculated out what the figure
would be if you had equalised the comparison by
putting in owner's risk or allowing for owner's
risk 2–I have not. I prefer to deal with it on
the actual figures. I should also like to say that
calculating it out at the third-class Provisional
Order rate, plus the amount given for station
terminal, and covering and uncovering, would be
7,591 l., or showing loss of 119 /.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4311. Therefore, then, apart from the owner's
risk question altogether, even under Clause 3,
which we are now asking for, there would still
be a loss?—There would.
4312. A loss as between Class 3 and your
present actual charges 7–Taking no account of
risk into considrration.
4313. If you were to take owner's risk into
consideration, would you say that 15 per cent.
would be a proper thing to take 2–A bout
that.
Earl of Belmore.
4314. When you speak of loss you mean
diminution of income 2–Yes. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
4315. It just occurs to me, as my Lord
Belmore has asked that, you cannot tell of this
7,710 /. how much of that is actual profit 2–
Those are all the figures.
4316. Try to follow the question. You say
that the amount you received for the 14,000 tons
was 7,710 l. 2–Yes.
4317. You cannot tell me how much of that
was actual profit 2–You mean in the carrying of
that amount of traffic P
4318. In the carrying of that 1,400 tons?—I
could not. -
4319. You have not the least idea 2–Not at
ail ; it cannot be very much of it, I am afraid.
4320. You think not ?—I think not.
4321. Can you tell me whether the 1,400 tons
was carried in a month 2–In a year.
4322. I thought you said you took it over a
month P-Based upon a month.
4323. What month was it?—I said I have
taken a week in January, April, July and
October.
4324. In the four months 2—Yes.
4.325. And from that you calculated the
14,000 tons out 2—Yes.
4326. Did you take any other weeks than
those 2–No.
4327. Do you think that those were exceed-
ingly favourable weeks for the company ?–I
think not ; I think the carrying would be rather
greater.
4328. Cannot you tell me what the actual
crrryings in hay are in the course of a year 7–
No.
4329. Have you no means of knowing 2—I
have the means but I have not the information.
4330. But did you not check the 14,000 by
that ?–I know it is rather under the average
than over.
4331. How do you know that ; you must have
checked it 2–We have got out another week;
but I have not the figures with me.
4332. You got out another week 2–Yes, I
think I have it.
4333. What week was that ?—I do not know
what week it was ; but it was a week's traffic,
419 tons for the week; it worked out as 21,788
tons, multiplied by 52.
4334. What was it taken out for?—It was taken
Out
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 577
28 May 1891.]
sº---
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
out during the inquiry at the Westminster Town
Hall. -
4335. And these last four weeks were taken
out since that?—Yes.
4336. I have here a return that you have made
since 2
Mr. Cripps.] I think Mr. Twelvetrees, if he
recalls it to mind, will remember that those four
weeks were also taken out for the inquiry at
Westminster. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4337. Surely not, they were taken out to prove
that the Board of Trade Order had done an in-
justice, and that the Company would lose in
revenue. (To the Witness.) In what year were
the months taken out !—In 1889–January,
April, July, and October 1889.
4338. I have here the return you have fur-
nished at the request of the Board of Trade,
which shows the return for hay not hydraulic or
machine pressed, which is a matter we are deal-
ing with now, carried by the railway company’
during the six months ending 31st December
1889. Have you got that ?—I have not got it
here.
4339. It has been got out by your company –
Yes.
(Mr. Courtenay Boyle hands his copy to the
Witness.)
4340. That shows that the total receipts for
the six months were 2,891 l. for hay, and that
included terminals at the selected stations 2–
That is only 44 stations. *~
4341. How much hay is that, 5,153 tons, I
think 2–These are only specimen stations.
4342. Specimen stations; but the consign-
ments were 5,153 tons P
Mr. Cripps.] I understood from your ques-
tion you were comparing that with the total
traffic.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4343. No, not at all. (To the Witness.) Is
not that so 2–I have not the totals; I will take
your figures.
4344. You will find, I think, that they are
correctly added up. How does it compare ; have
you compared it with your return ?—I have
not.
Mr. TWELVETREES.
[ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is all, I think, I
need ask you.
Earl of Camperdown.
4345. Would you tell me why, when you were
making a calculation, you did not take the total
hay traffic of the year; what was your reason
for not doing that? You have the return, I pre-
sume?–It would be a very heavy job. The
stations were only asked for these four weeks,
one week in each of those months. It is a very
large job for the stations to pick out the traffic
from all their invoices.
Mr. Cripps.
4346. Taking one week in each month, you
thought you had got a fair distribution for the
year 2–And I believe we have.
Lord Belper.
4347. Can you say whether any of your traffic
is in consignments of under 30 cwt. ; do you know
what the proportion is 2–Based on the year,
the average works out 33 cwt. per waggon of
hay.
4348. I do not want the average, because, as
we heard from the first witness, the average was
33 cwt. ; but there are a great many under 30
cwt. I want to know what proportion is under
30 cwt. P—We have none under 30 cwt. ; we do
not carry it under 30 cwt.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4349. That is only the charge. You carry it
under, but that is the charge 2–I think we very
seldom have less than 30 cwt.
Lord Belper. -
4350. You do not mean to say that you decline
to take less than 30 cºvt 2–No.
4351. But you charge a lower scale 2
Mr. Balfour Browne.j That is the
thing.
ſº itness.] As a matter of fact, the farmers do
not deliver to us less than 30 cwt. to go into the
truck.
whole
Lord Belper. -
4352. At all events it is a very small pro-
portion, if any, under 30 cwt. ; you say none 2–I
do not think it is carried in our line, at all events,
in less than 30 cwt.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. HENRY L.AMBERT, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
4353. I THINK you were present in the room
when attention was called to what passed at the
meeting of the Board of Trade 2—I was.
4354. I have not the account before me but I
heard what Mr. Courtenay Boyle read out. You
seemed to be satisfied at the time with the
lowering of the hay from Class 3 to Class 2,
if a minimum was inserted 2–Yes. I seem to
have said that ; but I should like to say that this
was an interview with the President of the Board
of Trade in reference to the losses I think that
we considered that we should sustain by the
Provisional Order; and in the course of the
interview the question of hay came up, and
Mr. Cripps—continued.
incidentally I asked that a minimum truck load
might be specified of 30 cwt. for hay, and 20 cwt.
for straw, seeing that that would only be admit-
ting what was the every day practice with all of
us. Then that led to a discussion I see, and I
made the remark, I think : “If we ask for only
30 cwt. to a truck the class should not be dis-
turbed.” Then Mr. Courtenay Boyle said,
“ which class, the Clearing House classification”
and I said, “The second-class.” I must have
had in my mind at the time, I think, the fact that
the second-class of the Clearing House classifi-
cation includes cartage whereas the Provisional
Order deals only with station to station rates.
§ {(81.)
4 D 4355. What
578
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
wº-
Chairman—continued.
4355. What is your present view, having con-
sidered the whole matter, and speaking on behalf
of the Great Western Company as regards the
classification of hay?—I have no hesitation
whatever in saying that if hay is kept in the
second class we shall really sustain a very sub-
stantial loss.
4356. Even with a minimum of 30 cwt. 2–
Quite so.
4357. In your opinion, would it be fair as
between you and your traders to have hay in the
third class, as originally proposed by the Board
of Trade 7–I think it would be a fair thing. It
is a very expensive traffic to carry; that is to
say, it occupies our trucks a good deal of time,
and we have to find extensive siding accommo-
dation to deal with it. We have a very large
traffic coming to Paddington. I suppose fre-
quently we have 400 or 500 trucks on hand
there in the morning.
4358. The actual figures (I need not ask you
about them again) were worked out for the
Committee by Mr. Wilkinson 2–They were
worked out really under my instruction.
4359. They would be the same figures as
Mr. Wilkinson has given 2–Precisely.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Would Mr. Wilkinson
let me look at his table with regard to 30 cwt.
again 2 (The table is handed to the learned
Counsel.)
Chairman.] This is station to station in the
Clearing House classification ?
Mr. Cripps.] It is so.
Chairman.] That is not what Mr. Lambert
Says.
Mr. Cripps.
4360. (To the Witness.) His Grace calls atten-
tion to this: that in the Clearing House classi-
fication in Class 2, which applies in the case of
most articles to collection and delivery, as
regards hay, it is merely station to station rate
—Precisely ; that is what I have in my mind
now. º
Mr. Hambury.
4361. What have you in your mind exactly P
—That the equivalent for the carted rate would
be the third class under the Provisional Order,
which is a station to station figure only.
Earl of Belmore.
4362. Being from station to station, the Clear-
ing House classification enabled you to get pay-
ment for a service which you did not render in
the case of hay ; that is what you meant?–To
that extent it does.
Mr. Hanbury.
4363. Is this what you meant; that you re-
collected that hay was in Class 2, but forgot that
it was specially treated as being only station to
station ?—That was the difficulty.
Earl of Belmore]. That it was paid for as being
something else.
Mr. Cripps.
4364. If you had been given an adjust-
ment in Class 2, in accordance with the
Clearing House classification, you would have
Chairman—continued.
had the extra allowance in hand, charging for
what you do not do : collection and delivery 2–
Quite so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
4365. Mr. Wilkinson told us that the consign-
ments were invariably 30 cwt.—I think he gave
other weights as well as 1 ton 10 cwt.
4366. Over that ; but the lowest I find in this
column is 1 ton 10 cwt. Is not that because that
is the minimum charge you make —No. We find
in practice that the actual weight of hay loaded
in a truck runs about 30 cwt. If it is very old
hay we can get more in; if it is new hay, we can
get about 30 cwt.
4367. But as a matter of fact you charge a
minimum of 30 cwt. P−Yes. The farmer takes
good care to have 30 cwt. carried.
4368. But he cannot manage it exactly 2–He
does manage it. &
4369. Always 2—As a rule.
4370. In every one of these instances I find
the minimum is 30 cwt.”—Yes.
4371. Surely that is because you charge it as
a minimum ?–But it is also based upon the
course of business. We have tested many
trucks, and I think you have the actual weighings
before you.
4372. I do not think they are actual weigh-
ings; it gives the average per truck, and where
it is over 1 ton 10 cwt. I find the figures put in ;
but I find for hay nothing under 1 ton 10 cwt.
Let me ask you, just to see if I am right, for
straw the minimum is a ton.
Chairman.] Do not get into straw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4373. I am not going to, but I will make this
clear. (To the Witness.) I find that in each
case 1 ton 10 cwt. is mentioned as a minimum.
Does not that show that these are not weights
but the weights paid upon 2–They are the
weights paid upon, but they are also the actual
weights carried in the majority of instances,
subject to variation. I have pointed out, that
with old hay we get a little more, with new hay
we get a little less.
4374. There are 60 instances in this table, and
there are some that go over it, but there is not
one single consignment that is under 1 ton 10
cwt. Could that be possible 2–I think that is
very possible, because as I tell you the farmers
know the regulations, and they take care as I
say to have their complement of carriage.
Mr. Hambury.] The average I think Mr.
Wilkinson said was about 33 cwt.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There are only seven
cases over the 30 cwt. out of the 60; there are
53 exactly of the 1 ton 10 cwt. (handing in the
table). --
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4375. I do not know whether you know how
many trusses of hay can you put into one of
your waggons 2 – No I do not ; I cannot
speak exactly.
Mr. Cripps.] I am told, your Grace, by Mr.
Wilkinson, that they can put on 60 trusses.
Chairman.] I forget what a truss weighs.
T.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
579
28 May 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps.] 56 lbs., half a cwt., that would
be 30 cwt.
Witness.] That means 60 trusses to a truck.
Mr. Cripps.] And for straw it is 36 trusses.
Chairman.] We do not touch straw, hay is
bad enough.
The witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.] That, your Grace, is the case
for the railway companies.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We propose to call our
witnesses before the Committee on this matter.
I think they will make it clearer than I could
in this instance.
Mr. HENRY HUMPHREY GARDINER, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
4376. YoU reside at West Tarring, near
Worthing?—Yes.
4377. And you are Chairman of the West
Sussex and East Hants Agricultural Association ?
—Yes.
4378. Do you represent here the Mansion
House Association ?—I do.
4379. The agricultural section of it, I mean?—
Yes.
4380. A great deal has been said about com-
paring actual rates for traffic in hay with the
proposed maximum rates. Can you speak of
the actual rates charged for the carriage of hay
upon the Brighton line 2–I can. .”
4381. Will you tell the Committee what the
actual rates are there?—I have a few comparisons
but I have not laden myself with a lot. I have
just taken a few which I think will be sufficient
to give the facts on the Brighton line.
4382. Just give them in your own words?—
The present actual rate for hay from Worthing
to Brighton (and I think you will observe that
this traffic is generally local more or less), is
4 s. 4 d. a ton ; from Horsham to Brighton it is
6 s. 10 d. a ton ; and from Horsham to London it
is 8 s. 8 d. a ton. Do you want any more ?
Chairman.
4383. What is that, station to station ?—That
is station to station.
4384. In all cases?—That is so.
Mr. Clifford.
4385. Can you compare those actual rates
with the rates that would be charged, assuming
that the proposal of the railway companies is
adopted 2–I ask to be borne with in this one
respect; that the traffic as you have alreadyheard
is carried generally at owners' risk. I have simply
given the figures that are actually charged over
the line to-day, and I shall give you the figures
as we have worked them out as contained in the
proposals of the Board of Trade. To that you
will have to add at the present charges of to-day
15 per cent., as has been laid down by the rail-
way managers, to represent the difference be-
tween the companies’ and the owners’ risk. I
can correct them as I go along or give them just
as you please. If hay is kept in Class 2, and the
rates in the schedule are sanctioned, the company
will have power to charge as between Worthing
and Brighton 7 s. 2 d., which is 2 s. 10 d. in addi-
tion to the actual charge of to-day.
Mr. Cripps.
4386. I do not know whether, just to help us,
Mr. Cripps—continued.
Mr. Gardiner could give the distance as between
Worthing and Brighton ?—From Worthing to
Brighton is 10 miles 49 chains; from Horsham
to Brighton is 26 miles 7 chains.
Mr. Clifford.
4387. Go on with your comparison, but give
the distance in future in each case ?—I will
just mention from Horsham to London, which is
the only one I have missed, 37 miles 12 chains.
As we have worked them out, I find that if the
Board of Trade's proposals are adopted and the
schedule of charges as it appears in their
proposals is also allowed to stand as it is, the
result will be in our traffic a possible charge of
7 s. 2 d. as compared with 4 s. 4d. between
Worthing and Brighton (I am leaving out that
15 per cent, representing the insurance); from
Horsham to Brighton it will be 10 s. 5d. instead
3f 6 s. 10 d. ; and from Horsham to Willow
Walk it will be 12s. 9 d. in place of 8s. 8d.
Mr. Hanbury.
4388. What is the last distance 2—The last
distance is 37 miles 12 chains.
Mr. Clifford.
4.389. Have you worked out what the result
would be if the companies’ proposals were
adopted to put the hay into the third class
instead of the second 2–I have. It would then
be from Worthing to Brighton 8 s. 2 d. instead
of 7 s. 2d.; from Horsham to Brighton 11 s. 11 d.
in place of 10 s. 5 d. ; and from Horsham to
Willow Walk (which is London) 14 s. 8d. in
place of 12 s. 9 d.
Chairman.
4390. That is for how much, per ton 2–Per
ton.
Mr. Clifford.
4391. Do you consider that excess which you
would have to pay a reasonable one 2–I do not.
I say, that if there is any meaning in it as we
have understood it, the alteration to be made
was to be in our favour; and, if it is not our
favour, I think we have a very great and strong
case in asking the Committee not to sanction
any additional powers to that which we have
already been subject to.
4392. As I understand your contention, you
would have to pay under the Provisional Order,
if it is left unaltered, a considerable addition to
your existing rates ?–We should if they were
put up to the maximum.
(81.)
4 D 2 4393. That
580
. MINUTES OF EV II)], NCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*
28 May 1891.] .
Mr. GARDINER.
[Continued.
Chairman.
4393. That is to the existing charge 2–Yes.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford.)] You talk about
existing rate, you mean existing charge.
Mr. Clifford.] That is so.
Chairman.] You are speaking of existing
charge and what might be the maximum rate
under the Provisional Order.
Mr. Clifford.] That is so.
Chairman.] Those are two very distinct things.
º Mr. C/ifford.
4394. No doubt, your Grace, that was
an inadvertance of mine. (To the Witness.)
But as regards the classification proposed by the
Board of Trade, do you think that a reasonable
one upon the whole 2–Taking it altogether,
speaking as a farmer, I think I may say for
those who send me here to represent them, that
we should accept it as being as near fair as
we could expect to get as a whole.
4395. What do you say about the average
load 2–I have been out of the trade for some
years, but I have done a good deal in the hay
trade and have loaded a good many hundreds of
trucks with two tons in a truck. But still I
think the proposal of the Board of Trade to
make the limit 30 cwt. is a very reasonable one.
4396. Are you speaking of hand-pressed hay ?
—No, I am speaking of hay as it is cut from the
rick, which is the local habit in the district I
come from.
4397. You do not agree with the evidence of
the witnesses called on behalf of the railway
companies as to the average load being as low as
33 cwt. or 30 cwt. 2–I say that 30 cwt. to fix
as a minimum is fair. I am rather ancient
history as to what the practice is of to-day, but
I say that when I was in the trade, I loaded a
great many more trucks with two tons than I
did with anything less. I am speaking of 25
Cal'S &Q'O.
y &D Chairman.
4398. I should like to ask what sized trucks
they were 7 whether they were were the oldinary
truck —The ordinary truck of the Brighton
Company.
4399. You put two tons in a truck 2–Yes, I do
not say you can do it in all cases, so much de-
pends upon the condition of the hay ; whether
it has been fairly fermented, heated, or whatever
you like to call it, or whether it has been over-
made, or whether it has been washed, or is good,
or inferior, and so on.
4400. But wºuld you contest the assertion that
has been made, that as a rule 30 cwt. is what is
usually put in a truck?—I should that that is
probably about correct; I do not think that is
worth contending, and I am, as I say, not suffi-
ciently in it now.
440). It is not a question of whether it is
worth contending, but whether it is a fact that
an ordinary truck would carry about 30 cwt. 2–
I should think an ordinary truck would decidedly
on the average carry more than 30 cwt., but it
does not follow that it is always as full as can
be.
Mr. Clifford.
4402. But in your opinion it would be a fair
Mr. Clifford—continued.
minimum load to fix 2–I think so. There is a
difference in the size of the trucks on the dif-
ferent lines.
4403. It is the fact, is it not, that hay is one
of the specified articles in the London and
ighton Act of 1863? – I am not quite sure of
that.
4404. You may take it from me that it is so,
because I have the Act before me !—Yes.
4405. And that the statutory rate which the
Brighton Company are entitled to charge is 2 d.
per mile for hay?—That is the price they do
charge, I know.
4406. Then they charge at present up to their
maximum ?–Pelhaps hardly up to the maxi-
mum. I think I have given you the actual
figures. I could give you the difference.
Chairman.] Now do you not see that you have
asked him whether the Brighton Company charge
up to their maximum ?
Witness.] They do not.
Mr. Hunter.] You put the wrong figure to the
Witness. It is 3 d. per ton, I think you will
find.
Mr. Clifford.] No, 2 d. ; I have the Act before
Iſle.
Mr. Cripps.] Will you pass the Act over to
me when you have done with it.
Mr. Clifford.] I will, certainly. “Class 7 :
For all ale and beer in bottles, canvas, cordage,
flax, floor.cloth, fruit dried, fish salted, groceries,
hay,” and so on, “per ton per mile twopence.”
Mr. Hunter.] Are you looking at the toll
clauses or the maximum rate clause 2
Mr. Clifford.] I am looking at the tonnage.
Mr. Cripps.] It is 3 d. ; I have it here,
Mr. Clifford.] Then I was wrong. I was look-
ing at the toll clause.
Chairman.] You had better clear that up.
Mr. Clifford..] Yes, the honourable Member is
quite right.
Chairman.] Then let us have it clear. You
have asked the witness whether the Brighton
Company, under the Act you have in your hand,
do not charge up to the maximum rate. The
witness says he believes not.
Mr. Clifford.
4407. (To the Witness.) Their maximum rate
appears to be 3 d. per ton per mile. Have you
worked that out 2—I have got several charges
worked out here, if that will help the case at all.
As between Brighton and Chichester, the present
charge is 7 s. 4 d.
4408. What is the distance —I do not think I
have the distance.
Mr. Clifford.] His Grace suggests 30 miles.
Chairman.
4409. From Brighton to Chichester is 30
miles.—The present charge is 7 s. 4 d. ; and if the
classification remains, and the schedule charges
remain too, the maximum allowance then will be
10 s. l I d, a ton. Betweeil Chichester and
London the price would be 18 s. 3 d., as against
the present charge of 12 s. 1 d.
4410. Assuming
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
581
28 May 1891.]
Mr. GARDINER,
| Continued.
Mr. Clifford. -
4410. Assuming that the hay is put into
Class 3 as the companies propose, the charge
for any distance not exceeding 20 miles under
the Brighton schedule would be 3 s. 10 d. That
would be an excess upon their present charging
powers ?—I suppose it would ; I really have not
worked it out.
Chairman.] You see the witness has not
worked it out.
Witness.] Not under the Act. What I wish
to do is to give you the actual charges and what
the Provisional Order will empower them to
charge in future, if it is passed. That is what I
thought would be wanted. I am not an expert ;
I am only a farmer.
Mr. Clifford.
4411. That undcr the Provisional Order would
be 3 s. 10 d. for any distance not exceeding 20
miles if in Class 3, as compared with 3 d. per ton
per mile under the existing charging powers ?—
If put in Class 3 I know the charging power
would be 8 s. 2d. a tou as against the present
charge of 4 s. 4d.
Chairman.] But you are trying to ask Mr.
Gardiner to give evidence and information which
he has not made himself master of. He has told
us what he is prepared to do, and now you are
asking him questions from the Acts of Parliament
which he says he is not able to answer.
Mr. Clifford.] Of course they speak for them-
selves. Here is the evidence of the Act ; here
is the evidence of the Provisional Order.
Chairman.] Then if they speak for themselves,
you do not need to get it from the witness, who
says he does not know them.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps
44.12. I take the first rate you have given,
4s. 4 (/, from Worthing to Brighton —Yes.
44.13. In making out the comparison, did you
include the loading and unloading charges in the
new proposed maxima P-Not in the 4 s. 4 d.
4414. No, no; but when you were comparing
4 s. 4 d. with the sum of 7 s. 2 d. 2–Yes, I did.
4415. Therefore, you were putting in the
7 s. 2 d. certain charges which were not included
in the 4 s. 4 d. 2–It would make no difference to
us locally, because our company do load the
truck. -
4416. You load the truck; you put it in that
way 2 – No, the company load the truck.
4417. Very well, take it in that way. But
your comparison of 4 s. 4 d. was a figure that
does not include loading and unloading as against
7 s. 2 d. that does?—lt does include the load-
ing. I say the company do load the hay on our
line.
4418. Do they load and unload the hay for
you as between Worthing and Brighton 2–Yes.
4419. I am only speaking now on information.
We have not had the Brighton case before. I
am just told that the merchant always loads and
unloads, and not the company ?—That is of very
recent date I should think.
4420. When did your experience end; at that
trade 2–It was not many days ago that I saw
a porter loading a truck certainly.
4421. When did your own business experience
end in these matters?—I am in business still.
Chairman.] Not in the hay business?—No, as
a farmer I mean.
Mr. Cripps.
4422. When did your business with hay
cease ?–As a dealer with hay I have been out
of it 20 years.
Earl of Camper down.
4423. When did you cease to send hay by
railway ?--I am still a farmer and I do send
hay. -
4424, You told us before that your business
hd ceased ? — No ; as a dealer in hay.
Mr. Cripps.
4.425. Do you often send hay?—And straw
too.
4426. Do you often send hay?—Not often.
4427. And between any of these stations you
have named 2–No, I do not.
4428. Therefore with regard to these stations
which you have taken, your experience dates
back 20 years?—No, certainly not. This table
of charges is in force to-day.
4429. But your experience in dealing with the
traffic is 20 years old 2–No, certainly not. My
experience as a dealer in hav is 20 years ago.
4430. Let me ask you, when did you last send
or deal with any hay sent between Worthing and
Brighton P-I could not tell you ; it is not very
recently.
4431. Then, as between Horsham and Brigh-
ton 2–1 have not dealt with that.
4432. Or as between Horsham and London P
—I have not dealt with that.
Mr. Hanbury.
4.433. When did you send hay at all by this
line last 2–I should think it must have been a
year ago.
4434. Did you load it then yourself?—To the
best of my judgment and belief I have loaded it.
º if the goods manager says it is not the
aCt ———
Mr. Cripps.]. That is just what we are
Saying.
Chairman.] You must not say if the goods
manager says it is not the fact.
Witness.] I believe, so far as my experience
goes, that it is the practice for the company to
load and unload the hay, certainly to load it.
Mr. Cripps.
4435. Take your own personal experience for
a moment. I understood you to say just now
that when you send your hay you load it or
unload it yourself?—I do not myself.
4436. Your men, I mean, not you personally *
—I say that I have not sent any hay for some
time. Mine is more in straw. -
4437. Take the last time you sent any hay,
did your men load it 2–-I could not swear either
Way.
Mr. Clifford..] I will call Mr. Berry to speak
as to this question of loading and unloading.
Chairman.] Have you anything more to ask
this witness 2
Mr. Clifford.] No, your Grace.
The Witness is directed to withdraw,
(81.)
4 D 3
582
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
28 May 1891.
Mr. WALTER WHEELER BERRY, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Clifford. -
4438. WHAT are you ?—A farmer in Kent.
4439. You were examined some days ago, I
think –I represent the agricultural section of
the Mansion House Association, representing the
agricultural associations; and I am a farmer
myself.
Chairman.
4440. In Kent?—Yes.
Mr. Clifford.] You have heard the question
raised as to the practice of loading and unloading.
What is your experience upon that point?
Chairman.] But where 2
Mr. Clifford.] In Kent.
Chairman.] That is not on the London,
Brighton, and South Coast Railway.
Witness.] I can speak as to
practice of loading and unloading.
the general
Earl of Camperdown.
4441. In Kent —I have a general knowledge,
because of my connection with the numerous
associations of farmers and those whom I repre-
sent. I can speak of my own knowledge of the
London, Chatham, and Dover and South Eastern
lines.
Chai, man.] We had better confine this gentle-
man to his own personal knowledge of the Lon-
don, Chatham, and Dover and South Eastern
lines; he cannot know anything of the London
and North Western or the Great Northern.
Mr. Clifford.
4442. I am going to ask him his personal ex-
perience. (To the Witness.) What is your
personal experience at the stations you are ac-
quainted with, with regard to the system of
loading and unloading —The companies always
load the hay ; they refuse to trust agricultural
servants to load the bay on their waggons
because of the possibility of its falling off in
transit. There are certain hay merchants whose
men, from the experience and practice they have
had, are allowed to load the hay, and they often
do it instead of waiting for the railway servants
to come and do it for them, to save time. But,
as a rule, the railway companies' servants load
the hay themselves for their own safety’s sake.
Earl of Camperdown.
4443. Do they unload it 2–The unloading, I
believe, being so much more simple, is usually
done by the carriers.
Mr. Clifford.
4444. Another point has been mentioned to-
day with regard to the minimum load. What is
your experience as to the load of hay which an
ordinary truck will carry? – An ordinary southern
company’s truck will carry 30 cwt. and upwards.
I have, myself, loaded more than two tons on an
ordinary southern company's truck ; but it is a
fact that there are many trucks that will not carry
30 cwt., and we have to accept such trucks as we
Mr. Clifford—continued.
can get. If the hay has to be loaded at any
given time we have either to accept such truck
as we can get, or wait till more suitable trucks
come. And when we load less than 30 cwt., as I
have often done myself, we have to pay as for
30 cwt. And then, again, I would like to say
in the general interest of this section of the agri-
cultural case, that several of the larger companies
have constructed their waggons with a view of
dealing with the heavy traffic through the manu-
facturing districts, in which they chiefly do their
business, without any regard whatever to the
agricultural traffic ; and it seems hard upon the
agriculturalists that they should have to suffer
because the waggons are so small in innumer-
able cases.
Mr. Cripps.
4445. Is this your personal experience on hay;
we shall get anywhere in this 2—I would wish
just to draw his Grace's attention to that point,
that is all.
Chairman.
4446. But do know it of your own knowledge?
—I have not personally bought or sold hay in
any other country but my own.
4447. Then you had better confine yourself to
your own knowledge –The members of the
associations that I represent have represented it
to me, and they wished that I would mention that
matter here, that is all.
Chairman.] That really is nothing ; they are
not here to be cross-examined.
Earl of Camperdown.
4448. Have you yourself, sending less than
30 cwt., been made to pay for 30 cwt. P-Yes.
The minimum charge is for 30 cwt., and it is
simply impossible to get 30 cwt. on the trucks
that are given you to load on.
4449. That has happened to you ?–Yes.
4450. On what line 2 – On the London,
Chatham, and Dover ; and I live close to a South
Eastern station, and I can speak to the practice
being most usual.
Mr. Hanbury.
4451. What proportion of trucks that carry
hay will not carry more than 30 cwt. *-I should
say roughly that a third of them would not carry
30 cwt., but as a rule we wait to get suitable
trucks if only small ones are offered to us. We
cannot always wait, and then we have to pay an
GNCCSS.
Mr. Clifford.
4452. You have to pay for a minimum load
under those circumstances, whatever your load
may weigh 2–Yes.
Mr. Hambury.
4453. In how many cases as a matter of fact,
speaking of your own knowledge, have you paid
for 30 cwt. when less than 30 cwt. has been
carried ?–I cannot say how often ; but as I live
close to the railway station I have a better
opportunity
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
583
28 May 1891.]
Mr. BERRY.
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
opportunity of arranging for suitable waggons
than those who live five or six mites away, and
send to the station and have to accept what
waggons they can get. So that in my case if is
a very much less number of cases on which I have
paid than is the usual practice.
Chairman.
4454. How long have you been in business 2
—I have been in business 19 years.
4455. How often in the course of 19 years
have you paid the 30 cwt. when you have sent
less, in consequence of the truck being too small
—I really cannot say how often ; I admit not
very often, because I have arranged with the
company to supply suitable waggons before I
have sent in my traffic; not very often in my in-
dividual case.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4456. I have only a representative here of the
South Eastern Railway Company; but do you
say that when you send by the South Eastern
Railway your men do the loading of the hay?--
The South Eastern men as well as the London,
Chatham, and Dover men load the hay as a rule ;
if they do not load it they come and superintend
the loading; but our men often assist in the load-
ing for the sake of speed, to get away with the
empty carts.
4457. Is it not always the case (I do not mean
to say on an exceptional occasion) that your men
load and that the Company’s men only superin-
tend ?–I agree that my men assist.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4458. And all the Company’s man does is to
superintend ; is not that so *—The company sup-
plies one man who actually loads the trusses of
hay in position on the truck. It takes two men
to load a truck of hay ; one to put the trusses
from the farmer's cart on to the railway truck,
and one to place it in position on the railway
truck.
4459. I put it to you, that all the railway
company’s man does is to superintend the loading
for the purposes of safety 2–Yes, he does the
loading.
Chairman.] He marshals the trucks?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, your Grace, and he sees
that the hay is so loaded that there is no danger
to the traffic.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We must take it from
the witness in the meanwhile.
Mr. Hanbury.] Not only sees it but does it
himself.
Mr. Crºpps.] I will call Mr. Light, if I may,
as we have not had this question with regard to
the northern lines. (To the Witness.) How
often do you send any hay from the South
Eastern station ?—I do not send any. I only
observe as I am frequently there.
4460-1. You never send any from the South
Eastern station ?—Personally I do not.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILRINSON, is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows:
Lord Belper.
4462. Is hay one of the articles specified in
your Acts of Parliament as having a maximum
rate 2–No. I stated in evidence that out of our
74 principal Acts hay is not mentioned in anyone
of our Acts.
Mr. Balfour, Browne.] I beg your pardom, I
thought you said in one Act of 74.
Mr. Cripps.] In one very small Act.
Lord Belper.
4463. Is it mentioned in one Act 2–In one
small Act, our Torbay and Brixham Act, which
is a very short length of line.
4464. What is the rate mentioned in that Act 2
—Threepence.
4465. Then I may take it that 3 d. is not the
ruling rate through the rest of your system 2–
On our principal Act we get 3; d. up to 50 miles,
and 3 d. afterwards.
Lord Belper.] The only reason I asked the
question is this, that we have had a witness who
has shown that from the 3 d. rate, even not mak-
ing use of the present maximum, the traders
would lose very largely if the rate was altered as
proposed.
Mr. Cripps.] I think he was not taking the
3 d.; he was comparing the actual charge with the
proposed maxima.
Lord Belper.] Which
stronger.
makes it much
Mr. Cripps.] If you will compare 3 d, with
the proposed maxima, the proposed maxima would.
be less than 3 d.
Lord Belper.
4466. It was not the maximum when he
worked it out... I understood it was very near the
maximum. (To the Witness.) But in your case
you have nothing that rules you at all; you may
charge anything? — There is no restriction.
The proposal of the Board of Trade will as a
matter of fact cut off the tops of nearly all our
rates.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No restriction.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] When he says no re-
sºon he means that it goes into the fifth
Cla.SS.
Witness.] I mean the highest powers we
have.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Clifford.] That is all our evidence, your
Grace. a/
(81.)
4 D 4 Mr.
584 M IN UTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
COMMITTEE
BEFORE THE JOINT
28 May 1891.
Mr. Cripps.] I do not know whether, before
my learned friend Mr. Clifford or Mr. Balfour
Browne addresses the Committee, your Grace
would like to hear Mr. Staniforth or Mr. Light.
Mr. Staniforth, as representing the Brighton
Company, and Mr. Light, as representing the
South Eastern, would state what the companies’
practice is in reference to the evidence you have
lately heard from Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Berry
on the question of loading and unloading. The
question was not raised before as regards the
southern companies; we were dealing with the
northern campanies.
Earl of Cumperdown.] How would that ques-
tion of loading and unloading, whether it is done
by the company or by the individual, affect the
question of maxima, because there is a definite
charge laid down in the schedule of 2 d. if it is
done, which they would not be entitled to
charge. If they do not do it they would not
be entitled to charge it. Otherwise the thing
would apparently remain the same P
Mr. Cripps.] It would come in this way : We
are comparing actual with maxima as it was done
in the box. If the actual does not include load-
ing and unloading, because it is not done by the
company, and if the new maxima did include
both, according to the calculation they take, you
would have to allow for that.
Mr. Hunter.] Supposing you do it, that does
not make any difference to the argument,
because if their figures are correct (and you have
not cross-examined to them), supposing you cut
it off, it does not affect the argument.
Mr. Cripps.] It would make a considerable
difference according as the calculation is made
upon the figures. It is merely a matter of
arithmetic. I did not deal with the figures, but
the witness compared 4 s. 4 d. with 7 s. 2 d.
Mr. Hunter.] Supposing you take off 1s 4d.
and make 5 s. 10 d. 2
Mr. Cripps.] You have got to take in the 15
per cent. difference between owner's risk and
company's risk. That takes off another 10 d. ;
that is 4 s. 4 d. against 5 s., a maximum of 5 s.
against an actual of 4 s. 4d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is a very consider-
able difference between actual and maximum.
Mr. Cripps.] But it is a matter of calculation.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think I can
address your Grace. You have followed the
evidence and I do not think I could say any-
thing more.
Mr. Cripps.] Then I should like to say a word
or two in reply upon the evidence, as I have a
right to do; and only a very few words. It
really is not contested that as regards the three
Northern Companies which we took as tests
(that is, the Great Eastern, the Great Western,
and the Great Northern) on the hay rates alone;
not comparing maxima, but comparing actual
with maxima, the loss would be over 16,000 l. a
year; and, as Mr. Courtenay Boyle has pointed
out, and the fact must be so, that comparing
maxima with actual, the northern companies
must, under the proposed schedule, suffer a con-
siderable loss in revenue. I understand, your
Grace, that that was justified by the Board of
Trade to a great extent on Mr. Lambert's evi-
dence.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I did not use the word
“considerable.” I used the word “ some.”
Mr. Cripps | Some loss. We have given the
figures. I understand that that was justified to
a great extent on Mr. Lambert's evidence,
Well, I should like to make two remarks upon
Mr. Lambert's evidence. The first is that, of
course, Mr. Lambert’s evidence would apply to
the Great Western Company only ; whereas this
is a question concerning all the companies; and
Secondly, although as Mr. Lambert, as explained
to-day, although, no doubt, he said what he was
reported to have said on that occasion, yet dealing
with the great variety of matter before the
Board of Trade, it did not nearly represent
what I may call his deliberate opinion ; and it
hardly could have represented his deliberate
opinion, because this has not been questioned;
that the Great Western Company alone, com-
paring their actual rates with these proposed
maxima, would lose a sum of over 14,000?.
a year.
Your Grace, the only attempt, as it were, to
displace the companies’ case, has been raised as
regards the southern companies; and I must
remind your Grace and the Committee of this
point: that the southern companies, as regards
Class 2 and as regards Class 3 (those are
the two classes we are here talking about), have
a higher rate given them by the Board of Trade
in their schedule than the northern companies
have. -
Earl of Camperdown.] How
Mr. Cripps.] If you take the Brighton sche-
dule you will see ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] You mean as compared
with the present powers ?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Lord Belper.] Will you give us the differ-
ence 2
Mr. Cripps.] I will give you one. This is a
comparison on Class 2. For the northern com-
panies, for distances not exceeding 20 miles,
2-65 d. ; for the London, Brighton, and South
Coast, the South Eastern, and the London,
Chatham, and Dover, it is 2.75 d. ; that is a
larger rate ; then exceeding 20 but not exceed-
ing 50 miles, for the northern companies it is
2-50 d. ; and the southern companies, 260 d. Ex-
ceeding 50 miles but not exceeding 100 miles, for
the northern companies it is 220 d., and for the
southern companies, 2:35 d. Exceeding 100 but
not exceeding 150 miles, it is 2 d. for the
northern companies, and 2'20 d., for the southern
companies. Therefore, all the calculations
given as regards the southern companies do not
affect the case of the northern companies at all.
But, your Grace, on the southern companies
let us consider how the matter stands upon the
one case which I tested. It was said that from
Horsham to Brighton the present actual charge
was 4 s, 4 d.
Mr. Hunter.] Worthing to Brighton.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 585
28 May 1891.
Mr. Cripps.] Thank you, Sir, Worthing to
Brighton; and that the proposed maxima would
be 7 s. 2 d. that is how the figures stood. If
you take off from 7 s. 2 d. the loading and un-
loading charges that reduces it to 5 s. 10 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] Six shillings and ten
pence.
Mr. Cripps.] You have to take it off at both
ends, 8 d. each end. It is not the covering and
uncovering, but the loading and unloading
charges that reduces it to 5 s. 10 d. as against
4 s. 4 d. In addition to that you have to make a
15 per cent. allowance. As regards owners'
risk, the witness said that in the box,
though he has not made the calculation, 15 per
cent. which was not questioned as regards all the
railway managers. I can only speak on the
evidence of course, and I am told that it is what
has been taken as the Clearing House Classifica-
tion list. I am not going outside the evidence
upon the point of course. That would reſiuce
the 5 s. 10 d. to about 5 s. Then you would have
4 s. 4 d. actual charge as against a 5 s. possible
maximum. It is clear that in that case the
present charge would be covered by the proposed
maxima, whereas as regards the northern com-
panies you have exactly the opposite, the reason
probably being that the northern companies pro-
posed maximum is less than the proposed maximum
for the southern companies, and that they carry on
the average this traffic for a longer distance.
That is probably the explanation of the difference
in the two cases. But I will point out most
earnestly to your Grace and the Committee, that
as regards the northern companies, and in a
different ratio, I must admit, as regards the
southern companies, here is a proposal to
deprive the companies of a substantial part of
their income, and no real reason suggested why
it should be done.
Mr. Hunter.] But let me point this out;
that in the case of a 26 miles distance from
Horsham to Brighton, the Brighton Company
charge 6 s. 10 d. and the Great Northern for 27
miles, the same distance, charge 9 s. 1] d. So
that the difference is to be accounted for by the
fact that the Great Northern Company make a
much higher charge than the Brighton Company
Mr. Cripps.] At the present time *
Mr. Hunter.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] Even if they do (I have not got
those two figures before me), we are charging
these as actual rates within our maximum. If
we are charging them without the traders com-
plaining as regards the classification, if we are
charging within our maxima, even if we do
charge it as actual rate, we are justified in
doing it. -
Mr. Hunter.] Take another case, Horsham to
London, 37 miles, 8s. 8d. The Great Northern
for 38 miles charge 13s. 9d.
Mr. Cripps.] It is rather for Mr. Twelvetrees
or Mr. Oakley to explain than for me ; but the
answer to that again is, that these are actual
charges which we are entitled to make within
our maximum at the present time, and which we
are making as between ourselves and the
traders as a matter of give and take, or, I
should call it, between the companies and the
traders. But that is no reason, I submit,
why if as regards these articles we are enabled to
charge near our maxima (which I cannot admit
at the moment without having the honourable
Member's figures before me and going into them),
even if we are charging near our maxima (I do
not know whether it is so or not), we are entitled
to do that; it is a charge we are receiving, not
only the Great Northern but the Great Eastern
and the Great Western, which we are entitled to
receive at the present time ; and these proposed
maxima will mean a necessary loss to these three
companies of over 16,000 l. a year.
And your Grace I should like to say another
word upon that. I would not for a moment
accept a compromise which I thought was really
fallacious. But what did my learned friend Mr.
Clifford suggest on behalf of the Mansion House
Committee, as backing up the fairness as it were
of the proposals of the railway companies 2 He
said: “Put in 40 cwt. and we will meet you on a
compromise.” The reason why I did not accept it
on behalf of the railway companies was because
I thought it would not be fair to this Committee,
and for this reason. Our evidence is that
all our consignments as a fact are sent at
less than 40 cwt., with very small exceptions;
and that is the evidence given by Mr.
Twelvetrees and by Mr. Wilkinson and by
Mr. Birt. The only reason why we did not
accept it was that we thought that it would not
be fair to the Committee, because if our evidence
is true, and we have no doubt it is, the minimum
load is always less than 40 cwt., and, therefore,
if we had accepted that compromise, the railway
companies would, as a matter of fact, have been
protected. But I do not think we should have
been justified in doing that without pointing out
to the Committee what, in our opinion, the real
effect would have been. The real effect would
have been raising the hay rate from Class 2 to
Class 3; because our whole evidence goes to
show that the hay consignments must necessarily
be less than 40 cwt. It may be a question
whether they are a little less or more than
30 cwt. ; they may average a little under or they
may run up to 35 or 36 cwt. But all our evi-
dence is that hay consignments must be less than
40 cwt. And, therefore if, as my learned friend
suggested as a compromise, we put the minimum
of 40 cwt. in, that would really cover us in one
sense, but cover us in a way that might possibly
leave the Committee without information as to
the real way in which we looked at it. We say,
in effect, that that is the same as moving hay
from Class 2 to Class 3, and that that ought to
be dome directly, and not indirectly, and under a
system of that kind.
I do not understand your Grace that there
is really much contest as regards this upon the
figures. , You heard what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
said, both as regards the proposed maxima, and
as regards actual charges ; and also what he said
with regard to Mr. Lambert's evidence. What
Mr. Courtenay Boyle, said is true. It really
comes to this : that all interests being equally
and fairly protected, all interests ought to have a
proportionate burden as regards the whole re-
muneration of the railway companies. And
really, your Grace, I think there has been no
evidence at all as regards the northern companies,
(81.)
4 E and
586 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
BE FORE
28 May 1891.
and even as regards the southern companies, our
proposal only shows that there is a fair margin
as between actual and what we propose to be the
maximum charges. -
Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to ask Mr.
Courtenay Boyle, did the Board of Trade finally
make up their minds upon that statement of Mr.
Lambert's 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.j Oh no ; that was one
factor, and a very important factor; the Board
of Trade always pays the greatest attention to
what Mr. Lambert says, because they believe
that he has very consideeable experience, and
represents knowledge greater than his own, and
that was one important factor in their decision.
Earl of Camperdown.] Can you mention what
the other reasons were; any other strong reason ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] One other strong
reason, was the reason which has been pro-
minently brought under the notice of the Com-
mittee to-day; that the word “hay ” is not
mentioned in the majority of the Acts of Pariia-
ment, and therefore the companies believe them-
selves entitled to charge, and are entitled to
charge, the Class 5 rate. Is that a reasonable
position or is it not, for an Act of Parliament
fixing the articles and fixing the classification of
the old Acts passed when the Legislature had a
limited knowledge of the circumstances of the
various cases 2 Is it right that in these days,
hay should be at the highest possible rate 2 We
are of opinion that it should not be.
Mr. Cripps.] We do not ask for that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Being an unnamed
article it comes into other unnamed articles, as
at the highest rate authorised by the classi-
fications of the companies.
Chairman.] But the proposal is to put it into
Class 3.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly, your Grace.
The present statutory position is, with regard to
a large majority of the Acts of Parliament, that
hay being unnamed comes in the highest powers
of the companies.
Mr. Hambury.] And that has had the effect of
raising the actual rates.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The losses are calcu-
lated upon the fact that the companies charge
somewhere near their maximum, I do not say
that they charge their maximum, but they charge
somewhat near their maximum. The honourable
Ajember for Aberdeen has pointed out that the
Great Northern actual rate is far higher than
the Brighton rate : the reason being that in the
Great Northern Act hay is unnamed, and there-
fore the company can charge up the highest
possible rate in the classification.
Mr. Hunter.] If you take this figure for the
37 miles of 13 s. 9 d, and deduct 3 s. 4 d. on the
scale of terminals as before, that gives you exactly
3; d. per mile.
Mr. Courtenay Boy le.] That is actual charge.
I say this, and I say it again with the greatest
confidence, that in a large number of cases the
companies charge for hay a rate approaching to
their maximum, that maximum being the highest
possible because it was unnamed. . That was an
important factor in the decision of the Board of
Trade. We think the time has come when the
Legislature should review the position of hay in
the classification.
Lord Belper.] I should like to ask you one
more question. We have had three of the
northern railway companies mentioned as being
very large losers; but there are two or three
equally large northern companies whom we have
heard nothing about. Was their case put before
you as strongly as the ones which have been
mentioned.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I have not got actually,
in the mass of papers I have before me, an abso-
lute statement of the losses of all the companies,
but speaking from recollection I think that nearly
all the railway companies alleged a loss upon the
point of hay. I think I am right in saying that
nearly all the northern companies alleged loss.
Mr. Hanbury.] I want to understand that very
clearly. You started by saying that the Provi-
sional Order rates would give the companies less
than their actual existing rates.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not all of them.
Mr. Hanbury.] But as they “alleged,” you
said.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Mr. Hambury.] But now you go on to say that
those actual rates are higher than in your opinion
they ought to have been owing to the fact that the
coalpanies had no maxima, that hay was a casus
O7722.SS7/.S.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, it was a case not
referred to.
Mr. Hanbury.] And owing to that fact, the
actual rates have been higher than they otherwise
would have been P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is the opinion of
the Board of Trade, because I did not quite
know what the decision of the Legislature might
have been ; but I say that the time has come for
a revision of the position of hay by the Legisla-
ture.
Mr. Cripps.] May I Just say that when Mr.
Twelvetrees was in the box, or Mr. Wilkinson, if
that question had been put to them, they would
have explained that the actual charges were
not out of proportion to the ordinary average
earning power of the companies, and in point of
fact that our present actual charge for hay in
proportion to the services rendered was small.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I beg your pardon, I
distinctly asked Mr. Wilkinson or Mr. Twelve-
trees if he could tell me what was profit, and he
said he could not.
Chairman.] Mr. Oakley could probably tell
us all about that.
Mr. Oakley.] I am afraid your Grace has seen
too much of me.
Chairman.] No, we want to get to the bottom
of this question which is new to us. You have
heard what has passed, and I have no doubt you
can give us whatever explanation is necessary.
Mr. Oakley.] I will endeavour to do so, your
Grace.
Mr.
O N RAIL W A Y RATES
PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS. 587
ANI) CIH AIRGES
28 May 1891.
MR. HENRY OAKLEY, is re called ; and further Examined, as follows :
Chairman.
4467. YoU have heard what has passed,
and it is stated that the northern companies have
charged more for hay than they have charged for
other articles which they carry, because hay was
an unspecified article, and therefore they were
able to put it in the highest class?—That is so,
your Grace, as far as our legal powers went, but
the reason we make what is alleged to be a high
charge is this : that the load of each truck is so
light that when we have charged our high class,
say 3 d. a ton per mile, every truck can only
earn 4; d., and I am dealing with hay as an
especially difficult and expensive thing ; we have
to give special directions with regard to how hay
is to be loaded, how long it has to wait before it
is sheeted down, it is to be doubly sheeted, and
our losses from fire, and the delays to our trucks,
both in loading and discharging, are practically so
serious (of course it is almost impossible to say
what the profit is upon a particular consignment)
that our estimate of the profit, the carrying of
hay, is considerably less than that of carrying
second class goods, even at lower rates, because
we can get a much greater weight of second
class goods in a truck than we can of hay. We
are guided, not by our powers to charge, but by
what it costs us and what rate will bring it into
the market.
Earl of Belmore.
4468. When you talk of fire I thought hay
was carried at owners' risk 2–Yes; but still
during the last year we have had to pay 253 l.
19 s. 9 d. for losses consequent upon straw catch-
ing fire : by clover and hay burnt. They were
carried at owners' risks but we have had to pay
the claimants notwithstanding, not only for the
stuff but for the consequential damage to other
property in the same train without taking into
account our own trucks or sheets or anything of
that sort.
4469. Did you pay the owner of the hay ?—
Yes; I can give your Lordship the name and the
blaces ; it was from Ramsey to Leeds and from
kºy to Bradford, and the gentleman's name
was Newton; we paid him 12 / for straw, con-
sumed by catching fire, supposed by sparks from
a passing train. In the other case we paid a
man named Newsby, carrying from Offord to
King's Cross, 5 l. 15 s. 4 d. for hay burned ; on
those two occasions we burnt a lot of sundry
other things belonging to them but that is part
of the risks of the carriage of this stuff. In the
two cases the hay was also burnt and paid for.
|Earl of Camperdown.
4470. Was that 253 l. 19 s.9 d. your total loss
for hay and straw in that year?—Yes, from fire.
4471. But what was your charge for insurance,
15 per cent. over the whole amount –No we
practically charged the 3 d. per ton a mile and we
call it at owners' risk, but when it comes to a
question of fire it is at our risk.
4472. You said just now that your profit on
this carrying of hay you considered to be small
—Yes, certainly.
4473. How did you arrive at that?
Upon
arl of Camperdown—continued.
what do you base that statement?—It is easily
arrived at, my Lord. Take it roughly in this
way, it only earns 4; d. a truck a mile, and there
is always an empty load back; there is no return
back for hay. It comes to the market, and the
trucks wait three or four days, or the minimum
is four days ; and sometimes they are seven or
eight days, and I hear a man whispering de-
murrage. He does not know what governs
demurrage. We are obliged to render the ac-
commodation which is necessary to promote the
trade in the market, there are only two market
days in London in the week, and the hay, if it is
left over from one market, waits till the next.
We have had frequent contentions with our
people about that.
4474. It is not in your truck all that while, is
it?–Yes, it is ; it waits in our yard, in our
sidings.
4475. Do not they pay for the accommodation
during that time 2—No ; we try to get them to
do it, but their answer to me is that they cannot.
I saw them two or three months ago, and one
merchant's average was nine days per truck, and
he said: If you charge me demurrage you stop
the trade.
4476. Do you mean to say that you do not
charge demurrage 7–No ; T tried to get it, but I
Cannot.
4477. Not for hay ?–No.
4478. That is to say a man might retain a
truck of hay over, we will say, two markets, and
if you were to allow it to remain in your siding
you would not charge him anything for it 2–Yes,
practically. I should try to get something from
him, but in practice I cannot.
4479. But how could he refuse to pay for it if
you sent him a bill for it?—We should have to
sue him for it. We cannot be suing our cus-
tomers always. However, that is only a part.
Here are printed directions that are circulated
to all the hay-sending stations in order that you
may see what care is necessary and what atten-
tion is paid to secure the proper loading of hay
(handing in the same).
4480. Then there is another question that I
wish to ask you. You said that you could get no
return load for these trucks; are these trucks a
very special sort of truck —No.
4481. Then why should you not get a return
load 2–Because at the hay-sending station there
is nothing to go back, except perhaps the local
groceries and things of that kind.
4482. Might there not be some manufacturing
station in the vicinity ?—There is not in a hay
district ; it is all agriculture.
4483. Nowhere about 2—No, as your Lordship
knows, Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire are all
agriculture.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4484. You have said that you estimate the
profit on hay to be small 2–Yes.
4485. Would you mind telling me what the
(81.)
4 E 2 elements
588
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEF ORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*
28 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
elements of your estimate are 2–Cost of carriage
and earning power per train per mile.
4486. How much 2 – Suppose you take 30
trucks.
4487. What are you earning per train per
mile 2–That is not the way to arrive at your
profit.
4488. You say first of all that you get probably
less profit for carrying hay than other articles in
the class. In order to do that, I want to have a
comparison of the two articles. What two
articles have you taken P – Practically, any
article for which I could get a full truck load in
Class II.
4489. You said you had made an estimate.
Wool, I think, is in Class II. 2–I can get four
or five tons to a truck there.
4490. Put it at four ; now how much do you
get for wool. Your estimate was that, at the
present time, the profit on hay was small ?—
Certainly.
4491. How did you get at that ?—My answer
to that is this, that, in ordinary trade articles in
Class II., I should earn a greater receipt per truck
per mile than J can from hay. -
4492. Will you show me how. Take any
article you like, and show me how much you
earn in the one case and how much in the other?
—Wool will do.
4493. Now, I find that for wool your ordinary
receipt for all the stations we have mentioned is
1-3 d. per tom per mile 2–Yes.
4494. And for the stations that you put in
O]] * other side it was 2 d. per ton per mile 2
— I. 6 S.
4495. That is for wool?—Yes, but you have
got the distances to take into account there.
4496. I am quite aware of that. Now I find
that for this hay it is 2.38 d. per ton per mile 2
—Yes.
4497. Will you show me where you get more
profit on wool to represent the difference 2—I
can carry between 4 and 5 tons of wool in a
truck. Take the receipt first of all. You will
find the profit less. I will take your figures.
4498. The figures I have are 1-3 d. per ton
per mile 2–That is 5'20 d. at four tons per truck,
a ton-and-a-half.
4499. Do you mean that you never carry more
than a ton and-a-half?—Not of hay. You
cannot get it.
4500. Do you mean to say you cannot get
more than a ton-and-a-half of hay?—No, in
practice you cannot.
4501. That comes out of 2:38 d., so that you
will have to put on half of that ?—Yes, that
is l'19 d., which is 4'57 d. ; therefore there is a
penny a mile less earning at once upon the hay
than upon the wool.
Mr. Hunter.
4502. Do you always have a full truck load
of wool —Yes, between London and Yorkshire.
In practice I have taken only four tons. The
London wool averages nearer five tons.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4503. That is the gross receipt 2–Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4504. In the one case it is 5+ d., and in the
other case 4; d. 2–Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] I think that is a mistake ; it is
3 d. ; it is not '38 d.
Witness.] Yes, the learned counsel is right, it
is 3 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4505. That gives you the gross receipt 2–Yes.
4506. Now, will you show me what the cost of
carriage is?—Wait a moment . . Just take your
30 trucks, that is 90 pence, which is 7 s. 6d., and
30 half-pence is 1 s. 3 d., that is 8 s. 9 d. ; and for
that you have got a double journey, or 4 s. 4; d.
practically per mile. -
4507. Has this been done before, or are you
doing it now for the first time 2—I have done it,
I cannot say every day of my life, but I have
done it incessantly in order to find out what
really I ought to charge.
4508. You say that one of the expenses was
this demurrage of the trucks in the case of hay?
—Yes. -
4509. You would not have the same in the
case of wool, you say ?–No, certainly not, but
stop a moment. In the case of wool, during the
wool sales the trucks are very often delayed
indeed there, and if we do not detain them we
have to unload the wool and put it in the ware-
house.
4510. And as I understand, because the trucks
are delayed you want a higher rate 2–No ;
that is one of the incidents of the cost of work-
ing. I earn less for my hay, and I have more
expenses relatively to the distance carried than
I have upon other articles in Class II.
4511. Do you really think it a right thing to
charge for three, four, or five days delay in the
rate 2–In practice we have to make our rate to
fit the market of the article that we have to
deal with, and it is no use theorising here or
anywhere else about the charges for demurrage
in the promotion of a trade. We have to do the
same with our coal, with our wood, with our hay,
and with our straw, and with all articles that are
dependent upon the market.
4512. If you are charging the demurrage in the
rate, under these circumstances the man who does
not hire the truck has to pay for the delay ?–Yes,
in an abstract case that would be so, but then
he has the benefit of the advantage that this
accommodation gives in the promotion of a
market at the place.
4513. Do you know it has been distinctly held
that you are not entitled to charge for ware-
housing in a rate 2—That is a different question.
4514. You think it is ?--Yes; but wait a
moment; I will deal with that. I do know that, and
the warehousing is treated as warehousing when
you have taken it out of the truck and put it in
a place, and acted as a warehouseman. This is
a sort of concession we make to the trade; we
do it in flour, in hay and grain, and we do every-
thing that we can do in the way of providing ac-
commodation to promote trade.
4515. Is it not the fact that in the wool rates
you have given you allow for warehousing, that
1S
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BII.L8.
589
28 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour B rowne—continued.
is to say, including free warehousing 2–Yes,
certainly. When I say free warehousing ; yes,
if you want it. If it is wanted for the purposes
of the market we allow a man to keep his wool,
say for a fortnight, or whatever the time fixed
may be, free before we make any charge.
4.516. In the hay carriage you have got the
demurrage of the trucks; in the wool carriage
you have got the accommodation and free storage
for a fortnight?—Yes.
4517. Surely that is much more expense than
the detention of a truck?—Not a bit, it is not
nearly so expensive. It is obvious that when
you detain a truck you stop the earning
power of the railway. It is not simply the hire
of that particular truck; but you diminish the
means of gaining income with that truck, and in-
stead of being worth, say, a shilling or two
shillings a-day, it may be a loss of 20 s. or 30s.
4518. And if my wool is in your warehouse
I stop the earning power of your warehouse while
the wool is in it?—Yes; but the earning power
of the warehouse is limited only to the spot
where the warehouse is. The detention of the
truck means limiting the earning power of that
truck for hundreds of miles.
*
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4519. With regard to the hay that caught fire,
that must have been from improper covering,
must it not?—You cannot tell what it is ; but
that, no doubt, is one of the reasons.
Mr. Hunter.
4520. Can you give the Committee any ex-
planation as to how it is that the Brighton people
can carry hay to London, a distance of 37 miles,
for 8 s. 8d., while you require 13 s. 9 d. 2–I do
not know ; I cannot give a notion; but I think the
conclusion is that they do not make much profit
out of it.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will your Grace take
the question of iron to-morrow 2
Chairman.] I do not know.
Mr. Capper.] Will your Grace kindly tell me
if the case to be submitted for the opinion of the
Law Officers of the Crown is ready?
Chairman.] You had better ask that question
to-morrow.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven.
(81.)
4 E 3
( 590 )
( 591 )
Die /eneris, 29° Maii,
1891.
FRESENT :
DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Barl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HoughTon.
Mr. DICKSON.
. HANBURY.
. Hunt ER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIs GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G. IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Cripps.]... YoUR Grace will recollect that Mr. Oakley was in the box, and I have a few
questions to ask him in re-examination.
M R. HENRY OAKLEY, is again called in ; and Re-examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
4521. YOU were asked some questions yester-
day, if you recollect, as regards the actual
charges you were making for hay in comparison
with other articles in Class 2 2–Yes. -
4522. Just one question before we come to the
matter of comparison. You worked out, as re-
gards hay, what your earning power was per
truck mile 2–Yes.
4523. It was, I think. 3'57 d., was it not ?
Yes. -
4524. I want to ask you first of all, apart from
any question of comparison, does 3} d. (for that
is what in effect it is), as an earning power per
truck mile, give more than than the ordinary re-
turn to the railway companies, or less than the
ordinary return?—Distinctly less than the
Crdinary return, and distinctly less than a return
that would pay, taking into account the working
expenses.
Earl of Camperdown.
4525. That means a dead loss, does it?—No.
Mr. Cripps.
4526. Will you just explain that ?—Less than
a return that would pay an ordinary and a very
moderate dividend on the railway, because the
balance between the working expenses and the
gross receipts must be applied in payment of
dividend on the capital.
4527. I think you were putting this: that
taking 3, d. as the earning power per truck mile,
for that is the test we are taking now, and com-
paring what you so earn with your average
receipts, that was a small earning power?—Yes,
too small to enable a railway company to pay a
very moderate dividend.
Mr. Hunter.
4528. Now what are your average receipts per
Mr. Hunter—continued.
train mile 2–Our average receipts per train
miles are 4 s. ; goods would be something higher,
but that includes passengers, 4 s. 6 d. to 5 s, for
goods alone.
Mr. Cripps.
4529. How would a train mile of from 4 s. 6d.
to 5 s. in the case of goods compare with the 33 d.
taken as the truck mile 2–I have to take say 30
trucks at 3 d., that would be 7 s. 6d. Then you
have to consider that there is always a greater or
less proportion of empty mileage to be dealt
with, so that that reduces your average rate, un-
less you can get more than 7 s. for the full loaded
train; there would not be a margin to provide for
the empty mileage which you have to run.
4530. Therefore, taking it as a matter of
practical working and not a mere paper theory,
would the 3; d. upon a truck mile work out, in
your opinion, at less than your average earnings
on the train mile 2–Certainly; and less also
than the average earnings derived from the
goods in the same class.
Mr. Hunter.
4531. How many waggons do you take to
each train –That is according to the gradient
and the season of the year. You may say from
30 to 35 ; but we have in Yorkshire many cases
in which we can only take 15 waggons to the
train, and in some cases only 12 coal waggons.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Seven shillings and six
pence is only 3 d., not 3; d.
Mr. Cripps.
4532. What you were pointing out was that,
comparing the truck mile with the train mile,
you must not assume in the case of the train
mile that you have your waggons full every
(81.)
A - *.
4 E4 journey P
592
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891 ..]
Mr. OAKLEY.
| Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
journev 2–Yes, that is assuming every waggon
was full, and every train the same length, and
no provision made for empty waggons. As a
matter of fact the London tonnage, and accord.
ing to the season, there is from 25 to 33 per
cent. of empty mileage is one-third of our total
tonnage, and in respect of our London tonnage,
returned trucks for which there is no load.
Mr. Hunter.
4533. But if you take 3; d. as your truck and
30 for each train, that gives you 105 d, or
practically 9 s., which is twice 4 s. 6 d. 2–Yes ;
that is the train earning. Now you have to see
what are the special expenses in connection
with that class of traffic. Although it may
earn, say, the average, it costs a great deal more
than the average to deal with it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is double
average.
the
Mr. Cripps.
4534. I think that is obvious on the mathe-
matical figures. But what you were pointing
out is that, apart from the paper figures, when
you come to the practical working of the traffic
the truck mile calculation on hay does not work
up to your average train mile figure?—It does
not. The returns I have here elucidate the
question I was asked yesterday. There is a
special expense and delay in loading, and a
special expense and delay in unloading hay ; and
every one of those items goes to increase the
expense in connection with the carriage of hay
and straw.
4535 You have, I think, worked out the hay
charge, have you not, specially for the purpose
of comparison with other articles in Class 22—
Yes. His Grace will recollect I was called
somewhat hastily last night ; but in the interval
I have taken out the earnings of sundry trucks
of goods which are carried in Class 2, dealing
with them in exactly the same way as I propose
to deal with hay ; that is, taking the weight, our
charges, the amount of the terminal allowed in
the Provisional Order, and working the balance
out at that rate per mile, the trucks earn, as
follows:—Boxes of hams earn 3; d. ; the next,
undressed leather, earms 3; d. ; wool, 7; d., and
rather more, because that is a large load ; bark,
5; d. ; petroleum, 5; d. ; clover, 4} d. and a shade
more ; bottles loose, 4'32 d., say 4 d. and a third ;
then there is a very good load of petroleum,
which earns 83 d.
Mr. Hunter.
4536. You have given us the petroleum
already ?—Yes. This is another truck; the
first petroleum truck had only 1 ton 15 cwt. in ;
the second had 3 tons 11 cwt. That accounts
for the largely increased earnings of that parti-
cular truck. Another one earned about 5; d.
Mr. Cripps.
4537. Now let me ask you this : Are those
fair illustrative cases on the best information
which you can get ; because , we know the
matter was raised last evening 2–I could only
get the London weights last night. I asked our
goods manager to get out for me as many cases
as he could of fair truck loads of goods brought
into London.
Mr. Hanbury.
4538. I suppose he cannot give the Committee
the earnings per truck per mile for all the goods
included in Class 2, could he 2–No; that would
be a very big job; because I should have to go
all over the line with every consignment from
every station.
Mr. Cripps.
4539. I do not know whether you could give
an answer on this basis. Of course we know
you have not got all the figures, but could you
from your experience indicate in any way how
the general average in Class 2 would compare
with the earning per truck mile on hay?–I
could not say exactly what the average earnings
would be ; but I do know our average standard,
and that is to try always to get a load that
would earn not less than 4 d. a truck mile. If it
earns less thau that, I should look askance at
the transaction. But of course in dealing with
all questions of rate, one has to look, as I have
said before, at the probabilities of the load, and
to the regularities of the transit, and generally to
the quick disposal of the truck.
4540. But still, dealing for a moment with
what I understand is your standard, you take
that as 4 d. 2–No.; 4; d. is the minimum of what
I Ought to get.
4541. Taking that as a test, as far as it goes,
your hay per truck mile works out below it 2–
It does not work out absolutely below some of
the items. Those items have been got out, as I
said just now, with a view of showing as fair a
representation of this class of goods as I could
get since yesterday evening. They vary, as I
have said, from 3; d. up to 8; d.
Earl of Belmore.
4542. Do you say that you consider you ought
to earn 4; d. a mile to earn a dividend ?—I ought
to earn 6 d. ; but I never take less than 4; d. if
I can help myself.
Mr. Hanbury.
4543. Do you think, as a fact, that your
average earnings per truck mile on all these
articles in Class 2 do come up to 4; d. 2–If that
is to be taken as a fair average.
4544. That is what I want to know 2–It is
not possible to tell that ; because a truck going
from one station to another might have all classes
of goods in it.
4545. Is it your opinion that per truck per
mile you do get 4; d. as an average on all articles
in Class 2 P-I do not like to make statements
which I cannot ask you to thoroughly believe. I
should hope we do. I cannot say from my own
knowledge how it works out absolutely, but we
ought to try to get it.
Earl of Belmore.
4546. Supposing there was a particular article
upon which you were sure you were not getting
that, you would make a movement to get it into
another class 2–Yes, certainly.
Mr. Cripps.
4547. Fourpence halfpenny you have said,
as regards Class 2; you had that in your
mind in your recollection as a sort of minimum
standard,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
593
Mr. OAKLEY.
ſ Continued.
29 May 1891.]
Mr. Cripps—continued.
standard 2–Yes, distinctly, we ought to earn
that to get a reasonable profit to pay our interest.
4548. If that is so, taking that as a test so far
from your hay, even at , your present charges,
being above the average in earning power, it is
below it?—It is below it. I do not know
whether the figures were given to the Committee
yesterday, but I had prepared a statement show-
ing a comparison of our present earnings, based
on what I respectfully contend is a reasonable
rate, but what the result would be —
4549. I think the Committee have actually
those figures; that is to say, the actual figures of
earning on the Great Northern as compared with
the proposed minimum ?—
Lord Belper.
4550. With regard to what you said about the
average, it is essential to an average that certain
things should be earning less than the average,
and that certain things should be earning more
than the average 2–Yes.
4551. Therefore if you took the things that
were earning less than the average and raised the
rates, you might be allowed to charge upon them,
that would clearly raise your average 2–. Quite
SO.
4552, Your average is founded upon the things
in this particular class?—I think your Lordship is
mistaking my 4; d. for the average ; the 4; d.
is the minimum amount.
Earl of Belmore.] Sixpence is the average.
Lord Belper.
4553. It cannot be the minimum, because
you have said several articles are under that ?
—That is the only indication that I have been
able to get at in some cases; the loads that
I have extracted were not the full load of the
truck.
4554. That 43 d. is the minimum you expect
to charge 2–Yes; if anybody asked me to carry
goods from point A. to point B. I should set my
mind to get 4% d. as the minimum, consistently
with a view to the due promotion of the trade.
4555. Mr. Cripps asked yon whether hay was
below your average; can you therefore say what
your average is 2–It is not possible for anybody
to say what the average is per truck, because the
load of the truck is not confined to each class of
traffic ; it goes to all classes of traffic.
Mr. Cripps.
4556. But taking it at 3; d. as regards hay,
that is upon the assumption of a full truck load
of 30 cwt. -- Yes.
4557. But I understand in working out the
4; d. which you aim at in practice, the actual
receipt may fall below that, because you may
have only a small amount of stuff to carry?—Yes,
because you cannot get a full load.
4558. In the case of the petroleum, which
worked out below the 4; d. at 3 d., I think it
was, you had a very small load 2–Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] When he complains of
a part of his trucks not being full, the answer is
that, when they are not full, they would go into
another class.
Mr. Cripps.] That is as regards hay. What
Mr. Oakley is comparing is necessarily a full
Mr. Cripps—continued.
truck load of hay ; but your Lordship is dealing
with the other articles in Class 2, of which he
may have to run the risk of getting a full load or
a small load. *
The Witness.] That is so. If I got a full load
my rates would bring me more than 4; d. ; but
very often I cannot get a full load ; therefore I
earn less than my maximum per truck.
4559. If, as you say, your hay at the present
time has usually been carried at somewhat less
than the ordinary terms, as compared with other
traffic, have you ever had any complaints from
your traders as regards the rates ?—No ; I think
the hay traders with us are satisfied with what
we do, because we make them considerable con-
cessions in the way of accommodation. I have
had no complaint of the rates. The only thing
they complain of is that I urge them, sometimes
unduly, as they say, to empty the trucks.
4560. May we take it that as regards the
northern companies we have had no one here op-
posing the proposal you are now making 2–
O. w
4561. Now let us see. A question was raised
by the southern companies. I think you were
here when Mr. Gardiner and Mr. Berry gave
evidence 2—Yes.
4562. That evidence shows that in the case of
the Brighton Company they were charging less
for hay at the present time than you were 2–
Yes.
4563. The honourable Member asked you, I
think it was the last question asked you last
night, whether you could give any explanation
upon that point. Have you had time to consider
it?—I have ruminated upon it. I think the
answer is obvious; that they are carrying that
traffic, if not at a loss, certainly without any
profit at all, because they are charging 2 d. at a
minimum weight of a ton. If they carry a ton
of hay in a truck for 2 d., it is simply impossible
to get anything more than the working expenses;
and there is no doubt for some political reason or
other the Brighton Company have made very
low rates, possibly for the purpose of maintain-
ing the monopoly to Brighton; that is the only
excuse I can find for their acting so uncom-
mercially.
Earl of Camperdown.] Their maximum is 4 d.,
I think.
Mr. Cripps.] Not the Brighton Company, I
think. The Great Eastern Company’s maximum
is 4 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I ti,ink the Brighton is
3 d., and the Great Eastern is 4 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the Great
Eastern Company’s actual charge, do you
know?
Witness.] It is about the same as ours, because
we are in competition with them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] In the London and
Brighton Act, 1863, Clause 3, for “ale, beer,
bottles”; 1 pass over a lot: “cordage, hay,
hardware,” &c., that is the tonnage clause. Then
you have to pass to the rates, “3 d.”
Mr. Cripps.
4564. We have the Act, and it is 3 d., whereas
in the Great Eastern, which is another Act in
(81.)
4 F which
594
MINUTFS OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
i
§
29 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKIEY.
| Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
which it was classified in a higher class, it was
4 d. (To the Witnsss.) Have you been able to
ascertain since last night whether there is any
other company which has as low a charge as the
I3righton Company —I have made inquiries, and
I cannot hear of any at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Is this quite evidence:
“inquiries of other companies”? We proved
the Brighton through the Brighton witness him-
self. Mr. Oakley cannot do it by inquiries.
Chairman.] This classification book will tell
V. Oll.
*
Mr. Cripps.] The book would tell you the
maximum. Mr. Oakley represents the Railway
Association ; and I only ask this ; whether, as
regards actual charge, he knows of any other
case, and from inquiries he knows of the
I3righton'?
Witness.] I can only say what I have been told.
Chairman.] Perhaps you had better not.
Further cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
This is new matter, your Grace, and with your
Grace’s permission I wish to ask two or three
questions upon it.
Chairman.]. Certainly.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4565. (To the Witness.) First of all, do you
find that carrying longer distances you can carry
at lower rates ?—Certainly, for obvious reasons,
that you get a continuous load straight on.
4566. It is only to found another question
upon. As a fact, have you ascertained whether
your runs for hay are longer than the Brighton
Company's runs? — I have mot ascertained
whether our runs are longer than the Brighton.
I can tell you what our average is. Gur average
is 33 miles.
4567. And you cannot tellus what the average
of the Brighton Company is 7–No ; and besides
that, you would not let me.
4568. It works out, as you fold the Committee,
at 2,4, a ton to the Brighton Company and 3 57 d.
to your company ?—The latter I am sure of; the
other was mentioned yesterday.
4569. You said, and quite rightly, that you
tried to get 4; d. per truck in Class B. P-Yos.
4570. Is that for all classes, or merely for
Class B. 2–That would be the minimum earning,
not for all classes, because, with the expensive
goods, you cannot expect to get a full load ; but
in goods carried in bulk you would expect to get
a truck-load.
4571. For instance, in the 4 d. you have tried
to get you have some very high class goods that
you are charging fifth-class rates on ?–No ; you
cannot calculate your fifth-class rates upon truck
loads; because, except in the case of Turniture,
you never get goods at fifth class-rate in truck
loads. I was speaking of the minimum which I
should endeavour to get when the question of
fixing the rate was before me for goods ordinarily
sent in truck loads, such as hay.
4572. But irrespective of class 2–Yes; irre-
spective of class, in the sense that you cannot in
the higher classes expect to get a truck load;
other considerations come in there as to fixing
the rate.
—-
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4573. If you do not get a truck load in the
higher classes you get higher rates?—I should
expect that. ^,
4574. As a fact of course, the higher class
articles are at a higher rate both in the Board of
Trade proposal and in your existing Acts 2–
Yes. w
4575. Now, although you try to get 4 d., you
do not always succeed 2–No, as I said, because
I do not always get a full truck load.
4576. Do you know that when you get a full
truck load, you do always succeed in getting
4 d. 2–That is possible, but I do not know that.
Earl of Camperdown..] I think he said that
upon his hay he gets 3 57 d. w
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is for a full truck
load.
Earl of Camperdown.] He has said he does not
get 4 d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am aware of that.
4577. (To the Witness.) Upon other articles.
I am speaking of?—I do not think you will find
many cases where if I get a full truck-load I ge'.
less than 4; d.
4578. Those articles you named were picket
out since last might with a view to the inquiry to—
day ?–Yes; but let me put it fairly. I asked
them to pick out a fair average last night, and
not for a full truck load every time, but what
was generally brought by traders, so that I might
tell the Committee honestly, as nearly as I
could, what the figures were.
4579. I never doubted your honesty at all, I
only ask you were any others got out besides
those ?—No : we had to run through the
invoices to pick out the trucks.
4580. Now let me see, “boxes of hams ”?—
They would come from Liverpool.
4581. They do come from Liverpool to Lon–
dom; what would be a full load of boxes of ham P
—We should get four or five tons in a truck.
4582. Then I am not far wrong in saying
that 4 tons 1 cwt. 1 qr. 9 lb. is very nearly a full
truck-load 2–Yes.
4583. For that truck-load I find that instead
of getting 3:57 d., which is your hay, you got
3:47 d. 7–Yes, that just illustrates the point I
endeavoured to put. Those goods are carried
for that rate because they are carried for a long
distance. I could not carry them for 33 miles at
that rate. That really is an instance of loads
which have been ascertained between last night
and this morning.
4584. One of the shortest distances I see is 76
miles to Peterborough 5 you have not given us
any short distances 2–Eor short distances pro-
bably there would not be any full truck loads of
any one commodity, except hay or straw.
4585. Then I find that it is petroleum, and
not a full truck load, as you say ; therefore it
would be outside the mark if that was carried at
3:45 d. 2–Yes. It is obvious Peterborough is
not a market for petroleum ; probably that is
traffic down from London to Peterborough.
4586. It is 2—Peterborough would not be able
to take a full truck load, and I could not load any-
thing
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES. PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
595.
29 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
thing else in that truck; and because I cannot,
I do not get my average earnings.
4587. I can only deal with what you have
given us. There is another, I see here, bones ;
that is a considerable consignment 3 tons 5 q1's.
16 lbs. Bones from London to Sheffield. Those
only earn 3:56 d., as against 3:57 d. for your hay?
—Yes ; bones are rather light loading, they are
dry things and you cannot get a full load out of
them.
4588. But they are in Class 2 – I do not mean
to say that for every box in Class 2 I can always
get what I want; I must take what I can get
sometimes,
4589. Except with regard to hay?– But I am
now pleading to get a remunerative rate for
hay.
4590, You told my learned friend that for
goods 4 s. 6 d. to 5 s. was the average earning
per train mile –Yes.
4591. Cannot you give me it more accurately
than that ?—Not from memory.
4592. Your accounts would show it !—They
would only show the average earnings which
would be from 4 s. to 4 s. 1; d.
4593. They are not separated from the passen-
gers in the account f-No ; not in the half-
yearly accounts.
4594. But it is not unfair to put 4 s. 6 d. for
goods 2—Yes, 4 s. 6 d. to 5 s, for goods.
4595. To follow out that, you said if you get
30 truck loads of hay at 3% d, that comes to 9 s.,
or double your average train mile earnings 2–
Yes.
4596. If you get 35 trucks, the return is even
larger than that ?—Yes.
4597. You told the Committee that an average
train was made up of from 30 to 35 trncks?—
True, but you have omitted in your calculation
the return mileage, the empty mileage ; the
4s. 6 d. is arrived at, not by the earnings of each
individual train, but the train mileage includes
the haulage of empty waggons as well as the
full. I shall earn nothing for the haulage of the
empties, but it is part of the cost of working.
4598. But you told us distinctly that in many
cases the waggons are utilisable at the places
they go to ?—I did not say that.
Chairman.] He did not say “In many cases.”
Witness.] I said that in from 25 to 33 per cent.
in the London goods trade the waggons are
gent back empty, therefore I have to add one-
third to the percentage of everything that is sent
to London.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4599. Are you supposed to be taking a 30 or a
35 truck train 2–There is a very little shadow of
percentage between them ; it does not matter
whether the engine is hauling 30 or 35 trucks.
Chairman.
4600. What do you say you would get sup-
posing hay was left in Class 22—I should get
considerably less than I am earning now. t
4601. Would you say what that would be 2–
These are the actual facts. For the year 1889
my gross earnings for hay were 7,710 l. Ac-
cording to the scale in the Provisional Order for
Chairman—continued.
the same article, allowing a 3 s. 4 d. , terminal,
which is proposed to be allowed, I should get
6,379 l.
4602. And if it were put into Class 3?—If it
were put into Class 3 I should get 7,591 /., or
still less than I am earning. And then I have no
margin for the future. If the working expenses
go up, if the wages go up, I am bereft of so much
profit; it is all met profit. If I had not been ad-
vised by those competent to advise me I should
have endeavoured to have pressed you for the
Fourth Class, because that would only have
given me j,000 l. margin. The earning was
7,710 l. and the Fourth Class, plus 3 s.4 d., would
only have given 8,700 l. I should only have got
1,000 l. margin in the Fourth Class, but there
will be an absolute loss in the Third Class, and
no future margin.
Mr. Hunter.
4603. Your explanation of the Brighton rates
is that the Brightou rates are not paying rates ?
—Certainly, I have not the slightest hesitation in
Saying so.
4604. You said that in taking 30 trucks to the
train we must remember that there are some
empty trucks to be carried. I want to ask you
this question, whether it would not be safe to
assume that not more than half the trucks of a
train are empty 2–Not more than half the trucks
are empty.
4605. Then if that is so, 15 trucks, supposing
they were loaded, would bring you up to your
average 7–That is assuming every truck is
loaded to its full capacity, but they never are.
These instances I have given show that where
these articles are carried, the trucks could take
a very much larger load. -
4606. Let us take the Brighton rate to
London of 8 s. 8d., from Horsham to London.
Chairman.] That is half way.
Mr. Hunter.
4607. That works out 37 miles, so far as I
make out to 44, d. per truck?—I will take your
figure.
4608. Thirteen trucks would give you 4s. 7d.,
leaving you, at the lowest possible calculation,
a margin of two trucks 7–Yes.
4609. Now take yours. Your corresponding
charge is 12 s, 9 d., which works up to 64 d. per
truck 2–No, that cannot be right, because as
our rate is 3 d., ſor a ton-and-a-half it is only
4; d.
Mr. Cripps.] Are you not including all charges
and terminals too P
Mr. Hunter.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] That makes all the difference
between you and Mir. Oakley.
Witness.] That accounts for it. (To Mr.
Hunter.) Your 63 d. per mile includes ter-
minals.
Mr. Hunter.] Certainly, because your gross
earnings of 4 s. 6d. include terminals as well as
haulage.
Witness.] That is so.
(81.)
4 lº 2 Mr-
596
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.]
Mr. OAKLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Hunter.
4610. If you take 30 trucks at 6+ d., I
make it out to be 15 s. 7d. as against 10s. 9%d. 2
—That is so; it is a question of calculation.
Chairman.
4611. What is the result 2–I do not know
yet ; I am waiting for the honourable Member to
ask.
Chairman (to Mr. Hunter).] What do you wish
to deduce from that?
Mr. Hunter.] That is all.
Witness.] The condition is that if you get full
loads those are the calculations; there is no doubt
about that.
Earl of Camperdown.] If you get full loads for
13 trucks 2
Mr. Hunter.] If you get full loads for 15
trucks upon the Brighton rate.
Witness.] As I took the figures down, it is
4; d. per truck per mile for the Brighton. Then,
supposing you take 30 trucks, that would be 12 s.
for the train-earning, without any allowance for
empties.
4612. Take off half?--That would be 6 s. I
should think the Brighton would require 6 s. to
make a penny of it.
Mr. Saunders.
4613. But you said 12 s. ; is that right at 4; d. 2
—No ; half. Professor Hunter said that, taking
the earnings on 30 trucks at 4} d., it made
10 s. 73 d. ; he halved that to allow for the empties,
therefore he made his earning per mile 5 s. 3; d.
Mr. Cripps.] Mr. Oakley was saying that he
answered the figures as mathematical figures, and
no question, I understand, was asked him as to
the practical effect upon the working of the traffic.
I do not know whether you will allow Mr. Oakley
to explain that point to the Committee, dealing
with those figures as an arithmetical basis 2
Chairman.] That is fair.
Witness.] The 4 s. 6 d. and 5 s. that I gave
included mineral and coal traffic as well as goods;
the coal traffic has necessarily less earning per
mile than goods, because out of the earning per
mile all the terminal expenses have to be paid.
Mr. Hunter.
4614. Has the mineral traffic a less earning
per truck mile ; per ton, of course it has ; but
per truck mile, how is it?—Yes, it has, because
it is eight miles at a # d. per ton per mile, that
would be 4 d. ; and then you have your empty
truck to go back, but I do not want to take it
in an extreme way ; a halfpenny is the earning
Mr. Hunter—continued.
for a long distance, but that would not represent
the average earnings of coal; I should think
the average earnings of coal might be '70 d.
Mr. Cripps.
4615. In the coal there is no service terminal?
—There is a 2 d. terminal but no service
terminal. *
4616. You do not find the truck in the coal
charge 2–No; in the coal rate we do not find
the truck.
Chairman.] I think a great deal has been said
in regard to the Brighton Company, and Mr.
Oakley only speaks of course as regards the
Great Northern Company, he does not want to
say anything about the Brighton Company; it
would be well if we had the General Manager
of the Brighton Company to give evidence on
this question.
Mr. Hunter.
4617. There is just one question I should like
to ask Mr. Oakley. Is the question of the value
of an article a very important matter in the
classification ?–Certainly ; both value and risk.
4618. You would hardly say that wool and
ham should be at the same rate as hay?—No ;
not as a question of value, but then you have to
consider the quantity that could be carried of
each article. *
4619. But we are dealing now with a full load
of a ton and-a-half?—Only a ton-and-a-half; you
are not dealing with full loads of four or five
tons, if you do so I think it will logically follow
that a heavy weighted article being in the same
class is carried at a lower rate because of the
greater quantity that is usually sent
4620. In the case of ham for instance, it pays
only 3% d. a ton per mile P-That is true, but
that is not a full truck load, and it comes from a
very long distance. The Liverpool and London
rate, as you will hear, is a very low rate because
it is an imported traffic carried in bulk.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4621. The instance you gave was a full truck
load, over four tons 7–Yes that would be one of
the reasons in fixing the relative rates between
hay and hams.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.] I will call Mr. Stainforth from
the Brighton Company.
Chairman.] I think we ought to have from the
Brighton Company a statement as to hay; we
really ought to know whether it is profitable, and
whether there is any appreciable quantity of hay
sent along the line, and for what distances.
M.R. GEORGE WILLIAM STANIFORTH, is again called in; and further Examined.
Mr. Cripps.
4622. IN your Brighton Acts is hay especially
classified and mentioned?—Hay is mentioned at
3d, a ton a mile in the principal Act of the
company, and in other two smaller Acts we have
for hay 4d. a ton a mile; that is upon the small
line of the Bognor Railway, but on a more
important line, the Horsham, Dorking and
Leatherhead line, we have 4 d. a ton a mile for hay.
4623. What is the date of your principal Act
in which the 3 d. is mentioned 2–1863 is our
principal Act.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4624. When were your present charges on
the Brighton Railway fixed in reference to
hay?–I find that in 1868 we specified a spe-
cially low scale for hay, beginning from one to
nine miles at 3s. 9d, a ton ; 10 miles for 4 s. 2d.,
and so, by small degrees, up to the extreme
distance, 17 s. a ton for 90 miles.
4625. What was the minimum at the time
when you issued this specially low scale 2—The
minimum for hay was 3s. 9d, a ton.
4626. I refer
U.N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
597
29 May 1891.]
Mr. STANIFORTH.
[Continuca.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4626. I refer to the minimum load, not to the
minimum amount P−At that time two tons per
truck at this scale.
4627. In 1868, was there any special reason
at all for issuing a low rate of charge 2–I find
that in 1866 there was an Act obtained for a
competing line to Brighton ; that Act was ulti-
mately abandoned in 1868; but before the
abandonment of that line, there was a great deal
of local agitation, and our general manager at
that time had several meetings of the traders,
two or three of whom were very much interested
in the hay traffic. The hay rate was a subject
which was at that time felt to be a grievance,
or, at any rate, an opportunity was taken of
putting some pressure upon the Brighton Com-
pany for obtaining a reduction in the hay rates,
and it was the outcome of that which caused this
scale to be put into the Bill.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4628. When was that?—In 1868.
Mr. Cripps.
4629. A new line being authorised, when P
—In 1866, but it was not until 1868 when it
was abandoned. -
4630. The new line was authorised in 1866,
and abandoned in 1868, and at the same time
this outcry was going on about the charges 2–
Yes.
Chairman.
4631. Was that the Lewes and Beckenham
Line 2—Yes.
Mr. Cripps.
4632. You gave evidence upon these hay
charges upon the Brighton Line at the inquiry
at the Westminster Town Hall, before Lord
Balfour of Burleigh and Mr. Courtenay Boyle 2
—I do not think it was particularly upon the
hay question, but generally with regard to the
Brighton Company’s rates.
4633. You gave evidence generally as to
your charges upon the Brighton system 2–I
did.
4634. What we want to deal with particu-
larly is the hay charge. What do you say
about the charge you are now making for hay
upon the Brighton Railway; is it a remunerative
charge or not.
Mr. Hunter.
4635. When was the second two-ton limit re-
moved?—The two-ton limit was removed a year or
two later. In the meantime there had been a great
deal of trouble arising from the fact that it was
impossible to load two tons of hay in a waggon.
It was found that owing to our having a number
of low-sided and low-ended waggons we could
not even load 30 cwt. in a waggon ; therefore,
for the purpose of avoiding the difficulties that
were continually arising, although we believed
that we were making a considerable sacrifice, we
meduced the minimum to 20 cwt. per waggon.
Mr.
4636. As I understand you, in many of your
waggons, the Brighton Company's waggons, you
were not able to carry a larger load 2–No. We
had a very large number of low-sided and low-
Cripps.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
ended waggons, and we thought that rather than
incur the cost of having to fetch waggons
specially from one station to another to carry the
hay we had better sacrifice the charge upon the
hay.
4637. You have been asked a question as to
how far the low rates you are charging upon the
Brighton line are remunerative to the company
in reference to your hay traffic ; what do you say
upon that point?—I think it hardly requires
demonstration that the rate which has been
mentioned here, from Worthing to Brighton,
about 10 miles 49 chains, for which we charge
4s. 4 d., which includes the use of a costly station
at both ends, which includes sheeting (the use
of two sheets more commonly than not), and the
haulage for nearly 11 miles; I say it will, I
think, stand without argument that it must be a
dead loss to the Brighton Company; the use
of waggons, the use of stations, the use of
sheets and haulage, for 4 s. 4d. ; and it often
includes the hauling of waggons for the purpose
of being loaded and sometimes nothing to load
the waggon with at the receiving station, and the
hauling of that empty waggon away to another
station.
4638. In reference to this rate could you tell
the Committee what the extent of your hay
traffic is from Worthing to Brighton 2–I am not
able to give it in tons; I can say that it is con-
siderable ; it amounts to very many hundreds of
trucks in the course of a year. There are in
Brighton a great number of iivery stables, and
the consumption of hay in Brighton is large. I
am not able to give the exact tonnage, but I
know it is large.
Earl of Belmore.
4639. Is this farmers’ hay, or seaborne hay?—
Farmers’ hay, the whole of it; there is no sea-
borne hay landed at any point upon our coast.
Lord Belper,
4640. I understand you to say that this un-
remmerative rate is very much below your maxi-
mum ?—That is so very much.
464l. Therefore you are voluntarily carrying
it at a dead loss 2–Yes, that is so.
Mr. Hanbury.
4642. Is that unremunerative rate applicable
only to particular stations?—As regards the hay,
it is unremunerative for all distances over the
Brighton Railway.
4643. Does that include the part of the
Brighton Railway where you can charge 4 d. 2–
It includes the Dorking and Leatherhead line, a
line constructed under a subsequent Act, which
gives us 4 d.
4644. But would you give us the line upon
which you carry this hay at what you call a
dead loss 2 – I believe on the whole of the
Brighton Company’s system, because we apply
the same rate to the whole line, whether we have
power to charge 3 d. or 4 d.
4645. Why do you charge at this rate 2—We
have done a great deal in the way of policy.
The Brighton line has always been regarded as
essentially a passenger line, and we carry goods
at rates that will encourage the setting up of
(81.)
4 F 3 residence
598. MINU'TES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
29 May 1891.]
Mr. STANIFoRTH.
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
vesidence upon our line. We have very little
carriage of goods except for articles of every day
consumption; and of course the more we can
carry articles of consumption at a cheap rate,
the more it will suit our purpose to do so.
4646. You have said you carry hay at a dead
loss, what else do you carry upon the same
terms ?—I should not say that we carry many
articles at a dead loss; hay is an article in which
a truck is absolutely monopolised for the pur-
pose ; it may sometimes happen that there is
another article carried in the waggon where they
both may be carried without a dead loss from
packing better; it is on account of the enormous
occupation of space in comparison with weight
that the dead loss has occurred, still, I am quite
sure that a large proportion of our traffic is
unremunerative.
4647. I want to read one or two of the
answers you gave to questions put to you at the
enquiry at the Westminster Town Hall 7
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is not quite re-
gular, I think.
Mr. Cripps.
4648. It is quite regular when Mr. Staniſorth is
in the box. (To the Iſ itness.) At question 11756
“It is quite obvious,” you were asked in cross-
cxamination “that the Brighton rates are at pre-
sent paying rates, because you are paying a divi-
dend ?” To which you replied, “Well, I am afraid
that does not come out of the goods. We have to
look upon our goods traffic as feeding traffic to
our passenger traffic. (Q.) Well, I have no
doubt it does feed your passsenger traffic 2–(A.)
And, unfortunately, our traffic would rather show
that we work our goods traffic at a loss. (Q.)
You work the whole of your goods traffic at a
loss 2-—(A.) The whole of our goods traffic, taken
altogether, is reckoned by our chief accountant,
who has examined carefully into it, to be worked
at a little loss. He believes it would wook out a
little loss.” Therefore you stated before the
prior inquiry that your goods traffic on the
Brighton line was made subservient to feeding
your passenger traffic 2–Our late general man-
ager took very great pains to ascertain at what
cost our goods traffic was worked ; and looking
at the immense number of junctions that we have
on our system, compared with its total length,
and to the fact that out of a total length of 476
miles we have no longer run in any one direction
than 87 miles, he was convinced, after examining
most carefully into the question, that our goods
traffic on the Brighton Railway was worked at a
loss.
4649. The passenger traffic, as you put it,
being your chief traffic, you lave retained that
since the year 1868, when you made this low
scale as regards hay amongst other goods?—We
have retained the 1868 scale from that time to
the present.
4650. And as regards Brighton, have you re-
tained your passenger traffic ; that was my ques-
tion ?—We have built Brighton by our passenger
traffic.
Mr. Hanbury.
4651. Have you considered what rate would
make hay remunerative 2–I believe that where
we are now accepting 4 s. 4 d. nothing less than
10 s. would leave us a reasonable profit.
Lord Belper,
4652. More than double what you are charging
now.?—Yes, more than double what we are charg-
ing now for those short distances.
Mr. Hanbury.
4653. Do you mean to say that you are losing
50 per cent. 2–Yes, where we come down to
these short distances, in some cases 3 s, 9 d.
4654. But taking the whole of your rates?—
I am not inclined to say that we are losing 50
per cent. upon the whole of our rates.
4655. But taking the low rates all through 2
—The low of the low rates I am sure realise to
us 50 per cent. loss. Whenever we are carrying
at such rates as 3 s. 9d., 4 s., 4 s. 2 d., or 4 s, 4 d.,
I am sure that all these realise 50 per cent. loss.
Earl of Camperdown.
4656. Do I understand that you realise 50 per
cent. loss upon the whole of your hay traffic –
Upon the short distances.
Mr. Cripps.
4657. I do not know whether you heard
another question which an honourable Member
put to you. Taking not this particular short
distance traffic from Worthing to Brighton in
hay but taking the average distance which you carry
hay over your system between different stations,
would your present charges then work out at a
loss 2–I think it is really very questionable when
we get even to the longer distances of 70 miles
at 14 s. 2 d., whether that 14 s. 2 d. is a remune-
rative rate for the use of the stations at both
ends, the use of sheets, and haulage, and all
that ; it is a matter of calculation, but I doubt
very much whether it pays expenses.
4658. I do not want you to give the longest
distance or the shortest distance ; but working
the calculation out as nearly as you can upon an
average distance, in your opinion would your pre-
sent hay rates work out at a loss?—Seeing that
even for our longest distance I am in great doubt
whether our expenses are even covered for the
medium distances; I am satisfied there must be
a loss.
4659, Could you make your traffic remune-
rative within your present maximum rates ?—
Up to the present time the question of terminals
has been a difficulty; until Hall’s case was
settled no one really knew
Mr. Balfour Browne.] This is a question of
rate pure and simple.
Earl of Camperdown.
4559. I want to know if there is a figure
within your present maximum rates which would
make your hay traffic as a whole not a source of
loss; where is the point where it would cease
to be a loss, or is there such a point within your
present maximum rates ?—l believe if hay were
in the next higher class giving us 4 d. a ton a
mile
4660. That is not an answer; I daresay it is
my fault probably, but I want to know whether
under your present maximum rates of charging,
that is to say, making such a charge as you are
now by law entitled to do, you could make a
charge which would make your hay traffic re-
munerative to you and not a source of loss, as you
Say
() N R A [LWAY RATES AND CHAIRG ES PIROVISIONAL O RIDER BILLS.
599
Mr. STANIFORTH.
[Continued.
29 May 1891.]
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
say it is now, and if so what figure that is 2—I
believe so, taking the distance
4661. I want to take the whole traffic all over,
not taking either long or short distances?–From
Chichester to London our maximum power, taking
the terminals added to the rates
4662. But take your actual statutory powers
of charge as they now exist P
Mr. Cripps.] The difficulty is that you have
to add to that the terminal charge for the pur-
pose of comparison; the witness took the goods
TateS.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But why P
Witness.] I will take the tolls without any ter-
minals. From Chichester to London the rate
would give us 17 s. 3 d. ; we are actually charg-
ing 12 s. 1 d.
Earl of Camperdawn.
4663. And you lose upon that?–Yes.
4664. What figure would make that truck re-
munerative 2–For that distance I do not think
a truck should carn less than 1 l. For that dis-
tance of 68 miles it ought not under any circum-
stances to earn less than 20 s.
Chairman.
4665. How far do you call it 2–Sixty-eight
miles 74 chains.
4666. That is by the mid-Sussex 2–Yes by
the mid-Sussex, by the shortest distance.
Mr. Hanbury.
4666*. Then your maximum would be still
unremunerative ; if you charged your maxi-
mum you would still be losing 2–Yes, with our
tolls without terminals, but with the addition of
a fair amount for terminals it would be dif-
ferent.
Earl of Camperdown.] I should have preferred
to keep terminals in. I want to know whether
under your total powers of charging for whatever
purpose the charges you are at the present time
enabled to make for hay would be remunerative.
Mr. Cripps.
4667. You give first of all your rate from
Chichester to London at 3 d. 2–That works out
at 17 s. 3 d. -
4668. In addition to that you have power at the
present time to charge terminals 4–Yes, an inde-
finite terminal; that was my difficulty just now.
4669. In order to compare your present maxi-
mum with the maximum we are asking for, you
have assumed, in order to get the same factor in
both cases, that you would add to your present
charge what would be your new terminual
charge 2–Yes; and then the rate, including
covering and uncovering, is 20s. 7 d.
4670. Your present rate, plus the proposed
terminal charge, would allow you to charge a
trader how much 2–20s, 7 d.
4671. And you say that, in order to be able
to carry at a fairly remunerative charge, you
ought to be allowed to charge 20s –Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
4672. What is your present charge – 12s. 1d
Mr. Cripps.
4673. If the proposal which the companies
are now making were carried out, as regards the
Brighton Company, the new charge would be
rather higher than upon the northern com .
panie's lines 2–I take that from you.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
4674. So that, as I underständ, you are pro-
posing now to accept a rate under this proposal
which, by your own showing, would be unre-
munerative —I am not roposing to take any
rates; I think that a rate which would give less
than 20s. from Chichester to London would be
unremunerative.
4675. The Chichester rate is 20 s. 7d. ; that is
made up of your total maximum rate of 3 d. per
ton per mile, plus your terminals 2–Yes; plus
the terminals foreshadowed in the Provisional
Order.
4676. You know that you propose to put this
article up a class, that is the proposal of the
railway companies 2–It is.
4677. I find that in Class 3 for that distance,
instead of being 3 d., it would be 2-8 d., therefore
according to that you are proposing to accept
what you know to be an unremunerative rate 2––
It would be a very nice calculation as to whether
20 s. or 18 s. 9 d. would be fair.
4678. Or even whether 12 s. 6 d. did not pay ?
—My general impression is that anything less
than 20 s. ſor 70 miles is an unremunerative
Tate.
4679. Now what is the whole of the mileage
of the Brighton Railway ?–Four hundred and
seventy-six miles and a fraction.
4680. Does the 1863 Act apply to all the
Brighton system except 37 miles covered by the
4 d. rate which you mentioned ?–No, I think it
is a little more than that 37 miles ; there are
other lines which I have not mentioned.
4681. I understood you to say that the 3 d.
applied to all but two lines, upon which you
have 4 d. 2–I put it in that form because the
other lines for which we have Acts do not
specially mention hay ; the only two I have
mentioned are those in which hay is specially
mentioned.
4682. And upon your line I understand you
carry hay, as compared with the northern lines,
at a disadvantage –Yes, we do.
4683. To this extent, that you have only loads.
of a ton to the truck, while on the northern lines
they have loads of a ton-and-a-half?—That is
one disadvantage.
4684. Notwithstanding that disadvantage,
would shorter runs be another disadvantage 2–1
believe so.
4685. What other disadvantage do you have —
The working disadvantage is that the Brighton
Company is particularly , unfortunate in the
number of junctions that they have.
4686. So that in all those three particulars it
is more expensive carrying hay upon their line
than upon the northern lines 7–Certainly, I
should say the traffic is worked at a higher cost
than upon the northern lines.
4687. Yet in the instance you have given
(81.) -
4 F 4 between
600
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOSNT COMMITTEE
9 May 1891,
Mr. STANIFORTH.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
between Worthing and Brighton you are carry-
ing at the rate of 2 d. per ton per mile, your
maximum power being 3 d. 2–Yes.
4688. You told the Committee that the hay
rates were reduced under threat of competition
in 1868 P-Yes.
4689. What competition was that, London to
Brighton 2–Powers had been obtained for a com-
peting line from London to Brighton in 1866, and
those powers were not withdrawn until 1868.
4690. You say it was then that you adjusted
your rates, and you gave exceptionally low rates
for hay?– Yes.
4691. What has that to do with the rates
from Worthing to Brighton; there was no
competition threatened there was there?—No,
this low hay scale was put in force for the pur-
pose of appeasing the minds of agitators in the
Brighton district.
4692. But those are people in Worthing, not
in Brighton 2 — Brighton people buying in
Worthing. *
4693. It is quite easy for a manager to say that
it is all dead loss; have you any calculation to
show what is the cost of carrying between
Worthing and Brighton ?--You could not run a
horse and cart for that money.
Mr. Hunter.
4694. Surely you could run a train cheaper
than a cart?—By no means, considering that we
have 31,000,00 l. of capital to provide for be-
sides the enormous cost of working at the present
day.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4695. I do not want to inquire into the cost of
working by horse and cart 2–It may sound very
absurd to compare the cost of working by horse
and cart with the cost of working by railway for
any considerable distance, but when you come to
these very short distances we are, notwithstaud-
ing the very low rates, competed with by horse
and cart.
4696. Just take that low distance and show
me how it is that 4 s. 4 d. does not pay you ; we
can leave out the horse and cart now —The
average cost at our stations alone would more
than absorb the whole money, therefore the
haulage and the use of the train is a loss.
4697. What do you mean by average cost?—
Use of stations.
4698. And terminals 2–Yes.
4699. Therefore you are now trying to get
this put up into a higher rate to cover terminals?
—We are going to have our maximum power
put up in order to maintain what we believe to
be our present position.
4700. Will you try to follow me. You have
said that the whole of the 4 s. 4 d. would be eaten
up by the cost at either end ?–If you add the
use of the waggon, I am quite certain of that.
470l. Are you aware that besides the 0-25 d.
we are discussing, the Board of Trade propose
to give you terminals?–Yes.
4702. Are you aware that those terminals are
supposed to cover the cost at each end ?–Yes.
4703. Would you therefore leave that out of
your calculation just now ; when we come to
terminals we will deal with that. Now show me
how it is that you cannot conduct your traffic
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
between Worthing and Brighton at 2-75 d. per
ton; that is what you are to be allowed under
this class 7–-Not for hay traffic. *
4704. I do not ask you merely to assert that
again, but to show me how you cannot do that ?
—I do not quite see in what way I can show
V OU!. *
4705. If you cannot, I am satisfied ?– Eleven
miles multiplied by that figure will give such a
sum that it must, I think, be obvious that it can-
not pay.
4706. But surely we want a little more than
that ?—It must be perfectly obvious.
4707. How much is the engine power?—I am
not skilled in value figures of that description.
4708. You cannot tell me what load you will
have in a train?—Each train would consist of 30
waggons, and each waggon fairly loaded would
have five tons in a waggon ; it is easily calcu-
lated.
4709. You have no figures to show that 275 d.
for that distance would not be a remunerative
rate 7—I do not see how I could possibly pro-
vide you with figures of that kind.
4710. I think if you would direct your mind to
the question, you said in answer to Lord
Camperdown that 3 d. would be a remunerative
rate 2–For longer distances.
4711. This is to be the rate for all dis-
tal) CeS— — &
Earl of Camperdown.] But that was an answer
to me. Of course the witness has been taking
the short distance; that had not really much
bearing upon the hay traffic ; and on the other
hand it is impossible for him to prove that it does
not pay. He has told us that he is competed
with by horses and carts in that matter.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All I can say is, if I
followed your Lordship, you wanted to know
what amount under 3 d. would pay ; and follow-
ing out your Lordship's point, I am merely sug-
gesting that 2.75 d. ought to pay.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a suggestion ; but
it is not for the short-distance hay. You see the
difficulty. The reason why I endeavoured to
stick to the whole hay traffic was this, that if you
limit yourself to traffic of a particular distance you
do not take a fair average of the whole.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not want to limit
myself to any one.
Earl of Camperdown.' I thought you were
conducting my case, as you told me just now.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, you said so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] With great respect, I did
not. I said that your Lordship asked how much
under 3 d. would pay. I suggest that 2.75 d, will
pay.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do that for yourself, but
do not mention my name.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well, I will not
again.
Chairman.] You see, the difference is that
Lord Camperdown's question referred to the
whole line, and you are selecting 10 miles between
Worthing and Brighton.
4712. I am
ON IRAIL WAY
O R. DER BILLS. 601
RATES AND CHARGES PROVISI() N A la
29 J1ay 1891.]
Mr. STANIFORTH.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
47 12. I am only selecting that to get some
figures that we can go upon. My question refers
to the whole line, too ; I am trying to support
this 2.75 d., which is not applicable merely for
Worthing to Brighton, but over the whole line so
far as distances under 20 miles are concerned. (To
the Iſ itness.) Can you tell me what figure for
distances under 20 miles would pay ?–In such
traffic as hay, where the waggons are entirely
monopolised, my impression is that it should be
covered by a minimum charge of something like
8 s. or 10 s. for the whole load.
4713. Will you please take the tonnage; at
how much per ton, what should you have for hay
for distances under 20 miles 2–It would work
out at 8 s. per ton.
4714. How much per ton per mile 2–That
divided by 12 miles would give 8 d. a ton.
4715. Your proposal is that you should have
3-1 d. 2–That is for that short distance, taking it
over the whole of the line. -
47 16. Therefore that is not paying by half the
amount you want?—It would not pay for that
distance.
4717. Therefore in future if you are to be
bound by that maxima you will have to carry by
unremunerative rates ?—Certainly.
4718. And just as in the past you have got re-
muneration out of something else, you will in
future have to get remuneration out of something
else?--We had to provide for that difficulty some
years ago by fixing the minimum charge at 8 s.
per waggon for hay traffic.
4719. Try to answer the questions please. You
have told us that the hay traffic all round is un-
remunerative. The Brighton line as a whole is
not unremunerative, because you get dividends
and large dividends 2—Yes.
4720. I do not know how much, 7 per cent. 2
—We have had 8 per cent.
4721. Therefore, although you lose upon the
hay, as you say, you make it up in something
else ?—Certainly, the divident is paid from other
SOUll'C62S.
4722. And you will be able to make it up by
paying it from other sources in future, as you
have in the past 2—That is not so certain. We
do not look quite so prosperous now as we did a
year ago.
4723. How do you mean 2–We are not likely
to pay 8 per cent. this year.
4724. You did not pay that last year, did
you ?–No.
Mr. Pope.
4725. Does it follow that you should lower
the charge for hay because you can make some-
body else pay for it?
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4726. That is a totally different question.
(To the Witness.) Do I understand you to
say, as my learned friend, Mr. Cripps, suggested,
by reading what you said before Lord Balfour,
that practically all your goods traffic is carried
on at a loss?—l should not like to say the
whole of it, but a very large proportion of it.
4727. Your evidence was that practically all
of it was carried at a loss.--I do not think
there is anything exaggerated in that statement.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4728. Then, of course, you must be charging
for more than remunerative rates for passenger
traffic 2–I should not say so; it is the numbers
that pay in that case, the millions,
4729. Do you think you are justified in
making the passengers pay for the goods 2—The
passengers get the benefit of the low rate for
goods.
4730. You think so P—Yes.
4731. That is your idea 2–That is the object
of giving low rates.
4732. I see you say that you have a con-
siderable traffic in hay, specially from Brighton 2
—To Brighton. -
Chairman.] He said he carried a good deal
of hay from Worthing to Brighton.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] So I say.
Witness.] We do carry large quantities to
Brighton.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] A considerable traffic;
many hundreds of trucks he said before.
Witness.] Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
4733. There is only one question I think I
need ask. Of course you are taking the 2-80 d.
and these figures in the rates table for the purpose
of illustration ?—Yes.
4734. And the only question, without travel-
ling outside to other points now, being the
question of hay traffic, you have stated how in
your opinion you have carried at an unremune-
rative rate 2–I repeat it.
Lord Belper.
4735. You spoke of a rate of 20s from
Chichester to London, 70 miles ; I conclude that
if you charged that rate it would be an abso-
lutely probibitive rate 2—I do not think it
would.
4736. Do you mean that you could afford on a
ton of hay, which is a low priced article, to add
20 s, to the cost price of it, and that it would
continue to be sent with that price on it?—There
are seasons when it would be prohibitive; and I
do not think we should care to fix a 20 S. rate,
because in certain cases it would be prohibitive.
4737. It would practically be prohibitive in
ordinary seasons, would it not ?—No ; I do not
think so.
Mr. Hambury.
4738. What is the interest of the Brighton
Company in getting the maximum rate for hay
raised ?–We think that we should maintain our
present powers.
4739. Are you going to change your policy
then in regard to hay in futnre 2–I have not the
least reason to suppose that we are going to
change our policy.
4740. Then, if so, how are you interested in
increasing your powers now 2–We have certain
powers now, and we think they should be main-
tained.
4741. But you propose to increase them 2–
Mr. Cripps]. Not to incease them on the
average.
(81.)
4 G Mr.
602
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*** * * ** --- -- *:: - 3.a. --> *: - ** -- ~~~< *-*** -
29 May 1891.]
Mr. STANIFORTH.
.i.a.Ex_* ***** *--a -, *...* -* -- *- - --- - - -
[Continued.
ſº
Mr. Hanbury.] You would if you put it in the
class you want to.
Mr. Cripps.] No ; now it is 3 d., and in this
class it would be under 20 miles 3 d, and then
2-80 d., and then 2-60 d. ; it varies with the dis-
tance.
Mr. Hanbury.
4742. At any rate that proposed maximum
would be a good deal above your actual charges 2
−It would ; as our present powers are now
above the actual maximum.
Chairman.
4743. Are you able to say whether you send
much hay from Chichester to London ?—We
send a good deal of hay from Chichester to Lo n-
don, a considerable quantity.
4744. You could not say what quantity in the
course of the year I suppose ?–It varies in cer-
tain seasons.
4745. Of course it does 2–When the Norfolk
hay fails and we have a good quantity of hay in
our district, then we carry a very large quantity.
There are other seasons when we comparatively
carry nothing at all. We have this year been
carrying more largely into London than we have
done in any former season that I remember.
Lord Belper.
4746. Did you say when the Norfolk hay
fails?—Yes, the Norfolk hay.
4747. Do you consider Norfolk a county
which produces hay largely 7–Yes, there is a
large quantity of hay grown in the Norfolk
district.
4748. Clover, perhaps, you mean ; not hay ?——
I’erhaps I may be confounding clover with hay.
Mr. Hunter.
4749. Do I rightly understand you to say
that the 8 s. 8 d. rate from Horsham to London
does not cover working expenses 2–I am satis-
fied that it does not.
4750. Does not cover working expenses?—
No.
4751. Would you just tell me what your
working expenses are per train mile 2–-I have
not göt the figures with me.
4752. Nor per truck mile 2–No, I have not
got the figures with me, I am sorry to say ; and
even if I had
4753. Am I to understand that your working
expenses are more than 4 d. per truck per mile *
—If by working expenses the running train only
is calculated, I should say we are covered even
from Horsham ; but the working expenses,
taking all other matters into consideration, are
not covered.
4754. I understand working expenses to mean
the whole cost except dividend ?—Then I am
certain it does not cover the working expenses.
4755. Then I want to know what your work-
ing expenses are per train mile 2–I am sorry I
am not able to give you the information.
4766. If you do not know how much your
working expenses are per train mile, or per
truck mile, how are you able to say that 8s. 8d.
is not enough 2–I only know as a goods
manager knows these things; he knows that it
is a thirtieth part of a train upon the average,
Mr. Hunter—continued.
and he knows what his working expenses at his
stations are.
4757. Perhaps you can tell me what your
receipts are per train mile 2–I am sorry I have
not got those figures with me either.
4758. Then, as I understand, your contention
is this: that ever since the year 1868 the Brighton
line have been voluntarily carrying this very large
traffic at a dead loss —We have.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] May I make a state-
ment; I was misled at the time. I suggested
that the Mitcham and Tooting Act, that was the
1863 Act, governed the whole railway except 37
miles; I see I am wrong, it governs only 357
miles out of 460 miles, therefore there is 103
miles not covered by it. I thought it was right
to make that statement.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.] The question, your Grace, now is
this. º
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not think either of
us ought to address your Grace. If my learned
friend does, of course I shall have to put my
views before you.
Chairman.] What I understand is that Mr.
Cripps called witnesses.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No ; with great respect,
as I understood, I refused to speak, my learned
friend replied at considerable length ; then your
Grace called Mr. Oakley as you all witness.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, at my request.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not remember at
whose reqnest, but Mr. Oakley was called, and
Mr. Staniforth again was your witness. Neither
of us have any right to reply.
Mr. Cripps.] I did not quite understand that ;
I understood that when we got to a certain point
in the case, I do not want to trouble the Com-
mittee with another address unnecessarily, but
when we got to a certain point of the case your
Grace asked to have further information through
Mr. Oakley; and after that your Grace and the
Committee wished to have further information
through Mr. Staniforth. In reference to that
information so given, and to questions suggested
in cross-examination, there are a few words that
I should have liked to have suggested to the
Committee; of course I am in the Committee's
hands.
Chairman.] I think justice will be met by
hearing neither of you.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am sure that will be
the right course your Grace.
The Committee retire to consult and
after a short time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided not
to omit the words from Class 2.
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, the next amend-
ment is on the same page, Straw.
Chairman.] Oh, yes, to omit “straw.”
Mr. Cripps.] Omit “straw, except otherwise
herein provided ; minimum load 20 cwt. per
Waggon”;
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
603
29 May 1891.
waggon’’; and there is this very important
difference between hay and stray, your Grace;
that straw at the present time is in a higher class
in the Clearing House Classification than hay,
that is to say, even at the present time and apart
from the question of collection and delivery, in
the Clearing House Classification straw is now in
the 3rd class, whereas hay was in the 2nd
class, subject to the explanation that I gave
before, the reason no doubt being that straw is a
less remunerative or proportionately less remu-
nerative article than hay to carry because we can
only carry as a rule smaller lots; your Grace
has heard that as regards hay the actual load
ranges at about 30 cwt. ; as regards straw it
ranges only about 20 cwt.; therefore the earning
power per truck per mile is proportionately
reduced. Our original proposal was (of course
we are now dealing merely with the omission
of “straw ") not to ask the Committee to put
hay and straw in the same class in future, but
to put straw in a higher class than hay ;
we were asking that hay should be moved
from Class 2 to Class 3, and that straw should
be moved from Class 2 to Class 4 ; and
therefore on the question that we are now
dealing with, namely, the question of the omis-
sion of straw from Class 2, every argument
really that we have used, and all the evidence
that we have given as regards hay, applies to a
greater extent with regard to straw ; that is to
say, that we can earn less per truck per mile
even than we can as regards the hay traffic, and
that if we take the Clearing House Classification
at the present time, straw is placed in a higher
class than hay.
Mr. Hunter.] What is the value of straw as
compared with hay per ton?
Mr. Cripps.] I suppose it is much less valu-
able ; it must be much less valuable.
Mr. Clifford.]. About half the value, I a
instructed. -
Mr. Cripps.] At least half. Of course the
quantity of hay must vary very much, but it
must be at least half in value. But so far as the
railway companies are concerned, and so far as
the cost of carrying and the position of the rail-
way companies is concerned, straw is a less re-
munerative traffic even than the hay traffic.
And, your Grace, that is a question of evidence.
I have already opened at some length the case of
hay, and the case of straw is very much in the
same position, only from the railway companies'
point of view it is a very much stronger case,
and I propose to call Mr. Birt first to explain the
position, so far as the Great Eastern Railway
Company are concerned.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know your Grace,
whether the Committee are in a position now to
say whether it will be convenient for them to go
MR. WILLIAM BIRT, having been
Mr. Cripps.
4759. AT the present time, the classification
of straw in the Clearing House Mineral Classi-
fication stands at a higher class than hay?–It
does ; it stands at the third class in the Clearing
House Classification station-to-station. & D
on with the iron case after this has been disposed
of. I have been waiting here, and I am prepared
to go on at any time ; but I think I am not
disclosing confidences when I say that I believe
there are a number of persons to whom it would
be more convenient to go home until Tuesday
bv the 3 o'clock train than to have to wait till
the 5 o'clock train. Therefore if the Committee
do not see their way to dispose of this matter in
the course of an hour, so as to leave the course
clear for iron, it might be better perhaps to
postpone the iron case till the first thing on
Tuesday.
Chairman.] I think that we might fairly say
to the iron gentlemen that we will not take their
case until Tuesday morning, if it is more con-
venient for them ; we can easily fill up the time.
Mr. Pope.] It certainly would be convenient
to a great number on our side, and I think it
would be convenient to a great many on the
other side to go home by the earlier train.
Mr. Shaw. Then after you have finished this,
are you going to take anything else P You are
not going to begin the traders' amendment
to-day ? -
Chairman.] All I say now is that we will not
take the iron question until Tuesday morning.
Mr. Pope.] I think we have dealt with all
the objections to classification except the iron.
Mr. Hanbury.] Will this straw case last the
day ?
Mr. Pope.] I do not know, but owing to the
interest that agricultural questions always excite,
I think it will last the day.
Chairman.] But it is suggested that we may
have a short day, and as we are likely on
Tuesday to have a very long day, I think we had
better reconsider the matter.
Mr. Pope.j I cannot say that I do not think
that is possible ; but, at the same time, the iron
question is one that must last a considerable time;
it is a difficult and complicated matter, and it is
desirable that it should be before the Com-
mittee in its entirety rather than be broken in
upon.
Chairman.] But supposing we have finished
on these other questions and are ready to begin
it at 2 o'clock, what is there after this?
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there is anything
substantial excepting iron. There is paper making
materials and fruit, but fruit is postponed. The
paper making materials and staW. are to be dealt
with.
Mr. Cripps.] I think that they will really be
taken together.
Chairman.] I think gentlemen had better fake
the 5 o'clock train and then we shall be quite safe
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace pleases, of course.
recalled ; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4760ſ. I see on page 70 of the general classifica-
tion of goods, taking the Clearing House
Classification, straw stands at a station-to-station
rate minimum charge as per 20 hundred weights
per waggou ?—That is so.
(81. )
4 G 2 4761. Therefore
604
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.]
Mr. BIRT.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
4761. Therefore, comparing straw as with other
articles in Class 3 of the Clearing House Classifi-
cation, you have in hand, as in the case of hay,
the charges for collection and delivery 2–We
have.
4762. And without going through the figures
again, you would have to make the same allow-
ance with regard to straw as you made in the case
of hay?—It would be rather more, because it
is a higher class.
4763. What is the character of your straw
traffic; is it very light in proportion to bulk —
Very light indeed. *
4764. And is it of a risky nature, the straw
fraffic 2–Yes; as I explained yesterday, it is a
traffic the conveyance of which is attended by a
lot of risk; it generally has, for safety sake, to be
covered with two sheets, and in addition it has to
be very carefully roped.
4765. Is straw specifically classed in your
Great Eastern Railway Amalgamation Act, 1862?
—It is, and the toll allowed for it is 4 d. a ton.
4766. It is in the highest class; it is
named and placed in your classification ?—
It is, and that classification is in the Act
of 1862, which we call our Amalgamation
Act; it was an Act sanctioning the amalgama-
tion of the old Eastern Counties Railway with
several other lines. There was a lot of opposi-
tion to its being passed ; everyone who had a
grievance, or fancied that they had a grievance,
came before the Committee, and were dealt with
by the Committee as they thought fit.
4767. Because, being an Amalgamation Act,
anyone could appear and be heard upon these
points?-- Yes; and a large number of eople
did. -
4768. Do you send a large traffic in straw to
the London stations of the Great Eastern
Railway ?–Yes; we estimate that our yearly
earnings, based upon the actual carryings for
the one month of February last, amount to
4,230 l. ; but that is at the owner’s risk rates.
If, to those figures we add 15 per cent. to cover
risk, the 4,230 l. is lifted to 4,860 l. Upon the
same traffic, the charges proposed by the Board
of Trade would bring us in 3,012 l. only ; so that
our loss would be 1,848 l., or something between
35 and 40 per cent.
4769. That is comparing the actual charges
that you could make under the proposed
maxima 2–Yes; the actual charges, plus the
15 per cent.
4770. The 15 per cent. being the allowance
which we have always taken for the owner's
risk 2–Precisely; and it is the allowance pro-
vided for in the Clearing House Classification.
771. What is the average weight of straw that
you can carry in your trucks?—The average
weight per truck with us is 22 cwt., and we
brought up to London for the month of Feb-
ruary 410 trucks; 113 of them contained 20 cwt.
each, or less, and 258 contained weights varying
from 20 cwt. to 23 cwt.
Mr. Humter.
4772. Have you got special straw rates?—
4773. Just instance, if you
please——
give !]] (2 all
Mr. Cripps.] We have had those rates taken
Out.
Mr. Hunter.
4774. I want it generally 2–I am sorry I have
not one here ; I can get it by sending to Liver-
pool-street, but I have the particular rates ap-
pertaining to eight of our largest straw-sending
stations, which I can give at once if they will
answer your purpose. -
4775. Will you give me those f—Certainly.
Mr. Cripps. -
4776. If I hand this in it might help you ; it
is a copy in pencil (handing a paper to the
honourable Member). (To the Witness.) But
just give them, so that all the Committee may
have them 2–Our rate at owner's risk for straw
from Ongar to London, a distance of 224 miles, is
10 s. 10 d. a ton; the Board of Trade's proposal
would give us 8 s. 1 d. a ton, that is to say, we
should lose upon every ton conveyed 2 s.9 d. ;
from Hadham, 28 miles from London, the
rate is 11 s. 8d. ; the Board of Trade would
give us 9 s. 2 d. ; our loss would be 2 s. 6 d.
From Chelmsford the rate is 12s. 6d.; the
Board of Trade proposal would give us 9 s. 7d.;
our loss would be 2s. 11 d. From Bishop Stort-
ford the rate is 14s. 2d.; the Board of Trade
proposal would give us 10 s. 1d. ; our loss would
be 4s. 1d. From Buntingford the rate is 15 s. a
ton ; the Board of Trade proposal would give us
10 s. 10d. ; our loss would be 4s. 2d. From
Elsenham the rate is 15 s. 10d. ; the Board of
Trade proposal would give us 11s. 2d.; our loss
would be 4s. 8d. From Newport the rate is
17s. 11 d.; the Board of Trade proposal would
give 12s. 6d. ; and the loss would be 5 s. 5d.
From Audley End the rate is 17 s. 6d ; the Board
of Trade proposal is 12s. 6d. ; and our loss
would be 5s. . I have selected those eight stations
as being eight of the largest straw sending
stations on the Great Eastern Railway to
London.
4777. Would those stations be fairly illustra-
tive of the effect of the proposed classification
over your system 2–Yes, as such I submit them.
4778. I have not the figures before me, I have
handed them to the honourable member, but in
every case they shew a considerable loss, do they
not?—Yes, the minimum loss on the paper is
2s. 6d. a ton, and it rises to 5s. 5d. a ton.
Mr. Clifford.] Perhaps my learned friend will
allow me just to say this in the interest of time
and with the view to a settlement; that on the
part of the traders we are perfectly willing to
accept straw at the Clearing House classification;
that is to say, that it shall be put in Class 3 with
the priviso, as in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, that there shall be a reduction in the case of
owner's risk.
Mr. Yates.] We assent to the proposal made
by my learned friend Mr. Clifford, reserving the
question of owner's risk until it is dealt with
when the rates come to be dealt with.
Mr. Cripps.] In reference to what has been
said by my learned friends on the other side, the
class is one matter of concession, whereas owner’s
risk is a concession which we cannot accept, and
which
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
605
29 May 1891.
which we consider does not arise upon this
schedule at all, or upon the proceedings before
this Committee at all. This matter has already
been discussed. If it is a mere question of class
we might consider, I have had to ask for an
intimation from the people who instruct me, but
we might consider the proposal to put straw in
Class 3. But owners’ risk is a matter that
cannot be dealt with on this schedule as a
c hedule.
Mr. Clifford.] We are perfectly willing to
leave that question with the Committee here-
after.
Mr. Yates.] We think that owners' risk should
be dealt with when rates come to be dealt
with.
Chairman.] But we must have something defi-
nite. Either you object to straw being taken
out of Class 2 and put into Class 3, or you do
not. If you do not, then you agree to straw
being put into Class 3.
Mr. C/ifford.] That is our view.
Chairman.] Then you had better say nothing
upon anything else.
Mr. Clifford.] Precisely ; we reserve that
question of owners’ risk to be discussed here-
after.
Earl of Camperdown.] But it does not follow
that it will be discussed. *-
Mr. Cripps.] As I understand what my learned
friend Mr. Clifford says is, that, without now
discussing the owners' risk point at all, whatever
the rates may be, on either side, and whatever
view the Committee may take, he is willing, on
behalf of the traders whom he represents, to
take Class 3 for straw as a compromise, and so
perhaps shortening the proceedings.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] Then perhaps I might just ask
for instructions upon that.
Chairman.] Very good.
After a short interval,
Mr. Cripps.] I think, your Grace, we might
meet my learned friend Mr. Clifford upon that
suggestion, and perhaps spare the Committee
further evidence upon this point.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Very well that is
Class 3.
Mr. Cripps.] I should just like to ask this to
make it clear. We classify with straw in the
Clearing House Classification various matters
which have to do with paper making; these are
the articles I will call attention to as classed here
in Class 2. Algerian fibre, china grass, esparto
grass, palmetto leaf, and flax straw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am not instructed for
any paper makers, your Grace, and it seems to
me that they will be the people interested in
that. It is a matter really for the Board of
Trade. If they include all that under straw, I
have no objection. …’
Mr. Cripps.] These various articles which I
have mentioned are classed under the Railway
Clearing House Classification as straw, and they
go together.
Chairman.] But if the paper makers do not
object.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They are not here.
Chairman.] Then I conclude they do not
object.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I suppose not. It is
for the Board of Trade.
Chairman.] What have the Board of Trade
to say abous it?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I can answer that,
your Grace. We took all the discussion upon
the classification upon straw, just as the
Committee seem inclined to do, and regarded
straw as ruling all the other articles; and
there was a general, I think I may say, con-
census of opinion that straw was the guiding
article amongst these that are here classed.
Chairman.] Then, in point of fact, whatever
we do to straw we do to those other articles
mentioned.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Only that my learned
friends want them specifically mentioned.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] All the articles are
specifically mentioned.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] And carried up to the
same class. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] In answer to your
Grace's question, I think I might say that what
is done with regard to straw should rule them.
Chairman.] Very good. Then what we un-
derstand (in order that there may be no mistake)
is that straw and the articles that are bound up
with straw, shall be moved from Class 2 into
Class 3, that is all we now deal with.
Mr. Cripps.] That is so.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I am not, of course,
co.umitting the Board of Trade to any opinion
whatever upon the propriety or desirability of
including owners’ risk rates.
Chairman.] That is another matter altogether.
What I specially wish to guard against is, that
we are doing anything other than putting straw
and those other articles from Class 2 in to Class 3.
Mr. Cripps.] That is so. Then, your Grace, it
will save any further discussion.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] Now, we go on with iron.
Chairman.] Yes, now we will hear you.
J2arl of Camperdown.] Are there not any other
amendments?
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there are any other
substantial ones.
Mr. Cripps.] That there may be no mistake
afterwards, your Grace, I will read out from
the list I have in my hands certain articles
classified with straw. In addition to what I
specially read out, l aim told I ought to have read
out megass and Mexican fibres in addition,
which are in the same condition ; that is to say,
they have always been classified with straw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Are they in the Clear-
ing House Classification ?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes, they are just in the same
position.
Mr. Poyser.] From what we have heard about
(18.)
4 G 3 iron,
606
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.
iron, your Grace, perhaps you will release all
other traders than those interested in iron.
Chairman.] We are now beginning iron.
Mr. Pope J I think we are bound to under-
stand whether the traders adhere to their state-
ment that they will propose no alteration in the
Beard of Trade Classification, unless it be distri-
buted in some particular point in which they are
interested.
Mr. Poyser.] No, they never said that.
Mr. Hunter.] It has been distributed already.
Chairman.] I think we had better go on.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] All that my learned
friend, Mr. Poyser, was asking was that people
interested in manure need not stay to day.
Mr. Poyser.] That is all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think they might be
released.
Mr. Pope.] I think it is very probable we shall
not mention manure.
Chairman.] Very good.
Mr. Pope.] Now, your Grace, if you turn to
page 18 of the London and North Western Pro-
visional Order, you will find there included in
Class B., “iron and steel undamageable,” about
line 39, “the following articles of iron or steel if
and when declared by a trader to be undamage-
able.”
Chairman.] What page is that?
Mr. Pope..] Page 18 of the London and North
Western Provisional Order. Then following
that general description, there come a number of
specific articles mentioned, which , are iron
articles, but which are to be included in Class B.
if declared by the trader to be undamageable ;
and on page 22––
Earl of Camperdown.] It goes right down to
page 20.
Mr. Pope.] It goes down to page 19. A
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, page 20.
Mr. Pope..] I think it does; the first column
right down to page 20, “Wire rope, old, cut in
pieces.” Then on page 22, which is Class C.; a
similar expresion is used, although there are dif:
ſerent articles specified. “Iron and steel
damageable, All the articles included in the un-
damageable iron or steel list if not declared by
a trader to be mndamageable,” that is the
articles specified in the previous Class. B.
to be declared undamageable, plus a various
number of other articles, down to line 40,
“ traps, sink and stench.” We propose that
that those should be struck out of the classes in
which they are placed by the Board of Trade,
with a view to their being raised a class higher,
as we say they now appear in the Clearing
House Classification.
Well now, your Grace, this question of iron
involves some difficulties, and some complication ;
but I would desire to make some general ob-
servations before I point to the particular position
which it now occupies. One is that we are now
settling a classification which is to be applicable
to all companies generally, and that it would not
be a fair way of dealing with the question of
classification to try to redress some particular
grievance which may arise in respect of the
existing powers of some particular company by
reducing the class, and so inflicting, as we say,
an injustice upon the companies generally, for
the only purpose of remedying a particular
grievance. I think before discussion ends your
Grace will find that practically that is really
what the Board of Trade have done. In prin-
ciple I shall contend that there can be no question
as to the classification of the particular articles
which we desire to see removed ; but I must
concede that in regard to the London and
North Western Company, for instance, there
are special questions with regard to their
existing powers and charges which may make
that classification an improvement upon the
the existing powers of that particular company.
But I say that the proper way to remedy such an
inequality, and it is a question which faced us
very early in the inquiry before the Board of
Trade, and which it was suggested by the Lon-
don, and North Western Company should be
dealt with in the way I indicate, the proper way
to deal with that is not to reduce the general
classification, and so do an injustice to other com-
panies which are not so circumstanced, and even
to the London and North Western Company in
some respects, but to deal with the particular
grievance, or the particular effect upon the trade
which is governed by the London and North
Western rates, specially as you propose to deal
with the South Wales, traders with regard to
agreements or rates which are secured to them in
the Great Western Company’s various Acts.
Another observation which I will make is this :
that, in dealing with classification here, the Com-
mittee must remember that there is this important
distinction between the Clearing House system of
classification and that which is proposed under
the Provisional Order; that in the case of the
Clearing House classification, in the event of the
exigencies of the trade requiring it, there exists a
power to increase, to raise the classification; but,
by the proposals of the Board of Trade, al-
though in their report upon the classification
they, desire to guard against anything which
should prevent the companies, if they desire
if, from reducing the classification hereafter
upwards, the classification will not be elastic ;
there will be no power on the part of the com-
panies to raise an article to any class if it should
turn out that it might justly be so done, although
in the Clearing House Classification there is :
there will only be the power to reduce it, and
that will of course be entirely in favour of the
trader. The other observation that I would make
upon the principle of classification generally is
this : that the principle of classification should
be, as far as possible, to include under one class
or denomination, articles which, in various res-
pects have common characteristics or qualities.
To illustrate what I mean, the distinction between
Class B., into which we complain that these
iron articles have been reduced, and Class C., is
this ; that Class B., though somewhat superior to
the mere mineral class, is still in its general
characteristics governed by the consideration that
it is a class for raw materials, materials which
are afterwards to be used in some process of
manufacture for the purpose of completion. Pig-
iron for instance, although it is partially a
manufactured
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
6O7
29 May 1891.
º- ----
manufactured article, because of course it is the
blast furnace that makes the pig-iron from the ore
yet still is itself a raw material which has afterwards
to be rolled into bars, or to be dealt with in the
various manufacturing iron works of the country.
Now, what I say is this : That if you apply that
principle (and you will see in one moment that
it is the exact principle that is and ought to be
applicable to Class B.), in principle the whole of
these articles that are included in the list which
we c, mplain of, are artic'es not of the class of
raw material, but are articles which have passed
through processes of mann facture, and which,
therefore, necessarily become articles of greater
value, more liable to damage, and raising totally
different conditions of carriage from those which
are characteristic of Class B.
Now, if v our Grace will kindly refer to the
Clearing House Classification, you will find that
in the general body of the Clearing House Clas-
sification, all iron articles are specified. You
have already, in one case, heard of Iron List A.
and Iron List B., about which I shall have a
word to say presently ; but your Grace may
take it, that throughout the classification, mixed
up with other articles, these various iron articles
appear, and, as a rule, are classified either at a
special class or in Class 1. The Iron List, which
your Grace will find at page 37 of the Clearing
House classification, is simply for the convenience
of dealing with iron rates, an extract from the
Clearing House Classification itself into one list
of articles which are to be dealt with under
that list; and that list provides for having
a Class A. and a Class B. respectively. I
I do not choose to call it a class; it is the Iron
List A and the Iron List B ; and the Iron List A
gives a list of of articles which, when declared
at owner's risk, are to be dealt with as a special
class. If you kindly look at the heading of the
Iron List, you will find this: “Where exceptional
rates exist for iron in Classes A and B respec-
tively, as under, the following classification
applies. Station to station, carried in quantities
of no less than 2 tons. Where such rates do
not exist " (that is where exceptional rates do
not exist) “iron in Class A must be charged
special class rates, and iron in Class B" (or iron
list B) “must be charged first class rates.”
Special class rates correspond practically to
Class C the Board of Trade Classification ; first
class rates to Class 1 of the Board of Trade
Classification. So that the provision of this
Iron List is this : that where the clerk for
instance who has to charge traffic which is
brought in, finds any articles included in Iron
List A, if declared at owners’ risk, and no
exceptional rate exists, this, according to the
classification under the special rates, is accord-
ing to the classification; if it be in the higher
Class B, under Class 1.
Chairman.] What is that, the special classes?
Mr. Pope.] I will just make that plain to your
Grace. If you will take anchors, for instance, as
the first article in Iron List A., special rate
w
answers to Class C.
Chairman.] There special ciass is Class C,
is it 2
Mr. Pope.] Yes. If you will turn to “An-
chors’ in the Clearing House Classification, on
page 6, you will find the article “Anchors,” and
the reference to that is “S.”; that is, special
class,
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] Very good. If anchors are de-
livered, declared to be at owners' risk under the
Clearing House Classification, the clerk would
look and find that in Iron List A. “Anchors” is
included. If an exceptional rate has been agreed
upon, as it is in several cases where traffic is very
large, as, for instance, Birmingham, South Staf-
fordshire, and places of that kind, if the clerk
finds an exceptional rate, then that traffic would
go at that exceptional rate; but if no exceptional
rate for that traffic exists, as it probably does not
from other stations where the traffic is not so
large, and the circumstances are not such as to
justify the exceptional rate, then that would go
under the special class rate, that is, under
Class “S.,” or what is equivalent to the Board of
Trade Class C. So with regard to Iron List B.
Speaking generally, the whole of Iron List A. is
applicable only to articles when declared at
owners’ risk. Class B. is applicable to articles
which are specified in that list, and also
to the List A., if List A. is to be taken at the
companies’ risk. If any of the articles men-
tioned in Iron List B. are brought, for
which an exceptional rate does not prevail,
then they are to be carried at first-class rates;
that is equivalent to the proposal of the Board
of Trade, Class 1. Now, that is how the matter
stands.
Earl of Belmore.] At own Crs’ risk, or com-
Yanies' risk 2
l
Mr. Pope.] At companies’ risk; at companies’
risk, if they are articles which have previously
been mentioned in Iron List A. ; but if they are
the other articles mentioned in Iron List B.,
then, excepting those that are marked by parti-
cular signs in that list, there would be no power
on the part of the owner to reduce the rate
by declaring them at owner’s risk.
Now, then, with regard to that ques-
tion of declaring at owner's risk. Just
one or two observations; because it may
be necessary, when we consider the pro-
posals, that that should be clearly understood
by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of
1854, every Company is made liable, absolutely
liable, as insurers of any goods which may be
brought to them for conveyance; but it does
provide that they may, by special agreement
with the trader, reduce that liability ; but only
by making a special contract agreeing to a
special rate, and limiting their risk. But the
proviso upon that is, “that no special contract
between such Company and any other parties
respecting the receiving, forwarding or delivering
of any animals, articles, goods, or things
shall be binding upon, or affect any such
party, unless the same be signed by him
or by the person delivering such animals,
articles, goods, or things respectively for carriage.
That it must be an agreement which may be
held by the Courts to fix reasonable conditions,
and only reasonable conditions, to the exemption
from liability. For instance, the courts have
uniformly held that it is not competent for the
(81.)
4 G 4 companies
608
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
--- ** *** & Jºº
29 May 1891.
companies to make a contract with the trader
which shall render any particular commodity
absolutely undamageable, which shall only ex-
empt them from liability for damage or injury
for which they may be held to be culpable, and
of which their servants may be the blameable
cause. In other words, that any wilful negligence
or neglect on the part of their servants, the com-
pany cannot be exempted from in any such con-
tract at all ; because the courts have held that
that is an unreasonable condition, and that such
contract is void under the provisions of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act. So that the first
question which raises some complication and
difficulty is this: “The following articles of iron
or steel if and when declared by a trader to be
undamageable; ” the trader does not make it un-
damageable by the mere declaration that it is to
be so; it would have to be a special contract with
the trader, signed by him or by his agent, in
terms which the courts of law might hold to be
reasonable. -
Just let us now then for a moment look at the
articles themselves. I have pointed out to the
Committee the general principle; let us take
class B., first of all as raising the point most
simply ; that the general characteristic of class
B. is articles which are, so to speak,
not manufactured, but the raw material
to be employed in some other process.
For instance, in that article in Class B. you have
cement, stone, chalk, lime, ferro manganese,
furnace scratchings, granite in blocks, and so on.
In order to illustrate the principle of the classi-
fication, I take the Class B. as it was submitted
by the railway companies to the Board of Trade,
and there I find in Class B. a great number of
articles, including for instance pig iron; pig iron
being so to speak a raw material, which after-
wards being wrought into bars would change its
character, may fairly be included in Class B.
Some of these articles as presented by the com-
panies to the Board of Trade had been reduced
by them into Class A., because some of them are
obviously articles which are more of a mineral
class; for instance, chalk in the rough, clay in
bulk, coprolites, rock phosphate, gas-lime, gravel,
iron pyrites, limestone in bulk, manure, night-
soil, stone in the rough, slag, cinder, sulphate of
line, those have been reduced from our suggested
Class B. into Class A. by the Board of Trade;
but when you look at the class as suggested, the
general principle there involved was exactly
such a division as I have indicated of articles
which may be called raw materials for other
more industrial applications of those articles.
Now look at what the articles were which the
Board of Trade have added to this list B., if
that be the characteristic of it. Observe “Anchors,”
anchors of course are finished work, angle bars,
anvil blocks, anvils, hammers, and standards
for steam hammers, axle-box guides, bar iron,
bolts and nuts, bundles of bars, buoy sinkers,
bridge work, and so on right through the list,
some of them being articles mentioned in our
own suggested Class B., but a great deal of it, in
fact the whole of the articles complained of,
being what we suggested, should be in Class C.,
because they contain a totally different character-
istic from those that should naturally fall within
Class B. I do not propose to do more than
point out what our contention is. We will, of
course, ask the witnesses their reason for it, and
give our suggestions upon that basis by-and-by ;
but what I would ask the Committee to consider .
is how far this inclusion of these semi-manufac-
tured, at least, and in some cases completely
manufactured articles, but at all events semi-
manufactured articles of the iron industry comply
with the general principles of classification,
which as a rule, according to the statements of
the Board of Trade itself, govern them with
regard to this general question of classification.
I find upon page 21 of the Board of Trade
Report that they state this as the general princi-
ple upon which they deal with these matters.
Let me just point out before I read the last para-
graph upon that page that they, too, show that my
statement as to Clause S., and so on, is what
they intended to represent by their Class C.
“Experience of a very large number of years,
during which the Railway Clearing House Classi-
fºcation has been in force on the railways north
of the river Thames, is a strong reason
for the maintenance of that number (eight).
We were not furnished with any cir-
cumstances of such paramount importance as
would justify a departure from the results of
practical experience. We have also adopted the
order and the names of the classes with a small
difference, that which was known as Class S.,”
the special class to which I have referred, “ in
the Railway Clearing House Classification, will
in future be known as Class C.” That is sub-
stantially the proposition which I made with
regard to these articles in Class B. “While
there are no strong reasons for lettering the first
three classes and numbering the last five, which
can be logically maintained, having regard to the
alterations which we have made, we are of opinion
that the present names of the classes are so well
understood by the traders generally that there is
no sufficient ground for altering them. In fixing
the position of articles in particular classes, we
have been mainly, but not wholly guided by the
Railway Clearing House Classification. We
have also had regard to the following important
principles: value (including damageability and
risk, weight in proportion to bulk, facility for
loading, mass of consignments, and necessity for
handling. It would not be possible to state with
any degree of accurracy the proportionate value
to be attached to each, but a reference to our
proceedings, will show that these great factors
were brought before us with various degrees of
persistence upon nearly all the principal articles
which formed the subject of our discussion.
While we have not been able to make the minute
subdivisions, or to impose the detailed regulations
which have been found necessary as regards the
Clearing House Classification, we have en-
deavoured, as far as possible, to make the
classification a working classification which will
stand a practical test.”
Now I say if you apply those principles to
this particular classification, in every case it
would lead, as I submit, every impartial mind to
admit, that unless other considerations are to
govern, all these iron articles which have been
removed from class S. in the Railway Clearing
House Classification and placed in Class B. in th.
suggested classification, should in paint of fact be
under
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
609
º
29 May 1891.
under all these circumstances, in Class C., as they
are in the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Hambury.] As a matter of fact have all
these that are here under this heading been
removed.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, they have all been reduced a
class. It may be said generally, without going
into every particular article, that although there
are some exceptions made, yet substantially it
may be said that what the Board of Trade has
done has been to reduce all these iron articles
a class, some of them two ; but I do not want to
complicate my statement by a discussion of
exceptional matters. Take it as a whole, the
complaint of the railway companies is that those
iron articles, which are articles not of the generic
character which we submitted in Class B., an
which should form part of Class B., being of the
same generic character, they have reduced a
class and have placed them in an inferior class
among articles with which, as we say, they
have very little in common.
Now let us look for one moment at these
articles a little further. As I say, here are
“anchors, anvils, axle boxes, bridge work, canti.
levers, floor plates, joists, lattice bars.” What
logical defence can be made for saying that
articles, so far manufactured as those articles are,
and so susceptible to damage from rust or want
of care, or any other of the various matters which
might result in claims for damage upon the rail-
way companies, should be included in the same
class with pig-iron, which of course may be
rained upon practically for ever and would hardly
suffer any damage at all 2
Now what then suggests itself to one's mind
as the reason for this? Of course I have no
means of knowing what the actual reason of the
Board of Trade was, but I cannot help believing
that it was the desire first of all for uniformity in
the classification. That, of course, is commenda-
ble if it could be carried out without injustice,
but is not a desire which ought to prevail if it
works injustice to anybody. Uniformity of classi-
fication might have resulted (and I will point
out to your Grace and the Committee in a
moment how) in the case of the London and
North Western for instance, in some injustice, if
these articles were retained in the Clearing
House Classification as regards existing rates
and charges in the neighbourhood of Birmingham
and South Staffordshire. We heard something
of that, you will remember, on the question of
tubes, when we were discussing the question of
the four-ton and the two-ton maximum. I say
if that was the reason, although undoubtedly this
reduction might to a certain extent enable the
traders to retain and in some cases, I am afraid, to
increase (and that, so far as we, the London and
North-Western, are concerned, makes it all the
harder), or, at all events, to retain some of the
advantages which they have under our existing
powers, and the existing special rates which pre-
vail with them ; I say that is not the way in
which to deal with a general classification which
is to affect all companies alike ; and the injustice
of that will be shown when you come to hear the
Midland view of this particular matter, because,
although very early in the inquiry before the
Roard of Trade, we were inet, in the London
*3.
and North-Western case, by this very difficulty,
and Mr. Findlay suggested very early that it
could be met by special provisions; the Midland
Company are not in the least bound or affected
by any of these powers, be they large or be they
small, which may affect the London and North-
Western Company. To reduce the classifica-
tion in order by uniformity to obtain for the
traders upon the London and North-Western
system a certain advantage is not fair, if that
works out to the manifest disadvantage of one or
all of the other companies, or, I will not say all,
because the same question arises, I daresay,
with regard to some of the Acts of Parliament of
the Great Western Company; but, at all events,
I use the Midland, because they are not in the
least affected by this question; that is not a fair
way of dealing with this question. What
say is this: speaking for the London
and North Western Company ; as we have
all along proposed to the Board of Trade, I am
perfectly content, provided the classification be
that which is just and fair; I am perfectly pre-
pared, I say, to secure to traders with whom we
deal any advantages that they may have or
think they have under the general powers of
our Act of 1846, or under any special rates in
agreements that we have made with them in
consequence of the exigencies of the traffic.
All I say is this, that the London and North
Western Company do not desire that any special
difficulty which arises with them in consequence
of discussions with the traders as to their powers
under the Act of 1846 should affect the general
question of classification, and should result in
the inclusion in an undamageable class and in a
low rated class of articles which are not within
that class.
Earl of Belmore..] By what modus operandi
would you effect that ? -
Mr. Pope.j I would suggest that it should be
done specially in the London and North-Western
schedule, as you propose in the case of the Great
Western, to protect the statutory rights of the
Monmouthshire, traders under their statutory
powers.
Earl of Belmore.] By putting them under a
particular clause 2
Mr. Pope.] To say under this particular Pro-
visional Order. That, notwithstanding anything
in the classification, the traders in the districts
affected by the powers of the Act of 1846 should
not have those powers in any way extended to
their disadvantage.
Earl of Belmore.] I understand now that I
have seen the Bill.
Mr. Pope..] I will read it, that there may be
no dispute about the very words in which the
proposition was submitted to the Board of
Trade.
Earl of Belmore.] You need not do that now.
Mr. Pope.] The mode in which it can be done
is a matter which can be discussed if you decide
that it ought to be done.
Mr. Hunter.] Is it your point that the London
(81.) -
4 H and
610
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.
and North-Western have a distinction in the
classification between damageable and undamage-
able iron f
Mr. Pope.] That is not specially in any classi-
fication belonging to the North-Western.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think you are wrong.
Mr. Pope.] I know perfectly what it means.
Mr. Hunter, But that in the Midland there is
no such distinction in their classification.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know how that is.
Mr. Hunter.j That is not your point.
Mr. Pope.] No ; if you will kindly follow me
I will make it clear. I start simply with this
proposition : First of all, I say classification
ought to proceed upon intelligible principles, and
if you apply any intelligible principle to this
classification it ought not to include those
articles, and if it should turn out that their inclu-
sion in Class C. may result in disadvantage to
the particular interests represented by Sir Alfred
Hickman, that ought not to be provided against by
degrading a class, but by providing in some
special way for the advantage of those particular
traders.
Now, if you have the London and North
Western Railway Act of 1846 before you (be-
cause, of course, I am more familiar with my own
Acts than I am with those of other companies,
though I have seen them many times), you will
see how this question has arisen with regard to
the North Western Company, and the reason,
as it seems to me, why the Board of Trade have
tried to overcome that difficulty by the reduction
of a class.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Are you going to explain
that ?
Mr. P. pe.] I cannot undertake to explain the
action of the Board of Trade if your question
means that I can only suggest that that was the
reason, because there can be apparently no other
intelligible reason for the inclusion of those
articles in that class. Now, you will observe
under the Act of 1846 of the North Western, as
is usual in these old Acts, there are maximum
rates provided under the toll clauses and maxi-
mum rates provided for carriage. In other
words, a certain charge is contemplated when the
railway is used by somebody else as a carrier from
that when the railway company is itself the
carrier of the commodity. Under the toll clauses
of the London and North Western Act of 1846,
which governs a very considerable portion of the
London and North Western system, in those toll
clauses the iron appears in this way : “For all
dung, compost, and all sorts of manure, lime,
limestone, and undressed material for the repair
of public roads, charcoal, pig and bar iron,” with
no further distinction or interpolation of articles,
“Stones for building, pitching, paving,” and so
on, “the sum of a penny per ton per mile.” I
do not trouble myself about the rate for a
moment, but that is the classification.
Earl of Camperdown.] All iron.
Mr. Pope.] Pig and bar iron.
Chairman.] What clause is that ?
Mr. Pope.] Clause 62. It appears under the
generic name of “pig and bar iron.” In other
words, no distinction is made in any class of iron
damageable or undamageable where the railway
is being used by somebody else and not by the
Railway Company itself as a carrier. It only
includes the vague expression “pig and bar”
it does not express anything else.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Are you quoting the
Act of 1846 °
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Are you quoting it
incorrectly or not ?
Mr. Pope.] I will read it again : “For all dung,
compost and all sorts of manure, lime, limestone,
and undressed material for the repair of public
roads, charcoal, pig and bar iron,” and so on.
Upon that I found this argument, because we
shall see presently what happens upon the rate
clause, that it is not essential to distinguish
between damageable and undamageable materials
in any way where the owner of the railway is
not responsible for the carriage. For the mere
user of the railway therefore it is “pig and bar
iron.” But when we come to the rate clause,
which is Clause 63,then we have a distinction made,
where the railway company are acting as
carriers, between damageable and undamageable
iron. Then I need not read the whole of the
classification or specification, but there the pro-
vision is “for iron not damageable. a penny per
ton per mile, if conveyed for a distance of 50
miles or upwards, if taken any less distance than
50 miles, a penny farthing per ton per mile,” “pig
iron " not being mentioned, but the general term
“ damageable iron " being used for iron not
damageable, no specification at all. “For dam-
ageable iron, sheet iron, hoop iron, and other
similar descriptions of wrought iron ’’ then a
different rate per ton. Now I say those
two matters have given rise no doubt to very
considerable differences between ourselves and
the traders, the question of what is damageable
iron, and what is not damageable iron,
being matter which is a matter of constant
discussion between us, because of course for
damageable iron our powers of charge are larger
than they are for undamageable iron; and if you
look at the next classification for sugar, grain, coal,
flour, hides, and so on, there are included nails,
anvils, vices, and chains which appear in the iron
list A., and which we should be content,
of course under these circumstances to see
appear again in Class C. Well now the real
discussion therefore between us and the
ironmasters of the South Staffordshire district
mainly has been what is damageable iron. I do
not ask the Committee, of course, to decide a
knotty and legal point upon the construction of
such an Act of Parliament as this, but it does
seem to me to be pretty plain that iron not
damageable cannot include wrought iron, cannot
include bars, cannot include matters which are
partially manufactured, cannot include anything
in the nature of sheet or hoop iron. The class
is for iron, not damageable, a certain rate for
damageable iron, sheet, hoop, and all the other
similar descriptions of wrought iron, such and
such a rate.
Now
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
61 I
Now the exigencies of our relations with South
Staffordshire have been such that we have made
in favour of South Staffordshire exceptionally
low rates, not specially in regard to our powers
under this Act of 1846, but with a view to, as I
may say, keep the South Staffordshire iron trade
alive. The South Staffordshire iron trade, as I
very cheerfully admit, depends very largely
upon liberal treatment upon the part of railway
company, in order that their produce may find
its way at remunerative rates to the various
ports and to the various points of consump-
tion. I quite concede that, and we, for the
London and North Western Company, have
dealt with them in that liberal fashion. They
claim that they are entitled to the benefits,
whatever they may be, of this classification of
the Act of 1846; and I say, if it should turn
out (I do not say it will) that the restoration of
these articles to Class C. would place the South
Staffordshire traders in a position of being liable
to a maximum greater than they are liable to
now, as to any of those articles under the Act of
1846, that ought to be redressed by special pro-
visions, as I have already indicated to you, and
that was what Mr. Findlay, the very first wit-
ness before the Board of Trade, indicated as our
view, and is what I believe the Baard of Trade
will at once concede, has been the proposition
which has always been placed before them.
Now, as I understand from the cross-examina-
tion which was administered the other day, it
may be said that the restoration of these articles
to Class C. will place the South Staffordshire
traders in a worse position than they are now in
under the Act of 1846. I dare say they may
go beyond that ; they may say it would place
them in a worse position than their actual
rates, but I am not dealing with the question
of actual rates now. I am dealing with the
Question of maximum. I say in many re-
spects in regard to many places, in regard
to a considerable part of the system which
is not affected by the Act of 1846, that
Class B. would place the London and North
Western Company itself at an enormous disad-
vantage. In a general classification which will
affect others besides themselves it would not be
fair that that general classification should be pre-
judiced by the special question of any particular
district or class of traders who may have any
particular claim upon the London and North
Western Company itself.
Now your Grace, that, speaking generally, is
the proposition that we have to submit, that the
whole of these articles should, as a matter of
classification, be placed in the same category and
the same classification as they occupy now under
the Clearing House, and that no reason, other
than this, that it is for uniformity and for the pro-
tection of those who are under the powers of par-
ticular Acts, can be assigned why that which
would be their natural place in the classification
should not be their real place in the classification.
We should of course ask your Grace and the
Committee to iisten to the managers of the
various companies, and they, I have no doubt, will
elaborate what I have said so as to make per-
fectly clear anything that I may have omitted.
Mr. Hunter..] I should like to ask you one
question, Mr. Pope. What do you understand to
affecting the Act of 1864.
be the legal effect of a declaration that a particu-
lar article is undamageable 2
Mr. Pope.] If it be merely a declaration,
absolutely nothing; it must, by the Railway and
Canal Traffic Act, be more than a declaration ;
it must be a signed individual contract for that
particular consignment of traffic.
Earl of Belmore.] A regular
agreement
stamped. : «
Mr. Pope.] I will not say stamped.
Mr. Hunter.] Take the particular case of
pipes. Of course a pipe may be broken. Sup-
pose a trader has declared his pipes to be
undamageable, and, as a matter of fact, they
are broken.
Mr. Pope.] We should have to pay.
Mr. Hunter.j You think so.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Hunter.] It is my impression that you
must pay. -
Mr. Pope.] Yes; unless in respect of an indi-
vidual consignment he, or his agent, has signed
a specific contract complying with the conditions
A mere declaration
will not make a commodity undamageable in law
which is damageable in reality.
Mr. Hunter.] And a consignment of that
kind would require to be under the maximum
rate.
Mr. Pope.] Yes; it would not be at the
maximum rate. The ordinary way in which it
is done is this. Here is, for instance, a con-
signment note; it is headed “Great Western '':
but I suppose our form would probably be much
the same for the London and North-Western Com-
pany. This consignment is to be carried at owner's
risk. “The Great Western Company hereby
give notice that they have two rates for the con-
veyance of certain articles, one the ordinary rate
when they take the ordinary liability of the
carrier ; the other, a reduced rate, adopted
when the sender relieves them of all liability of
loss, damage, or delay.” . Then follows “except
upon proof that such loss, damage, or delay
arose from wilful misconduct on the part of the
company’s servants.” Then this is what he
signs:– “To the Great Western Company :
Receive and forward the under-mentioned goods”
(it must be a contract with regard to the specific
consignment) “to be carried at the reduced rate
below the company's ordinary rate ; in con-
sideration whereof, I undertake to relieve the
Great Western Railway Company and all other
companies over whose lines the goods may pass
from all liability in case of loss, damage, or
delay, except upon proof that such loss, damage,
or delay arose from wilful misconduct on the
part of the company's servants. I also agree to
the conditions and regulations on the back of
this note. Signature of sender, or his represen-
tative, and his address.” That special contract
must be entered into in regard to each individual
consignment; a mere declaration of its being
sent under certain conditions will have no effect.
Mr. Hanbury.] The result then, supposing
this declaration signed, is that the company is
relieved from all responsibility except for wilful
misconduct.
(81
4 H 2 Chairman.]
612
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.
ss=-
Chairman.] What has the Board of Trade to
say ? -
A division being announced, the Members
of the House of Commons retired.
Lord Belper.] While we are waiting for the
others to return, let me ask you this question. If
something were put into state with regard to the
declaration that the goods were undamageable,
that under the Act a trader should have no power
to pursue the company, how would that do?
Mr. Pope.] You would have to define what
“declaration " means. I quite agree that if a
trader signs a special contract he can, for the
consideration of a lower rate than the ordinary
rate, have his goods carried at owner's risk; that
is the consideration provided by the Act of 1854;
that must be done first, that the railway company
must give the consideration of a lower rate in
respect of their release from liability.
Lord Belper.] That is true.
Mr. Pope.] No. that is not here, except so far
as the classification goes ; we are not at present
discussing whether it would or would not be a
lower rate, but it is classification that we are
OIl.
Dord Belper.] The rates follow classification,
therefore it would be a lower rate.
Mr. Pope.] In addition to that there must be
a declaration by contract by the trader that the
commodity is sent at that particular rate in con-
sideration of the release of the company from all
liability excepting as stated.
Lord Belper.] My point was, supposing you
made it clear what a declaration is, whether you
could not insert words to say that the declaration
having been made the trader should have no
8-
power of recovering without misconduct.
Mr. Pope.] If you choose to repeal the pro-
visions of the Act of 1854 you can. Clearly
if you choose to enact that a declaration shall
have the effect of a contract, I do not know why
you could not, if you define that a declaration
that the commodities are undamageable shall
mean a contract with certain conditions attached,
so be it.
On the return of the Members of the
House of Commons
Chairman (to Mr. Courteney Boyle).] You
were going to tell us what the intention of the
Board of Trade was with regard to those words
on page 18.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is an important
part, but a part only of the position of the Board
of Trade with regard to this clause. I do not
know whether the Committee would wish to have
it all explained to them.
Chairman.] We should like to have the first
point before you go into the details of the other.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Then I will deal with
that point first. In the proceedings before Lord
Balfour of Burleigh and myself at the Westmin-
ster Town Hall, it was contended on behalf of
the traders that a declaration of undamageability
would be actually and practically a bar to any
claim for damage. The view so clearly put before
the Committee by Mr. Pope was also argued
before us, and was repeated more than once in
the negociations which took place after the Report
to Parliament on the first proposed Provisional
Order. That view was not supported by the
legal advice which the Board of Trade obtained.
They were told that practically a declaration of
undamageability would be a bar to any claim.
The Board of Trade were advised that the inter-
pretation placed by the learned counsel opposite
upon the section of the Act of 1854, which he
quoted, was not the true interpretation. It is
impossible for me, who am no lawyer, to argue
that before this Committee; there are able law-
yers on this side of the room who will doubtless
do it, but the advice that was given was that that
was not the proper interpretation of the Act of
1854; and, moreover, this was what we were
told, that the Provisional Order which you are
now passing, being a public general statute, it is
competent to Parliament in that to make pro-
vision as regards the liability of companies in
this respect. - -
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you mean that it
would be in our power to interpret the Act of
1854 P \
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No ; but in your power
to enact provisions which would in this respect
modify the Act of 1854.
Chairman.] To override it altogether.
Mr. Pope..] Yes.
Lord Belper.] So far as it goes.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That was the advice
given to the Board of Trade. -
Mr. Hunter.] That of course applies to the
case of damage to the material, but of course
that does not apply to the case of total loss or
delay.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Through neglect or
default, perhaps not. It applies to damage and
damage only. Certainly what the honourable
Member has just said was in accordance with
the advice which was given to the Board of
Trade, that it does not touch “neglect or de-
fault ’’ (the words used in Section 7 of the Act
of 1854), but that it does touch “damage *; and
if the Committee pass this clause in its present
shape or something like that, in my belief it will
in so far modify the intention of the Act of 1854,
which was contrary to the intention of the Board
of Trade, in the present instance, so far as
regards the question of damageability. ,
Lord Belper.] You say that it does touch
damage, whether by neglect or default or not.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Lord Belper.] It does not touch loss, but it
does touch damage, whether by neglect or default
Ol' not.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is so; that was
the advice given us upon that point. It is purely
a legal question, and it is impossible for me to
express an opinion upon it.
§ Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
6.13
29 May 1891.
Mr. Hanbury.] What was the advice given to
you as to a signed declaration of this sort, how
far did it release the company; did it release
them from everything except wilful misconduct 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That was a point we
did not go into. We carefully abstained from
going into the question of owner's risk. That
contract before you, I think, is a contract giving
what is called owner’s risk.
Mr. Pope.] It is.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] In common parlance it
gives owner's risk, but that is a totally different
thing from this.
Chairman.] What is the distinction between
a consignment of goods to be carried at owner's
risk and a declaration by the owner that his goods
are undamageable 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think it is not a very
great distinction, it is a special contract in each
particular case. What is contemplated is a
declaration, J presume, by the London and North
Western company, or something of the sort, of
undamageability: “Convey for me such and
such goods, which I deciare to be undamage-
able.”
Mr. Hanbury.] This yellow paper, I suppose,
might cover total loss?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I have not seen it, but
I think it would.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have the special con-
tracts been in use ever since the Act of 1854 °
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] And a case has never
arisen.
Mr. Pope.] The only cases which have arisen
have been where the contracts entered into have
come before the court to decide whether the
conditions under which they were made were
reasonable conditions, because that is the con-
dition under the Act of 1854, and although that
is the present form, there have been modifications
of it to bring it into conformity with the decisions
of the court from time to time, but there has
never been anything before the court as to the
reasonability of the conditions the companies
sought to affix before entering into such con-
tracts. -
Chairman.] The Act of 1854, by Clause 7,
says: “Provided always that nothing herein
contained shall be construed to prevent the said
companies from making such conditions with
respect to the receiving, forwarding, and delivering
of any of the said animals, articles, goods, or
things, as shall be adjudged by the court or
judge before whom any question relating thereto
shall be tried to be just and reasonable.”
Mr. Pope.] I ought perhaps to have called the
attention of the Committee to the fact that there
are a number of conditions on the back which
are summarised by the party agreeing to the
conditions on the back of this note, and every
one of those points has been the subject of a
judicial decision as being reasonable.
Earl of Belmore.] Does owner's risk cover
non-delivery, that is to say, absolute loss.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, unless caused by wilful
default on the part of the company’s servants.
Earl of Belmore.] Then anything coming across
the Channel would fall under it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, it has been decided
that it does not.
Earl of Belmore.] If you say there is no such
case, I have a case every week of things sent at
owner's risk, and such a thing would apply to
goods sent by sea if they were lost.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That would not cover
it ; it has also been decided that it would not
cover a case of delay.
Mr. Nelson.] That was upon a particular note;
not this note.
Mr. Hanbury.] Were these words of yours,
Mr. Courtenay Boyle, intended to include cases
of damage by the wilful misconduct of railway
companies’ servants.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, I think not.
*
Mr. Balfour Browne.] If your Grace is going
to deal with the matter in this separate way,
would you allow me to address you upon the Act
of 1854 now Ż
Chairman.] No, we only wanted to hear wha
Mr. Courtenay Boyle had to say. -
Mr. Balfour Browne..] I shall have something
to say about the Act of 1854 afterwards.
Mr. Pope. I do not know whether it would be
convenient if Mr. Courtenay Boyle were to state
now the reasons the Board of Trade were actuated
by in putting these articles from one class to
another.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I only wish it devolved
upon Mr. Pope to do it for the Board of Trade
instead of upon me, because I have not had much
experience in stating arguments, but rather
listening to arguments. If it were done by Mr.
Pope it would be done much better than it can
be done by me, but I will endeavour to state
what were the reasons influencing the Board of
Trade in coming to this decision. In the first
place, I should like to refer to a word Mr. Pope
used. He said uniformity was a very good thing
if it could be brought about without injustice.
It is hardly necessary for me to explain to the
Committee that the Board of Trade are most
anxious to do nothing which is unjust, but iſ by
“injustice " he means revision, then I am not
quite sure that I agree with him. The intention
of the Act of 1888 is that there should be revision.
The word used all through Section 24, which is
the section under which the Committee is work-
ing at the present time, is “revised.” “Revised; ”
“revised” runs through the whole section ; it is to
be a “revised schedule of classification,” and a “re-
vised scale of charges applicable thereto; ” and
Surely the intention of the section was that there
should be revision ; that the fact of the existence
of certain statutory powers in the past should
not be held to be an irrefutable argument in
(81.)
4 H 3 favour
614
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE .
29 May 1891.
favour of the maintenance of those statutory
powers for the future. In the Grand Committee
certain words, as the learned counsel on that side
and the general managers perfectly well know,
were struck out, which limited the power of
the Board of Trade to fixing rates which were
equivalent to the present maximum. The only
guide to the Board of Trade, and the only guide
to the Committee which is given in the section,
is that that scale is to be “just and reasonable.”
It was, in the view of the Board of Trade, clearly
in the contemplation of Parliament that there
should be a revision, and, if necessary, a change
in the statutory powers of the company. There-
fore it is no argument (at least the argument
did not prevail with the Board of Trade) that
the proposals which they submit to Parliament
involve in certain cases a reduction of the powers
of the company. Frankly speaking, as . I told
you about hay (and as either, Lord Balfour or
myself will have to tell you about several other
rates), the proposals before Parliament now in
many instances do involve a reduction of the
powers of certain companies. The Board of
Trade have endeavoured to get at a scale which,
is uniform, and which is on the whole a fair com-
promise between the claims of the traders on the
one side and the claims of the companies on the
other side. That brings up the question which, as I
have said before, is intimately connected with this
question of classification, viz., the question of
rate. It is impossible that the Committee can
properly deal with the amendment which is before
them at the present moment unless, in addition
to the considerations of classification, they have
before them considerations of rate also. If the
two could be kept perfectly distinct, it would be
a great advantage, but unfortunately they cannot.
Now, first, as regards classification, the learned
counsel pointed out that logically the proposed
classification was bad, because the articles in the
iron list in Class B., which is practically the iron
list in List A, of the Railway Clearing House
Classification (it is List A. but Class B., and
List B. Class C.). Practically those two are
identical ; not absolutely identical, but practically
identical. It has been said that the classifica-
tion is illogical, because these articles are, to a
great extent, manufactured articles. They may
be, but they are of the simplest and coarsest,
perhaps, is a bad word, but simplest class of
manufacture. Cannon balls, anvils, they are
manufactured certainly ; bars, beams, binders,
they are manufactured certainly ; but the
amount of manufacture which they have
undergone is of the smallest possible kind.
Following the principles laid down in our Report,
these articles are properly placed in Class B.,
having regard to their bulk compared with load-
ing, having regard to their value, and having
regard to their damageability; those are the
three main considerations which induced the
Board of Trade to put the Iron list A into
Class B. Now then for rates. I am afraid it is
impossible to deal with this question without
referring to rates Lord Balfour has prepared,
and I think the Committee would like to see not
only with regard to this question but with regard
to other questions that are coming before them,
a rough tabular statement of the powers of the
companies now before the Committee in respect
of their main Acts. Taking the London and
North Western Company, there are set out the
Act of 1846, the Stour Valley Act, the South
Staffordshire Act, and the Lancaster and Carlisle
Act. Taking the Great Western Company,
there are set out the Act of 1847, the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Act, the South
Wales Act, 1855, and the Wilts, Somerset, and
Weymouth Act. Similarly for the other com-
panies, the main Acts are chosen. Now the articles
are exemplary articles; I do not quite like to use
the word “typical,” but exemplary articles in the
various classes of the classification, coal, stone, and
manure in Class A., pig iron, iron undamageable,
and bricks in Class B. Alkali, grain, and flour,
damageable iron, and timber, in Class C., and so
on. What are the powers, leaving out of con.
sideration the pig iron, as to which I understand
the Committee do not contend that it ought to
be in Class C., leaving out pig iron and taking
iron undamageable. Those three headings which
are contained in the bracket represent articles
selected from the companies’ statutes, which are
in our undamageable list.
Of course the classes
in Acts of Parliament do not embrace all the
articles which are in Our undamageable list;
there are a very large number that are not
named; in no Act of Parliament is there any-
thing approaching the exhaustive classification
which is attempted in the Provisional Order
before the Committee. Now, taking the three
lines in the bracket, the Act of 1846 gives powers
per ton per mile of 13 d. under 50 miles; in the
Stour Valley Act, 1 ; d. per ton per mile ; in
the South Staffordshire Act, 1% d., and in the
Lancaster and Carlisle Act, 3 d. Then in the
case of the Greaf Western, the powers are l; d.,
and gths of 1 d. in the Act of 1847; in the Ox-
ford, Worcester, and Wolverhampton Act, 1+ d.
and 1 d. Then we come to the Midland, and
here comes in a difference (a difference which is
perfectly freely admitted), in the Midland the
powers are 2 d. ; and in the Gseat Northern, the
powers are 23, d. ; in the Great Eastern, the
powers are 1* d., and in the London and South
Western, 3 d.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle hands in the opposite
Table.
Now reducing it all to uniformity, having
regard to the great bulk of the traffic which goes
under this heading, having regard to the
undamageability, having regard to the easiness of
handling, the Board of Trade have put un-
damageable iron in Class B., and have assigned
to that class a scale of rates which has reference
to the lower and not to the higher powers’
at present enjoyed by the companies. Un-
questionably, and I admit it perfectly frankly,
the proposals of the Board of Trade cut
down the statutory powers of certain of the com-
panies, the Midland and certain others; but they
leave the powers at a position which, having
regard to the decisions of the Legislature in
certain instances, and having regard to all the
facts of the case, the Board of Trade believe on
the whole to be just and to be reasonable. It is
a revision. Whether the revision is justified it is
for the Committee, having heard the evidence, to
say; but you cannot arrive at a settlement of this
difficulty unless you admit the principle of
r revision
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888. * + - (To face page 614).

LONDON & NORTH-WESTERN. GREAT WESTERN. - - MIDLAND. - GREAT NorthERN. Eºis. , L. & S.W. L. B. & S. C. L. C. & D SOUTH EASTERN.
tºº ſ sº f a- -- ex ſ
~ --> . P-, º --> • F-4 te grº. re: 2- gº. ~
ºc aş ~ *. C GD se * O Cſ) Tº: <e . " * Sp : G) #, g
Ž | # #: < | = # || 5 | # É # | # § H :B | = 3 # 3
.., | # . H ; == F | 3 ă r= < rº cº – > 3 := :/. # -
~ Sº * H $. º ** ** nº g: e - ! * º: *** * ~ #.
# # é # 5 # 3. # | # £ 㺠# g; # º F | 5 . = , # | #
Čſº 35 + º + , * C * re: 3 OC O y -4 º cº +5 "C eS,
– == rº § 3. p: § 16 3 rº- 2. ă ş 5 E - .# ſº → ~ 3. © *- ; :
sc >, as : t- 5 : 35 § 35 sc, rº 5 rº .# = # , , | H & H cºi re e 5 : *{ # = <! : £ 23 *=ºº.
-H # #. ge <! : ; Tº: a - *H gº * : E.T.: §§ 3 re. SC F. Sº * + £ 3 || 5 ce & T.
2 cº ; 3 23 ... 3 : 2 ºf 2 cº § º O ~. 33 | # 3 P. 2 ce 3: . 3 2: à E 2 2– • 3
tº :- JC. †: ...; gº tº * re. P. * \cs do ſº; P-> # cº, # - 2, 3 r-H 5 Ż cº * * * * F -- P-I cº º cº Šd º, . G.) == Sps.
*H & e-4 g § 3 +: ;: r=. , ci lºš ~ E. tº-1 º 35 S 3 e- tº , r •º £ ~ $4-1 o St. +: tº eas 2: Sº Spg ~ *—, , ſº .º.bg
O E G § 3; > 3: †E 3 3 c O P- 33 #3 3.5 * : 5 * +: C †: 3; Sº ‘53 £ 35 --> .E 3 R £3. *5 °35
5 S 3. 5 : 5 # = 3 = # 5 § º ‘5 — 5 r- § H 3 & 5 ſº 3. 3 3 : 5 ā- 3 = § i: ; £ # = 3 Cº
<! Zſº Úſ. H -: O CO P- <! CC: H ſº CŞ H HI. H <! H -: r -- 3: #2, 2. -eń pº
— `- - 2– ~ —s. _^ → * –º *s - _^T ~ * 2- _* - ~s - - - - ------ - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --— * * * * * == r → *-* * * * ~~~~~~. s. sº. º * *
* Pop t Per ton 3% - Per ton f & Per ton r Per ton {
Miles * * per | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Miles i Per ton per. Miles | Per to: Per ton | Per ton | Per ton Miles | Per ton per miie Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Miles | Per ton per mile Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton | Per ton Per ton | Per ton
mile if t lmile if : per mile * * if - - :
* . tº - if for -
º | *~. & & - & * * * g - * • & te * & º te &
under. mile. 15, or 50 | mile. mile, mile. under. mile. 15, or 50 under. mile. ing mile. mile, mile. Ul *:ds mile. mile. mile. under, mile. 15, 24, or mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile. mile.
miles. miles. 50 miles. } $º e | 50 miles. -
d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. 'd. d. d. d. d. d d d d. d. d. d d d
Coal - - - 50 I § I 1; 3 50 1% # 50 1# I 2 2 40 1% I 2% 1} 1% 24 I # 1; 2} 13 1% 3# 2 iſ 3 2 2 3 2 Coal.
ſ' 15 1% 1} 1; 1; 2 15 1 : 1 & 1#. I 1% 1% 1% I 2 1} 13 15 1% 1} 2 2 1% 1% B 2 1% 2 1 : 2 2% 13 ||
Stone - º tº º ºs l p=s - Stone.
&=& - 2 2 - ñ() 1#. # ~ 2 2 3 - - - - *E* gº º- sº <- * * * - º-º: --- * - * *
Manure - «º- sº * - 1% 1; 2 2 2 15 1% l; 2 2 l; I # l; l 2 1} 1% 1% 1% 2 2 1% 1% 3 2 1% 2 1% 2 2% 1% Manure.
Pig iron - - - - 50 1#. I 1% 1 : 3 5() 1} # 1} l 2 2 2 1, 2% 1% 2 1#. 1# 2 2% 2 1} 3# 3 1% 2 2 2 3 2 Pig iron.
Less than ||
ſ 1} I 1% 13. 3 1 & # 1} I 2 2 2 1% 2} 1# 2 * 2% 2 2} 2% 2 1% 3# 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 |
Iron, undaml., List A. | 2 1; 2 2 - I5 1% 1% 2 2 3 3 2% 2 3 2} 3 1#. 1% y 3 B 2 4} - * 3 3 3 H; - Iron, undaml., List A..
2% 2 3 3 * 50 2% 2 3 R * — — - * * - Miles and * - *º- -- - 2% sº * * - sº *- # &= - |
º under. - .#
Bricks - - - - || 15 ‘l; 1 # 1% 1% 3 1% # 1+ I 2 2 2 1; 2% 1% 2 I5 1; 1} 2 2% 2 1% 3} 2 1% 2 2 2 : ;3 2 Bricks.
* º - Q 1 Less than † #
Alkali - - - - 50 3 3} 4. 4. 5 3} 3 4 4 4. 4 | d 3 3 4. 4 4. 50 3% 3 4% 4. 4 4 5. 3 1% 2 4 4} Ž 5 3 Alkali.
G H fl { e- tºº - º-> *E* -- --- - sº <-- * - - - 1; •ms - - cº- * * 2 * &º * * * - g &= * l
rain and flour - - cº . Grain and flour
2% 2 3 B 3 2% 2 3 3 3 3 2} 2 3 2} 3 2} 2 3 3 3 2% 4+ 3 1% 2 3 3 # 3# 2 || ** * * * * * is e
3.
ſº 2 l; 2 2 8 2} 2 3 3 3 3 2 *1, 2} l; 2 2% 2 2# 2} 2 2 3} 3 2 3 2 2 P-> 3 2 || i -
Iron, daml., List B. e- ă : Iron, daml., List B.
2% 2 H 3 tº- 4-º: --- * * -- * 2% 2 3 2% 3 li 1; 3 3 3 2% 4} - 3 4 3 3 P-> 3# – ||
- Q
Timber - - - - 2; 2 3 3 3 2} 2 3 B 3 3 2% 2 3 2} 3 . 2% 2 3 3 3 2 4} 3 2 2 H 3 # 3# 2 Timber.
3
Cotton, raw - sº sº 3 2% 4 4 à 3 2% # 4 4 4 3} 3 4 4 4 3 2% 3% 4 | - 4 2} 5% 3 8 3 4 4% .# × 3 Cotton, raw.
-->
Oils, not dangerous - &= 3# 3 4 4 D 3} 3 4 4. 4 4 3} 3 4 4 4 3} 3 4} 4. 4 2} 5; 3 B 4 { 4% # 5 3 Oils, not dangerous.
* * * * {, --- *º- * * * * - gº ** sº 4- --- e- sº sº * gº e-º sº: 2 3 - Rº º wº *
Sugar - - sº tº - § Sugar.
- 2% 2 3 3 3 2% 2 3 3 3 3 2% 2 3 2% 3 2} 2 3 3 3 2% 4} 3 4 5 #3 3 3. 3# 2
i - 9
º
Hardware - - - 2% 2 4 4 5 8 2} 4 4 4. 4. 3# 3 4 4 4 2} 2 3} 4 4. 2% 5% 3 3 4 4 4; # 5 8 Hardware.
Wool, raw - - - 3 2% 4 4 ;D. 3 2} 4 4 4 4 3% 3 4 4 4 3 2% 3} 4 4 2% 5% 8 2 3 4 4% F. 5 3 Wool, raw.
gº * ă
Tea - - - - - 3} 3 4 4 5 3} 8 4 4 4 4 3% 3 4 4 4 3} 3 4} 4 4. 4 5% 5 3 4 } 4% 3 5 3 Tea.
P:
Chemicals - - - 3} 3 4 4 5 3% 3 4 4. 4 4 3; 3 4 4 4 3% 3 4} 4. 4 4 5} 3 4 2 4 4% 3. 5 8 Chemicals.
++
! 2} 2 4 4 5 º 2} 4 4 4 4 3% 3 4 4 4. 2% 2 3% 4. 4 2% 5} 3 4 :) 4 4} 5 3 l
Drapery, heavy as ºs Drapery, heavy.
3 2% - wº-s -> - * *- * *** * * - - *- ~ || || – gºe *-* - tº-e - - * - wº- * * º - - - || ©. *
Hops - sº sº gº 3} 3 4 4 5 3} 3 4 4 4 4. 3# 3 4 4 4 3% 3 4} 4 # 2} 5% 5 2 8 4 4} 5 3 Hops.
Drapery, light - - || 3 2} 4 4 5 3 2} 4. 4 4 4 3# 3 4. 4 4 2% 2 3% 4 4 2} 5} 3 4 5 4 4} 5 3 Drapery, light.
Feathers - - - - 3} 3. 4 4 5 3% 3 4 4 4 4 3% 3 4 4 4 3% 3 4% 4 4 4 5} 3 4 (§ 4 4} 5 3 Feathers.
Furs - - - - 3} 3 4 4 5 3% 3 4 4. 4 4 3% 3 4 4. 4 | 3} 3 4% 4 4. 4 5% 3 4 6 4 4. 5 3 |Furs.
::: f f + - -- |
In the cases of the London and North Western Act of 1846, and the Great Northern, Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Act of 1852, there is an additional charge of d. per ton per mile, and in the case of London and North Western (Stour Valley) Act of 1846, there is an additional charge of 3 d. per ton per mile, when coal is conveyed in waggons belonging to either of these
companies; in all other cases the figures stated are believed to include the provision of waggons by the companies. *
When the figures are printed in Red, it applies that the article opposite which the figure stands is not mentioned in the Act referred to, and therefore the power claimed by the company is as for an unenumerated article.
5°/2 #
º extra is allowed on goods conveyed less than ſ łl of the whole distance.
ſº 2
25°le liſ
ºl.... . ſº
...ſo | extra is allowed on goods conveyed less than; ; } of the whole distance, except on traffic at 1; d. per ton per mile
1 */ liſ
j 3.
* , J A 9 g 4.
ſººn is allowed on goods conveyed lesh *{ jº the whole distance, except on traffic at 1 d. or 1+ d. per ton per mile.
9 |o .#
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
615
29 May 1891.
revision, and undertake revision without neces-
sarily regarding the present statutory powers of
all the companies. There is no logical mean
between leaving things exactly as they are, and
to some extent cutting down the earnings of the
companies and cutting down their statutory
powers.
Mr. Hanbury.] In the case of hay you said
that you had not only lowered the existing
statutory powers of the companies, but that your
Provisional Order gave rates even lower than
the actual rates, or rather that the effect was to
reduce them. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I admit it.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does that apply to iron also?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] To a less degree, I
think, if the maxima proposed by the Board of
Trade are fixed that certain of the rates now
charged by the companies, certain of the rates
which were paid by the traders in respect of
undamageable iron will be no longer possible
for the future. -
Mr. Hanbury.] Then by undamageable list A.,
do you mean undamageable in the sense of the
word in which it is used in the schedule or at
owner's risk, because this classification here, list
A. and B., is at owner's risk P -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The adjectives at the
beginning are really only explanatory.
Earl of Camperdown.] At the beginning of
what P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] At the beginning of
the table ; they are not meant to be legal words.
I am merely saying that the articles which are
in our undamageable list have such and such
powers at the present moment.
Mr. Pember.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle's last
remark even goes so far as this, does it not Mr.
Boyle, that you reduce some of the actual rates
in the case of companies whose maximum rates
are lower than those of the Great Western and
London and North Western ?
Mr. Pope.] I think Mr. Courtenay Boyle will
find that in 999 cases out of 1,000 there is an
absolute reduction as against actual rates charged.
Earl of Camperdown.] That your maximum is
in 999 cases out of 1,000 reduced
Mr. Pope.] No, the actual rates irrespective of
maximum ; the present suggested maximum
would reduce 999 out of 1,000 actual rates.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I am sure Mr. Pope is
not contending that the companies are charging
more than they are authorised to do at the
present moment. - . -
Mr. Pope.] No, at the present moment I am
not advised as to that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I point out this: that
we propose to give power to charge in respect to
Class B. l.25 d, that is 1+d.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Which is the power of
the London and North Western ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Which is the powerof
the London and North Western. The power of
the Great Western is 1; d. -
Chairman.] The question is not what their
power is, but what they are actually charging.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I prefaced the observa-
tion, your Grace, by asking whether they are
charging within thcir powers, and we are giving,
with respect to the Great Western Company,
higher powers than they have now ; so that,
with respect to the Great Western, we cannot
be reducing them. -
Lord Belper.] And they will be getting ter-
minals. . -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Terminals are admitted.
Earl of Belmore.] In the case of the London
and South Western Company, you are ruducing
them 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. With regard to the
London and South Western Company, that is
admitted.
Mr. Pember.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle will find
that he is reducing the rates below the actual
charges of the Great Western, and below their
powers, too.
Mr. Shaw.] Under what Act 2
Mr. Pember.] That Act of 1847 applies to a
very small portion of the Great Western Rail-
Way.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I admit that where
they have a 2 d. power we are reducing the
power, and the actual rates; but where they have
Only l; d. we are giving them greater powers.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is a statement
of fact with regard to which the railway com-
panies and the Board of Trade ought to be agreed.
Mr. Pember.] On which we will put in a wit-
Il CSS. -
Mr. Pope..] We should call a witness. I should
call Mr. Findlay, as the general manager of the
London and North Western; but I may say that
this is the first time that we have had the advan-
tage of hearing any explanation from the Board
of Trade; certainly it is the first time I have
had an opportunity of seeing their figures, and it
would certainly tend to shorten Mr. Findlay's
examination if we had time to look at them.
before we examine him.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Might I say this. I
quite accede to my learned friend’s request ; but
I have no doubt that they are going to put in
figures; they will bring them here and surprisc
us with them on Tuesday. If they are going to
put in a table showing losses, we might see that
In OW.
Mr. Pope.] I have, notable.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You have some table
from which you got your 999 out of
1,000.
Chairman.] The point is whether Mr.
Findlay should have that table, reduced by the
(81.)
4 H 4 Board
616
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
29 May 1891.
Board of Trade, put into your hands before he is
examined.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Then I will make an
application. !
Chairman.] We will deal with your application
in time. Let that table be put before Mr.
Findlay.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The application was
that Mr. Findlay should not be examined to-
day. ... "
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Pope.] That was the meaning of the appli-
cation, your Grace.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] On the ground that
he could not answer questions upon that at
OIn C6.
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace sat an extra half hour
yesterday; therefore, if you average the two
days, we should be adjourning at our average
time. .
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They were well within
their maximum, however. -
Chairman.] But you see we have such an
enormous business to get through.
Earl of Camperdown.] Remember we
adjourn in July, and we may be another year or
tWO.
Mr. Bidder.] There is one point I should
like to draw attention to in consequence
of Mr. Courtenay Boyle's explanation.
At the present moment, assuming that
Mr. Courtenay Boyle and the Board of Trade
are rightly advised for the sake of argument,
and that a declaration by the trader that articles
are undamageable would relieve the companies
from certain conditions of compensation in case
of loss; then upon the face of the thing, inasmuch
as in this classification the Board of Trade have
Mr. GEORGE FINDLAY, having been
Mr. Pope.
4779. WE know that the London and North
Western Company submitted to the Board of
Trade their revised classification ?–Yes.
4780. I should like you briefly to explain
upon what principles you classed, under your
suggested Class B. the articles that appeared in
your suggested classification?—That classification
was adopted after the most careful consideration
by the managers and goods managers at the
Railway Clearing House. Taking the whole
classification it was most carefully and consider-
ately revised, having regard to the nature of the
goods to be carried, of their bulk and of their
extent, and their convenience of handling. The
Clearing House Classification was, as regards
the traders, and I may say almost every one,
admitted to be classification which ought to be
adopted ; but many things were repeated
in different forms in the classification, and
after going through it very carefully, the classi-
fication that was adopted was reduced from
between nearly 2,000 and 3,000 articles, to about
1,400 or 1,500 articles; and we adopted practil
|
introduced these articles into Class B., coupled
with that condition, they have, I venture very
respectfully to say, gone beyond their duties
under the Act of 1888. Their duties were to
revise maximum rates, but a rate that is to be
reduced upon condition of relieving the com-
panies of certain responsibilities, is no longer a
maximum rate; in point of fact they are intro-
ducing into the schedule a condition compulsory,
which is a matter of bargain under the Act of
1854. It must be so. -
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] Could you not
examine Mr. Findlay now ; and then if you
come to any matter connected with this table you
might postpone that to Tuesday ; but you will
probably get a great deal of evidence from him
outside this paper ?
Mr. Pope.] Certainy. :
Chairman.] Then now will you put Mr.
Findlay in the chair 2
Mr. Pope.] If your Grace will forgive me
for a moment another difficulty has arisen. I
am told that Mr. Findlay is summoned before
the Labour Commission for Tuesday, and we
could not possibly finish with him to night;
therefore, it might be desirable that we should
call another railway manager rather than Mr.
Findlay. *
Chairman.] Why is the Labour Commission
to have precedence over us ; why are we not to
have Mr. Findlay in the box and say that he
cannot go to the Labour Commission ?
Mr. Mason.] He opens the railway case there.
Earl of Camperdown.] Well, he opens the
railway case here. +. -
Chairman.] We must have Mr. Findlay and
we cannot let him go till we have done with him
re-called; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope—continued.
cally in that classification; speaking of iron and
the iron list, Class A. and Class B. in practice
ought to be list A. and list B.), the principle of
the classification which had been previously
adopted by the Clearing House. According to
the deposited classification and the deposited
rates, that is the London and North Western
rates that were deposited with the classification,
we saw from the beginning that it would have
the effect of raising the iron rates upon the
portion of the London and North Western Rail-
way, which is subject to the Act of 1846. We
were of course bound to point out at the first
opportunity, which I did at the Town, Hall,
Westminster, that in the desire to effectuniformity
in classification, it might result in doing some
injustice to the traders by raising the iron rates
of the London and North Western Company.
4781. We will deal with that presently, please.
What I want at the moment is this: you pre-
sented to the Board of Trade Class B. of your
revised classification, and that has been extended
by the Board of Trade by the addition of various
articles
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
617
29 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
articles, and altered by the degrading of some
others ?—Yes.
4782. What was the characteristic quality of
your classification B.; what sort of things did it
include 2–We may say, all the crude manu-
factured iron, such as pig-iron and other processes
in its first stage of manufacture; but not the
finished merchantable commodity.
Earl of Camperdown.] Can you hand that in 2
Mr. Pope.] Certainly. (Handing in the same.)
Earl of Camperdown.] This is Class B., as you
handed it in at the Westminster Town Hall.
Mr. Pope.
4783. Before the inquiry at the Westminster
Town Hall. (To the Witness.) Under the Act
of 1888 the railway companies had to submit to
the Board of Trade a revised classification and
schedule of rates ?–Yes. Prior to the meeting
at the town hall at Westminster, by a given date
that was agreed upon, all the companies had de-
posited a revised classification which was uniform,
and a revised list of rates.
4784. I daresay you can recollect pretty well
what your suggested Class B. was. Just give
me the origin of that Class B., because in the
Railway Clearing House classifications minerals
are not included, are they ; there were mineral
classes separate, were there not ? —Yes, but I
think coal was included in the Clearing House
classification. -
4785. I want you to explain to me how the
managers arrived at Class B as based upon the
Clearing House classification, your suggested
classification ?—I think I said before that the
real principle was to include all the articles that
were in the first process of manufacture ; and
then, in addition to that, there were certain other
things included. Girders, for instance, and
anvils, and hammers, and so on ; but all these
things were to be included in Class A, when they
were declared at owner's risk.
4786. List A. are you speaking of?—Yes.
4787. You are speaking of iron purely ; I was
meaning, speaking generally, how did you adapt
your mineral Classes A. and B. to the submitted
Classes A. and B. to the Board of Trade P—I am
afraid that I hardly realise the question ; but in
the deposited list we took first of Class A. every-
thing that was of a crude character, not manu-
factured, such as cannel, cinders, coal, coke,
culm, iron ore, iron stone, slack, scoria, and so
on, intending to make that the class for all
unmanufactured material.
4788. Then when you came to iron 2–When
we came to Class B. we included in it articles
as I have said before that were either partially
manufactured, as in the case of iron ore, blooms
and billets, and so on, and including bricks,
clay, cement, and everything which is generally
carried in bulk and of a large character and
description, and where company find the waggons
for the conveyance of that description of traffic.
With regard to Class A. as a rule the company
do not find waggons for the conveyance of that
traffic.
4789. With regard to that Class B. as submitted
class?—The effect so far as the
Mr. Pope—continued.
that still remains does it no Class B., with the
exception of some articles that have been degraded
to Class A. ; it remains Class B. of the proposed
classification ?—Yes, with many additions.
4790. Quite true, with many additions. Are
those additions so far as iron is concerned ; we
will deal in a moment you know with the limita-
tion of them, articles which for the purposes of
classifaction are in your judgment fairly to be
linked with the articles that stood in Class B. 2–
No.
4791. Then just tell us why?—Because when
you come to take Class A. in the Clearing
House classification, at page 37, you will find
that it includes, as I said before, manufactured
articles, and some partially in the process of
manufacture; and where they are declared as
owner's risk they are charged in a special class
rate, which is Class C. ; that is a class higher
than what the Board of Trade have placed
them in in the schedule which we are now
discussing.
4792. Will you now kindly turn, in the Clear-
ing House classification, to your Iron List A. 2–
Yes. . . "
4793. What the Board of Trade have done,
so far as I can at the moment ascertain, is this:
they have bodily removed your Iron List A., and
have included it in Class B. P-In fact they have
reduced it a class.
4794. Wait a moment. You see your Iron
List A. is for these articles when declared at
owner's risk 2–Yes.
4795. And the Board of Trade have put
“ when declared undamageable" (we will not at
the moment now discuss the difference of phrase),
they have put them in Class B. 2–Yes.
4796. What does the Iron List A. correspond
to in class in the Clearing House classification ?
—Class C.
4797. That is to say in Class S. in your
Clearing House classification which the Board
of Trade rather would say is analogous to Class
C. 2–0uite so. .
4798. So the effect is that they have not only
taken these articles and put them as Class A. in
the classification, but the v have reduced them a
class by putting them in Class B. 2–They have
reduced them one class in fact.
4799. What is the effect upon you of the
London and North Western of that reduction of
London and
North Western Company are concerned, taking
the whole iron traffic, is to involve us in a loss in
actual rates on iron and steel of 16,590 l., and on
pig iron 1,646 l., so that practically it is a loss of
about 18,000 l. per annum.
4800. On actual rates?—On actual rates. I
should correct that in this way, by saying that that
was upon the Provisional Order as first deposited
by the Board of Trade. The figures which I
have given you are strictly accurate upon the
Report made by the Board of the Trade. *
4801. On the original Provisional Order you
mean 2–Upon the Report to Parliament.
4802. Well, the draft Provisional Order 2—
Yes. But on the revision which has since taken
place, consequent upon negotiations which have
(81.)
4 I occurred
618
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
$º,
29 May 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
occurred between the Board of Trade and the tra-
ders, and I will say the railway companies, that
16,590 l. has been increased to 24,466 l. On iron
and steel, and on pig iron from 1,646 l. to 2,586 l.,
making altogether a total annual loss on actual
rates of 27,000l.
Mr. Hunter.
4803. What is the total revenue from iron and
steel, and other things, so that we might compare
them 2–I will answer that question on Tuesday;
I do not think I can answer it at the moment.
Mr. Pember.] This is nett revenue of course.
Mr. Pope.
4804. Is that nett loss 2–That is nett loss.
4805. Let me understand exactly what the
statement is. It is that even supposing you were
to enforce the maximum rates of Class B. in
respect of your iron traffic, that would involve a
loss upon the actual rates you charge of 26,000 l.
a year?—No, I think that is not quite so.
4806. I want to know what it is 2 – The pro-
posed maximum deposited and proposed by the
Board of Trade would have the effect of reducing
the actual rates to the extent that I have men-
tioned to the Committee, but still with regard to
many rates which are very much below the maxi-
mum, if we were to raise those rates (and there
is no doubt we should have the power of raising
those rates, and, if speaking with all submission,
these rates were enforced against us, we must
look where to recoup ourselves, we must raise
other rates) the effect of that would be to dis-
locate trade. I have no doubt we could recoup
ourselves the 27,000 l. by advancing existing
rates where the traders have the benefit of very
low rates in competition with other districts; but
that would have this effect : that where trade
has been built up upon existing local rates, that
trade would be dislocated and injured and pre-
judiced by the extent of the raising of those low
rates that now exist.
4807. In other words, the 27,000 l. loss would
be referable to rates you are now charging in
excess of that which would be the maximum
under the classification B. 7–Yes.
4808. But you have rates in existence which
would not be raised by reason of the degradation
of class?—They would not be reduced.
4809. Therefore no losses with regard to those
would arise ?— No.
4810. That would be with regard to the
higher rates charged ?–To those rates which are
higher than the proposed maximum. And I
may say at once that upon certain parts of the
London and North Western system, for instance,
the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, the London
and North Wesstern Company purchased that
line many years ago at a very high rate of gua-
ranteed interest with the sanction of Parliament
upon the faith that those rates would be main-
tained. But according to the list which Mr.
Courtenay Boyle has been good enough to hand
in to the Committee, the rate for this class of
traffic upon the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway is
3 d. per ton per mile ; we are guaranteeing, upon
the faith of those tolls, 12% per cent. upon
the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway, and two-
thirds of the toll power will be at once taken
away from us, if this receives the sanction of the
Committee.
Mr. Pope—continued.
4811. If I follow yon rightly, although un-
doubtedly there will be, so to speak, the bulk of
the trade upon which the rates are sufficiently
below the maximum to enable you to recoup
yourselves if you could raise them, that would
be followed by such a dislocation, that it would
be injurious to the traders as well as yourselves?
—Quite so ; that is to say, that it would inter-
fere very materially with the low rates quoted
for long distance traffic, as we should have to look
very carefully through the list of rates we are
now charging to the public, and discriminate
judiciously to see where we could put on a small
addition to recoup us for this rather serious
loss.
4812. Let us deal with this very question in
South Staffordshire. We heard the other day,
and you can tell me if it is true, that South
Staffordshire has exceptionally low rates made by
you, totally irrespective of your powers, but as a
matter of encouragement of the trade 7–Yes,
that is so.
4813. Would it be possible for you, without
seriously injuring the trade of South Stafford-
shire to recoup yourselves for the loss by raising
the Sonth Staffordshire rates ?—It would be
possible to a certain extent, and to that extent it
would diminish the trader's profit. But we know,
as Sir Alfred Hickman and those whom he
represents know, that it is our great desire to
encourage the trade of South Staffordshire. I
believe, I am quite sure that our traders are
trading at a profit and advantage because if they
do not do so the bulk of the trade over the rail-
way naturally diminishes and our profits go down
with their profits. Therefore I say that anything
which would disturb the existing relation of
things between the traders and the railway
companies would, notwithstanding the proposed
addition which appears to be in their favour,
react against them. That I am quite clear about.
4814. Let me ask you this further. Will you
explain please, to the Committee what you pro-
posed to the Board of Trade in order to enable
you, by the raising of the class, to maintain your
present income in cases other than South Stafford-
shire, and at the same time to protect the interests
of the traders there 2—What we desired to see
in the first case was a uniform classification (and
I presume Parliament desired to see it) that
should be applicable to all railway companies
alike, so that the traders would have no diffi-
culty in finding out what their charges for any
particular commodity might be; but in the
uniform classification, as I said before, the
effect might be to increase the rates as against
the South Staffordshire traders, and therefore
we proposed, both at the very first time I had
an opportunity of saying so, and subsequently
to the Board of Trade, who, I think, were
partially convinced by the argument, because at
one time they were inclined to adopt our view of
the case and to put this Iron List A. and Iron List
B., or retain them practically in the position in
which they were before in the Clearing House
classification, what we said was this: Adopt
the classification for the sake of uniformity; but,
so far as the London and North Western sche-
dule is concerned, let a clause be inserted to say
that, notwithstanding the rates appended to the
particular class in which iron would be, we
should
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
619
29 May 1891.
should not be entitled to charge more than the
rates fixed in the Act of 1846 over those por-
tions of the main line of the London and North
Western where those rates are now applicable.
Therefore, we wanted to secure uniformity; but
we did not want to secure any advantage, or to
do anything that would interfere with the
existing rates so far as the South Staffordshire
district was concerned.
Mr. Humter.
4815. Could you give us the details of the
24,000 l. to show how it is made up 2–Yes.
Mr. Hunter.] What I want to see particu-
larly is, whether it arises in some parts of the
system or certain districts, or whether it is spread
over the whole 7
Mr. Balfour Browne. I shall also have to
ask him to distinguish in that 24,000 l. iron from
steel; because I believe most of that is in steel,
which was an unnamed article in the old Acts.
Witness.] That is not so.
Mr. Pope.
4816. Can you give the details of that, or
would you prefer it to be done by Mr. Harri-
son on Tuesday ?—I have got a certain amount
of detail here, but it is not complete. I will
undertake, either through myself on Tuesday or
Mr. Harrison, to supply it.
Chairman.] But we cannot part with Mr.
Findlay on Tuesday. The Labour Commission
must wait, That is all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] They must “ learn to
labour and to wait.”
Witness.] We will do our best.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] Have you finished
your examination-in-chief?
Mr. Pope.] With the exception of some of
these details, I should like to have an opportunity
of dealing with these figures.
Chairman.] Then we will adjourn now.
Mr. Pope..] If your Grace pleases.
Mr. Capper..] May I put a question, your
Grace, which I rose last night to ask: whether
you had received the case for the opinion of
the Law Officers of the Crown from the railway
companies 2
Chairman.] No, we have not yet received it.
I do not know whether it has been put before
them.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to Tuesday next, Half past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)
4 l 2
( 620 )
Die Martis, 29 Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
- Mr. Wode Hous E.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
MR. GEORGE FINDLAY, having been re-called ; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
4817. ON Friday last we were dealing with
the distinction between the ordinary articles in
Class B. and the iron and steel traffic 2–Yes.
4818. In addition to the essential character-
istics which we were then discussing, is that
traffic usually dealt with in the same way by the
companies 2–No, certainly not.
4819. Just explain what difference there is in
the method of dealing with the iron and steel
traffic as compared with the other articles in
Class B. 2–There is no doubt that a very con-
siderable proportion of the iron and steel traffic
arises, and is manufactured at works having
connection by private sidings with a railway, and
in those cases, at one end, at least, it is fair to
admit that generally the service of loading and
unloading the waggons is performed by the
trader ; but at the other end, where the traffic is
consigned for shipment or consumption in a particu-
lar town, the service is carried on by the company
including in many cases collection and delivery,
the use of stations, loading and unloading, and
all the services incidental to the ordinary termi-
nal requirements of the traffic.
4820. With the exception then of that portion
of the traffic which, being sent on to the railway
from private sidings, is, as you say, free from that
restriction, is the iron and steel at present inclu-
ded in the Board of . Trade Class B., a traffic
which has to be dealt with at the stations of the
company –Clearly so; then if you come to
analyse the list A. and the list B., the articles
which are not of a heavy character, such as manu-
factured bar iron, steel and so on, and a variety
of things of the ordinary merchant class, are prac-
tically loaded and unloaded at the receiving sta-
tion as well as at the delivery station.
4821. So that although it may be the case
that a portion of the traffic in its mode of being
dealt with is somewhat analogous to the mineral
or unmanufactured article which is characteristic
of the class, a great deal of that which has been
included in the class is of an essentially different
character 7–Quite so.
Mr. Pope—continued.
4822. And of course if that portion of that
traffic, which is so handled by the company,
requires a terminal service, including it in Class
B. makes no provision for any such terminal
rate 2–I do not suppose that the question has
been overlooked by the Board of Trade, but in
putting that into Class B. in the way in which they
have done, they manifestly have got into a diffi-
culty, if they have not committed an error, for
there is no provision made for the terminal servi-
ces in connection with that class of traffic that
has to be dealt with in the manner which I have
described to the Committee.,
4823. Do that, let me put it quite plainly,
including these various articles in Class B., with-
out the necessary provision for a service terminal,
may compel you to carry the traffic and to render
those services without any power to charge for
them P
Chairman.
4842. So I rightly understand that plac-
ing articles in Class B. does not include any
terminals?–If your Grace will kindly turn to
the Provisional Order a little further on, you
will find that the terminal fixed for Class B. in
the schedule is 6 d. per ton, with no provision for
the handling of the traffic. It is quite true, as it
may be said, that where no provision is made
that would be a subject for arbitration and fixed
by the Board of Trade ; it might come under the
provision in clause.
Chairman.] Will you refer me first of all to
the part of the schedule you are referring to ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Page 11, your Grace.
Witness.] At page 11 the station terminal is
fixed at the rate of 6 d. per ton. I would remark
with regard to that, that where an article in
Class B. uses the station, and uses the sheds and
goods warehouses of the company (which it
naturally would do and does do), that is alto-
gether an inadequate sum to fix. Formerly we
had the terminal which was in Class C., that is
a class higher.
(81.)
4 I 3 4825. But
622 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
T.A. KEN
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4825. But I think you have overlooked what
the Board of Trade have provided ?—I have not
overlooked it. &
Mr. Pope.] I assure you Mr. Findlay has not
overlooked what the Board of Trade have pro-
vided. In fact if you had listened, you would
have heard that he has already stated what you
are going to state.
Chairman.] Order, order, you can have all
that when when you have your turn.
Mr. Balfour Browne.j Very well, your Grace;
I thought it would save time.
Chairman.] But I do not think it does.
Witness.] What I say is this, that on page 4
at Sub-section 5 of Clause 5, the schedule pro-
vides that for “loading or unloading, covering or
uncovering merchandise comprised in Class A.
or Class B. of the classification,” those questions
are subject to arbitration and are to be settled
by an arbitrator appointed by the Board of
Trade I presume.
Mr. Pope.
4826. Yes, that is so 2––That would mean
with regard to a very large proportion of the
business, and a very heavy proportion of the
business (the total amount of that class of
traffic so far as the London and North Western
is concerned being 1,800,000 tons a year), either
an agreement with the traders that we were to
charge so much for these services, or constant
arbitration going on in different parts of the
country to determine that question. Therefore,
with all submission, I think it is very unsatis-
factory indeed to leave the handling terminal for
such a large portion of the traffic undefined in
an important order like this.
Lord Belper.
4827. You mentioned 1,800,000 tons a year,
does that refer to iron in this Class B. P-ln
Class B. as proposed.
4828. Iron alone 2–Iron and steel, and those
other articles enumerated in list A.
Lord Belper.] In the list A. under Class B.
Mr. Pope.
4829. Included in the articles we are object-
ing to as included in Class B. (To the Witness.)
I just want you to carry that a step further,
please; you have called our attention to page
Il of the Provisional Order to the fact that for
Class B. a fixed terminal of 6 d. is allowed as a
maximum ?—Yes.
4830. With nothing for the service termi-
mals – No; service terminals are not provided
for in any manner.
4831. Under that Sub-section 5 °–Yes.
4832. Is the user of the station itself with
regard to the two sorts of traffic the same, so
that 6 d. would be a fair charge for both,
users?—Certainly not ; 6 d. is an unremunera-
tive charge for the use of the station. If you
take our great stations in Liverpool, and having
regard to the amount of work that passes
through those stations, the cost of the stations
and the services that have to be provided in con-
nection with the station terminal, by those I
Mr. FINDLAY.
—º
[Con/inued.
—-º
Mr. Pope—continued.
mean cranes, hydraulic lifts, and a variety of
things of that kind, 6 d. is altogether an un-
remunerative payment in respect of the station
where the company have to provide station
accommodation in a large centre like ſuiverpool
or Manchester, or Birmingham or London,
4833. While 6 d. may be a fair maximum
where the traffic is of a character to use the yard,
as the mineral traffic in Class B. P-That is the
distinction. When that terminal of 6 d. for the
use of the station was originally fixed for Class
B., the impression upon our minds (that is those
gentlemen who are acting with me in this matter)
was that it was for the use of the station yard
and appliances in the yard, but not for traffic
passing through and using a warehouse.
4834. In other words, that is the maximum
applicable to such traffic as the mineral traffic in
Class B., but not applicable to the iron and steel
traffic, which would have a further user of the
conveniences of the station ?—That is exactly
how we understood it.
4835. Therefore, although undoubtedly the
loading or unloading, covering or uncovering of
this merchandise might be dealt with by arbitra-
tion under Clause 5, still Class B., if these
articles are included, will, in regard to some of
them, have a user of the station, which is not
represented at all in the station terminal 2–
Quite so.
Mr. Hanbury.
4836. Do no other articles in this class use a
station besides the iron and steel with which we
are dealing 2—I mean the whole of the articles
in list B. -
4837. I am talking of Class B. ; I want to
know whether, in addition to iron and steel,
there are any other articles that will use the
sation ?
Mr. Pope.
4838. I do not want to answer for myself, I
would rather do it in the proper course, but let
us see. (To the Witness.) Let us go through
Class B. Alabaster stone ; is that yard or
atation traffic 2–That would be yard traffic.
4839. Ammoniacal liquor 2–That would be
yard traffic.
4840. Antimony or waste –That would be
yard traffic.
4841. Asphalte paving in
would be yard traffic.
4842. Barytes raw in bulk —That would be
yard traffic.
4843. Basic material, burnt
bulk, to steel converters?—-Yes.
4844. Basic slag 2–Yes.
4845, Blooms; billets, or ingots 2–Yes.
4846. Have you looked through the list; I
made a general statement to begin with ; I do
not know whether it is subject to any exception;
do you know any exception to the general char-
acter of Class B. as presented, except these iron
and steel articles you are now complaining of?—
Take the question of blooms and billets, it is a
fact that with regard to iron and steel—
4847. Wait
blocks 2–That
limestone, in
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 623
2 June 1891.] Mr. FINDLAY. [Continued.
Chairman.
4847. Wait a moment, where are you ?–I am
at page 18 of the Provisional Order, your
Grace.
Mr. Pope.
4848. Those are not the objected to articles.
What we want to know is, if you will forgive me
for recalling your mind to the question the
honourable member put to you, what we want
to ascertain is this: You say that the articles
objected to require a greater use of station
accommodation than is comprised in the term
“ yard” –Yes.
4849. Look at those articles that are not
objected to which remain in Class B. ; are there
any of those that are other than yard traffic?—
Yes.
4850. Which 2–Take blooms and billets, that
is iron in a partial process of manufacture, almost
the same as puddle bar, that is in a
partial process of manufacture. There is, and has
been, a large trade of that sort down to Liverpool
and exported to America, because it is admitted
in America as unmanufactured iron, iron in a
crude siate. All that passes through stations
and has to be handled, unloaded, and carried
alongside the ship, just the same as if it were
manufactured iron.
4851. Are blooms and billets included in the
objected to articles?–No.
4852. You still have to afford station accommo-
dation to blooms and billets at 6 d. 2–Yes; but I
was looking at the question of handling also.
4853. What do you say about handling 7–To
settle the charge for handling, we must either
agree with the traders or go to arbitration.
Mr. Hanbury (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
But did the Board of Trade understand by fixing
no maxima that there was to be no charge for
handling.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No ; we pointed
out that as in the case of all other articles in
Class B., when a service is performed, a service
terminal should be charged. That comes under
that arbitration clause which, on being reminded
of it, Mr. Findlay pointed out on page 4.
Mr. Hanbury.] It looks at the present moment
as if there were to be no service terminal That
ought to be made clear. 0.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is perfectly clear.
Earl of Camperdown.] But there ought to be a
reference to Sub-section 5 in that particular
place.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] There would be no
objection to that. I do not think it is necessary.
Earl of Camperdown.] Perhaps not ; but it
would be much clearer.
Earl of Belmore.] Where does the 6 d. come
from that has been spoken of ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] On page
Lordship will find that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] In answer to the
honourable Member's question, in order to get
out of the idea that it is only loading and un-
loading, and sometimes covering and uncovering,
there would be many more instanees even in
Class A., I suspect, where things may be covered,
11 your
and certainly in Class B. there would be many
instances where things may be covered,
Mr. Pope.
4854. (To the Witness.) But now what I
want you to explain to the Committee is this:
You have objected to certain iron and steel
articles which you say ought not to be included
in Class B. 2–Yes.
4855. The reasons you give are these : first,
difference in character ; and secondly, different
mode of treatment in conveyance 2—Yes.
4856. Why did you not object to blooms and
ingots among the other articles?—They were
taken to rank very much the same as pig-iron.
The case I have given you of the export trade
to America is of an exceptional character; and I
had in my mind, in speaking of that, more the
question of the service terminal being a matter of
arbitration than the question of classification.
4857. In fact, you did not object to blooms and
ingots, because it represented more nearly the
case of pig-iron which you deal with variously,
sometimes in the yard and sometimes in the
station —Quite so.
Mr. Hanbury.
4858. But does pig-iron go to the station as
blooms, and billets do?—Pig-iron is certainly
dealt with outside in yards, and does not use the
warehouse where they use the company’s station
at one end.
Earl of Camperdown.
4859. But if that be so, blooms and billets is
not a case in point. If you say that blooms and
billets are the same as pig-iron, or of very much
the same character, then your original objection
falls to the ground 2–So far as blooms and billets
are concerned I quite agree ; I was led to remark
upon that, and it is not a case in point no doubt.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then in that case what
we asked for was instances of other articles
which really use a station and so on. Blooms
and billets would not be an instance.
Mr. Pope.
4860, What the Committee want, and what
I desire you to explain is this --- ? — I have not
got the list before me.
4861. Can we not take the list in Class B. and
go through it. I was going through it but to
shorten time I wanted to point out something
that was not objected to, that does not fall in the
category of yards traffic, in order to see whether
your objection practically is a uniform one, an
objection on principle, or merely an arbitrary
objection. Never mind the articles we object to,
I want the others. The great bulk of them it
seems to me are obviously yard traffic, copperas,
coprolites, creosote, draft, ferro-manganese,
furnace lumps, furnace scrapings, gas-carbon,
granite in blocks, rough or undressed, gravel,
tarred for paving, gypsum for manure, gypsum
stone in lumps; those all seem to me (you will
correct me if I am wrong) to be yard traffic 2–
Yes.
4862. Then we come to iron and steel undam-
ageable 2–There is about three-fourths of the
iron and steel class which would practically use
(81.)
4 I 4 a station
624
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
a station, and about one-fourth, so far as I can
judge from looking at it, is practically yard
traffic, and would naturally and properly belong
to that class.
4863. Then we go on right away to wire-rope.
Let us take it on from page 20. Iron ore,
refuse for gas purifying, kainit; I do not know
what that is ;-Down to the end of wire-rope,
and then the other things...
4864. Then, lead ashes in bulk, lias lime in
bulk, lime in bulk, litter ; that we did object to ;
we have dealt with that, and the Committee
have decided it. Loam, manganese ore, mangel
wurtzel; manure, other than street, stable, and
farm-yard, in bulk; peat, pig-iron, pipes, draining,
common, for agricultural draining ; pitch, coal
tar in blocks, plasterstone in lumps, unground ;
posts, iron or steel, for wire fencing, potsherds,
puddled bar-iron, quarls rock-salt, salt in bulk,
skimmings, flux, lead, tin or zinc, slates, common,
slate slabs in the rough, spar in the rough, in
bulk, spiegeleisen in bulk, stone in the rough
state, sud-cake manure, sugar-Scum. Are there
any of these articles that are yard traffic 2–I
think those you have been reading latterly
would be yard traffic. Then I think, to make
perfectly clear, we ought to put in it is impos-
sible sitting here to select articles at the moment)
a list before the Committee of things which we
object to and of those which we consent to
remain in the class.
Mr. Mason.] They are all put in now.
Witness.] Are they in the list of amendments
put before the Committee 7
Mr. Mason.] Yes.
Witness.] Then give me a copy of that.
Mr. Pope.
4865. We will leave that to Mr. Harrison
presently. Can you point out to the Committee
any article which we suggest may remain in
Class B. which is not of the character of yard
traffic, but is of a character which would require
the user of the station, which it is agreed is not
provided for?—That is the distinction that we
draw ; that all that class of traffic which uses a
yard or is likely to use the yard in the ordinary
course of business, should remain in Class B.,
and that that class of traffic which, in the ordi-
mary way dealing with goods and merchandise,
uses the company’s station, we say should go a
class higher, into Class C.
4866. And although there may be some cases
in which you have omitted a particular article, or
have put a particular article too many into your
classification, that is the principle you desire to
see embodied?—Yes.
Chairman.
4867. You state that there are certain articles
here which you think should remain in Class B,
because they are yard traffic ; can you give us a
list of the articles which are now in Class B.,
and which you think ought not to be classed as
yard traffic, but should be taken out of Class B.
and put into a higher class 7—I think we should
put that before your Grace far better in a con-
crete form.
Mr. Pope.] I agree with Mr. Findlay, your
Grace, that we ought to do that. I only differ
from him in that I think we have done it ; be-
cause, as the evidence stands, we object to these
articles that are included in the general denomi-
nation of “iron not damageable,” and we say
that the whole of them are articles which, ac-
cording to that view, ought to be in a class
higher.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I understand Mr.
Findlay differently ; but I will ask him a ques-
tion about it by-and-bye.
Earl of Camperdown.] And you do not object
to the others ?
Mr. Pope.] We do not object to the others.
Chairman.] But the heading here is “Iron
and steel undamageable,” and the following
articles of “iron or steel if and when declared
by a trader to be undamageable.” Does that
include down to “wire rope,” on page 20?
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Chairman.] That includes all the
which you object to being into Class B. *
Mr. Pope.] Yes, that is all the articles we
object to being in Class B.
Lord Belper.] One item was mentioned here :
“Posts, iron or steel, for wire fencing.” May I
ask you, therefore, why that was not put under
iron articles, which if declared undamageable
may be in Class B. ; why is it to be in Class B.
whether it is undamageable or not?
Mr. Pope.] I perfectly understand your Lord-
ship. That struck myself at the time that that
was a mistake, that it had been overlooked ; that
is all.
Witness.] It is one of those things that has
never been included before; that is the only
answer I can give.
Mr. Pope.] Your Lordship remembers that I
have read over among the articles that are not
objected to, the particular article “Posts, iron
or steel, for wire fencing.” It struck me at the
time I read it that seemed to me to be something
that was manufactured. All I can say is, I
suppose it has been omitted.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] It is not in Iron
List A. ; that is the reason.
Lord Belper.] That is hardly a reason for the
Committee.
Mr. Pope.] That may account for the Board
of Trade having taken Class A. bodily, and said
that it should go into Class B. if declared un-
damageable, to show that was the way they
exempted it. But I do not know that it affords
any reason.
articles
Lord Belper.
4868. (To the Witness.) I want to know what
is the difference between th it and other articles
under the list of iron to be declared undamageable
which takes it out of that list and puts it in
Class B., whether damageable OT not. Can you
answer that ?—I cannot answer it. So far as we
can make out it is a new entry altogether, and it
will be in the discretion of the Committee to deal
with it in any way they may propose.
4869. Would
ON RAIL WAY RATES
625
AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORT, ER 13 LLS.
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[ Cºntinued.
Lord Houghton.
4869. Would not one or two of those articles
which are mentioned, such as kainit and salt and
such artificial manures, be shed goods?–Packed
goods would certainly go through the shed.
4870. And salt in bulk, would not that be a
shed good 2–Salt in bulk never goes into a shed.
Mr. Pope.
4871. Just one other question, if you please. I
am afraid I may sometimes put a question which
has not previously occurred to you, because I
want to have my own mind satisfied about it. As
the schedule now stands, the whole of those
articles simpliciter do stand in Class C. ; if they
are declared undamageable they fall to Class B. ;
that is the effect of the Board of Trade schedule.
Is the declaration of their undamageability, in
your opinion, sufficient to justify their fall from
Class C. to Class B. 2–I think not, because,
speaking from one's own experience in the matter,
it appears to me to be an attempt to be made by
this Provisional Order, or by an Act of Parlia-
ment, to necessitate a special contract between
the traders and the company. Hitherto we
have always understood that a contract at
owners' risk under the Act of 1854
must have a consideration upon the face of it;
that is a declaration that the ordinary rate
of the company is so much, and that the special
rate upon the terms upon which they propose to
carry it is so much less, and that varies according
to the circumstances; there is no fixed rule,
sometimes it may be five per cent., sometimes
twenty per cent. ; and it also has to be held by
the court who deals with the case, that the com-
pany’s liability, that is to say the conditions,
apart from the consideration upon the face of it,
are reasonable conditions. And it has been held,
I believe (I am speaking in the presence of
lawyers), that it is not reasonable to say that the
company shall be absolved where there is a total
loss or conversion of the goods; but that there
are other conditions which absolve the company
from delay and negligence and a variety of
things of what kind. And what I say is this :
that it is an attempt on the part of the
Board of Trade to meet the question of the
owner's risk, which the companies have dealt
with in the way I have described, in a mannel
(to say the least of it) unfair to the railway com-
panies; because it takes from us the power of dis-
crimination as to what the special contract may
be. The question of liability with regard to some
of the articles in this very class may be greater
than what it is in others; but if this is to be held
to be the course of dealing with business in future,
we are absolutely to come down a class, whether
or not the conditions are reasonable which absolve
the company from liability, and whether the con-
sideration is sufficient or too much ; in many cases
it would be too much.
Mr. Hambury.
4872. Assuming that in future there is to
be no responsibility on the part of the railway
companies for carrying these things, what
difference does it make to the railway companies
whether it is a manufactured article or raw
material 2–Well, you may carry that principle,
Mr. Hambury—continued. Yº.
of course, to the whole of the classes; and by
that Ineans, if you are to enact by Act of Parlia-
ment that the company shall be no longer in-
surers of the goods and responsible for their
whole value to the consignor or consignee, every-
thing might be put into a truck and carried in
bulk in a way very different from what they are
to-day. But the principles upon which
we have always discriminated in the charges
has been the value of the goods, the bulk of
the goods, their convenience for carriage,
and their convenience for handling, and a variety
of things of that kind. And in this very class,
if you take the case of ordinary iron traffic, bar
iron, that can be loaded and dealt with in a
particular way compared with girders, bridge
work, and rough work that you cannot load the
same way. I say that the question of liability is
one thing, but the question of convenience of
handling, for which we are entifled to a higher
charge, is another thing.
Mr. Pope.] Would Lord Belper allow
me to call his attention to that question
which he was putting, about posts and rails
for wire fencing 2 It is not included in the par-
ticular objection which I am arguing now,
which has reference, in fact, to the Iron List, A.,
taken bodily by the Board of Trade and put if
undamageable into a lower class ; but your
Lordship will find that in the objections of the
railway companies it is included as a separate
objection. You will find on page 6 of the ob-
jections to Class B. by the railway companies:
“ Page 20, column 2, line 9, omit posts, iron or
steel, for wire;’” so that we have not overlooked
it, as I was afraid. .
Lord Belper...] You propose to treat it in the
same way ?
Mr. Pope.] We do ; not under this particu-
lar objection that I am arguing now ; but it does
appear.
Mr. Balfour Browne,
Is that all you ask, Mr. Findlay ?
4873. (To the Witness.) I just want to ask
you a question or two now with regard to the
table which was put in by Mr. Courtenay Boyle
on Friday, and I will deal with it purely for the
London and North Western Railway Company ;
the other companies may deal with the statement
as regards their own Acts of Parliament. That
table, having reference to the London and North
Western Railway Company, gives four Acts of
Parliament for the purpose of comparison ; the
Act of 1846, the Stour Valley Act, the South
Staffordshire Act, and the Lancaster and Carlisle
Act?—Yes. -
4874. The Act of 1846 we will deal with first,
because it may be said generally to contain your
lowest maximum rates. The other Acts of Par-
liament which are mentioned, in fact, give you
a higher maximum power than that which the
Act of 1846 would give you ?– Yes, and many of
them are important Acts, such as the Chester
and Holyhead.
4875. I think that in the comparison the actual
facts are fairly stated in Mr. Courtenay Boyle’t
abstract, for anything I know.—They are fairly
stated enough and accurately stated; but they do
(81.)
4 K not
626.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEEE JOINT COMMITTEE
** *-* ~-3--- ~~x ---,er. ---
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
not include the whole of the powers of the Com-
pany.
4876. That is so; but as regards those four
Acts they are accurately enough stated,—Yes.
4877. With reference to the Act of 1846, have
you got a copy of that before you ?–Yes.
4878. The powers which are referred to in the
Act of 1846 are those contained in Sections 62
and 63, are they not?—Yes.
4879. Section 62 being the toll clause, and
Section 63 the maximum rate clause 2–Yes.
4880. The one being the price to be paid by
the user of the railway ; the other the price to
be paid to the carrier of the commodity ?–Yes.
4881. Just follow me please, because I want
the Committee to see how it stands. In the toll
clause, at the top of page 3684, “pig and bar
iron,” are included with dung, compost, bricks,
tiles, slate, and so on, and are chargeable a penny
a ton a mile 2–Yes.
4882. Sheet iron, hoop iron, and all other
similar descriptions of wrought iron at l ; d. per
ton per mile?--Yes, those are the tolls.
4883. Without doing more than just pointing
out the distinction. Pig and bar iron are there
dealt with as though they were raw materials;
sheet-iron, hoop-iron, and all other similar de-
scription of wrought iron being under a different
category P-- Yes. *
4884. In neither of those cases is the word
“ damageable “ or “undamageable” used ?–It is
EOt. | |
4885. I can, of course, suggest a reason, but
I do not think I ought to do so now 2–At all
events, when you come to the rate clause, which
is the payment for carriage, the carrier being
Jiable for damage, which the user on the railway
is not, of course, there you have at the middle of
page 3685, “For iron not darnageable, one penny
per ton per mile if conveyed for a distance of 50
miles or upwards; but if for any less distance
Mr. FINDLAY.
#. *-*.i.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
* § w
than 50 miles, one penny-farthing per ton per
mile ”; and in the next paragraph “for 'da-
mageable iron" (and then particularising the
character and class of the iron which they call
damageable, iron), “sheet iron, hoop iron, and all
other similar descriptions of wrought iron, three-
halfpence per ton per mile if conveyed for a dis-
tance of 50 miles or upwards, but if for any less
distance than 50 miles twopence, per ton per mile?
— Yes.
4886–87. And nails anvils, vices, and chains, as
well as hardware are included in a third descrip-
tion which gives 2} d. for less than 50 miles, and
2 d. for more than 50 miles?—Yes. f
Earl of Camperdown.] Before you leave that,
you said, with reference to Section 62, that you
could have suggested to us a reason why the
word “damageable" or “undamageable' was
not used.
Mr. Pope.] Because the user of the railway,
not being the carrier of the goods, is not respon-
sible for damage at all.
Earl of Camperdown.] That was obvious. I
thought you had some occult reason of your
OWI).
Mr. Pope.
4888. No ; , T am quite content when
there is an obvious reason. (To the Witness.) I
should like you now to take these three Tables
1, 2, and 3 (handing in the same to the Committee).
Table I. gives in a tabular form, does it not, the
existing maximum powers, I see it says “maxi-
mum rates’; I suppose it is the same thing as
the existing maximum powers from the three
Acts; the 1846 Act, the Stour Valley Act and
South Staffordshire Junction Act 2–Yes.
4889. There is tabulated in this first table
what you have just explained to the Cola-
mittee —(The Witness hands in the following
Tables):—
No. 1. *.
\
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
IRON TRAFFIC.
ExISTING Maximum Rates of the London and North Western Railway Company for Iron
Traffic.
Per Ton per Mile.

For 50 Miles Under
or upwards. 50 Miles.
LoNDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY CONSOLIDATION ACT,
1846 : d. d.
Iron, not damageable tº tºº tº º tº * tºº tº tºº l 1+
Iron, Jamageable, sheet iron, hoop iron, and all other similar
descriptions of wrought iron wº tº-
Nails, anvils, vices, and chains - t- *
All other iron traffic * . tºº ºf gº
#
:
:
;
ON RAILWAY RATES ANI) CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER
627.
BILLS.
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
No. 1.-IRON TRAFFIC–continued.
THE STOUR WALLEY RAILWAY ACT, 1846:
Pig iron, bar iron, rod iron, plates of iron, slabs, billets, and rolled iron -
Hoop iron, sheet iron, wire iron, and for heavy iron castings, including rail-
way chairs
Nails, anvils, vices, and chains, and for light castings
All other iron traffic º º
THE SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE JUNCTION ACT, 1846:
Pig iron, bar iron, rod iron, sheet iron, hoop iron,
billets, and rolled iron º
Heavy iron castings, including railway chairs -
Nails, anvils, vices, and chains, and for light castings * = }
All other iron traffic - £º
Per Ton per Mile.
Under 50 miles.
—---a
:
d.
§
:
No. 2.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT,
IRON
TRAFFIC,
1888.
CoMPARISON of Maximum Conveyance Rates, exclusive of Terminals, as authorised by the
London and North Western Railway Company’s Act of 1846, and as proposed by the
Board of Trade, to be made applicable to Class B. for Consignments under Ten Tons.

20 Miles.
50 Miles. 100 Miles. 150 Miles. 200 Miles.
London and London and London and London and London and
* North IPTO- North BrO- North Pro- North Pro- North Pro-
Western visional Western visional Western visional Western visional Western visional
Railway Order. IRailway Order. Railway Order. Railway Order. Railway Order.
Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846.
S. d. S. d- s. d. S. d S. d. S. d. S. d S. d S. d. S. d.
Iron not damageable, which
includes pig iron - tº- - 2 1 2 1 5 13 4 93, S 4 8 4 12 6 10 7% 16 8 12 6
Damageable iron, sheet iron,
hoop iron, and all other (le-
scriptions of Wrought iron - 3 4 2 1 8 2 4 93, 12 6 8 4 18 9 10 73 25 — 12 6
Nails, anvils, vices, and chains - 4 2 2 1 10 23, 4 93, 16 8 8 4 25 — 10 73 33 4 12 6
Qther articles now proposed by
the Board of Trade to be in-
cluded in Class B., but not
specified in the Act of 1846 - 5 10 2 1 14 3% 4 9} 25 0 8 4 37 6 10 7} 50 0 12 6
N.B.—When the
r
rates for 50 milcs and
upwards are lower
than those for dis-
tances under 50 miles,
the company are au-
thorised by their Act
of 1876 to charge as
for 49 miles at the
least. The above
figures are calculated
as for 49 miles at the
higher rate.
(81.)
628
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
No. 3.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT,
l 888.
s—
IRON
TRAFFIC,
COMPARISON of Maximum Conveyance Rates, exclusive of Terminals, as authorised by the
London and North Western Railway Company’s Act of 1846, and , s proposed by the
Board of Trade, to be made applicable to Class C. for Consignments under Ten Tons.
50 Miles.
20 Miles. 100 Miles. 150 Miles. 200 Miles.
London and London and London and London and London and
- North IPro North Pro- North EPro- North Pro- North Tro-
Western | visional Western visional Western visional Western visional Western visional
Railway Order. Railway Order. Railway Order. Railway Order. Railway Order.
Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846. Act of 1846,
S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d- S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. s, d. S. d.
Iron not damageable, which
includes pig iron - º &= 2 1 3 — 5 14 7 1 8 4 12 I 12 6 15 73 16 8 16 8
Damageable iron, sheet iron,
hoop iron, and all other de-
scriptions of wrought iron - 3 4 3 — 8 2 7 I 12 6 12 1 18 9 15 7% 25 — 16 8
Nails, anvils, vices, and chains - 4 2 3 — 10 23, 7 1 16 8 12 1 25 — 15 73 33 4 16 8
Other articles now proposed by
the Board of Trade to be in-
cluded in Class B., but not
specified in the Act of 1846 - 5 10 3 — 14 3} 7 1 25 — 12 1 37 6 15 7} 50 – 16 8
N.B.--When the
rates for 50 miles and
upwards are lower
than those for dis-
tances under 50 miles,
the company are au-
thorised by their Act
of 1876 to charge as
for 49 miles at the
least. The above
figures are calculated
as for 49 miles at the
higher rate.
4890. Taking Table I. In all cases the exact
words of description employed in the statutes
themselves are used, with the exception of the
last words, “ All other iron traffic” 7–Yes.
4891. Those words, “ All other iron traffic,”
relate to articles not described, made of iron but
not described in the words of the sections them-
selves?—Yes.
4892. Table No. 2, affords a comparison ——
Earl of Camperdown.] What is the section of
your Act of 1846 that gives you the power for
charging 3 d. for all other iron traffic?
Mr. Pope.
4893. The last paragraph upon page 3685,
“For fish, feathers, canes, cochineal, furniture,
hats, shoes, toys, and all other articles, matters,
and things,” that is the old form. (To the
Witness). Now let us take Table No. 2, that is
a comparison——?—You have not alluded to the
Stour Valley and South Staffordshire Act on
Table No. 1.
4894. Yes I have. It is merely a statement
of what those powers are 2–Yes.
4895. But now, I understood that Mr.
Ay .
Courtenay Boyle preferred to compare the
powers of 1846 with the proposed powers, rather
than those of the South Staffordshire or Stour
Valley Acts, which appear to me (you will tell
me if I am right) to be larger powers than those
of the Act of 1849?–Yes; the Acts of those
two railways, the Stour Valley Act and the
South Staffordshire Act of 1846, being both in
the same district practically, have distinctly higher
rates, considerably higher rates than what the
London and North Western Railway Act of 1846
contained.
4896. This Table No. 2 purports to be a
comparison of the maximum conveyance rates
exclusive of terminals, as authorised by the Lon-
don and North Western Railway Company’s
Act of 1846, and those proposed by the Board of
Trade applicable to Class B. ; that is the pro-
posal of the Board of Trade for consignments of
under 10 tons 2–Yes.
4897. Let me pause for one moment there.
You are comparing maximum conveyance rates
exclusive of terminals 2–Exactly so, in both
CàSeS.
4898. Does your Act of 1846 contain the
Sal]] 6
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
629
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Pope—continued.
same terminal clause which was the subject of
legal decision in the Brighton case ?—I am
advised that it does, exactly.
4899. So that, supposing that decision to be
upheld, your Act of 1846 would give you the
powers which that section gives to charge for
terminal services 2 – It would.
4900. You exclude therefore any question of
such a power, and leave also out of consideration
the defined and express powers which the Order
of the Board of Trade would give?—This com-
parison is of mileage rate only, exclusive of ter-
minal in either case. -
4901. Just let us follow it out. The first rate
is “Iron not damageable,” then by way of ex-
planation you say, “which includes pig-iron " ?–
Yes.
4902. Your present powers would give you
2 s. 1 d. 2—For 20 miles.
4903. For 20 miles the Provisional Order
would give you a maximum of 2 s. 1 d. 2–Yes.
4904. Your present power would give you
5 s. 14 d. for 50 miles; the Provisional Order
would reduce that to 4 s. 9; d. 2–Yes.
4905. And so through the figures which are
shown in that Table 22–For 100 miles it would
be equal ; beyond that there is a gradual reduc-
tion.
4906. Under your Act of 1846 you claim of
course that these articles which we object to
being in Class B. can be charged for as damage-
able iron? – We do, or most of them.
4907. And in that way your maximum powers
now would be 3 s. 4 d. for 20 miles as compared
with 2 s. 1 d. ; 8 s. 2 d. for 50 miles as compared
with 4 s. 9 d, and so on 7–That is so.
4908. But now what I confess seems to me to
be even more important is this: you ask that these
articles should be raised to Class C. 2–We
do. *
4909. I want to see, if we can, what effect
that would have upon your present maximum
powers; whether the proposed maximum of
Class C. would be in excess or in diminution of
your existing maximum powers. That you will
find I think in Table 3 7–I think that first line
in Table 3 is subject to correction, because we
do not propose to raise this article.
4910. To raise pig-iron 2–No.
4911. No ; I know you do not propose to
raise pig-iron ; but this is an actual compari-
SOIl— — -
Earl of Camperaown.] Iron declared not
damageable, I suppose.
Mr. Pope.
4912. Iron not damageablo is the word in the
Act of 1846, I agree. I think that that top line
(inasmuch as we do not propose to raise it) is an
unnecessary comparison, but, however, there it is.
Now “damageable iron, sheet iron, and hoop
iron, and all other descriptions of wrough iron,”
if raised to Class C., would be chargeable a
maximum rate of 3 s. for 20 miles under the
Board of Trade Provisional Order ?—Yes.
4913. Your present power by the Act of 1846,
which is the lowest of all your powers, is a maxi-
mum of 3 s. 4 d. 2–Yes.
4914. And so in all cases it seems to me, yes,
in all cases, some more serious than others; but
Mr. FINDLAY.
t Continued.
Mr. Pope--—continued.
in all cases damageable iron nails, anvils, vices
and chains, if raised to Class C. would in fact be
lowered as regards your maximum power over
the existing maximum powers ?—And in no case
would the powers that are contained in the schedule
of the Board of Trade for Class C. give us a right
to charge more than we possess for undamageable
iron, and for nails, anvils, vices and chains; and
therefore I think (subject of course to the deci-
sion of the Committee) that it is not an unrea-
sonable proposal that those articles should be
advanced a class, and that it is just and reasonable
in fact, seeing that in that case we should not
exceed what our present powers are, but should
be rather below them in fact.
Earl of Belmore.
4915. Could you compare these figures with
what you are actually charging; have you any
table to show that?—When we come to the
Question of rates, my Lord, we shall be prepared
to show in a great many cases the figures we are
actually charging. I am not quite sure that I
could answer that question now, I think not.
Earl of Camperdown.
4916. But then it is very necessary, is it not,
in order that we should be able to estimate how
the fixing of a certain maximum would affect
your railway, that we should know what your
actual charges are at the present time as well as
your maximum charges 2-— Upon that point, if
you recollect, I was asked a question on Friday,
and Mr. Harrison, who will follow me, has got
out certain figures which will show that the
actual rates now being charged will be reduced
by the proposal of the Board of Trade to the
extent I mentioned of some 26,000 l. : and it has
always been admitted as a principle (notwith-
standing what Mr. Courtenay Boyle said the
other day) both by the Board of Trade, I think,
and certainly by the traders, and by my learned
friend, Mr. Balfour Browne, that existing rates
should be covered by any proposed new maxima,
with some margin to allow for contingencies over
and above that. That has been given in evi-
dence by Sir Alfred Hickman, and has been
admitted, I think, by Mr. Balfour Browne, and
by the other side up to the hilt; but, upon that
question, as it involves some details of figures,
and as I have been busy with some other
matters, Mr. Harrison is coming and will follow
Iſl(2.
Earl of Camperdown.] But I observe that in
the tables 1, 2, and 3 that are before you, you
are making this a question of rates. You are
pointing out that you have power to charge at
the present time certain maximum rates, and
you are comparing them with certain future
maximum rates.
Mr. Pope.] That is in answer to Mr.
Courtenay Boyle's suggestion.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then the moment
you get into a comparison of Inaximum rates,
there comes in the very important point, what
are your actual charges now, in order to com-
pare with your present actual charges 2
Mr. Pope..] If you were at the present moment
engaged in deciding what particular rate should
(81.)
4 K 3 be
(330
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
be assigned to that class, I agree that it would
be very important to show that the maximum so
fixed would not operate to the reduction of
actual charges or might operate injuriously to
the reduction of actual charges; but at present
we are not dealing with the question of what
rate shall be affixed to the class, but only with a
view to dealing with classification is this question
of maximum power brought forward.
Earl of Camperdown.] But surely it must be
a very important thing for the Committee. In
order that they may be able to make up their
minds, one very important element in the cal-
culation is that they should know the actual
existing state of things.
Mr. Pope.] That, I think, too; and that they
will know of course; Mr. Harrison will give you
the figures.
Earl of Camperdown.] Before we leave classi-
fication ?
Mr. Pope.] Certainly.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does not the classification turn
very much upon damageability and undamagea-
bility, which you are going to get rid of
Mr. Pope.
4917. I must admit that so far as regards in-
clusion of these articles simpliciter in Class C.,
we are at one. But what the Board of Trade
have done has been to say that if the trader
declares them to be undamageable they cease to
be in Class C., but shall fall into Class B. That
is really what the Board of Trade have done.
(To the Witness.) As I understand, you present
to the Committee the view that the mere
declaration of undamageability is not sufficient
to educe the class?— I do.
Mr. Hambury.] But take this second line here,
you have got damageable iron in the London
and North Western Act of 1846, 3 s. 4 d., in the
Provisional Order, 3 s. The two things cannot
be compared, because the one is damageable iron
and the other is undamageable iron.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Mr. Pope.] No. -
Mr. Hanbury.] Yes, it is damageable iron
charged 3 s. 4d. under the Act of 1846.
Mr. Pope.] What are you reading from ?
Mr. Hanbury.] Table 3.
Mr. Pope.] No; this is the rate provided by
the Board of Trade for Class C., under which
the iron would be carried, and would be
damageable.
Mr. Hambury.] Iłut carrying it at Class B,
you will be comparing damageable iron with
undamageable.
Mr. Pope..] One moment, if you will forgive
me, I think I can make it clear to you. Table
No. 3 shows the existing powers of the Act of
1846 carrying the iron as damageable, and the
charge which, if carried under Class C. as
damageable iron, would be authorised by the
IBoard of Trade Provisional Order ; that is to
say, that whereas we have power now to carry
the damageable iron at a maximum rate
of 3 s. 4 d', your adoption of the Provisional
Order would make the same iron if damageable,
and therefore if in Class (J., carried on at 3 s., or
a variation of 4 d, but if it is carried as un-
damageable and lowered to Class B., the same
iron, instead of being chargeable at the maxi-
mum of 3 s., falls at once to a maximum of
2 s. 1 d.
Mr. Hanbury.] No, no.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, 2 s. 1 d.
Witness.] That is quite right.
Mr. Pope.] I am quite right 2
Witness.] Yes, you are quite right.
Mr. Pope.] Which I say is this: this damage-
able iron
Chairman.] What paper are you reading from ?
Mr. Pope.] Whichever your Grace pleases;
but I take Table 2. What I say is this : for
damageable iron (that is using the phraseology of
the Act of 1846) our maximum power is 3 s. 4d.
If declared undamageable, and therefore brought
within Class B., it falls to 2 s. 1 d.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is what I say ; therefore
you are comparing damageable with undamage-
able 2
Mr. Pope.] Certainly ; the same articles. And
further on, in Table 3, even Table 3 is a reduc-
tion upon their powers, because if conveyed as
damageable under Class C., 3 s. is the rate ; in
other words, to put it with another illustration,
whereas for Class C. at the present time, if the
iron is carried as damageable iron, the maximum
power of the Board of Trade would be 3 s., by
the simple operation of declaring it undamage-
able iron the trader can reduce it a class, and re-
duce the maximum power from 3 s. to 2 s. 1d.
Mr. Hanbury.] Then when you want these
articles transferred to the higher class you do not
want them to be undamageable iron then P
Mr. Pope.] Clearly not; we want the un-
damageability to be, as now, the result of a special
contract under the Act of 1854, and not a mere
declaration by the trader by which he can for
himself reduce the class. I intended to make it
plain ; I daresay I did not; however, I am much
obliged to you, Sir, for putting the question that
enabled it to be clearly stated.
Earl of Camperdown. In your Table No. 2
you say “to be made applicable to Class B. for
consignments under 10 tons.” There is nothing
said in Class B. about its being under 10 tons, is
there 2
Mr. Mason.] You will see that that is the
highest rate the Board of Trade give.
Mr. Pope.] For a consignment of less than
200 tons, and so on.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, I see.
Mr. Pope.] It is a little complicated I own;
but I think we shall get to the gist of it by-and-
bye.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
4918. A few questions, if you please. This
table purports to compare powers with powers ?
—No,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CIH.A.RGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
631
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
—No. This table proposes to compare existing
powers in the Acts of the London and North
Western Railway Company with the proposed
rates suggested by the Board of Trade.
4919. I think you might have adopted what I
said. I said powers with powers; the powers
under existing Acts with what the Board of
Trade propose to give you as powers in a future
Act. As regards your 3 d. clause, “all other
iron traffic ’’ you put that 3 d. on because it is
not classified at all, and, according to your argu-
ment, does not go in a lower class where articles
like it are, but not the highest class of all 2–
That is the interpretation put upon the clause as
it stands. I am bound to say that that has not
been consistent with the practice either of our-
selves or of other companies. We have en-
deavoured to take as it were a leading definition
of damageable and undamageable, and put like
with like, and so class it in that way,
4920. I am aware of that, and am obliged to
you for mentioning it. As a fact, you have
followed the doctrine of ejusdem generis, and said
that you would put all other matters and things
not in the highest class, but where there are
articles like them in a class?–In practice we
have done so.
4921. So that although you have put down a
power of 3 d., you have not interpreted the Act
in your own favour in that way in practice?—
No.
4922. Turning to Table 2, you have first,
“iron not damageable, which includes pig iron’?
—-Yes.
4923. Let me ask you, when we were before
the Board of Trade, was not the demand of the
traders that pig iron should be taken into a
lower class than Class B. 2–Yes, they wanted it
in the very lowest class.
4924. All those undamageable irons that are
mentioned in Class 13. are, I suppose, made from
pig iron ; nearly all ?—I think there are some
that are not, and a large proportion that are
not. -
4925. Is it not the fact that before the Board
of Trade those persons who were interested in
pig iron withdrew their application to get the
class for pig iron reduced, in consideration of the
very fact that undamageable iron was put into
Class B. 2–No, I do not know that of my own
knowledge. There were certain negotiations
with the Board of Trade which they had at the
close of their proceedings; but we were not
necessarily present. I will take it from you that
it was so (I do not know it was so), if you state
that from your own knowledge.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I am going to give
some evidence on it afterwards.
Mr. Pope.] But we cannot be held to admit
that.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4926. But I think that it is fair to put to Mr.
Findlay. (To the Witness.) If that is so, you
are now proposing to raise the undamageable
iron into Class C. without making any commen-
surate reduction of pig-iron 2–I do not see that,
because actually pig-iron is nearly as low as it
can be. The only difference between Class A.
Mr. FINDLAY.
—-mº
[ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
and Class B. practically is that in one case you
find waggons and in the other case you do not ;
and we cannot be blamed for making our own
protest against a settlement that was made, I
say perfectly good naturediy, which we were not
a purty to, and practically behind our backs.
4927. Pig-iron can be in Class A. 2–I am
speaking of the settlement which we are seeking
to disturb between the Board of Trade and the
traders. Of course the Board of Trade had a
very difficult task to adjust the matter between
the Contention of the traders and the contention
of the railway companies, but we were no party
to any settlement that they made with the
traders.
4928. Apart from that, I was asking you upon
the first part of your answer, whether, as a fact,
you could not put pig-iron into Class A. 2–No,
I think not ; because, if you take Class A. prac-
tically, it is the raw mineral class of traffic : iron
ore, pyrites, limestone, and all the things that go
to make pig-iron, and which, as generally known,
is carried in very iarge quantities, in large bulk,
and in owners' waggons. I do not think it
would be quite a fair proposition. -
4929. I think you will admit that the distinc-
tion between raw materials and manufactured
articles is not strictly observed in any classifica-
sion existing at the present time, and cannot be
strictly observed in any future classification ?—
This classification is a question of compromise
and discrimination, and it is almost impossible to
lay down any hard-and-fast rule in any case.
4930, Turning to your table, you have put in,
I find, in the first line, Iron not damageable, and
the rate by the Act of 1846 would be the same
as by the Provisional Order for under 20 miles
— That is so.
4931. Therefore, so far as regards dealing with
that alone, your powers in future will be equiva-
lent to your powers under the Act of 1846 –
For distances under 20 miles.
4932. I also see that for 100 miles your powers
are the same 2—Up to 100 miles, taking of
course, the case of iron not damageable, and pig
iron, there is not very much variation ?–At 50
miles there is a little variation.
4933. There is a little at 50 miles; but for 100
miles it is 8 s. 4 d. as against 8 s. 4 d. 2–Yes.
4934. With regard to the others, I will leave
out the Fifth Class altogether, as you say you
have not exercised the powers in the way you say
have a right to, but, looking at the first three
headings in that table No. 2, Iron not damage-
able, damageable iron, nails, anvils, vices and
chains, can you tell me the relative quantities
that you carry of those articles?–No, it is
impossible ; I cannot tell you.
4935. If, for instance, you were carrying a
very large number of tons under the first, and
and a very small number of tons under “nails,
anvils, vices, and chains,” your powers might
practically be said to be unaltered 2–That, of
course, is a general question; it would depend
very much upon the quantity.
4936. It does depend upon the quantity.
Lord Belper.] I understood the witness to say
that he carried 1,800,000 tons of what would
(81.)
4 K 4 - COhle
6
3
2
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
2 June 1891.]
come under the second and third of these
heads.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4937. I think not. (To the Witness.) W hat
was the 1,800,000 tons you mentioned; was that
the whole of the traffic 2–The whole of the traffic
in Class B.
Lord Belper.] I especially asked whether it
was the part proposed to be moved from Class B.
to Class C. and the witness said yes.
Lord Houghton.] I certainly understood the
witness to say that that was traffic in Iron
List A. 2
Mr. Pope.] Yes, I understood that.
Witness. I am sorry if I made a mistake ; I
had not the memorandum before me; and I was
speaking from recoli.ection. It is this: that the
following are the approximate annual weights.
and receipts for the iron and steel in Class B. of
the Provisional Order, that is, 1,881,000 tons (I
am leaving out the odd hundreds) and 548,000l.
as the receipts. -
Lord Belper.
4938. That includes pig-iron 2–Yes.
Lord Belper.] That is the exact opposite of
what I understood.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Just let me ask you
upon this Table 22
Witness.] Before you leave that, one has of
course to speak from information to a certain
extent, and now I am told that we are not quite
sure that it does include pig-iron ; but we ought
to make it quite clear to the Committee before
we leave it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Pig-iron is in Class B.,
and you read it.
Mr. Pope.] According to the phraseology it
would include pig-iron. We will ascertain
whether it does.
Lord Belper.] That was the object of my
question.
Witness.] There appears to be a little doubt
thrown upon it ; but we must clear up that point
for you.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4939. With regard to the second heading,
“Damageable iron, sheet iron, hoop iron, and all
other similar descriptions of wrought iron,” you
have compared the 3 s. 4d. rate with the Pro-
visional Order rate 2 – Yes, 3 s. 4d. against
2 s. 1 d.
4940. The 3 s. 4 d. was the insured rate ; the
2 s. 1d. is the non-insured rate 2– Yes, and a
very heavy price it is to pay for insurance.
4.941, At any rate there is that difference to
begin with ?–Yes, it is a difference of 333 per
cent, at least, and very often the difference for
the purpose of insurance would be more than
covered by 5 per cent, instead of 30 per cent.
4942. Let me ask you a general question first.
With regard to those articles that are treated
as undamageable articles in Class B., is there a
difference between that class and those treated as
damageable in Class C.?–Yes, I think so.
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4943. You have treated it so in the Clearing
House Classification ?—Yes.
4944. But yet you propose now to put them
exactly in the same class, and not to give recog-
nition to that difference at all?—I think we pro-
pose to recognise a difference. What we ask the
Committee to do is to advance both a class, to
put up both Iron List A. and Iron List B. a
class each practically.
4945. Then, on Table 3, this is not quite a
right comparison, because damageable iron will
be in another class higher up !—Yes, damage-
able iron we hope to see in Class 1.
4946. And you have put it here as if it were
in Class C. ; is not that so 2–That is so.
4947. Therefore it is not quite a fair com-
parison 2–It is a fair comparison as things stand
in the Provisional Order; but I hope eventually
that we shall succeed in our contention, and get
it put higher up ; that is all.
Mr. Pope.] It does not propose, you are quite
right, to show what the effect would be of raising
it into Class 1, according to the suggestion of the
Provisional Order.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Now, I want to go to
something else.
Mr. Hambury | It is not a fact, then, that by
putting this up from Class C. to Class B. you
make it damageable 2
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, they are going to
treat in as undamageable only in Class C.
Mr. Pope.] That is not so. If it is classed as
Class C., it will be carried as damageable iron,
without any declaration of undamageability or
anything else. There are certain articles which
are specified in Iron List B. which it is proposed
to raise to Class, 1, but they do not affect the
general argument. Darnageable iron as a class
would be left in Class C., and carried as damage-
able iron with liability to damage. Therefore it
is perfectly feir to compare the suggestion of the
Board of Trade on that basis.
Earl of Belmore.] You will carry both damage-
and undamageable in Class C. P
Mr. Pope.] No, there is never any undamage-
able iron in Class C , no iron in respect to which
there is any liability for damage.
Earl of Belmore.] Then you will not carry any
iron of that sort at all ?—
Mr. Pope.] Except by special contract.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4948. (To the Witness). You have told the
Committee distinctly that there is a distinction
between the undamageable and the damageable 2
—Yes. -
4949. That is to say, in risk of damage, I sup-
pose 2–Yes.
4950. But you said that the difference of a
class was far too large an insurance 2–Yes, that
is our general view.
4951. Why are you going to make the differ-
ence of a class between those two, Class A. and
Class B. of the Clearing Honse Classification,
because you propose to do that; the only differ-
- €IlC6
ON RAILWAY RATES AN ID CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
633
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
ence is between two higher classes instead of two
lower classes. -
Mr. Popc.] I do not understand the question,
I confess.
Earl of Belmore.] I do not follow it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4952. (To the Witness.) Do you understand
it 2—They are both together so far as I under-
stand it, both list A. and list B. in one class ;
and what we propose is to keep them there.
4953. With great respect, I thought you said
that your proposal was to take Iron List A. of
the Clearing House Classification up from Class
|B. of the Board of Trade into Class C., and to
take Iron List B. up from the place where the
Board of Trade have put it in Class C., and to
put it into Class 1, and the only difference you
told me between the two was the question of
risk -
Mr. Hanbury.] That is exactly what Mr. Pope
contradicted. I understood the witness to say
that ; but Mr. Pope says it is not so ; that the
difference, under the railway company's sugges-
tion, between Class C. and Class 1, will not be a
question of damageability or undamageability,
but a difference between certain articles.
Mr. Pope.] That is exactly so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We will go over it
again. I thought the witness had put it as I
did.
Mr. Pope.] He may be wrong for all that.
Mr. Balfour Browne. *
4954. In the meantime we are dealing with
Mr. Findlay. (To the Witness.) As I understand
you to say that there is a difference in risk
between the two classes?—There is no doubt.
4955. And you also said that the difference in
the rates between the two classes was too great
to cover the difference of risk 2–Yes, I said
that. I meant in all cases; that was a general
3LDSW6 l’. -
4956. Then why, I ask you, do you make that
difference of rate between the two, Class A. of
the Clearing House Classification and Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Because it has no reference to
damageability.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Mr. Findlay has said
that he is going to be insurer of both, that the
risk in one is less than the risk in the other. I
want to know why he has taken what he says is
too much to cover the question of risk.
Witness.] We are dealing with the question
of maximum rates, and there is no doubt that in
fixing a maximum for the articles in this class,
which is largely increased by what the Board of
Trade have done, we must have such a rate as
will cover the most damageable articles in the
class; but it by no means follows, when you
come to actual rates, that you would
discriminate between a thing like pig iron and
the more damageable hoop iron and sheet, iron.
The difficulty in dealing with the question is, in
dealing with actual rates, what they are in prac-
tice and what they will be as compared with
maximum rates.
If you fix a maximum rate for
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
a class you must fix it sufficiently high to cover
the increased responsibility of risk for the most
damageable, the highest article in the Class.
4957. That is true from your point of view, no
doubt ; but there is a difference in risk between
Class A. and Class B. 2–There is practically no
risk in Class A. -
4958. Very well, then it is practically undam-
ageable; that means Iron List A. 2–I thought
you were speaking of mineral Class A.
4959. I am speaking of Class A. in the
Clearing House Classification at page 37, the
Iron List 2–Then we are not speaking of the same
thing. I told you under a misapprehension. I
say it means that there are in Class A. many
things that are very damageable.
4960. Is there a difference in damageability
between list A. and list B. 7–There is to a cer-
tain extent. -
4961. You have treated them so in the past?
—Yes. But the point really which I think we
are at issue about is that the Board of Trade have
practically reduced the greater part of list B.
into list A., and in that respect we are bound, as
I told you before, to have an increased margin to
cover the extra risk which is incurred in that.
4962. Do you see what the Board of Trade
have done 2 They thought that the word “un-
damageable,” threw the risk on the owner 2–
Yes.
4963. Did you not do exactly the same thing,
make a difference of a whole class when the
owner took the risk *—We freguently do that.
4964. Let me read this from the Clearing
House Classification book : “Note.—Aſl articles
marked thus *, may be declared either by con-
signor or consignee (before sending), at owner's
risk, in which case they shall be charged as
articles in Class A.” Does not that reduce it
one class 2—Yes.
4965. For owner's risk 2–Yes.
4966. Why should not the Board of Trade
have done the very same thing. I do not know
whether they have done it or not ; I will argue
that afterwards; but if they have, if they say
“ these are to be carried at owner's risk,” why
should not the Board of Trade do it?—Practi.
cally
Chairman.] Let us understand, is that So?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Chairman.] All these are to be at owner's risk *
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what the Board
of Trade told us on Friday.
Chairman.] What does the schedule say ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4967. The schedule says, “ The following
articles of iron or steel if, and when declared by
the trader to be undamageable.” Whether those
words carry out or not, I will discuss hereafter ;
but the Board of Trade distinctly told you that
their intention was that it should be at owner's
risk and relieve the company from responsibility.
(To the Witness.) One of the things that you
have to consider in classification is the value of
the article is it not?—-That is one.
4968. And when you are comparing rates that
[Continued.
(81)
4 L you
634
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*.
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Balfour 13rowne—continued.
you got in 1846 with the rates, you are to get in
1891, you should have regard to the relative
values of the articles, should you not –If that
was the only consideration, but there are many
others besides.
4969. But other considerations I suppose re-
main much the same. Let me see about other
considerations.
Chairman.] The witness did not give an an-
SW el’.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4970. Do you think that other consider-
ations are less favourable for the carriage
of iron than they were in 1846 °–No, the
conditions of carriage of iron pure and simple
apart from the manufactured part of iron, such
as bridge work, girders, and so on, bar-iron and
steel rails and so on, would be very much the
same now as they were 50 years ago.
4971. Well, it is 50 years ago. One of the
considerations of carriage is the amount carried,
is it not ?—No, I do not think so.
4972. Not for rate 2–-No.
4973. The amount that you carry 2–No.
4974. Not at all ?—If we get a waggon load
that may be one thing; but when you say
“ amount carried,” that is an undefined term.
If you mean by that full train loads or anything
of that kind, I do not agree to that proposition.
4975. But you do agree with the proposition
which I suggested to you, that you must look at
the value of the article?—The value of the
article, the bulk, the cost of loading, the hand-
ling, and the means of making it safe for transit,
For many of the articles which we now carry of
manufactured iron we require specially construc-
ted vehicles to carry them, so dangerous are
they.
4976. Is the value of iron and the articles that
are made from it, the same to-day that it was in
1846 2–That is beyond my recollections, I can-
not tell you.
4977. Is it not within your knowledge that iron
is very much cheaper to-day than it was in 1846,
50 years ago 1–1 could not tell you what the
price of iron was in 1846; I might say probably
with respect to iron rails for making railways,
that in the year 1846, which was the year of
inflation, they might have been 10 !. or 10
guineas a ton, I daresay you can buy steel rails
to-day for half the money. -
4978. And steel rails are a superior article to
the iron rails of 1846 2–Whatever the superiority
may be the actual cost of manufacture is pro-
bably less now than it was in 1846.
4979. Them is it a fair thing to look merely at
the maximum rates without taking into consider-
ation the value of the article 2–I think if the
Committee will allow me to say so, that in
dealing with the mere question of price
you are merely dealing with the fringe
of the question. You must look really at the
whole matter of conveyance as well as the ques-
tion of the price of the article. Take, for
instance, say, the matter of steel rails. We
carry a large quantity of steel rails for ship-
ment both from the Midland districts, Sheffield,
and Cumberland, and so on, and they are now
rolled about twice or more than twice the length
Mr. FINDLAY.
[ Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
of what they were 50 years ago. We cannot
carry a full load of rails without having two
waggons to load them on, and therefore when
you come to deal with the circumstances and
incidents with regard to carriage, you must take
that into account, as well as the price of the
materials. It would be entirely misleading if
the classification was to be settled on the question
of price only. -
4980. Take any article, take the first in the
list, anchors; the condition of carriage, you say,
would be precisely the same now as it was 46
years ago?—No, I do not think so; but there
are anchors and anchors.
4981. So there were then, I suppose 2–The
anchors that are made to-day are probably ten
times the weight and size that they were in the
year 1846. - -
4982. Then, of course, you get ten times the
amount for carriage –In many cases we require
specially constructed vehicles of 20 tons and
30 tons weight for the purpose of carrying these
anchors.
4983. But is that quite right. You deal with
those in an exceptional class; they are not under
these powers; you have exceptional powers for
that in your rate clauses 2—We have exceptional
powers ; but I do not know that with reward to
those particular things we exercise them.
4984. “For articles of unusual length, bulk,
or weight, or of exceptional bulk in proportion
to weight,” that is what the Board of Trade
allow you to charge for.
Mr. Pope.] They have specified anchors,
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But these are anchors
tnat do not come under the description of
articles. -
Witness.] We should treat heavy anchors for
American liners in the ordinary course of
classification without making any special charge.
It is quite true, as you point out, that if there is
anything of undue size, or bulk, or length,
requiring a specially constructed vehicle, we are
entitled to make a special charge for it.
4985. I understood you to say that of this
class of undamageable iron in Class B., three-
fourths would belong to one class and one-fourth
to the other ?—I looked down the list very
roughly ; but Mr. Harrison will come and
count them out and answer the question more
accurately.
4986. Did I understand that in looking down
it roughly, you came to the conclusion that one-
fourth of the articles (I am not going to bind
you to one-fourth but a certain proportion)
might remain in Class B., and that three-fourths.
should be taken up into Class C. —Yes, that is
so. You put one-fourth and three-fourths; but
there are certain articles, and as I said before,
although it is very difficult to follow them in
the amendments which the railway companies
have given notice of, I am quite sure it would be
better for you and better for the Committee if
we actually worked on the classification of the
Provisional Order of the Board of Trade in such
a manner as that they could see what are the
actual articles we propose to leave in, and those
We propose to transfer.
4967. I said I would not hold you bound by
the actual fraction, but, roughly speaking, one-
fourth
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
635
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
---sº-sº smºº ame
Mr. Balfour Brown e—continued.
fourth and three-fourths 2—If I am not to be
bound do not ask me for an answer to the
question.
4988. I want you to answer. You say that
some articles in that undamageable class should,
in your view, remain in Class B. P-I hope my
friends here will see their way to act on the sug-
gestion that I have made, to mention the articles
that are covered by the notice we have given.
4989. In the meantime I am dealing with you.
Do you think that some of the articles should
semain in Class B. P—I agree with regard to
SOIO €.
4990. That is to say, in this class of undamage-
able iron, as set out by the Board of Trade 2–
Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] The witness’ state-
ment was that one-fourth of the articles simply
used the yard and were not station articles.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I will come to that im-
Inediately, because the argument of yard and
station has been used for the first time to-day.
Earl of Camperdown.] He classified the articles
according to whether they used the station or the
yard. -
Mr. Balfour Browne.
§ 4991. He did, I remember. (To the Witness.)
His Lordship is right; that was the way you
classified; one-fourth was what you called yard
traffic, and three-fourths was other than yard
traffic, which would have to use sheds or some-
thing of that kind?—Yes,
Earl of Camperdown.
4992. And that classification was with special
reference to the amount of the terminal 2–
Yes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4993. That is so 2–That is so.
4994. Just let me ask, because the yard
traffic has been introduced for the first time
to-day, and my learned friend, Mr. Pope, did
not mention it ; he mentioned another considera-
tion which I shall have to deal with presently
of manufactured, or partially manufactured, and
raw material ; but, with regard to yard traffic, is
it your idea that all the yard traffic should be in
one class and all non-yard traffic in another ?—
Generally speaking.
4995. Do you know that, in the Board of
Trade Classification, they have allowed a good
deal of yard traffic to remain in Class C. 2–
That is a different class of business altogether.
4996. But it is yard traffic 2
Mr. Pope.] Nobody lays down an abstract
principle.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
4997. But we want to get what the grounds
are; I have a good number of such articles 2–
It may be open to that criticism.
4998. Just follow me, if you have Class C.
I find a very large amount of this traffic seems
to me to be yard traffic.
Chairman.] Which class?
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
4999. Class C.; it is yard traffic that is left
in Class C , or put into it. (To the Witness.)
Alum waste, would that be yard traffic 2–Very
likely.
5000. Alumina water, antimony ore, arsenic,
bark for tanning 2—You read all those things.
I cannot answer. -
5001. You know, of course ?
Chairman.] What is the object of going now
into Class C. P. We are on Class B.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The witness said that
all the yard traffic should be in one class, and all
the station traffic in another.
Earl of Camperdown.]. No ; what he said, was,
that the iron articles which use the yards should
be in one class; he did not say all articles.
Mr. Pope.] There may be other considerations
that raise it to another class altogether, although
it is only yard traffic.
Mr. Balfour Browne (to the Witness).] Then
yard traffic is not the only consideration.
Mr. Pope.] We are not discussing the ques-
tion as if we were merely at nisi prius ; we are
dealing with, and hope to get at, facts. I have
never asserted, nor has Mr. Findlay, nor so far
as I know, has any human being asserted that
one consideration is to rule in the classifica-
tion.
Witness.] My recollection is, that I rather put
it the other way, from the way in which the
learned counsel puts it.
Chairman.] But I think it would be the
simplest mode if we were to hear from Mr.
Findlay what he does say, and what he means.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is what we want
to get at. -"
Chairman.] We shall not do that by merely
making him say something he did not say a
minute ago. He has his views on the matter,
and I have no doubt he will state them freely.
Witness.] It will be in the recollection of the
Committee that I stated at the outset, speaking
of the general traffic in Class B., that it would
be necessary for that description of traffic to use
the station where only a yard terminal had been
suggested by the Board of Trade, and therefore
my argument was that that mass of traffic should
be placed in such a class where it would be en-
titled to a higher terminal, as regards station
terminal, and a definition as regards service ter-
minal.
Earl of Camperdown.
5002. And you intended to limit your answer
entirely to general articles 2–I intended to limit
my answer entirely to general articles. Then I
have no doubt that the question may have been
asked me with regard to all the other traffic that
used the yard. Then Mr. Balfour Browne puts
upon me that all yard traffic should be in a lower
class. I did not intend to say so.
Mr. Hambury.
5003. Is one of your arguments for the trans-
ferring of this into a higher class the fact that they
use stations and not yards 2—That in a large
(81.)
4 L 2 number
636
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
*—
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
number of cases I believe I said three-fourths (it
shall be put more carefully before the Committee),
whilst they use private sidings at one end, in
many cases they use stations at both ends.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5003”. If that is your argument when it
uses a station, and not only the appliances
of the company, that would be an argument
for the traders saying that all the articles
in Class C. that do not use anything but
a yard should be reduced a class 2—I have no
doubt they will use that argument. Do not take
it that I agree.
5004. It will be on all-fours with your argu-
ment?—It will be for the Committee to judge the
weight of the argument.
5005. I pass to something else. With regard
to the terminal, one of our arguments was that
the terminal for loading, unloading, covering and
uncovering was not fixed for Class B., but that
you were relegated to Section 5, which said,
“Loading or unloading, covering or uncovering
merchandise comprised in Class A. of the classi-
fication to be decided by an arbitrator to be
appointed by the Board of Trade”; did I follow
you rightly there 2–It was pointed out to me as
likely to cover that. I gather, if you read
Class A. - –
5006. Class A. and Class B., if you look under
Clause 5 7–But you read Class A. only.
5007. What I want to ask you is this: You
said that if that were so, there would be constant
arbitrations going on to fix the amount of ter-
minal for all these articles?—It will be necessary
to get this settled, I have no doubt, either by re-
ference to the conciliation clause, or by arbitra-
tion, and settled in various parts of the country
in various ways.
5008. Do you know that at the present time
you have not a single terminal fixed on your
line — I know that there is no actual figure de-
fined in any Act of Parliament.
5009. And that with regard to fixing it can be
taken to the Railway Commissioners, in precisely
the same way as this terminal under Class A.
and Class B. can 2–I grant all that ; but if the
object is to inform the traders of the maximum
charges under all circumstances which the rail-
way companies are entitled to charge, it appears
to my judgment (I may be wrong) that for such
a large traffic as we have given you, the maxi-
mum service terminals ought to be defined, and
that the station terminal ought to be amended.
5010. Then you would propose, I do not think
you did, as a fact, you would strike it out, and
put in terminals.
Chairman.] Strike out what?
Mr. Balfour Browne. Strike out Sub-section
5 of Clause 5, and define the amount as one to
be fixed.
Witness.] No ; I said nothing of the kind. I
said, with regard to Iron and those things which
we propose to transfer, that if they are trans-
ferred they maturally fall into a class where a
station terminal and service terminal is fixed ;
and that class would remain operative with re-
gard to the other things left in Class A. and
Class B.
5011. But with regard to that, you would
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
prefer to have that fixed now by the Committee
instead of by an arbitrator?—Practically it would
be fixed if the Committee adopt our contem-
tlon.
5012. Of course, because there is the maximum
terminal for Class C, 2–Yes.
5013. My learned friend said that the prin.
ciple of Class B. was that the articles included
in it were in a sense raw material 7–In Class A.
I understood the raw material was. A certain
proportion of Class B., which we propose should
remain, may be taken as raw, some raw and
Some partially manufactured, such as pig-iron.
Earl of Camperdown.
5014. Before you go to that new distinction,
might 1 just ask the witness a question with
regard to that point of station terminal P He
said in his evidence in chief that that 6 d. was a
proper sum for traffic which used yards, but not
sufficient for traffic that used a station, and that
that 6 d. was agreed upon by the railway com
panies, or considered at all events by the rail-
way companies, on the understanding that
it was for yard services, and he said that
you wished that 6d. increased. (To the Witness.)
Now, what do you think would be a fair sum
to charge for that terminal, as you say the other
is not enough ; you must have formed some idea;
how should you propose to give effect to your
objection ?—When we come to deal with the
question of terminals, that is the terminals in
Class B., assuming Class B. is amended as we
suggest, which is probably assuming a good
deal, we propose to increase that terminal from
6 d. to 9 d.
5015. Then 9 d. would be enough to cover
station traffic 2–Yard traffic, exclusive of ware-
houses. -
5016. And also station traffic 2–And station
to station traffic.
5017. But if you propose to insert a sum of
9 (/., which is what I understand, then would
that on the other hand be too large to cover
traffic which merely uses the yard, which you say
is now amply covered by 6 d. 2—What I intended
to say is that 6 d. in Class B. is a sum that is
mentioned, including the use of the yard only,
and not of the station and warehouses.
5018. And that it is ample to cover that yard
user?—No.
Mr. Pope.] For yard traffic only.
Earl of Camperdown.
5019. But what do you propose to do with
regard to traffic that uses the station as well ?—
With regard to traffic that uses the station as
well, assuming for the sake of argument that the
articles we are contending for are moved up a
class to Class C.
5020. Then you will be able to charge 1 s. ?
— Then we should be able to charge ls.
Mr. Mason.] Station to station traffic only
uses a station as a rule.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5021. (To the Witness.) Now, my learned
friend Mr. Pope said that what you desired to
do
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
637
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
do was to remove these articles out of Class B.
and to leave Class B, for raw materials, and that
pig-iron was, in a sense, a raw material 7 – Raw
material and partially manufactured material.
5022. Yes; it is not absolutely raw material,
but is partially manufactured. Are there not in
this class which you propose to remove a great
number of things that are precisely upon that
footing 2—Will you mention some, please?
5023. Say, bar puddle ; is not that a raw
material for other manufacture ?
Mr. Pope.] If you forgive me, you are quite
right as to principle, but you have selected a
wrong illustration. Bar puddle we propose to
remove simply because it occurs in another part
of the classification as puddled bar, and we do not
propose to interfere with it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5024, Tin plate bars; now, is that a bar that
has to be manufactured into something else, in
the same way that pig-iron is a raw material?—
It is very much like puddled bar ; it is some-
thing which is prepared for the process of manu-
facturing iron or steel, for the process of manu-
facturing and rolling into tin plates.
5025. Why did you treat that differently 7–It
is in the list, I believe.
5026. In which list P
Mr. Pope.] I do not want to intervene, if you
think you can puzzle Mr. Findlay, but Mr.
Harrison is the man who has given attention to
these details, you had better ask him to distin-
guish between them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5027. Very well, I will ask Mr. Harrison. (To
the Witness). Before you go on let me ask you
a question on one or two things that you propose
to leave in the class, because they are unrnanu-
factured. You have already dealt with posts,
iron and steel ?—We have an amendment to
leave them out.
5028. I am quite aware of that. Look just
above that, “Pipes, draining, common for agri-
cultural draining.” Are not those manufactured ;
are they not finished articles 2
Mr. Dickson.] I understand those to be clay
pipes.
Witness.] I understand those to be agricultural
draining pipes.
Mr. Balfour Browne. Can you show me any
place in the classification where iron pipes are
covered ? if not, then I would take it that you
are leaving them in.
Chairman.] I think you ought to show that.
Witness.] I am quite sure they are ; but it is
very difficult to follow on these big sheets of
paper.
Mr. Pope.] “Pipes (exclusive of rain water
pipes), gas, water, air, and steam.”
Witness.] They are included.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5029. “Cement, in blocks or slabs”; is that
manufactured 2–That is entirely undamageable.
5030. We are getting back to something else,
but are they manufactured. We are upon the
Mr. Balfour Browne -- continued.
other principle now. Cement is a manufactured
article, is it not?—Then it is proposed to leave
those in, because I hardly know for what purpose
they are, except the cement in connection with
the material for crushing the stone where they
make artificial doorsteps, window-sills, and
window-heads, and that sort of thing. Cement
itself is never carried in blocks or slabs, it is
carried in connection with the manufacture of
seme other article.
5031. Let me ask you if bricks are not a
manufactured article 2—Of course they are.
5032. Then what was the principle on which
you have taken out the manufactured things?
Mr. Pope.] That is an exception.
Witness.] You do not compare bricks with iron,
surely
Mr. Balfour Browue j I am asking you this.
My learned friend, Mr. Pope, opened that the
principle of classification was that Class B. was
to include raw material.
Mr. Pope.] I did not allege the principle
without exceptions. It is not a perfect principle.
I do not think you can find a perfect principle in
classification at all.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5033. “Coal, fuel, patent;” I suppose that also
is a manufactured article 2–If you go on the
word “manufactured ” of course you may say,
and fairly enough say what you are saying ; but
if you come to define the thing as to what is the
fair rate to charge, and how it is fairly to be
classified, you must take it that it is properly
classified as it is, You cannot define classifica-
tion by harping upon one particular word,
“manufactured,” or “unmanufactured.” You
must look at the whole circumstances of the
case. Those things that are proposed to be left
in are, as you say, manufactured or partially
manufactured. For instance, concrete in block
slabs, and various things; but they are quite
right to be left in that position, irrespective of
the word “manufactured.”
5034. We think that manufactured anchors
and anvils should be treated in the same way ?—
It is comparing things which are not alike if you
think so.
5035. It is impossible to get a class for things
that are absolutely alike 3–No ; the difficulty
will vanish when the class is settled, by taking
these things out of where the Board of Trade
have put them, the difficulty has been bringing
all these things, which are separately classified,
down into comparison with things in which there
is no comparison.
5036. You told the Committee upon the last
occasion that the loss upon iron and steel was
16,590 l. 2–I have said, with regard to that, that
Mr, Harrison has gone more carefully into those
figures. Those figures were upon the first report
to the Board of Trade.
5037. I am coming to the 24,030 l. 2—If you
will kindly let that stand over until that Mr.
Harrison comes I shall be obliged.
5038. Will you let me remind him that I want
to have from Mr. Harrison the distinction as to
(81.)
4 L 3 In OW
638 MIN UTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
how much of that 24,000 l. is represented by
steel and how much by iron 2–I can answer that
by saying that you cannot have it ; it cannot be
or Ot.
* 5039, Let me ask you upon that, is not this
pretended loss very largely accounted for by the
fact that steel was an unnamed article in any of
your Acts 2–No, certainly not.
5040. Tell me in what Acts it is mentioned ?
—It is not mentioned in any Act, but my nega-
tive answer to your question was that the ascer-
tained loss is not based upon the estimated power
of the company to charge steel as “articles and
things not otherwise mentioned.”
5041. I know that, but the fact is that you
have claimed the power to charge steel in the
fifth class rates ?—The comparison I submitted
to the Committee the other dav (and Mr.
Harrison will give it more in detail) is a com-
parison of actual rates with the proposed Board
of Trade powers.
5042. I am quite aware of that ?—And there-
fore your question, if you are aware of that, is
totally irrelevant.
5043. Let me ask you this.
is, that as it was not named, you could charge
that 3 d. and 3; d., which was the maximum rate
under your Act of 1846. We also suggest that,
seeing that you could do so, your rates for steel
were exceedingly high. I want to see how
much of the 24,466 l. is due to that cause ?—I
can say at once none; and I say that generally.
You shall have it more particularly in detail
from Mr. Harrison.
5044. I thought you told me just now that you
could not tell me how much of it was for steel.
I thought you said it could not be separated ?–
With regard to that ; in our mode of charging
we charge steel and iron exactly the same rates,
and it is a comparison of actual rates being
charged. Steel is included in the estimate we
have made, but we cannot tell you how much is
steel and how much is iron.
5045. You mean to say that all over your
system you are charging the same rates for iron
and steel ?—Yes.
5046. Exactly 2–Yes. We do not distinguish
whether a bar of iron is rolled under the old
process of rolling mills and puddled in the old
fashioned way as bar iron, and made into iron, or
whether it is made in the Bessemer or the Bossig
process.
5047. Is it the fact that ingot moulds, ingots,
blooms, billets, puddle bar, packing iron, heavy
scrap, and other sorts of castings, are only 10 per
cent. higher rates than pig-iron to-day?—I think
that is something like the general difference.
5048. Are you not going to take all these
things into another class, making the difference
between those and pig-iron 50 per cent. 2–You
say 50, but I do not think the difference is 50 per
Cent.
5049. You will find the difference is 50 between
the two classes 2–Speaking from recollection,
looking at the figures, I think the difference
between the two classes will be 30 per cent.
Mind, you again are dealing with the principle
of maximum powers, and I do not know that if
our present charges are covered, there is any
Our suggestion
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
intention to disturb our existing rates, and your
clients would have reserved to them the same
principle of dealing with equitable charges in
future as they have to-day, if we are not
materially interfered with in exercising our pro-
per charges. -
5050 You see the Board of Trade said that
regard should be had in fixing rates to the actual
charges, and you tell me that the difference made
between articles, is that made ——?—I have told
the Committee not only what the Board of Trade
said, but that you have said over and over again
with a margin to cover contingencies and increase
prices.
5051. Did you really think that we were to
take every rate that you were charging, what-
ever its amount, and add a margin on it; did you
think that that was our proposition ?—Certainly,
from the very beginning we have understood, in
the discussion of this question, from the highest
authority down to the very lowest, that there was
no intention, I say down to the very last tribunal
at least, to cut rates.
5052. That is a different thing; did you
think? — Wait a moment. Therefore I say
that admitting what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
stated the other day, that the rates have
been cut with regard to these very iron
rates, as affecting, not only this company, but
other companies, and that that was their view of
the word . “revision,” I say distinctly that
although the word “revised ” is used twice in
that Clause 24, the revision meant certainly a
lust and reasonable revision which should be fair
and just towards the railway companies as well as
towards the traders. We never understood it to
mean cutting the rate.
5053. Did you understand that there was to
be a give and take P---Assuming that I did, in
this case it is all give and no take.
5064. That is a question of evidence ; we think
that we can show that it is the other way ?—
Whon we come to the rates. -
5055. Yes?—I wish we could keep it only as
rateS.
5056. With great respect upon your own evi-
dence you told us the other eay that in regard to
24,000 l.: you could recoup yourselves if you
choose 2–Certainly.
5057. Where is the cutting of rates ?—At the
risk of dislocating trade, mind you, and very likely
causing our friends in South Staffordshire to cry
out a great deal more ; because they are not
self-supporting, they are dependent upon the
low rates for which we bring raw materials into
the country to manufacture nails and chains, and
ali other process of manufacture; and if we did,
as we could, raise the coal rates in South Wales,
and for pig-iron, and in the Northamptonshire
and the Cumberland districts, South Staffordshire
would be a great deal worse off under the new
state of things than they are to-day.
Chairman.
5058. When you say at the risk of dislocating
trade, because you would put on higher charges
than what you make now, do you confine those
remarks to the iron trade alone 7–Our loss is
chiefly in the coal and iron trade. Coal is a
very consideration loss, and no doubt (I do not
Say
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
639
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
ſ Continued.
Chairman—continued.
say it as a means of influencing the Committee
or using any undue threat towards traders) as-
suming that this Committee were to confirm the
Provisional Order of the Board of Trade, and we
were left to stand at a loss of what is 150,000 l.
odd in net revenue, we, like prudent people,
would have to look about to see where we could
recoup ourselves; and in many instances, such as
shipment of coal, such as South Staffordshire
depends upon, raw material coming from long
distances, we should reduce the profits of those
gentlemen by putting on something more within
the powers which your Grace would have the
power of giving us under this Provisional Order.
5059. You would be dealing with the iron and
coal trade but not with other trades outside 2–
With regards to other things, I go so far as to
say that in the other things, the alterations
that are made are not nearly so great, but really
they benefit no one ; they are spread over the
five classes of traffic, over a variety of articles in
those particular classes, and really and truly, if
the Provisional Rates of the Board of Trade are
Sanctioned, those traders will get 1s. here and 2 d.
there, and so on ; in the accumulation it comes
to a large thing as regards the companies, but a
small thing as regards individual traders, and
benefits nobody.
Mr. Hanbury.
5060. If the Provisional Order stood as it is
now, you would recoup yourselves from those
people who are now getting exceptionally low
rates ? —Of course we should have to use our own
judgment and power of discrimination to do it
judicially, so as not to stop the trade.
Earl of Belmore. -
5061. The iron and coal trade you mean P-
Yes. With regard to other things there could
be no question at all. Many things we are doing
for the public at large. We are giving them
warehouse accommodation and a variety of things
that they are not entitled to without payment.
We could do it, but it is at the risk of disturbing
the whole trade of the country, which has been
built up on the present state of things.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
5061*. As I understand, under this
Provisional Order, you would have to level
up some of the people who are at present getting
rates very low 2–We should stand to lose, so far
aa the London and North Western Railway
Company is concerned, nearly one per cent of the
met dividend.
5062. Would you mind trying to answer the
question ?–To prevent that loss, there is nº
doubt that we should judiciously have to level
up; somebody would have to pay 3 we could not
afford to lose that sum of money.
5063. Then I take it that if you could level
up there are some people in the country (I do not
know where) who are getting exceptionally low
rates at the present time 2–Yes; which we
believe in a great measure conducive to the in-
crease and maintaining of the trade in certain
parts of the country :
5064. Therefore these parts of the country
are, according to you, to have a bounty out of
the pockets of other people in the same trade ?—
No, I do not say so.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
5065. That is what you are doing, as a fact,
just now 2–No. If that argument is pressed to its
ultimate issue it can mean nothing else but a uni-
versal mileage rate, which would be the greatest
misfortune that could happen. There is no bounty.
It is quite a fact that, with regard to a certain
portion of the trade, we have to carry at a less
profit than other portions; but probably if we
did not carry at those rates, or something like
them, the trade would not exist at all.
5066. Therefore in order to induce that trade to
exist, you have to give them very low rates, and
you would have to recoup yourselves by higher
rates somewhere else?—No, I do not agree to
that proposition. What I say is this, and I say
it very boldly, that notwithstanding the conten-
tion that is taking place before this tribunal, the
interests of the railway companies and the
interests of the traders are identical ; and that
wherever a trade exists even at the lowest margin
of profit to enable that trade to be carried on,
we are prepared to carry the trade at that small
profit. In other parts of the district, where the
circumstances are not the same, we get pro tanto
higher rates. That is our business. It is the
business of railway managers and railway goods
managers to consider those things every day, and
to deal with special operations in the manner that
all business people do deal with matters of that
kind.
5067. We shall have to come back to that.
As I understand you, you say that this loss of
24,466 l. will be caused because you will have
to cut down some rates that you are at present
charging 2–Yes.
5068. Therefore where those rates are cut
down, somebody who is paying a high rate to-day
will get a lower rate in future ?–No; I can only
illustrate it in one particular way now. In a
certain part of the London and North Western
system we are carrying traffic for short distances
at comparatively high rates; that is in Cumber-
land; and if we are cut down in these particular
rates, we shall lose a considerable sum upon the
conveyance of that traffic for a short distance,
and a comparatively high rate. But that will not
only affect us; it will affect an adjoining railway,
the Cleator Railway, which was a railway con-
structed by the traders themselves; they will
have to reduce their rates. And another rail-
way, called the Joint Whitehaven, Cleator, and
Egremont Railway, which the Furness Com-
pany and ourselves bought from, a trading
interest at 10 per cent.: with a toll of 2 d. per
ton per mile, we shall have to bring down to
13 d., simply because this Provisional Order 1S
sanctioned. It affects not only us in carrying
at higher rates for short distances, but it affects
neighbouring companies who are bound to lose,
because they cannot charge higher rates than
we are entitled to charge by this Provisional
Order. &
5069. You are not in the meantime argu-
ing for the Cleator Company, but for the
London and North Western Company P-For
the joint line I feel it, and for the joint line we
have had to reduce the rates, and have lost for
the last 10 years from 20,000 l. to 24,000 l. a
year.
4 L 4
5070. Then
(81.)
640
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT UOMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
5070. Then you say you will have to cut
down the rates ?—Yes.
5071. Therefore the traders there (for whom I
not appearing) will get an advantage they do not
at present get?—Yes. But what I want to im–
press upon the Committee is this. You say that
in certain districts we are getting high rates. I
say quite true, we are getting comparatively high
rates for short distance traffic, and that is a fair
and reasonable thing to get. But if you cut the
rates down to the figure that you are proposing,
then we shall lose upon that short distance traffic,
not that the people are paying too much, but for
the sake of producing uniformity through the
system.
5072. Will you not be recouped on your long
distance traffic 2–I have already said that if the
event happens which I have already alluded to,
that is the sanctioning of this Provisional Order,
we shall have to discriminate very carefully and
go through the schedule as it will come from
Parliament to see how best we can make up the
loss. Somebody will have to pay that loss.
5073. And under the Board of Trade Provi-
sional Order you have sufficient margin to recoup
that loss, you have told us already. I do not
know whether you know these rates; from
Ebbw Vale to Cardiff, do you carry there 2––
No.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I do not whether any-
body is coming from the Great Western Com-
pany.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr, Balfour Browne.] Then I prefer to leave
them.
PWitness.] I think we may carry from Ebbw
Vale to Cardiff, but perhaps it would be better
to ask Mr. Harrison about it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] You told my learned
friend that you thought the difference between
the two Classes, B. and C., was only 30 per
Cent.
Chairman.] But did not Mr. Findlay tell the
Committee that all these details would be better
answered by Mr. Harrison.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not this one ; I have
had it worked out, and I find that the difference
is 46 per cent., so that I was near it when I
guessed it at 50 per cent., and that is for 50
miles; for 100 miles it is 46 per cent.
Mr. Pope.] It depends upon what figures you
reckon upon ; it is 30 per cent. if you knock the
proportion off 50 per cent., if you put it on a
small figure.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But I am comparing
the figures.
Witness.] It cannot be 46 per cent. ; if you
take the ten-ton loads, it is the difference be-
tween 1:20 and 1.75.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
5073*. On page 1 of this Return, which you
have given in, you quote the Stour Valley Act
of 1846, you quote “pig-iron, bar-iron,”
&c.
Chairman.] Are you now taking the whole
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
case, or upon which one particular part of the
case are you going 2 -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am opposing the pro-
posal of the railway companies to remove
List A. -
Chairman.] But that is Class B.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] To remove List A.,
iron articles, from Class B. to Class C.
Chairman.] In fact, you are going into the
whole case; I only want to know for the infor-
mation of the Committee.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I propose to go into the
whole case, but very shortly indeed.
Earl of Camperdown.] You know Mr. Pope
said the other day you might have some indi-
vidual grievance of your own which he might be
able to remove. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] We discussed this
question with the railway companies, and I am
at liberty to say that we failed to come to an
agreement.
Chairman.] My question was only as to the
point of fact.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5074. I propose to deal with the question
generally. (To the Witness.) Now in this
quotation from the Stour Valley Act, you
quote “pig iron, bar iron, rod iron, plates of
iron, slabs, billets, and rolled iron ; ” now, if you
refer to the quotation in the paper before you, on
the first page of the return, which is given by
the railway companies, and then if you read the
first few words of the Act, it does not begin “Pig
iron, bar iron,” but it begins, “For all coals, coke,
ironstone, iron ore, and pig iron,” does not it 2–
Yes. -
Mr. Pope.] You are quite right in that;
there are a good many articles which are men-
tioned there in the same classification which are
not included here, because they are not before
the Committee.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5075. The point I want to make is this: that
in this Act, which has reference to pig iron,
bar iron, &c., they are classed with coals and
coke. (To the Witness.) That is so, is it not?—-
I take it from you that that is so.
5076. In fact, taking the Stour Valley Act,
iron should be in Class A., if the Stour Valley
Act was observed. Then will you tell me how
the South Staffordshire Act 2
Chairman.] I do not know what it is that you
are taking as a matter of course. When you
say “should be in Class A.,” do you mean in
Class A. of the Provisional Order ?—
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The contention of the
railway companies is that these articles should
be in Class C. and not in Class B., and in support
of that contention they put in quotations from
several Acts of Parliament, and I say that in
those Acts of Parliament bar-iron, &c., should
be, not in Class C., as they contend, but accord-
ing to the Acts in Class A. You must not take
me as agreeing to that; it is the fact, as you say,
. that
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR IDER BILLS.
641
am –-
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
that these things are classified, raw material and
partly manufactured material, together.
5077. They are classified with coal, in fact 2–
They are classified with coal, but it does not
follow, because they are so classified, that all the
things now mentioned are to be in Class A. You
know our contention, that they ought to be sepa-
rated, one in Class A. and the other in Class B.
5078. Will you now refer to the second page,
if you please. “Iron not damageable, 50 miles.”
It is the first line upon the second page. Now I
see you put in under the 1846 Act, 5 s. 14 d., do
you not ?—Yes.
5079. Is not the rate under the Act of 1846 a
penny a ton a mile 2–Yes; but if you will read
the footnote at the bottom, we got that amended
in the Act of 1876, because there you got into
the difficulty of adopting a graduated scale, or a
scale going by steps ; it is provided for in the
Act that, anything notwithstanding, we may
charge for 49 miles, and that would be 49 miles
at 1% d. .
5080. But under the 1846 Act it would be
instead of 5 s. 1 # d., 4 s. 2 d., would it not ?
Mr. Mason.] It was to correct a clerical error
in the Act. *
Witness.] If it was not for further legislation
it would read 4 s 2 d., but that was corrected in
1876. If you will kindly look at the foot-note
it says, “When rates for 50 miles and upwards
are lower than those for distances under 50
miles, the company are authorised by their Act
of 1876 to charge as for 49 miles at the least.
The above figures are calculated as for 49 miles
at the higher rate.” That is 49 miles at the
J } d. rate.
5081. It would have been fairer, then, instead
of taking 50 miles, to have taken some distance
which is not affected by that clause of the Act of
1876 —I think we took the steps according to
£he schedule of the Board of Trade.
5082. If you had taken 70 miles as the rate,
the rate would have been 5 s. 10d., would it not ?
—Seventy miles at a penny would have been
.5 s. 10 d. -
5083. That is identically the same as the
Board of Trade have proposed, is it not ?–I
admitted to the Committee that, taking the first
line up to 100 miles, practically there was little,
if any, variation.
5084. There is absolutely none, but your
account shows that there is considerable varia-
tion ?–Upon 150 miles and upwards, subject to
the qualification I have stated, there is consider-
able variation; but what I think you mean is
that taking the 50 miles and taking the articles
mentioned in the first line, though they are not
exactly identical, yet there is not much difference
between what is proposed by the Board of Trade
and what we profess to be our powers.
Mr. Hanbury.
5085. But the articles you propose to move
Qup a class are not in the first line, they are in the
second line 7–Yes, they are in the second line.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5086. You take the second line, if you please,
* damageable iron.” The Boad of Trader's pro-
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued
posal you put down is 2 s. 1 d, for 20 miles 2–
Yes.
5087. The rate in the schedule is 1.8, is it not,
2 s. 1 d. 2–But we are assuming, in this com-
parison, and upon that calculatson, the state of
things which the Board of Trade propose ; that
is that those articles remain in Class B.
5088. Do the Board of Trade propose that
damageable iron should be in Class B. 2–Do they
not.
5089. Certainly not in Class C. The Board
of Trade proposed that all articles which are not
declared damageable in a manner binding upon
the freighter shall be in Class C.
Chairman.] What class are you quoting. On
page 22 it says “all articles included in the un-
damageable iron or steel list if not declared by
the freighter to be undamageable.”
Mr. Hanbury.] That is what the Board of
Trade propose, that all articles damageable in case
they are not declared to be undamageable shall
be in Class C.
Witness.] What we say to that is, that a mere
declaration will not make black white ; that a
mere declaration that iron is not damageable
will not alter its character; that it will be just as
damageable after the declaration as it was before.
Mr. Hanbury.
5090. But surely it would release the railway
companies from responsibility ?—We say not.
Earl of Camperdown.] We heard on Friday
that if that document were duly made out, it did
release the railway companies from responsi-
bility ?—Yes, but the difference is this : that
under the state of things which exists to day, we
could require the traders to sign that document
and to be ourselves absolutely relieved from any
question of damage or any ordinary risk what-
ever, under the new state of things ; if this Bill
passes, the trader will snap his fingers at us, and
will never sign the document at all. We were
told by Mr. Courtenay Boyle that the Board of
Trade had been advised by the highest legal
authority that the declaration would have the
effect which the Committee think it would,
We take leave to doubt that ; and I think,
speaking with all submission, if the Board
of Trade have advised upon the point of law upon
a question of that kind, that the opinion of the
Attorney General, or whoever it may be, should
be submitted to this Committee to see whether it
would have that effect, or whether it would not.
Mr. Hambury.] But surely, all through we
have been going on the assumption that if the
Committee do leave things as they are, a declara-
tion of “undamageability’ would relieve the
companies from their responsibilities.
Witness.] That may have been in the mind
of the Committee, but it is not so in our mind.
Mr. Pope.] The proposal of the Board of Trade
undoubtedly is to enable a trader, by declaring
his iron as undamageable, to say that it shall
be carried as though it were pig-iron.
Witness.] Of course I do not presume to have
anything more than a practical knowledge of the
question, but I should say, if that is the intention
(81.)
4 M of
642
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
of the Board of Trade, assuming for the sake of
argument the Committee were to adopt that
contention, that practically there must be some-
thing in this Provisional Order, when it receives
the sanction of Parliament, which would repeal
the clause in the Act of 1854.
Lord Houghton.] That is rather more a point
for you to argue, Mr. Pope.
Mr. Hanbury.] But I think we ought to go
on the assumptian that if a thing is declared
undamageable the railway companies should be
released from all responsibility, else we should be
confusing the questions.
Witness.] I go so far as to say that if the
Committee adopted that view of the case, yet
the classification would be wrong.
Mr. Pope.] We had very early in the day got
so far as that.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.j I think Sir Alfred
Hickman's point is this upon the table, that to
make this line a fair comparison it ought to run
something like this : “Damageable iron, sheet,
hoop, rod, and all other descriptions of wrought iron,
when declared undamageable by the trader ; ”
if those words had been put in there it would
have been less misleading than I venture to
think it is.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there is any mis-
understanding about it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] This is a question of
damageable iron, and it is accordingly placed in
Class C. of the Board of Trade order ; it is
declared to be and is understood to be dam-
ageable iron, and is in Class C., beyond all
possible question.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think there can be any
misunderstanding about it. I have stated half-
a-score of times (and I think generally I can
make my meaning clear) that that is exactly the
fact, and the question is whether a declaration
of undamageability, whatever effect it may have,
is sufficient to reduce all classes of iron with
such a declaration to a level with pig iron for
conveyance.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] This is not at all the
b e º tº - º
question in point; the question is whether this
account is a fair statement of the charges or not.
Chairman.] You must forgive me for saying
that I think it is exactly the point, and I should
like you to address yourself to it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I think the point has
been clearly and fairly threshed out to the satis-
faction of the Committee, and I do not propose
to take up further time with it; but what I was
trying to get from Mr. Findlay is that this ac-
count, which professes to show that the rates in
the Provisional Order are lower than the rates
proposed in the Act of 1846 is not correct ; that
is all. -
Witness.] We think it is.
Mr. Hanbury.] Not correct in what point 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5091*. In dealing with the Provisional
Order they quote the rates wrongly; they say
damageable iron is in Class B. in the Pro-
visional Order, and they give the rates for
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
Class B., whereas they should give the rates for
Class C., because damageable iron is unquestion-
ably in the Provisionol Order in Class C. (To
the Witness.) If damageable iron is in Class C.,
I ask whether Class C, in the Provisional Order
is 1 '83–I have no doubt it is.
5092. If that is so, the rate for 20 miles
would be 3 s, instead of 2 s. 1 d., as you stated ?
Mr. Pope..] It is all on the table.
Witness.j Putting the case as you put it, I
should answer it in the affirmative.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] And in the next column
it would be 7 s. 3 d. instead of 4s. 9d.
Mr. Pope.]
make it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I make it 7 s. 3 d., and
upon 100 miles it would be 12 s 1 d. instead of
8 s. 4 d.
Witness.] Assuming your question, it would
make that difference. - -
5092°. I am assuming that damageable iron
is in Class C., which there can be no question
about ; now you said, in answer to the Earl of
Camperdown, that you considered that, for shed
traffic, 1 s. a ton was a fair terminal 2–
That is the rate fixed in the special class,
Class C.
5093. Do you think 1 s. is a fair terminal
for iron 2–-Where it uses the station, cer-
tainly.
5094. Do you consider l s. 6 d. a fair ter-
minal for the other classes 2–If you are going
through the whole list of terminals for the other
classes—
5095. No ; we have something to say with
regard to the other classes. -
Seven shillings and one penny I
Chairman, You are going now to the charge
for terminals; I though we had done with all
that.
Sir Alfred Hickman.]. Mr. Findlay put it that
it ought to be Class C., because 6 a. terminal
was not enough, and he said a 1s. terminal
would fairly represent it. Now I ask him if
1 s. 6 d. is a fair terminal upon the other
classes.
Witness.] The Board of Trade have fixed it at
1 s. 6d. ; we claim more ; but, so far as I can
see in the other classes, that is to say, Class 1 to
Class 5, we are disposed, when we come to the
question of terminals, to accept the proposal of
the Board of Trade, subject to anything
we have to say as to those towns, London
and Liverpool, where it should be somewhat
higher.
5096. Is there any relation between the cost
of providing terminal accommodation ; that is to
say, on the question of station terminals for silk,
or for birdcages and for iron 2–You are com-
paring things which are not alike. I should
say there is no comparison between iron and silk
or birdcages, that the one requires more careful
handling than the other, but as regards station
terminals, I should say that silk requires rather
less use of the station than iron does.
5097. Will you say what amount of station
accommodation a truck of bird-cages will take
as compared with a truck of iron; or take any
other
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
643
2 June 1891.]
Mr. FINDLAY.
[Continued.
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
other article you like, thermometers, telescopes
or thimbles?—Those things do not go in truck
loads. -
5098. But how much more in proportion, or
something like proportion, would the articles
enumerated in Class 5 require in station room
than iron would require; a thousand times as
much or a hundred times as much 2–You will
not get at what the fair charge for station
terminal for iron is by comparing things which
are not alike. What you have to consider,
dealing with the business of a large station, is
what the station has cost, and then to apportion
that relatively to all the traffic that passes through
it. You cannot pretend to discriminate between
what is a fair station terminal for one class of
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
traffic more than for the others. If you do that
you must have a separate terminal for each
separate article mentioned in the classification,
which would be impossible.
5099. For articles of the class of ribbons and
rocking-horses you consider that the relation of
1 s. 6 d., as compared to iron at 1 s., fair 2–You
must take it, subject to my answer, that you are
comparing things which are not alike.
5100. Do you say that is fair or not ?—You
cannot compare them ; and I would rather not
answer the question.
Mr. Pope. I have nothing to ask you in re-
examination.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is again called in, and Examined, as follows:
Mr. Moom.
5102. YoU are the Goods Manager of the
Dondon and North Western Railway ?—I am.
5103. I believe the Clearing House Classifica-
tion is the product, is it not, of the deliberations
of the goods managers of the different companies,
assisted therein by representations from the
traders ?—Yes. All the companies who are
parties to the Clearing House consider questions
relating to the classification at their meetings
every three months.
5104. I think it was the goods managers who
conducted the investigations which took place at
Whitehall before the Board of Trade, was it not,
in connection with this Provisional Order 2–
That was so.
5105. I think at many of your meetings you
presided, did you not ?—Yes; prior to that
inquiry we had to consider the question of the
classification to be submitted to the Board of
Trade, and we had meetings extending over the
greater part of a year, and subsequently we had
frequent meetings with the traders as to their
objections to the articles in the classificaion, at
many of which I presided ; and since then we
have had meetings at Richmond Terrace before
the Board of Trade, which considered the ques-
tion of the position of several of the articles in
the classification.
5106. Therefore I may fairly describe you as
an expert upon the subject of classification. Now,
I ask you in the first place, was not it the
Clearing House Classification you deposited
originally when you were called upon to deposit
a classification and schedule?—Yes, that was so.
We started with the premiss that the Clearing
House Classification having been practically
published for the information of the public for
Some years, and that they were well acquainted
with it, the best basis we could take upon which
to found our proposals was the Clearing House
Classification. ...”
5107. Comparing the articles specified by the
Board of Trade in Class B, with the list in Class
C., they do not correspond, do they, to Iron List
A. and Iron List B. of the Clearing House 2–No;
the Board of Trade proposal has taken the articles
which are mentioned in Iron List A., which is
simply a list to enable the application of special
Mr. Moon—continued.
rates, they have taken all those articles, and the
articles which are usually carried at owner's risks,
or which the companies say they are open to
carry at owner’s risk, and they have put all
those articles out of the two lists into Class B.
5108. They have taken out of Class B. the
articles which the consignor has the option of
consigning at owner's risk, and only left in the
higher class of the Iron List those articles to
which no asterisk is attached in the Clearing
House Classification, which means that they are
always carried at companies’ risk 2–Yes, that is
so. There are some 12 or 15 articles of iron or
steel which they have leſi in the proposed Class
C. without the option of the trader to declare
them as being undamageable. But the highly
damageable articles which form the bulk of the
trade really they have reduced down to Class
B. upon a declaration of undamageability by the
trader.
Earl of Camperdown.
5 109. Upon the iron articles?—Yes. I
speaking of the iron articles specially.
3.I.Y.)
Mr. Moon.
5110. You are excepting, are you not, the
classification which proposes to add to List A.
those articles in List B., which may be con-
signed at owner's risk *—Yes; not altogether
that we think it is right from a classification point
of view, but having the proposition of the Bhard
of Trade before us in this way of putting so many
articles of iron into Class B., all those articles
being what we should be required to-day to
carry at owner's risk, our proportion is simply to
lift them to what we consider a higher class, and
the propee class, to correspond with the Clearing
House Classification.
5111. That would involve a reduction as com-
pared with the Clearing House Classification
upon those articles which are reduced from List
B. to List A. 2–Yes, that is so. -
there are a number of articles
5112. In List B. the Committee will see that
which have
asterisks attached to them and a number of
articles which have not? ——
(81.)
4 M 2 Earl
644
MINUTES OF EV [IDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Earl of Belmore.] What I understood Mr.
Findlay to say, and Mr. Harrison to say now,
is that in this long list on page 20 there are a
number of articles of iron that he would be
willing to leave in Class B.
Mr. Moon.] This is a different point; this is to
show that the lower classification of the Board of
Trade includes articles which were in the Clearing
House included in the higher classification,
and the railway companies are prepared to
accept that alteration, although it does pro
tanto amount to a reduction. Your Grace will
see upon Page 39 of the Clearing House Book
all those articles with asterisks are by the Board
of Trade proposal put into the lower of the two
classes.
Earl of Belmore.] That comes to what I am
saying that the things which are marked with an
arterisk you are willing to leave as the Board of
Trade proposes.
Mr. Moon.
5113. No, the other articles. (To the Witness.)
Perhaps you will answer what his Lordship has
Suggested. What are the articles which Mr.
Findlay said you were prepared to leave in
Class B. as prepared by the Board of Trade.
Taking the Clearing House List B., which do
you understand are the articles mentioned in the
Clearing House List B. 2–There are no articles
in the Clearing House List B. which the com-
panies consider could be properly classified in
Class B of the Provisional Order.
Mr. Hunter.
5114. . But the articles which have been
lowered to Class B. of the Board of Trade are all
articles with an asterisk, are they not ?—Yes.
5115. Therefore they would come under the
principle of the Board of Trade that they are
undamageable and at owners’ risk?—
Mr. Pope.] They are articles which the com-
panies hold themselves out at the present time as
willing to carry at owner's risk in a lower class.
Earl of Belmore.] That is what they are willing
to carry now and nothing else.
Mr. Pope. J Nothing else.
Lord Belper.] Is not that the same as the
IBoard of Trade proposal P
|Witness.] Only that we differ as to the class.
The Board of Trade propose to put them into
Class B, ; we say we want to put them into
Class C., that being their class to-day.
Lord Belper.
5116. Certain articles now in Class B. are to
be put down a class if they are to be carried at
owner's risk, if they are put down a class they
would be under the same terms as the Board of
Trade now propose ; is that so 2–No ; it is not
SO.
5117. Will you explain why?—The articles in
list B. of the Clearing House which have an as-
terisk against then, are in practice to-day reduced
on account of the asterisk, and being declared un-
damageable or the owner taking the risk, to the
special class which corresponds to the Board of
Trade Class C. The Board of Trade Provisional
Order proposes that they should be reduced to a
Lord Belper—continued.
class below that, to Class B. We say no to.
that. . . *
5118. Which of your lists corresponds with
Class C.?---The articles in Class B. with an
asterisk. I am keeping as nearly as possible to:
what is in his Lordship's mind, to the articles in,
Class B., not mentioning those in Class A. for the
moment.
5119. I want to know which of your
classes corresponds with Class B. 2---The
special class in the Clearing House Classi-
fication. I would explain it if you.
would allow me in this way. If you look
at ingot moulds on page 36, you will find the
letter s, that means Special Class, and corre-
sponds with Class C. of the Provisional Order.
All the articles in the Iron List Class A, on
pages 37 and 38 go into the Special Class, or
the corresponding class of the Provisional Order,
Class C.; but under the Provisional Order they
go into a class lower, which is Class B.
5120. Then any articles in Class A, as I
understand you, would correspond with Class C.
of the Provisional Order ?—Yes.
5121. Therefore those atticles in Class B.
which have an asterisk, and which at owners’
risk go into your Class A., if put into the corre-
sponding class, would be put into Class C. in the
Provisional Order ?--That is so.
Mr. Hanbury.
5122. But is it not the fact that all these
articles which are in Class B., and declared un-
damageable, are now in the class which corre-
sponds to Class C. in the Provisional Order,
only they are declared at owners’ risk and un-
damageable?—They get into a class which cor-
responds with Class C. by declaration at owners’
risk.
5123. So that we may take them as being
practically in Class C., only that there is the
slight difference that they are at owners’ risk
instead of being declared undamageable 2–That
IS SO.
Mr. Hunter.
5124. Then the effect of the Board of Trade's
decision is to put that which was in the Special
Class into Class B. P−Yes. *
5125. And that which was in Class 1 of the
Clearing House into Class C. P-Yes, that is so.
Mr. Moon.
5126. I need not further examine you upon.
that. Now, taking the Board of Trade's pro-
position, and having regard to other articles in
Class B., do you think it is consistent or incon-
sistent that iron undamageable (all those articles
of iron you mentioned) should be included in
Class B. 2––We have had the classification before
us for 30 or 40 years, and are now considering it
three or four times a year. It has been public
property, I think, since 1882, in accordance with
most of the Companies’ Acts, and we have never
once had any suggestion made as to putting iron
of a highly-finished character, although it might
be declared as undamageable, into the same class
with such things as burnt limestone, bricks, and
things
ON RAILWAY RATES
PROVISION AI, OR DER BILLS. 645
AND CHARGES
2 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
things of that kind; it is from a classification
point of view, I think, an unheard of proposition.
5127. Would the articles be of a similar value?
—No, there is no comparison of value at all be-
tween even the articles of iron themselves and other
articles of a different character altogether; there is
no comparison between the value of bricks or the
handling of bricks, or the loading of bricks and
armour plates or girders, or annealed iron or cor-
rugated iron; no comparison whatever.
Mr. Hanbury.
5128. What does it matter to the railway com-
panies what they value them at if they are not
responsible for any damage to that valuable
article 2—Of course we can but look at it from
our practical experience. Although these things
are declared to-day undamageable and the sender
says “I will take the risk,” because he gets a
lower rate, if you are delivering iron or wire to
a ship, the ship's people say, “’No, that has got
the bloom off it and we will not take it,” and it
misses the ship, or we have got to put it in order
in order to get a clear receipt, although the
sender says “I will hold you harmless"; yet that
does not free us from all responsibility.
5129. You must assume that the law is going
to make you free from all liability ?—That is
upon the question of value, but that is not the
only consideration in classification. The things
have to be handled, the handling of bricks and
the handling of bundles of hoop iron or cases of
galvanized iron, are incomparable.
Mr. Hunter.
5130. Handling is of course an element in the
cost 7—I am only looking at the principles which
guide us in classification. The main principle
which guides us or has guided us in classification
hitherto has been really the commercial necessities
of the case, and the conditions that apply in the
case of bricks or concrete or brewer’s grains, and
things of that kind do not apply, and are totally
different in the case of iron, either going to a
merchant or going for shipment.
Mr. Moon.
5131. That is, of course, a commercial
consideration. Traffic which is of a valuable
character can afford to pay, and may properly be
made to pay a higher rate, may it not, than
traffic which is not of a very valuable character ?
—There has been no very great complaint with
regard to the rates for iron as now classified.
5132. That, I think, is recognised as one of
the principles of classification by the Board of
Trade; value as affecting the class 7–Yes.
5133. Irrespective of risk altogether. As-
suming Parliament saves you from all risk of
having ta pay compensation when you carry iron
comprised in Class B. of the Provisional Order,
do you think, then, that those articles are rightly
classed in Class B. P-I think not: looking at
the other articles that there are in the class, with
the iron articles, that the latter certainly ought
to be put in a higher class than Class 13. You
cannot ignore altogether the question of rates in
considering classification, but independently of
rates, looking at the position in which they stand
in relation to other articles in the classification,
material.
Mr. Moon—continued.
they would be more properly classified in Class
C., even assuming that this declaration of un-
damageability can be given effect to, than they
would be classified with such articles as they are
classified with Class B.
Earl of Camperdown.
5134. When you say “Looking at the posi-
tion in which they stand in regard to other
articles which are in the class,” what do you
mean by that?—I mean that in all our consi-
siderations of classification we have always
thought that iron articles such as those that are
mentioned here should be in the special class
or the one corresponding with Class C., rather
than in the class where there are minerals and
raw materials such as there are in Class B. Of
course the character of Class B. has been greatly
changed by the Board of Trade taking out of it
a large number of articles purely mineral and
rough stuff which we think, although we have
not put such an amendment forward, ought pro-
perly to remain in Class B. They have reduced
the classification class by class until they have put
this raw material, which we may say is properly
in Class B., down into A., and they have put the
finished article down into B., it is a gradual
reduction.
Mr. Moon.
5135. When you speak of “finished articles,”
will you give the Committee instances of finished
articles which are included with the rough
articles in Class B. There is bridge work ; do
you describe that as a finished article?—Cer-
tainly, I should say that those articles of bridge
work are finished articles; bolts and nuts are
finished articles: chain cables are finished articles;
corrugated iron, galvanised iron, gasometer sheet
girders, hoop, steel, and iron, all those are in a
highly finished state, there is nothing whatever
to be done to them.
Mr. Hanbury.
5136. I do not quite understand upon what
ground you say the finished article should pay
more than the unfinished article, if you remove
the element of damageability ?—The railway
companies are really trading bodies after all, and
we certainly think that the finished articles can
bear a higher price for carriage than the raw
It has attained a higher value in the
market, irrespective of damageability.
Mr. Moon.
5137. Take jewellery; you are by the Rail-
way and Canal Traffic Act absolved from liability
unless the value is declared and an insurance is
effected ?–Yes.
5138. Jewellery is always in the highest
class 2 –Yes ; it comes to this, that, taking the
case of a gold nugget, although it probably costs
us no more to carry it than a packet of brooches,
yet the one has had more capital and labour
expended upon it, and we think it can bear a
higher price than the raw material.
5139. I do not know whether you are at
present prepared to do it, but would you point
out the articles in the long list which Mr.
Findlay said possibly might be kept in Class B. 2
(81.)
4 M 3 —I did
646
MIN (JTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
— I did not quite follow Mr. Findlay's
answer there. I think at the time there was
some questioning about the Iron List A.
and iron list B., and I do not think Mr. Findlay's
answer was intended to mean that there were
any articles which the companies had proposed,
should be raised from Class B. of the Provisional
Order to Class C. as to which he could consent
to their remaining there. There are articles of
iron in Class B. which they consider could fairly
and properly remain there, such as blooms, billets,
pig-iron, and puddled-bars, but none of the
articles which come on pages 18, 19 and 20
under the head of “Iron and steel undam-
ageable.”
Lord Houghton.
5140. Why have you got bars puddle and
puddled bars ?—I think that is a printer's error.
5141. What is the difference between bars
puddled and puddled bars 2–I drew a distinction
in my mind, and I think most manufacturing
people will, between bar iron and puddle bar.
5142. But there is puddle bar and bar puddle?
—As regards “bar puddled ” under “Iron and
steel undamageable on page 18, the railway object
to its being there at all; there can be no question
about its being undamageable. The Board of
Trade have introduced a somewhat similar entry
on page 20, “ puddled bar iron,” that we approve
of, we think it ought to be included in that
class.
Mr. Moon.
5143. I think Mr. Findlay's answer had refer-
ence to a question which was asked him as
regards blooms which are not included in the iron
list but are specified separately in Class C. 2–
That is so, we think they ought to remain there.
5144. All the articles specified in the Iron
List in Class B. ought to be removed to
Class C. 2–Yes.
Mr. Hambury.
5145. With the exception of pudded bar
iron – Yes, I think they mightbe removed; that
is a printer's error probably.
Mr, Moom.
5146. Now, as to the way in which the traffic
in these articles is dealt with by the companies,
is it dealt with differently from other articles in
Class B, 7–Yes, generally the articles under the
head of iron and steel undamageable have to be
handled by the company, and they have to use
the company’s stations : a great deal of it comes
from private sidings, but more generally it is
dealt with at the receiving end of the company’s
sheds by their staff, and to a great extent it is so
at the sending station as well.
Mr. Hunter.
5147. Before you go from that, there is
another point in the classification that I do not
quite understand. I see Spiegeleisen, e. O. h. p.,
mentioned in the List, and also I see it after-
wards in bulk put in the same class. Why is
spiegeleisen in bulk put in the same class?—
That we cannot understand, the spiegeleisen,
e.o.h.p., was admitted by the iron makers to
Mr. Hunter
be an article of very high value which they find
it necessary to pack.
5.148. Where there is “e.o.h.p.” you expect
to find the same thing in bulk in a different class;
you would not expect to find it in the same class.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] That entry is un-
doubtedly a misprint. At one time spiegeleisen
in bulk and spiegeleisen e.o.h.p., were in one of
our drafts put in different classes.
continued.
Chairman.] What alteration can we make 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] If you want to
make an alteration leave out the words “in bulk”
after spiegeleisen, and spiegeleisen e.o.h.p. comes
out altogether, but of course it would be un-
desirable to decide upon the alteration at this
moment, because if the Committee makes the
alteration to divide iron altogether it might be
possible spiegeleisen might be divided afterwards
into spiegeleisen in bulk, and spiegeleisen
e.o.h.p. -
Mr. Hambury.] Do the railway companies want
Spiegeleisen e.o.h.p. put into Class C. P
Witness.] That is our proposal, included with
all the other articles.
Mr. Humter.
5149. Spiegeleisen is now in the mineral class
—“Spiegeleisen in bulk” that is meant for, it
is M. (b) in the Clearing House. Then Lord
Balfour of Burleigh's remark would probably
equally apply to ferro-manganese, if that was the
ground on which the Board of Trade placed the
articles in the class.
5150. Do I understand you to say that
Spiegeleisen in bulk is different from spiegeleisen
e.o.h.p., because spiegeleisen e.o.h.p. is packed and
is much more valuable 7–Yes; at the interview
we had before the inquiry before the Board of
Trade at Richmond Terrace on classification the
iron traders admitted that spiegeleisen should be
in Class B., but some of them told us that it did
go in a very valuable state, and had to be
packed, and they did not think it fair to put it
in Class B. I take it, therefore, that the entry
was meant to provide for that higher state and
unpacked.
5151. That seems to be an illustration of the
fallacy of the present classification of Class B. 2
—I think so.
Lord Belper.] As a special case has been
mentioned, there is another I might call atten-
tion to “Pipes (exclusive of rain water pipes),
gas, water, air, and steam,” but rain water pipes
appear to be mentioned nowhere at all.
Search having been made, and the article not
discovered in the list at the moment,
Mr. Shaw.] They would be
“ water pipes.”
Lord Belper.] No, it is “exclusive of rain
water pipes.” I daresay it will be explained
afterwards. I merely mentioned that because it
struck me as strange, but let it stand over for
the moment.
included in
Mr. Moon.
5152. Now, going to the effect of the pro-
posed classification upon your existing charges,
and
ON BAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
64?
2 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
and revenue, have you taken out instances which
will first of all answer the question of the honour-
able Member, Mr. Hunter, who asked you in what
part of the country your loss had arisen 2–I
have.
5153. Would you please answer that question :
In what part of the country your loss had arisen P
—It arises all over the country; wherever,
almost, there is iron traffic passing our actual rate
will be reduced more or less by the application of
the Provisional Order as it stands. It arises
under every grade of distance, under the Board of
Trade schedule, and arises with the ordinary
rates applied to Class C., or rather, the special
class which corresponds with Class C. of the Pro-
visional Order; and it arises also with the excep-
tional rates which have been adopted to foster the
trade of the country.
5154. Those exceptional rates being adopted in
districts where the iron trade is large, I suppose 2
—Yes.
5155. It even reduces those exceptional rates ?
— It reduces very low exceptional rates.
5156. What is the total value of your iron and
steel traffic ; can you give us the figure ?—
—£. 548,000 a year approximately, and I should
say, in mentioning that, that Mr. Findlay, when he
gave the figure of weight this morning of
1,800,000 tons, was in doubt as to whether it in-
cluded pig-iron. I have since ascertained that it
does not include pig-iron, or blooms, or billets;
there is a small quantity of puddled bar included
in it, because it cannot be very well distinguished.
5157. That is for a very small quantity, some
300,000 or 400,000 tons 2–Yes.
5158. My learned friend, Mr. Balfour
Browne, asked Mr. Findlay whether he could
distinguish between what part of that revenue
was derived from iron and what from steel
traffic; could you make that distinction, or
would it be impossible 2-—No ; it would be im-
possible to make that distinction; but, I might
say, the finished steel traffic is not included in
this Class B. at all, but we do not know the
difference between bar if it is made out of steel,
and bar if it is made in the ordinary way of iron
making.
5159. Now for the details of your losses: Mr.
Findlay gave a figure of the loss of revenue
which this Provisional Order as it stands would
cause you ; have you any instances which you
have taken out which support that figure ?—
Yes ; I have before me instances which make
up our loss of 24,000 ſ. a year. They cover a
great many sheets; but, as I said just now, they
extend over almost every distance that the iron
traffic passes over.
5160. Every distance and every district?—
Yes ; every distance and every district.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
5161. How do you make out that list ; did
you take the actual rates from siding to station,
or how 2–Yes; we took the actual rates that
were charged.
51 62. May I see the paper you have for a
moment —I do not think there is any objection
to your seeing it (handing the same to the learned
Counsel).
Mr. Shaw—continued.
5163. What quantities did you take, and did
you take the quantity which passes between
those places for the whole year 2–No ; we took
the quantities which actually passed for a day
in every month in the year.
5164. In fact, you got a kind of 12 days'
average *-No ; no average. We got 12 actual
days’ traffic.
5165. If you made out your loss for the year
upon traffic curried for only 12 days of the
year, that would be an average 2–I understood
you to say that the traffic we took was averaged,
whereas the traffic we took was the actual
traffic of the twelve days.
3166. You took the loss upon the one day and
multiplied that by the traffic carried during the
year 2–No ; we took a day's traffic in each month
of the year and ascertained what proportion that
formed of the total revenue of the year, and
having ascertained that we multiplied the loss
actually arising upon those 12 days by what we
found was the proportion it bore to the total.
5167. I did not quite catch what you said, to
begin with. If you will forgive me?—I will
put it in figures; that will explain it better.
The gross revenue of the London and North
Western Company from goods traffic amounts to
6,093,000 l., one twenty sixth of that would be
234,000 l. ; and the total traffic that we ascertained
for the 12 days, and we examined every item,
amounted to 232,000 l., therefore we consider that
the 12 days, that is a day in every month, fairly
represents the traffic of the year if multiplied by
26.
5.168. Is not that rather a rough and ready
way to get at the thing; it may be very erron-
eous?--I do not think there is any prospect of
its being erroneous. I should be prepared to take
that as representing the result in money if I had
to pay it or receive it.
5169. What days did you take?–A day in
very month.
5170. At hazard 2– No ; I think a Thursday
in every month was taken.
5171. Between what places?—Every place upon
the London and North Western Railway. It is the
total traffic of the London and North Western
Railway for those 12 days. There is no choice
of places, every station of the London and North
Western Railway which deals with traffic in
those 12 days sent a return of the traffic and the
actual charges that were levied on it.
5172. The loss of 24,000 l. is not an accurate
figure, I am right in saying, but it is calculated
upon the basis you have just named –I cannot
say that, you must not say it is not an accurate
figure.
5173. It is not an actual figure ?–Having
studied it very carefully I cannot put it higher
than to say that if it were a matter of bargain I
should be prepared to pay or receive any differ-
ence from the actual figure which upon examina-
tion by an accountant might be proved.
5174. To pass to another point whilst these
figures are being looked at, let us take spiegelei-
sen in bulk ; you do not object to its being
carried in Class B. 7–No. Sº,
5173. Spiegeleisen in Class B., which the
Board of Trade have put in with undamageable
iron, is that only when the trader gives you' a de-
(81. )
4 M 4 claration
648
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON,
| Continued.
Mr. Shaw—continued.
claration of undamageability ?—I take that to
be so.
5176. What is the difference between spiegel-
eisen in bulk and spiegeleisen when you have got
no damage to pay ?—The iron trade representa-
tives told us at the interview that there was a very
great difference, and so far as the classification is
concerned there would be this difference, that
spiegeleisen e.o.p.h. would have to pass through
the company’s sheds and be handled by the
company's staff, receiving all the treatment of
of ordinary goods in casks; the Spiegeleisen in
bulk would pass through the yard and probably
not be touched by the company's servants at all.
It may be in some cases, and then we should
require a special payment.
5178. It is a question entirely of terminals, is
it not?—No, it is a question of classification; it
would be just as right to put any other article in
casks into this class which is intended to cover
articles in bulk of a lower character.
5179. Puddled bars you do not object to being
in Class B. 2–That is so.
5180. Tin-plate bars have almost entirely
superseded puddled bars for the tin-plate trade,
have they not?—That is a technical point on
which I cannot speak, but I do not think tin-
plate bars are included in this classification.
5181. But you would have tin-plate bars as
bar-iron —I do not think you could have tin-
plate bars as bar-iron. A tin-plate bar is a
puddled bar I take it, really.
5182. In fact, the tin-plate bar has superseded
the puddled bar?—Yes.
51.83. The value of the tin-plate bar, iron or
steel, is a deal less than the value of a tin-plate
bar used to be 20 years ago?—That all depends
upon the market prices, I should think.
5184. Do I understand that you object to tin-
plate bars being in Class B. 2–If I am right
that they are not mentioned, the ordinary logical
conclusion would be that they would go into
Class C., and I have never contended for that.
Whether it was intended by the Board of Trade
that they should not be mentioned or that they
should conne under the denomination of puddled
bars, I could not say, but we should treat them as
puddled bars.
5185. You would not object to having them
specified in Class B, with puddled bars?--I think
Mr. Shaw—continued.
not, speaking for the London and North Western
Company at all events.
5186. What do you allow in this list for siding
charges under the Provisional Order. Have you
allowed anything?—No, we did not allow any-
thing; we treated traffic coming from or going to
sidings as not being subject to a fixed charge for
terminals, and we could not estimate what it
would be.
Mr. Hunter.
5187. Are those your details 2–Yes.
5188. Would you let me see them 2–Yes
(handing the same to the honourable Member).
5189. Do I understand that in estimating your
loss, you assumed throughout that there is no
charge for station terminals —No. With regard
to that last question that I was asked with regard
to traffic to or from private sidings, whether I
had taken into consideration that I should have a
terminal at one end, I should say, no, there is
nothing to base the calculation upon, therefore
I could not estimate what might be charge-
able.
5.190. But unless the goods went from a private
siding to a private siding, there would be a station
terminal 2–In that case we have taken the Board
of Trade terminals.
5191. Then you do really charge for terminals
what the Board of Trade allow 2–Yes.
Mr. Pope.
5192. He has not estimated any additional
charge he would get for finding private sidings?
—What we did was to take the actual rate which
has been charged upon a particular traffic, and
then we should know what would be chargeable
under the Provisional Order. If it went to or
from a station, we said there would be so much
for the station and so much for the mileage; we
set that against the actual rate that was charged
for the traffic, the difference being the loss.
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
5193. I should like to ask you one question
arising upon that. You estimate nothing for any
charge that may be made for a private siding 2–
No, not under the Provisional Order.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MIR. HENRY LAMBERT is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pember.
5.194. I TILINR the first thing you desire to do
is to make some statement with regard to what
Mr. Courtenay Boyle said on Friday as to the
intention of the Board of Trade with regard to
the revision of actual rates ?–Yes. I must say
that the observation of Mr. Courtenay Boyle,
both in regard to hay and in regard to the iron
trade, took us very much by surprise ; in fact it
made a very unpleasant impression upon us,
because we have always understood that the
policy of the Board of Trade was to give us at
any rate our actual rates with a margin, and I
do not remember, in the course of the proceedings,
that it has ever been stated so frankly as Mr.
Mr. Pember—continued.
Courtenay Boyle said that there was an intention
on the part of the Board of Trade to cut down
the revenues of the companies in respect to these
particular items.
5.195. The revision of powers, either in an up-
ward direction or a downward direction, you
would be prepared for 2–Yes.
5196. But not a revision of the actual rates ?
—But not the revision of actual rates.
5197. In the sense of the reduction of them P
—No. It is only fair to say, at the same time,
that it was stated that the Board of Trade did
not contemplate covering every known competi-
tive rate in the country, and that I quite accept ;
but
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL S.
649
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Pember—continued.'
but I take it that that is a very different declara-
tion from the one which Mr. Courtenay Boyle
made in this Committee : that it was really the
intention of the Board of Trade to cut the
revenues of the companies.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Can you refer me to
any words in which I said what you attributed
to me?—
Witness.] As I undertood it, at any rate.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think you are under
a misapprehension.
Mr. Pember.] I hope it is so, I am sure.
Mr. Courtenay Boy/e..] I should like to have a
reference to the words.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, it may prove that we
were wrong; I am sure I hope it will. I think
this is what caught all our ears on Friday ; it is
on page 1037.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] That is not our
paging.
Mr. Pember.] Will you mind, Lord Balfour, if
you could, giving us the equivalent page to
that ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It is page 614.
Mr. Pember.] I need not read quite from the
top of the page, but on the sixth line I find
“ Unquestionably, and I admit it perfectly
frankiy the proposals of the Board of Trade.”
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It is at the bottom
of page 614, just below the italics, where “Mr.
Courtenay Boyle hands in the opposite table.”
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.
5197. “ Unquestionably, and I admit it
perfectly frankly, the proposals of the Board of
Trade cut down the statutory powers of certain
of the companies, the Midland and certain others,
but they leave the powers at a position which,
having regard to the decisions of the Legislature
in certain instances, and having regard to all the
facts of the case, the Board of Trade believe on
the whole to be just and to be reasonable. It is
a revision. Whether the revision is justified it
is for the Committee, having heard the evidence,
to say ; but you cannot arrive at a settle-
ment of this difficulty unless you admit the
principle of revision and undertake revision with-
out necessarily regarding the present statutory
powers of all the companies. There is no logical
mean between leaving things exactly as they
are, and to Some extent cutting down the earn-
ings of the companies and cutting down their
statutory powers.” It is those words, I take it,
“cutting down the earnings of the companies”
that has caused the interpolation of words cutting
down the statutory powers ? —Yes; and I think
there was a somewhat similar statement when
the subject of hay was under discussion.
5198. There was. I see that the honourable
Member, Mr. Hanbury, said, “In the case of
hay you said that you had not only lowered the
existing statutory powers of the companies, but
that your Provisional Order gave rates even
lower than the actual rates, or rather that the
effect was to reduce them. (Mr. Courtenay
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Chairman— continued.
Boyle.) I admit it. (Mr. Hanbury.) Does that
apply to iron also 2 (Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) To
a less degree, I think. If the maxima proposed
by the Board of Trade are fixed that certain of
the rates now charged by the companies, certain
of the rates which were paid by the traders in
respect of undamageable iron, will be no longer
possible for the future,” and so on. That is
what you were alluding to ?—Yes, the general
Impression. -
5199. Shortly, without doing more than calling
Mr. Courtenay Boyle's attention to it, in the
beginning of his remarks, a page or two before
what I have been reading, you will find that he
uses the word “revision, obviously, always as
though it were a convertible term with reduc-
tion,” and applies to reduction of rates.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Not necessarily. Some
of the rates are revised afterwards.
Mr. Pember.] Very few.
Lord Belper.] The word in the Report of the
Board of Trade is “revision ”; it is used there
equally.
Mr. Pember.] Quite true.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I should like to
state to the Committee that revision of rates we
have not shirked from. We admit it ; but Mr.
Lambert put upon us that we intended to revise
revenues. There is a great difference.
Mr. Pember.] If the revision goes to revising
the actual rate by cutting it down, that must be
an interference with revenue.
Witness.] It reduces our earnings and our
TeVell U16.
Mr. Pember.] Besides, will Lord Balfour for -
give me for saying that the very phrase used is
“cutting down the earnings of the companies”?
Again, a few pages back (Mr. Courtenay Boyle
must forgive me for quoting him so much ; he
will know it is with no hostile feeling at all), in
answer to some observation by Mr. Cripps, he
said, “This is a matter, your Grace, very much
of quantum, and one which I should think every
Member of the Committee certainly will be
better able to form an opinion about than I am.
I do not say that Lord Balfour is ; but the final
decision of the Board of Trade was to put
hay ” (this is on the question of hay) “when it
was not pressed into Class 2, with a minimum
consignment of 30 cwt. per waggon.” Now come
the words which the honourable Member was
referring to : “I do not feel disposed to contend
that that is not a diminution of the present
statutory powers of the companies, speaking
generally ; I think we must admit that it is a
curtailment of the present statutory powers of
the companies. We also believe that it cuts, or
that the proposal of the Board of Trade in this
respect cuts a considerable number of actual
rates; I will admit that frankly.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That has been ad-
mitted all through.
Mr. Pember.] Actual rates must be earn-
ings.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is admitted all
through ; it is in the report.
(81.)
4 N Mr.
650
MINUTES OF EV IIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMIT'I'EF,
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember.] I am only dealing with a re-
mark made by Lord Balfour of Burleigh that
the Board of Trade did not intend by anything
they have done to cut down revenue. Now
actual rates and earnings are synonymous with
revenue, I submit, for this purpose. (To the
Witness.) l see that Mr. Courtenay Boyle also
referred to some proceedings before the Grand
Committee.
Chai, man.] What do you call the Grand
Committee ?
Mr. Pember.
5200. The Grand Committee that sat on the
Bill of 1888. (To the Witness.) Did the traders
before the Grand Committee in 1888, or their
representatives, rather, make any suggestion
that actual rates should be eut?—No ; I think it
was the general intention throughout these pro-
ceedings that the actual rates of the companies
with a margin should be preserved to them ; and
indeed one trader after another has come and
said, “if you will crystallize practically our ex-
isting rates we are content.” We could have
got rid of a great deal of opposition in this matter
if we could have assented to that proposition.
“All we want to be assured of,” says the trader,
“is that our present rates shall not be interfered
with.” Our answer to that has been that we
must have a margin to provide for contingencies,
such as increased cost of coal and material and
stores, and the increase of wages, all of which has
really transpired.
5201. Then there is another point. Over a
certain portion of your system, as over a certain
portion of the London and North Western, your
maximum powers are low 2–Yes.
5202. But over the other portions, and very
considerable portions, as I think we shall show
presently, your actual powers are very much
higher ?—They are.
5203. In fact, your Act of low powers is, I
think, the Act of 1847, is it not?—Yes, the
Great Western Act of 1847.
5204. Without referring to its provisions for
the moment, that Act of 1847 only applies to
something under 300 miles of your line 2—About
200 miles.
5205. What is your total mileage 2—One
thousand eight hundred and sixty miles.
5206. So that it is about one-ninth, say one-
eighth 2–One-seventh it is really. And I should
like to point out that if you set against that the
powers on the lines where this traffic is also
dealt with, such as the South Wales line, the
Wilts and Somerset line, and the Bristol and
Exeter line, the powers on those three lines are
considerably higher than on the Great Western,
and represent a larger mileage.
5207. Then it seems that the Board of Trade
have taken the low powers of your particular
Act of 1847 as a kind of standard for the whole
of the company’s mileage 2–Yes, that seems to
be the course they have adopted. I should just
like to say in addition, that not only the low
powers, but also where the articles are staple
articles of their kind and move in large quantities
in the districts where they are manufactured, we
have also to consider in this question of classifica-
tion, as it appears to us, the consignments which
are carried in much smaller quantities in the
Mr. Pember
agricultural districts. We have a very large
extent of agricultural territory. Our lines go
into Wiltshire, Somersetshire, Devonshire, Corn-
wall, Hampshire, and Berkshire, all of which are
agricultural counties.
Mr. Hunter.
5208. Does that affect the question of undam-
ageable iron 2—I think so in the classification. I
venture to submit that in determing the question
of classification regard should be had to those
eounties as well as to the counties of Staffordshire,
Glamorganshire, and Monmouthshire, where the
traffic travels in large quantities.
5209. That is what I mean ; is there a traffic
in those articles in those counties 2–Yes, a dis-
tributive traffic. For instance, Bristol is a con-
siderable distributive centre; they get the iron
in large quantities from the various manufactur-
ing districts, and then they distribute it to all
these various country towns.
5210. Those things in Class B. 2–Yes; those
articles are distributed in smaller quantities. For
instance, Bristol will get a large consignment of
gas pipes, perhaps from Wednesbury, we will
say, then a customer from Trowbridge goes and
they send him a consignment of a tom or some-
thing like that.
continued.
Mr. Hambury.
5211. Then, those small quantities would go
into another class 2—No doubt.
5212. Anything under four tons would go
into another class altogether ? -- Yes. Still I
venture to say that in cutting down the rates, as
the Board of Trade have done, it gives too low a
figure altogether; they will not enable us to
maintain our actual rates.
5213, I only wanted to know what you meant
by small lots. You must not assume that any-
thing under four tons will go in this class 2—I
Quite follow that. .
Mr. Pember.
5214. At all events that is the result. You
first of all put these things into Class B., and,
although that is a matter more for rates than
classification, you apply, as the standand for
fixing the rates in that class, the low powers of
the Act of 1847?—Yes.
52.15. Which only affects one-seventh of your
mileage 2–Precisely,
5216. With regard to this cutting of actual
rates, would it be possible for you, do you think,
to recoup yourselves in any way for the loss you
would sustain by cutting actual rates which are
rates I suppose at present which you feel
your traffic can be carried under fairly to you
and the traders, and by raising rates which are
at present lower, and where there happens to
be a margin left by the Board of Trade
—I do not think it would. I am bound
to say, after careful consideration, that I do not
see how we are to recoup ourselves for these
heavy losses. Just let me say this, that we get
the best rate we can at the present time. After
a good deal of discussion with our customers
from time to time in various districts we arrive
at the rate we believe and which is admitted to
be mutually satisfactory as a rule. That being
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
65I
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
the case, we could not, without interfering with
trade in a serious manner, put up those rates
which would be below the rates given us.
5217. There again I suppose competition will
come in, you would not be able to raise the
rate 7—Unquestionably, and the sea competition,
and the competition of other lines one way and
another, we are, I contend, in this position : We
have got the best rates we can get.
5218. In each case ?—Yes.
5219. Both in the case of the rates the Board
of Trade have cut, and the ones they have not
cut –Precisely; Mr. Balfour Browne, in a
question he put in discussing the London and
North Western losses, said that they had taken
no credit for profits. I venture to say that there
are no profits in business. I gathered from
what he said that he meant that with powers
in excess of rates which we are now charging we
ought to be able to lift up those rates, taking
credit for certain profits. I say that that is
not a state of things which we can face. The
present rate, I repeat, is the best rate we can get
for the traffic. That being so, if we put it up we
either destroy traffic or interfere with it in some
way to the prejudice of both the railway com-
panies and the traders.
5220. Or else you are utterly unable to do it
on the ground of competition ?–Quite so.
5221. In fact if cutting actual rate means
actual loss, leaving a margin does not mean
actual profit?—No. Another illustration is that
our present powers are considerably more than
our present rates, but we are not able to use
them. The rates are forced down into the
position they are by competition, by the desire
to develope traffic in the best possible manner.
5222. There is this with regard to the Great
Western system I fancy, that almost more I was
going to say, than any other company, you are
amenable to competition by sea?—We have sea
all round us, we have the British Channel,
the Severn, and the English Channel. Our
rates are affected, in fact it is almost impossible
to point to a station ; there are a few that are
absolutely non-competitive, but very few. The
great bulk of our traffic is competitive, to a
greater or less extent.
5223. Even the Thames competes with you to
some extent?—Yes.
5224. And the canals, the Grand Junction
Canal 2–-Yes, they compete as between Stafford-
shire and London, and they compete as between
Stafforshire and Liverpool. And the Severn
also competes as between Bristol and South
Staffordshire.
5225. So that you are very amenable to what
perhaps we had better call competition by
water 2–We are,
5226. Then I think you want to say some-
thing as to the contemporaneousness of this alter-
ation in your classification and rating power
with the money you have to spend under the
requirements of the Board of Trade 7–Yes,
I should like to point out that concurrently with
this cutting of our revenues, as I understand was
suggested, or admitted, we, in common with other
companies, are being put under the obligation to
spend large sums of money on the interlocking of
Mr. Pember—continued.
points and signals on the application of the
automatic break to our passenger vehicles, and
the question of mixed trains, although not a large
one perhaps, is one that will certainly cut down
our earning powers to some extent; and in those
ways a large expenditure is being put upon it
quite independently of the expenditure that
arises from the increased cost of materials and
labour. -
5227. Exactly. There is a labour agitation
going on, and there is a great rise in the price of
coal 7–Yes; our coal bill is over 200,000 l. a
year more than it was three years ago.
5228. £. 210,000 I see it is here 2-—Yes.
5229 You give me the figure here for the
extra cost in wages that has come upon you in
the last year or two; I see you put it at 100,000 l."
—I only say that an extra l s. a week to our men
means 100,000 l. a year, and I may say that
during the last two half years our dividends
were affected to the extent of a quarter, by the
increased cost of labour and materials. I merely
mention that as showing that these are exigencies
that we have to meet.
5230. I do not know whether it has been given
in evidence before, but his Grace, no doubt will
stop me if it has : When was the first classifi-
cation of damageable and undamageable iron
agreed to at the Railway Clearing House 2–In
the year 1849. I have an official record from the
Clearing House which they have been good
enough to send me, and I find that there were
eight articles classified as undamageable and six
as damageable ; and those have now increased
under pressure from the traders, and to encourage
the development of traffic, to 106 against the 10
in List A. and 44 against the six in List B. under
the damageable. I should say that 21 out of those
41 we permit the traders to declare at owner's
risk, and subject them then to a lower class.
5231. That list, as you say, from time to time
has been enlarged and principally enlarged on the
application of the traders ?—Yes.
5232. There are some figures I think you would
like to give as to the value of iron in the Lists A.
and B. of which we have heard so much 2—I find
they vary from 5 l. to 30 l. a ton, so that it is only
a general figure. .
5233. I think you have got out some figures
which would show a loss on the general traffic
which was carried on the Great Western Railway
during the year 1889 which would have accrued
if those rates had been, instead of the rates you
charged, rates charged on the basis of this Provi
sional Order 2—Yes.
5234. What would that have been 2–Accord-
ing to the estimate we made, and it is only
right to say that it can only be an estimate, I
should just like to say this : that to arrive at the
exact result of the appplication of the Board of
Trade figures, we ought to take every consign-
ment we have carried during the year; but it was
quite impossible to do that, therefore we had to
consider in what way we could arrive at the
figure. I took our accountant in council and we
thought it out; and we came to this conclusion,
that we might, arrive at a fairly satisfactory
estimate by taking a day in each alterate month
(81.)
4 N 2 So
652
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
so as to make up six days for the year 1889, and,
instead of taking the whole of the stations we
took 10 per cent of the stations, that was 75 sta-
tions out of the 750, upon that basis we arrived at
what the loss would be under the powers pro-
posed to be given to us by the Board of Trade :
and then, making a rule of three sum of that for
the revenue of the year, we arrived at a loss on
the iron of 12,739 l.
5235. I should like you perhaps to supplement
that. It was nearly all on List A. 2–f. 12,331
was on List A., and only 408 l. on list B.
5236. Now you were going to say about 2 and
4 tons 2–I was going to say that since the Com-
mittee have alter the two tons to 4 tons, that of
course reduces our losses. So far as I could make
out it will reduce it by about 3,400 l., so that that
leaves our loss roughly at 9,000 l. a year in res-
pect to iron alone.
Mr. Hanbury.
5237. Have you been comparing iron with iron
carried under similar conditions all through 2–
Yes, we had regard to the stations and the sidings.
5238. And the risk *
Mr. Bidder.] List A. is at owner's risk.
Witness.] We tried as far as we went to make
an accurate calculation.
Mr. Pember.
5239. And then, as my learned friend Mr.
Bidder says, after all nearly all the articles in
list A. are carried at owner's risk already?—Yes,
all the articles in list A. of course are carried at
owner's risk; and articles in list B. are trans-
ferred by the declaration of the sender.
5240. Quite so 2–Twenty-one out of the 44.
5241. And did you give the figures, some one
was speaking to me at the moment, the difference
by what the Committee have done?–Yes.
5242. That, in fact, leaves you with a loss of
very nearly 10,000 l. 2–Between 9,000 l. and
10,000 l.
5243. On those items alone 2–Yes, on iron
alone as I said.
Mr. Hanbury.
5244. Does that iron include pig-iron or only
this undamageable iron 2–It is exclusive of pig-
iron which is already in Class B.
Mr. Pember.
5245. Then you were I think wanting to say
something about the consistency of the classifica-
tion, pig-iron for instance being classed with
nails, chains, anvils, and so on 7–It is obvious
that pig-iron which is the first stage of manu-
facture ought not to be classed with finished
articles such as nails, chains, anvils, anchors
tubes, and bridge work. -
5246. Is there anything you want to add to
what you dropped a short while ago, as to the
circumstances of one particular district not
governing the classification ?--I think I pointed
out the difference as we consider of the district
served by the Great Western Railway, comprising
not merely the manufactury but also the agri-
cultural part of the country,
Mr. Pember—continued.
5247. And, of course, pig iron, would be about
the lowest, I suppose?—Yes.
5248. Pig iron, 3 l. a ton —Yes, or even
lower. - -
5249. Pig iron is lower than 3 l. a ton 2–Yes,
2 l and 3 l, a ton.
5250. And some of these articles that you
mentioned, nails, chains, anvils, anchors, tubes,
would be 30 l. a ton, and so on, and more ?—Yes,
quite so.
5251. Even dealing with the Great Western
Act of 1847 alone, I think it does, under certain
circumstances, give you higher rates for nails
and anvils, chains, and light iron castings, and
so on, than the Board of Trade would give
you?—Yes; they give us 2 d. a ton over 50 miles,
and 2% d. up to 50 miles for nails, anvils, chains,
and light iron castings.
5252. Those are higher than you could get
under the Board of Trade 7–Certainly.
5253. Although the Act of 1847 is your
lowest Act?—Yes. The Board of Trade powers
are really 13 d., the highest, for the first
20 miles.
5254. In fact, in that Act of yours those
articles which you have mentioned are put in a
higher class than the lower classes of iron 2–
Yes.
5255. Pig iron, hoop iron, bars, and so on 2–
That looks, as I said before, as if the lowest rate
was taken as the basis for the Provisional
Order. -
5256. I suppose, in those counties, Wilts,
Somersetshire, and Devon, which you mentioned,
principally the traffic iniron is very intermittent?—
Yes; it does not compare at all with that which
passes in the manufacturing districts from fur-
naces to works.
5257. Your system, then, being as you have
stated it, to be a combination of manufacturing
and agricultural districts, by far the greater
amount of mileage is in the agricultural dis-
tricts?—Yes, it is so. I think I gave you some
figures. Taking the Great Western Act and
the Oxford and Worcester Act, they would apply
to 373 miles, that is, 265 of Great Western and
108 of Oxford and Worcester. Hut the South
Wales, the Wilts and Somerset, and Bristol
and Exeter, where the power is 2d., would cover
432 miles.
Mr. Hanbury.
5258. But how many of these agricultural
districts are under four tons, what proportion ?—
The imajority of consignments would be under
four tons, no doubt.
Earl of Camperdown.
5259. Then they would be in Class C, already
under the proposal of the Board of Trade 2–
Yes, but we contend that they ought to be in
Class 1 ; we want them in Class 1.
Mr. Bidder.] They are in Class 1, in a special
class.
Mr. Pember.
5260. 1 understood that it was proved on
Friday that a great number of the lots of this
low
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
653
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
- | Continued.
Mr. Pember—continued.
low class iron do travel in four ton lots 2—I said
the majority of consignments; but there are, of
course. consignments of four tons and upwards.
5261. Just by way of showing how far the
interference goes, I think, in respect of your
Great Western Railway, you have no less than
three sets of powers of classification, have you
not P−Yes. f
5262. I think that is shown by Mr. Courtenay
Boyle's table which he was good enough to put
in on Friday last 2—Yes.
5263. There are three sets in the Great
Western Act of 1847, three in the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Act of 1846,
two in the South Wales Act of 1855, and two
in the Wilts and Somerset and Weymouth Act
of 1845; of these 10 sets, how many are above
the Provisional Order powers?— Seven out of
the 10, -
5264. That is to say, looking at the classi-
fication affected by the rates, and the rates
as affected by the classification, no less than
seven of the sets of the powers you have turn
out to be interfered with by the Provisional
Order ?– Yes. -
5265. And only two, I think, have any ap-
pearance of being as low 2–There are three at
13, d. Of course there is 1; d. Great Western ;
that is the lowest; then the Oxford, Worcester,
and Wolverhampton is a 1% d.
5266. And I believe that one of those which
you say is as low as the Board of Trade, is really
substantially higher for most of the distances?—
Yes; I was going to say that the Board of
Trade's is a diminishing power according to
distance ; but the powers in the old Acts con-
inue throughout the extent of the line, and not
in respect of iron; but there are some in the
Oxford and Worcester Act where we were em-
powered to charge a higher rate if they do not
travel over the whole of the line. But that does
not apply to iron.
5267. And the table you have prepared on
that point I see, after all, affects rates more than
classification, and we had better leave it out;
now, on this subject of iron and its classi-
fication, I believe there is one fact which struck
your mind, and which you wish to mention
to the Committee, we have before the Committee,
as we all know at this moment, about nine rail-
way companies?—Yes.
5268. One conspicuous for its absence is the
North Eastern ?—Yes, and they are, I suppose,
the most important iron carrying company in the
kingdom; at any rate one of the most im-
Ortant.
5269. If this classification is to be one that is
to be uniform throughout the kingdom, it will
rule the North Eastern as well ?—So I under-
stand.
Chairman.] Why are the North Eastern Com-
pany not here 2
Mr. Pember.] Because the nine Provisional
Orders that are before you do not include the
Provisional Order settling the rates of the North
Eastern Company.
Lord Houghton.] That applies also to the
Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, and
Lancashire and Yorkshire Companies.
Mr. Pember.
5270. It does, indeed, my Lord. (To the Wit-
ness.) So that the classification here, if these are
test cases to govern everything, will apply to
those companies 2–Equally with our own. I
understand it is to be a uniform classification.
5271. And without pledging yourself to de-
tails in the matter, I think it is within your
knowledge that the statutory powers of the Is orth
Eastern Company, in reference to the present
classification, are particularly high 2–I under-
stand that there is nothing less than 2 d. a ton
there. *
5272. Of course a certain number of traders
have been before us here who have expressed
their views; but what is the best opinion that
you yourself have been able to form as to the
Satisfaction or dissatisfaction of the bulk of the
traders of the country with the existing order of
things?—I have said already that the most impor-
tant freighters have said to me personally, “We
are quife satisfied with the existing state of things.
If you would only ” (to use their own word}
“crystallize the present state of things, we shall
be content.” Subject to our having a margin to
meet contingencies, such as I have already refer-
red to, I do not think there is any desire on the
part of the railway companies to get move than
their actual rates with a margin. I think we
have all pretty well assented to that proposal.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] During the exami-
nation I think of Mr. Findlay the question arose
as to which of these articles of iron the company
would not object to leave in Class B., supposing
others were taken out. Could you by to-morrow
let us have a list of articles you would be content
to leave in Class B., provided the others were
taken up into Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Mr. Harrison will endeavour to do
that.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
5273. Just one question about the North
Eastern Company. You said that the maximum
powers of the North Eastern were 2 d. ?–No. I
said that I understood the minimum power was
2 d.
5274, Should you be surprised to hear that it
was 13; d. 2–I am only speaking from information
that I had from the North Eastern.
5275. In the principal Act the maximum
powers are l; d. 2–-I see here iron, and lead ore,
and all sorts of light iron shown in Lord
Skelmersdale's return at 2 d.
5276. Look at page 118?—I have page 120.
However, I had rather that the information was
given you by the North Eastern Company.
5277. Certainly. You gave the information,
so I was obliged to draw your attention to this.
On page 118 of Lord Skelmersdale's return, you
will find it applying to the principal lines 2–
Three-halfpence. Yes, less than 20 miles 2 d.,
and 1; d. over 20 miles.
5278. Less than 20 miles 2 d. You are quite
rig
Mr. Pember.] And you will find that a great
deal of the North Eastern trade is done by short
distances.
Mr. Shaw.] The North Eastern is not here.
(81.)
4 N 3 Chairman.]
654
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Chairman.] You had better ask Mr. Lambert
for the Great Western, because he knows some-
thing about it.
Mr. Shaw.] Certainly, but he gave this evi-
dence about the North Eastern.
Chairman.] He said from information he had
received.
Mr. Shaw.] He said that since.
Witness.] I do not like to put it too positively.
It was only second-hand information.
Mr. Skaw.
5279. You said that the Great Western Act
of 1847 refers to 260 miles of your lines 2–
Yes. -
5280. You have got another Act, I think,
called the South Wales Consolidation Act of
1863 –Yes.
5281. The Amalgamation Act of 1863, is it
not ?—Yes.
5282. There is a clause in that Act, is there
not, that when the Great Western Company pay
more than 6 per cent. for three years, the powers
of the Act of 1847 are to be enforced 2–Subject
to what I may be advised on that matter, we
have never been in the happy position of paying
6 per cent. for three years.
5283. Yet, when I said 6 per cent., I believe
there is some question likely to be raised as to
6 per cent. upon what capital, is there not ?
Chairman.] That is rather important.
Mr. Shaw.] I was going to point it out, your
Grace; I can only go by steps. I will read the
clause to your Grace, if I may.
Earl of Belmore.] Can you tell us who put
that condition upon the Great Western Com-
pany ?
Mr. Shaw.] It is rather a long time ago.
Earl of Belmore.] I was on the Committee ; I
do not remember anything abont it.
Mr. Shaw.] I will try and ascertain for your
Lordship: “If at any time hereafter the clear
annual profits divisible upon the subscribed and
paid-up capital stock of the united company upon
the average of the three then last preceding years
shall equal or exceed the rate of six pounds for
every hundred pounds of such paid-up capital
stock, it shall be lawful for the Board of Trade,
upon giving to the said company three calender
months' notice in writing of their intentions so to
do. to revise the scales of tolls, fares, and charges
authorized to be taken or levied by the united
company, and to fix such new scales of tolls, fares,
and charges applicable to such different classes,
and kinds of passengers, goods, and other traffic
on the railways belonging to the united company
as in the judgment of the said Board, assuming
the same quantities and kinds of traffic to con-
tinue, shall be likely to reduce the said annual
divisible profits to the said rate of six pounds in
the hundred; such revised tolls, fares, and
charges not being in any case less than the
tolls.”
Mr. Pember.] Less than——
Mr, Shaw.
5284. “Less than the tolls, fares, and charges
Mr. Shaw—continued.
which the Great Western Company were autho-
rised to demand and receive by “the Great
Western Railway Amendment and Extensions
Act, 1847.’” I am afraid I made a slight mistake.
I had not looked at this for some little time, that
the Board of Trade have power under this Act,
if on the average of three years you pay upon
your whole subscribed and paid-up capital stock
6 per cent, to reduce your rates under this Act
of 1863, to such a figure as will give you 6 per
cent., and no more, not being less than the Act
of 1847?—I cannot possibly bind myself to an
interpretation of that Clause ; but I can say that
we have not yet been in the position of paying a
dividend of 6 per cent. for three years on all our
capital.
5285. You are paying 6 per cent. on ordinary
capital 2–But that is the total capital sub-
scribed.
5286. But supposing that you did get into
that happy position of paying 6 per cent., within
the meaning, whatever it may be, of this clause,
the Board of Trade would have power to reduce
your rates upon certain kinds of traffic.
Chairman.] How does that bear upon the
present question ?
Mr. Pember.] I cannot see at all.
Mr. Shaw.] Because the witness said that the
rates in the Act of 1847 are very likely to come
into force ; he says that the Act of 1847 does not
apply, except to 260 miles; we say that it will.
Mr. Pember.] How
Mr. Shaw.] That is a matter of argument
afterwards. It extends the area, and there is at
very large quantity of this iron traffic that goes
upon this line, which is covered by the Act of
1863.
Witness.] The South Wales Act, no doubt.
5287. Looking at the classification of the Iron
List, I find that the Iron List A. refers to not
less than two tons?—List A. no doubt carried at
Class C. would be applicable to two-ton lots.
5288. Which is in the old special class 2–
Yes. &
5289. That would remain in a special class
now between four tons and two tons, under four
tons in fact 2–Four tons and upwards would be
in Class B. ; two tons would be in Class C. To
that extent of course we cannot complain. If
the present classification is maintained, our
objection disappears. But the proposal is to
reduce both a class. The special class goes
down to Class B., and the first class goes down to
Class C.
5290. What I mean is this, You have been
given already an advantage to that amount, that
now Class B. in the Board of Trade schedule is for
over four tons; your classification is only for over
two tons?—And I have given credit for the loss we
have shown in the figures I have given to you.
Mr. Hanbury.
5291. But at the present moment, as I under-
stand, these undamageable articles are in a class
corresponding to Class C., but that refers to two
tons 2—Yes.
5292. Now under the Board of Trade they are
IIl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES FROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
655
2 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Hambury—continued.
in Class B., but that refers to four tons 2 -That
is so. -
5293. Therefore if this amendment is carried
out you will get these articles put into Class C.,
with a minimum of four tons, as against your
existing Class C., with a minimum of two tons Ž
—No ; I do not think we have asked for that.
We are content with Class C. and a minimum of
two tons; we are quite content with Class C.
with two tons.
5294. But at anv rate, comparing Class C.
with the Board of Trade Classification, there is
this difference at any rate of two tons 2–Un-
doubtedly that in Class B. is applicable to four
tons and Class C. to two tons.
Mr. Shaw.
5295. The effect of what the Board of Trade
have done is to lower all those articles carried in
more than four tons and declared by the trader
to be undamageable to Class B. instead of leaving
them in Class C. P-Yes.
5296. Only to that amount 7–That is a very
substantial difference in our view.
Earl of Camperdown.
5297. In your favour 2–No ; against us.
5298. Having the minimum raised from two
to four tons?–That is a substantial difference
against us if the class is put down from C. to B.,
even for four tons.
5299. You mean as compared with what at
present exists; but surely it is a considerable
gain as compared with as it originally stood,
when Class B came up here 7–It is only a
mitigation of the loss.
5300. With Class C. it is a considerable gain ;
it is not half so bad for you as it was.
Mr. Pember.] Oh, you have done some good.
Mr. Bidder.] You must not say not half so bad;
it is a mitigation.
Mr. Pember.] And that is only Great Western.
Mr. Shaw.
5301. (To the Witness,) I think you attacked
the consistency of what the Board of Trade has
done?--I pointed out that with pig-iron there
were certain manufactured articles that were cer-
qainly not consistent with pig-iron; iron, as we
know it, in the first stage of manufacture.
5302–3. You do not object to puddled bars
being left in Class B, *-Mr. Harrison conceded
that point, and I am not going to contend any
thing different.
5304. And you do not object to tin-plate bars 2
—We should put tin-plate bars and puddle-bar
together, no doubt, in practice, and Mr. Harrison
having yielded that point, I am not going to dis-
cuss it.
5305. There was one question I forgot to ask
Mr. Harrison ; what about scrap-iron ; it is very
rough, is it mot ?–It is not only very rough, but
very bulky; it is one of the lightest things we
carry. You may fill a truck with 30 tons of
some of it and others are very heavy. The
difficulty we find in practice is to distinguish be-
tween heavy and light scrap. The trader desires
all his scrap to be called heavy scrap, but our
Mir. Shaw——continued.
experience is that many trucks will not carry
more than 30 hundredweight or up to two tons.
5306. Then it goes into a different class if it
is under four tons 2–I should not like to put
scrap iron with tin-plate bars.
5307. But if it is too bulky for its weight you
get another class; you get that already. You
spoke of consistency, do you think it is consistent
to put scrap iron with tin plates?—Having
regard to its bulk, yes. You must draw a dis-
tinction between scrap iron ; it is of a very
various character, and as I have already told you
there is some light scrap that we cannot get two
tons into a truck. Tin plates you may load up
to the truck’s capacity.
5308. At present heavy scrap is carried at
10 per cent. more than pig iron 7–That may
be so.
5309. With blooms,
bars 2–Yes.
5310. All classed at present by the railway
companies together at a rate of 10 per cent. more
than pig iron 2–Yes.
5311. Why should you not put all those things
together now 2–Because that would be giving
up to the 10 per cent., at any rate, and, looking
at the character of the traffic, I think we are
entitled to a higher class.
5312. But you have the actual margin between
the actual rates ?—I have not seen the actual
margin yet.
5313. Now you said you were not able to
recoup yourselves for these losses. I am in-
structed that a large proportion, anyway in South
Wales of your traffic is comparatively long-dis-
tance traffic, referring to this particular kind of
traffic, undamageable iron 2–No, it is not a very
long-distance traffic.
5314. I mean over 60 miles.
billetts, and puddled
I said compara-
tively long 7–No, the undamageable iron traffic
y t 5 Sc
in South Wales is principally a tin-bar traffic, as
it is called, that is to say, bars which have taken
the place of puddled bars are made at the large
works at Ebbw Vale, Dowlais, and Merthyr, and
are sent to the various tin-plate making works in
the district, and there is not 60 miles difference
between the extreme ends.
5315. Ebbw Vale to Port Talbot is 63 miles,
I am told?—Ebbw Vale to Port Talbot is only
42 miles.
5316. I am afraid I made a mistake about that
distance there 2––
Chairman.] You see the Witness says that as
a rule the traffic is not long-distance traffic, but
short-distance traffic ; you had befter take that; he
ought to know something about it.
Mr. Shaw.
5317. About the six days that you took, what
stations did you take 2–We took 75 stations on
our line. I can give you the list.
Chairman.] He told us 10 per cent. of the
whole stations, 75 out of 750.
Mr. Shaw.
5318. Are they typical stations for this kind of
traffic 2–We believe they were.
5319. Have you taken Ebbw Vale 2–We con-
sulted our local officers. We desired to get the
(81.)
4 N 4 best
656
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
2 June 189 1.]
Mr. Shaw—continued.
best stations we could that would give us a fair
result. We had no desire to minimise or exag-
gerate the thing ; we wanted to get for ourselves
a fair figure, and we believe that those are fair
typical stations for the whole line.
5320. I see you have taken a station like
Ledbury. Is there much of that undamageable
iron that goes to Ledbury 2–No, of course not,
but as I have said before, we wanted to get typi-
cal statious throughout the whole of the Great
Western Railway.
5321. You have taken Taunton 2–Taunton is
a good typical station clearly.
5322. Does much undamageable iron go there?
—Yes; it does not compare, of course. -
5323. It is very uncertain 2–It is intermittent
traffic, as I have said.
5324. So that taking six days out of the year,
where there is a very uncertain traffic to a
station that could not give a very fair idea of what
your losses would be 2–As I have said, we tried
to get the best return we conlū. We consulted
our officers, and took an immense amount of
pains to get at this figure, and we believe it is
under rather than over-estimated.
5325. Still it is only an estitmate 7–It is only
an estimate. -
5326. And an estimate made up on stations
which are not necessarily typical ?—I said be-
fore that the only proper figure to put before
you would be a loss on every individual trans-
action, but it was quite impossible to do that.
Chairman.] We quite understand that; that
was told us at the beginning.
Witness.] I may say that the return we did
get out occupied some twenty-five clerks nine
weeks.
Cross-examined by Mr. Waghorn.
5327. Just one or two questious upon this
question of margin that may be necessary.
Chairman.] For whom do you appear 2
Mr. Waghorn.
5328. I appear for the Lancashire and Cheshire
conference. Mr. Lambert made one or two
general observations about the margin that was
necessary for contingencies on rates generally.
(To the Witness.) You said that a margin was
necessary because of the increase in the price of
coal. Have you calculated at all what the cost
of coal is per ton per mile 2 – No, I have not.
1 only know that our coal bill has gone up, as I
said, to the extent of over 200,000 l.
5329. That is a large amount and yours is a
large railway, no doubt; but some calculations
were put in, I think, upon that point at the
Board of Trade. I daresay you will remember
them, that about a quarter of a tenth of a penny
represent the cost per ton per mile of your coal?
—I cannot give a proper answer to that question.
5330. It is not, perhaps, very fair to put to
you observations made by Mr. Findlay, but it is
not always that we have the opportunity of ask-
ing the exact gentleman whom we would like to
ask. I daresay you know that Mr. Findlay has
made some elaborate calenlatious as to the cost
per ton——
Mr. Pember.] You ought to have asked Mr.
Findlay.
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Wagkorn.] But it is Mr. Lambert who
talks about contingencies.
Mr. Pember.] He merely said what had been
challenged, that the rise in coal cost 200,000 7. a
year.
Chairman.] What are you upon now 2
Mr. Pember.] My learned friend wants to
read what Mr. Findlay said on a former occa-
S1Oll.
Mr. Waghorn.] No, not quite that. Mr. Lam-
bert commenced his examination by saying that
it was necessary to have a large margin in rates
because his expenses are increasing, and among
other things he mentioned coal.
Chairman. | Yes.
Mr. Waghorn.] My Lord Duke, I quite see
that the proper time for considering the question
is when the question of rates is being considered,
and if Mr. Findlay or Mr. Lambert intend to
restate these observations again on the question
of rates I shall be very pleased to defer my
observations to then; but our difficulty is that we
want to cross-examine witnesses when they make
Statements.
Chairman.] But what Mr. Lambert said was
that they wished to have a margin, because coal
was rising, and it might rise much more, and they
never could undertake to say what the condition
of the labour market might be. That is what I
understood.
Mr. Waghorn.j And I am asking Mr. Lam-
bert if he will kindly tell us about what rate per
ton per mile a substantial increase in coal would
Create.
Chairman.] He has told you that he cannot.
Mr. Waghorn.] I think the calculation is not
very difficult, and I think I might remind
Mr. Lambert of certain statements that were
made.
Chairman.] I think you must ask Mr. Lam-
bert questions, and let him answer them. If he
says he cannot answer them, it is no use putting
them.
Mr. Waghorn.] Then Mr. Lambert says he
cannot; he has not calculated and cannot
answer it.
Witness...} No.
5331. A good deal of your traffic you said
was competitive traffic; have yon any idea what
proportion of it is competitive 2–No ; I could
only give you a guess; but certainly the bulk
of it is competitive, a considerable portion of the
bulk.
5332. And, upon that competitive traffic, you
think you would not be able to take advantage
of any increased margin which the Committee
might allow you ?–I say so distinctly. I put
it as a proposition that we are to-day getting
the best rates that we can for our traffic, and
therefore, if it is said that if we have larger
powers we ought to make a profit on those
rates, I say that we can no more do it then
than we are able to do it to-day. We have got
powers which, if we could only exercise them,
would bring us in an enormous revenue, but as a
matter of fact we cannot exercise them.
5333. But it would be on rather a small pro-
portion
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
657
2 June 1891.]
Mr. Waghorn—continued.
portion of traffic that you would be able to levy
any increased powers which this Committee
might give you?—I cannot alter the statement I
have made. I say taking it as a broad proposi-
tion that we are getting the best rates we can to-
day for all uur traffic, competitive and non-com-
petitive.
5334. At the non-competitive stations at the
present moment do you think you are charging
your full maximum rates?—No we are not
certainly.
5335. Not in any case ?–I cannot say in any
case, but not as a rule ; we certainly are not
charging our maximum rates.
5336. If the amount you are allowed by the
Committee for terminal charges, or the amount
proposed by the Board of Trade were deducted
from the station terminal, would you not require
in many instances rates of 5 d. and 6 d. per ton
per mile 2–I do not quite follow you.
5337. I rather base my observation on a calcu-
lation put in by the Midland Company, but it
applies equally to the Great Western, The
Midland Company were kind enough to put in a
table in which they deducted a certain amount for
terminal charges, and then they showed what
the rate for conveyance was on the Normanton
scale, According to that table there are
many instances where 5 d. and 6 d. per ton per
mile was charged for conveyance 2–I would
rather you put me precise cases aud then I could
deal with them; I do not fell able to give an
answer upon a general question.
5338. Would there be in your table or the
Great Western Railway cases where 5 d or 6 d.
would now be charged for conveyance rates.
Mr. Pember.] What on ?
Lord Belper.] On what?
Mr. LAMBERT.
•
[Continued.
Mr. Waghorn.
5339. On any traffic. Really what a wide
question that is. It is impossible to give you an
3,1] SW eI’.
Mr. Waghorn.] Perhaps I might be able to ask
the question of the Midland gentleman; but I
submit to your Grace that we get our informa-
tion upon one railway and have an opportunity
of cross-examining another manager. Here are
many instances on the Midland table where 5 d.
and 6 d. and more per ton per mile is charged on
non-competitive rates.
Lord Belper.] On what?
Mr. Waghorn. Here is a case from Bradford.
to Barnsley.
Mr. Pember, What on ?
Mr. Waghorn.] On the 5th Class rate.
After Mr. Beale has been kind enough to deduct
collection and delivery, and terminal, perhaps the
rate per top per mile is 63 d.
Mr. Pember.] What has that got to do with
this.
Mr. Waghorn.j, But the 63 d. is coupled with
many more for the 5th Class rate. But Mr.
Lambert suggests that they will lose a large
amount of traffic, and I am simply asking him
whether any of his rates are above the maximum
rate. -
Chairman.] Mr. Lambert I think told you
that the Great Western Company do not charge
above their maximum ; I do not see how they
could. *
Mr. Waghorn.] Then I will take this answer
for the time from Mr. Lambert, and perhaps we
shall see him a little later on.
[The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, 11.30 o'clock.
(81.)
4 O
[ 658
| 659
Die Mercurii, 3° Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HoughTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Pember.] I SHALL not require to ask Mr.
Lambert any questions in re-examination.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I shall ask your Grace's
permission to put a few questions in cross-
examination to Mr. Lambert.
Chairman.] The inquiry was adjourned, and
Mr. Pember was then to re-examine.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No ; Mr. Pember did
not then re-examine.
Chairman.] But he is to re-examine now.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The cross-examination,
your Grace, was not concluded.
Mr. Shaw.] If your Grace will allow me to
explain; I had finished cross-examining. Mr.
Waghorn then cross-examined, and then your
Grace adjourned. You did not say anything
about Mr. Pember re-examining then because
the cross-examination had not finished.
Chairman.] We asked Mr. Pember whether
he would re-examine. But, however, if that is
so, if Sir Alfred Hickman wants to cross-examine
Mr. Lambert he can do so.
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT, is again called in ; and Cross-examined, as follows:
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5340. YoU gave us the percentage of the mile-
age of the 1847, the Oxford and Worcester Act,
as compared with the remainder of the line ; call
you give us the percentage of traffic upon those
portions?—No, I cannot.
5341. Any approximation to it?—No, I have
not got the information at all. If you will for-
give me for correcting you, I did not speak of
the percentage. I gave the actual mileage
governed by the Act of 1847, as compared with
the mileage of other lines where our tolls were
higher.
5342. And you gave the relative mileage ; can
you give us the relative traffic 2–I cannot.
5343. But you would say generally that the
traffic upon the 1847 portion, the Oxford and
Worcester and Wolverhampton portion, would
be very much larger than upon the agricultural
portion ?–It would be larger than upon the
agricultural portion; but then the comparison I
made included South Wales, which is a very
heavy carrying district, although a different class
of iron.
5344. You could not give any approximation ?
—No, I could not pretend to give any satisfac-
tory reply to that question.
5345. Will you tell us how the iron is classi-
fied in the 1847 Act 2—In the 1847 Act, pig iron,
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
bar iron, rod iron, sheet iron, hoop iron, plates of
iron, slabs, billets and rolled iron, are the only
descriptions of iron named in the first clause.
5346. What is iron classified with ?— Coals,
coke, culm, cannel, and so on.
5347. How is it classified in the Oxford,
Worcester, and Wolverhampton Act ; is it also
classified with coals in that ?—I have not the
Act with me.
5348. You may take it from me that it is so
classified; now let me ask you this ; have you
any Act in which iron is not classified with coal,
that is in the lowest class 2
Mr. Moon.] What iron do you mean *
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I mean iron generally,
damageable and undamageable ; there is no dis-
tinction, as far as I know, in any Great Western
Act between iron damageable and undamage-
able ; they are all classified together.
Witness.] There are 74 Acts that we are deal-
ing with. I should not like to give an opinion
unless I had an opportunity of examining them
from that point of view.
5349. There is no Act in which iron is not
classified with coal in the lowest class of all; is
there 2–There are so many Acts that, without
(81.) f
4 O 2 examining
660 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
examining them, I could not pretend to give an
answer to your question.
5350. You spoke about a loss of 9,300 l., and
you said that, in calculating that loss, you had
allowed something for the expenses of private
sidings?—What l said, I think, was that in cal-
culating our loss, we endeavoured to deal with
the traffic as it had actually been carried; that
is to say, that where traffic had been carried
from siding to siding, or from station to siding,
we had, in estimating our loss, dealt with the
figures accordingly. -
5351. That is that you had made—— ?—We
tried to compare like with like.
5352. What I understood you to say——?
Chairman.] But now he tells you what he has
said; you had better take that. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] With great deference
I submit he has not told me quite correctly ;
what I understood him to say was that in
calculating this loss in the case of sidings——
Chairman.] Had you not better refer to the
evidence ; you have it there, and read to him
what he did say.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5353. Perhaps your Grace will allow me to
pass on to another point while that is being
referred to, so as not to hinder the Committee.
(To the Witness.) You spoke about competition
by water in Staffordshire ; you said there was
water competition to Liverpool 2–Yes, I did.
Mr. Bidder.] Would you refer us to the
number of the question ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] It is within the know-
ledge of the Committee that Mr. Lambert did
refer to competition by water.
Witness.] I did refer to competition by water;
I referred to the fact that there was competition
between Staffordshire and Liverpool, and that a
large portion of our traffic was competitive.
5354. Are you aware that the canal between
Staffordshire and Live1 pool is owned and con-
trolled entirely by the London and North
Western Railway Company ?—The Shropshire
Union is no doubt, but there are independent
carriers carrying upon the canal.
5355. Are you aware that the Shropshire
Union Canal is owned by the London and
North Western Company ?—I am not aware
that the whole of the route is owned by the
London and North-Western Company.
5356. May I ask if you are aware that the
Shropshire Union Canal is owned by the Lon-
don and North Western Company ?—I know
that the London and North Western Company
have a controlling influence in the Shropshire
Union Canal; but I am not aware that the
whole of the route from Staffordshire to Liver-
pool is owned or controlled by them.
5357. Can you tell us of any canal between
Staffordshire and Liverpool which is not owned
by the London and North Western Company ?
—I cannot carry it further than that, that I am
not aware that the whole route is owned and
controlled by the London and North Western
Company.
5358. Is there any canal between Staffordshire
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
and Liverpool except the Shropshire Union
Canal.
Mr. Bidder.] I have been asked by the Lon-
don and North Western people if I might state
to your Grace to save time
Chairman.] You might do that when you
come to it afterwards.
Mr. Bidder.] But Mr. Lambert does not
know it.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Mr.
Lambert has given us all the informatian he is
able to give, and we shall not be able to get
more from him.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5359. (To the Witness). With regard to the
canal between Wolverhampton and London, are
you aware that the Birmingham Canal as
part of the route is controlled by the
London and North Western Company ?
—The London and North Western Company, I
believe, guarantee the dividend upon the Bir-
mingham Canal, but the Birmingham Canal
does not extend the whole way to London ; that
I do know. The greater portion of that is an inde-
pendent company, but I say that a competition,
and an effective competition, is carried on by
water between Birmingham and London.
5360. Do you know that the Birmingham
Canal tolls are controlled by the London and
North Western Railway Company ?—The only
answer I can make to that is that I am not
aware of the detail ; but I do know that the
London and North Western Company guarantee
the dividend upon the Birmingham Canal.
5361. They control the tolls?—To that extent,
no doubt, they would control the tolls.
5362. Now we have three competing railways
to Staffordshire, have we not; the Great Western,
the London and North Western, and the Mid
land?—Yes.
5363. Is it the fact that these three railways
have agreed together not to reduce any rate
without the consent of the other two 7–The
rates are all agreed.
5364. If I applied to you to reduce any rate,
you cannot consent without the consent of the
London and North Western Company and the
Midland Company ?—That is so, undoubtedly :
and I contend that it is in the interest of the
freighters themselves that that should be so as
well as of the railway companies; for this reason;
that if a trader goes to one railway company and
gets a lower rate in his favour —
5365. I only want the facts from you.
Chairman.] You see you ask questions and do
not wait for the answers. Mr. Lambert is justi-
fied in giving you any explanation he chooses in
answering your questions.
Witness.] I was going to explain that if a
freighter is able to go to one railway company
and get a lower rate, another freighter may go
to the same railway company and get a lower
rate still ; the consequence would be that traders,
so far as railway carriage is concerned, would
never know where they are ; as it is they know
that the rates are agreed ; there is competition in
faeilities, and we find that quite sufficient and
quite
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
661
3 June 1891.]
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
quite effective ; but so far as to its being
possible that one company should be able to
quote a lower rate than another ; I saw
distinctly that it is in the interest of the traders
that it should not be the case.
5366. Is it the fact that you have desired to
lower a rate which the other companies have not
allowed you to lower ?—Of course, I quite admit
there are differences of opinion arising between
the companies.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman')] Let me
ask you what has this to do with the question
under our review, which is that undamageable
iron should be taken out of Class B. and put
into Class C.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I quite admit that it
has nothing whatever to do with it,
Chairman.] Then possibly we need not pursue
the inquiry.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I would not have pur
sued the inquiry, but that Mr. Lambert made
certain statements which I considered were
entirely irrelevant, and I venture to think too
were entirely incorrect; if those statements made
any impression upon the mind of the Committee
I wise to remove that impression.
Chairman.] They have nothing to do with the
matter before us. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Then your objection is
how far any of your actual rates should be
reduced by the Provisional Order ?
Witness.] That was our view ; that it was the
intention that our actual rates should be pre-
served to us with a margin. p
5367. Will you tell us what is your rate for
undamageable iron under two tons, from Wolver-
hampton to Shrewsbury 2—I have not got the
figure with me.
Chairman.] Do not go into rates if you can
possibly avoid it, because we shall have to go all
through the rates later on. This is upon the
question of classification ; I know, of course,
that to a certain extent the question of rates
must enter into it to some extent, but you are
going now specifically into the question of rates.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I quite admit that that
has nothing to do with the question, but Mr.
Lambert was permitted to say that Mr. Court-
enay Boyle had acted unfairly and spoken un-
fairly in claiming that it was reasonable to reduce
actual rates.
Chairman.] Had you not better allow Mr.
Courtenay Boyle to fight his own battles 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle
is not before the Committee.
Cross-Examined by Mr. Capper.
5368. You have twice told the Committee that
only 265 miles of the Great Western Railway
come under your Act of 1847; is any portion of
that 265 miles in South Wales or Monmouth-
shire ?—No.
5369. Is it quite correct to give that answer in
face of the saving clause in your Acts of 1863
and 1867 ?—Yes, I think so.
5370. Because I may remind you again that
Mr. LAMBERT.
| Continued.
Mr. Capper—continued.
in the 22nd clause of the Act of 1867, you
preserved all the rates, tolls, and charges in your
Act of 1847 ?
Chairman.] What is the point that you are
now on ?
Mr. Capger.] What I want to point to is
this: that it is hardly correct for the Great
Western Company to say that the Act of 1847
only applies to railways outside South Wales,
while we have saving clauses in two of our Acts
preserving the rates and charges in the Act of
1847.
Mr. Moon.] This was discussed yesterday and
attention was drawn to it by my learned friend,
Mr. Shaw, and certain discussion took place
upon it.
Chairman.] This is what Mr. Pope said in
opening the case at page 606, on the 29th of
May: “ The proper way to deal with that is not
to reduce the general classification, and so do an
injustice to other companies which are not so
circumstanced, and even to the London and
North Western Company in some respects,
but to deal with the particular grievance,
or the particular effect upon the trade which
is governed by the London and North Western
rates, specially as you propose to deal with the
South Wales traders with regard to agreements
or rates which are secured to them in the Great
Western Company’s various Acts.” That is
what Mr. Pope opened.
Mr. Capper.] But our difficulty is not met by
that statements of Mr. Pope's, because we have
no agreement at all. We have a clause in the
Act of Parliament which we always thought
was stronger than any agreement.
Chairman.] But we are not going now into
the question whether a clause or an agreement is
more binding, the one than the other.
Mr. Bidder.] I confess I thought it was under-
stood that any question of a local character would
be dealt with on the separate schedules in the
Bills of the different railway compauies, not upon
the question of classification.
Chairman (to Mr. Copper).] Let me ask you
this: has your case anything to do with the
removal of iron and steel from Class B. to Class
C. 2
Mr. Capper.] Yes, because we say that out of
24 articles in the Act of 1847, 12 of them are
manufactured.
Chairman.] Is that special to the Great
Western Company ?
Mr. Capper.] Yes, it is special to the Great
Western Company.
Chairman.] We are now dealing with the
general questiou, not with the special question of
the Great Western Company; we shall deal with
the Great Western Provisional Order when it.
comes before us after we have done with the
London and North Western.
Mr. Capper.
537 l. (To the Witness.) In answer to Ques-
tion 5305, on page 655, you said you had no
(81.)
4 O 3 objection
662 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Mr. Capper—continued.
objection to puddled bars being left in Class B. ;
may I ask whether you have any objection to
clippings and shearings, when compressed, being
kept in Class B. 7–I may explain that the goods
managers met last evening to see how far effect
could be given to the evidence of Mr. Findlay in
regard to transferring certain articles from Class
B. to Class C.
Mr. Bidder.] It would save time if I were to
hand in the list, because we have got it out ;
and that very thing, clippings and shearings, is
in the list.
Witness.] I was going to explain that that list
will be put in, and it is very likely that that par-
ticular article will be dealt with.
Mr. Capper.
5372. Would you say what you understand by
the word “compressed ”?—What I have seen
as tin plate clippings compressed are compressed
into square bundles, weighing perhaps a couple
of hundredweight, and they make very good load-
ing if they are compressed by machine,
5373. Would not compressed bundles by hand
come under the same term 2–No, it becomes a
very different article; unless they were very
tightly compressed by machinery they would
not fill a truck so well as when compressed in
that way.
5374. But compressed bundles by hand are
the “bundles” of commerce, which are sent
back to the works to be re-made – I am not
familiar with these, but I am familiar with thc
bundles which are compressed by machinery.
Earl of Belmore.] The question his Grace or
somebody asked you was about that list, that
certain things were to be taken out of what is
now Class B. and put somewhere else, his Grace
said they were to be left in Class B. ; what I
understood you to mean was, that first of all you
asked us to take the whole list as it stands in
Class C., and then by this supplemental list,
which Mr. Bidder is going to put in, you would
ask us to put back into Class B. certain articles
stated.
Mr. Bidder.] To leave in Class B. certain
articles.
Witness.] I was not present during Mr.
Findlay's examination yesterday, but I under-
stood him to say that there were certain articles
now in Class C. which the companies might agree
to put in Class B.
Mr. Bidder.] Or to leave in Class B.
Witness.] May I just now interpose, and give
an answer to Sir Alfred Hickman, as to iron
always being classified with coal. I have now
the means of giving an answer to the question
before me, and I am able to say that iron is not
always classified with coal. I find that in a
variety of Acts which I can refer to, for instance,
in the Bristol and Exeter Act of 1863, coal is
charged at 13 d., whereas bar iron is charged
at 2 d. ; and the same in a variety of other
Acts.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5375. Could you tell us what was the extent
of those Acts is, what mileage they replesent, or
what amount of traffic *—I could not give you
the length offhand, but the Bristol and Exeter
is a main line running from Bristol to Exeter,
and having various branches.
5376. Through an agricultural district 7–Yes,
but your question was, whether it was not a fact
that iron was not always classified with coal,
and my answer is, that it is not.
5377. My question was, in what Acts, it was
not classified with coal P
Mr. Bidder.] I do not propose to re-examine
Mr. Lambert, and probably it will be convenient
now if I were to read out the list.
[Mr. Bidder read the following paper:—]
LIST of IRON Articles which the RAILWAY COM-
PANIEs would be willing to leave in CLASS B.
of the SCHEDULE, provided the remaining
Articles in the Iron List in CLASS B. of
SCHEDULE are removed to C1ASS C.
The following articles of Iron or Steel :—
Anvils exceeding 10 cwt. in weight each.
Bars for tin plate making.
Buoy sinkers.
Cannon balls, and shot and shell not charged.
Clippings, shearings, and stampings of sheet
iron and tin plates in compressed bundles.
Filings.
Ingot moulds.
Open sand plates, cast.
Scrap heavy, minimum load four tons per
truck.
Swarf.
Wire-rope, old, cut in pieces.
Mr. Hanbury.] Are these all yard, traffic,
because we had a difficulty about station ter-
minals.
Mr. Bidder.] I am told they would be all yard
traffic.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you mean by those
words “minimum load four tons,” per consign-
Inent.
Mr. Bidder.] No; the minimum load in Sche-
dule B. is the consignment; this is per truck
load.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Do you mean anchors :
there is no such thing as an anvil weighing
10 cwt.
Mr. Bieder.] Anvils exceeding 10 cwt.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am told there is no
such thing.
Mr. Bidder.] I am told there is.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] There are no such
things as anvils exceeding 10 cwt., or anything
like it.
Mr. Bidder.] The railway companies tell me
that there is." Now, your Grace knows that
there are certain articles which are not under
the head of iron undamageable, about which
there is no question as to their remaining in
Class B. : blooms and billets, for example.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
663
3 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
| Continued.
Chairman.] But what we want to know is
what you propose to leave in Class B., and what
you propose to put up into Class C.
Mr. Bidder.] We propose to take out of Class
B., and to put into Class C. the whole of the
list under the heading of “ Iron and steel un-
damageable,” exeepting the articles I have just
now enumerated; but there are certain other
iron articles in Class B, which are not under the
head of “iron undamageable" which it is in-
tended should remain in Class B. (The list just
previously read was handed to the Committee.)
Chairman (to Mr. Bºdder).] We understand
that it is the whole of the iron articles you are
dealing with, commencing with “iron and steel
undamageable * on page 18, and finishing on
page 20 with “wire rope, old, cut in pieces.”
Mr. Binder.] That is so.
Chairman.] All the other articles outside that
list do you propose to leave in Class B. P
Mr. Bidder.] Everything in Class B. which is
not in the list.
Chairman.] What iron articles are there in
Class B. which are not in that list?
Mr. Bidder.] Blooms and billets. If you look
at the list, about the eighth article, “pig iron,”
you will find on page 20 “puddled bar iron" and
“spigaleisen in bulk.”
Earl of Camperdown.] But “posts, iron or
steel,” would go out.
Mr. Bidder.] They would go out, but there is
a clerical error which I should correct. By some
accident, under the heading of “Iron or steel
undamageable,” you will see in the second
colnmn “bar puddled ”; that would go out.
Earl of Camperdown.] That was mentioned
yesterday. -
Mr. Bidder.] Then there is another article
which should remain : “ferro-manganese in
bulk.” I was asked to point out what articles
not under the head of undamageable iron, but
being iron articles, would remain in Class B.
Mr. Shaw.] Of course that is to be subject to
the head note of “undamageable iron.”
Mr. Bidder.] No, we propose to leave that out.
Mr. Shaw.] That put aside the leading ques-
tion, which we did not want to argue; there
would be no question of damageability.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is what I want to know ;
when those are put into Class C. would they be
“undamageable * or not?
Mr. Shaw.] No.
Mr. Bidder.] No.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. GEORGE HENRY TURNER, is called in ; and, having been sworn is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
* 5378. YOU are the Assistant
Manager of the Midland Railway ? --Yes.
5379. I believe Mr. Noble, the General Man-
ager, has been obliged to go away through ill
health 2–Unfortunately that is so.
5380. As a matter of fact, the Midland Rail-
way Company are very largely interested in the
question of the classification of iron, are they
not ?—They are ; it forms a very large proportion
of their traffic.
5381. You have iron works at many points of
your system both in Derbyshire and Yorkshire 2
—Yes.
5382. Your aggregate tonnage of iron is a
very considorable proportion of your mineral
traffic I believe 2–It is indeed a very large pro-
portion.
5383. As a matter of fact, although the ton-
nage is so large, is it the case that a great deal
of the traffic is carried in small quantities 2–
Yes, a great deal of the traffic is carried in small
quantitities, but a very much larger proportion
in large quantities; still there is a great deal in
small quantities.
5384. First, under your existing Acts, would
you tell the Committee what your powers are
with regard to all classes of iron in course of
manufacture ?–Our powers, generally speaking,
are 2 d. per ton per mile for distances up to
40 miles, and 1; d. beyond.
5385. Does that apply to the greater propor-
tion of your system 2–It does.
5386. It is 2 d. a ton up to 40 miles, and 13 d.
a ton beyond that ?—Yes.
5387. There is one Act, I think, covering a
distance of about 14 miles, where you have the
General
M1. Bidder—continued.
lower rate of 1 d. ; am I not right in saying
that 7–Yes, that is so; the Erewash Valley is
as low as a penny.
5388. You have one Act in which it is from
140, upwards? – Yes, upon the Manchester,
Buxton, and Matlock line it is from 14 d. to 3 d.
5389. I need not ask you as to the practice of
dividing iron into List A. and B. 2–That has
been explained.
Mr. Hunter.
3390. Those maximum rates that you are
giving are maximum rates applicable to small
quantities not exceeding five cºwb. ?–Yes.
5391. Now we are dealing with four-ton
loads?—Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] They apply to all loads, whether
small or large.
Mr. Hunter.] That appears to show that the
greater portion of his quantities are small quan-
titles. -
Mr. Bidder.
... 5392. You will have the actual figures given
directly ; now I am putting what the charging
powers of the company are under their existing
Acts. . (To the Hºtness.) So that as regards the
rate of charge which Parliament has given you,
you are in a very different position from those
portions of the London and North Western and
Great Western systems which have been re-
ferred to in the evidence given by Mr. Lambert
and Mr. Findlay?—We have no such thing as
the small powers , which there are upon the
London and North Western and those which
have been quoted for the Great Western. The
lowest that we have are those I have given you.
(81.)
4 O 4 5393. I suppose
664
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
5393. I suppose when you come into competi-
tion with other companies, as at Birmingham
and South Staffordshire and elsewhere, then you
generally quote rates identical with those of the
other companies 2–That is so; we are compelled
to compete for traffic.
5394. The South Staffordshire trade is the
most important trade in which you are carrying
in competition with the other two companies, is
it not ?—With those two particular companies,
CS.
5395. And is it the case that that trade is
carried on in large tonnage or consignments?—
Undoubtedly so. -
5396. You have also, I think, a very strong
competitiou, not only with the two companies I
have named, but with the canals, have you not *
—Yes. the same as the other companies; we
carry from South Staffordshire, and have, as they
have, the competition of the canals to contend
with.
5397. As regards your existing rates, I will
ask you first, are the traders satisfied or do you
have complaints with regard to your existing
rates ?—It occurs to me as rather an extraordi-
nary fact that we have had no complaints what-
ever; neither do I remember that we have had
anybody appearing at the Board of Trade inquiry
at Westminster to complain of our existing rates
and classification.
Lord Belper.
5398. Are you referring to all articles, or only
to the iron trade?—I am referring only to the
iron trade now.
Mr. Bºdder.
5399. As a matter of fact will the actual rates
you are now charging and receiving for the
carriage of iron be covered if undamageable
iron or the articles included in that list were
transferred to Class B., having regard to the
rates in Class B 2–-No, on the contrary there
would be a very serious loss which we estimate
at something like 47,000 l. a year.
5400. If we are right in assuming that the
moving cause in putting iron down to Class C.,
or what was equivalent to Class C., was the low
rates in force in the Acts of the London and
North Western, and the Great Western, upon
the part of the Midland Company, I suppose you
rather protest against it as affecting the interests
of your company ?– Most decidedly we do; seeing
that the trade is now conducted satisfactorily as
we think to the traders, we consider that we
should not be called upon to lose all this money
and give it to people who do not require it, supply
because some other company has lower tolls.
5401. I think it would be convenient now if we
were to hand in to the Committee statements to
show what the effect upon yonr iron traffic would
be if this alteration in the classification.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] May I be allowed for
one moment to interpose——
Mr. Bidder.] Only if I am doing something
irregular.
The Committee consult together.
Mr. TURNER.
[Continued.
Chairman (to Mr. Bidder).] Will you look at
page 606, Mr. Pope's speech on the 29th of May;
the passage that I read just now, which seems to
indicate that the view of the railway companies,
as represented by Mr. Pope on that day, was,
that when we come to each particular Bill, the
London and North Western, the Great Western,
the Midland, and so on ; they should be heard
then upon those Bills if the rates that are put
upon them are higher than what they have been
accustomed to pay ?
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace, I am authorised to
say now on behalf of both companies, the London
and North Western and the Great Western, that
they are quite content that upon their special
schedule any questions arising out of their spe-
cial Acts shall be dealt with, and any grievance
redressed.
Chairman.] I only wanted that clearly stated.
I gathered that from what Mr. Pope said in his
speech.
Mr. Bidder.] I am expressly authorised to say
that that is so.
Chairman.] I wanted it to be quite clear that
that was the intention of Mr. Pope when he made
his speech. -
Mr. Bidder.] That was his intention, and that
is the intention of the companies. -
Mr. Hambury.] Then is it the fact that most of
the opposition both of Sir Alfred Hickman and
the South Wales freighters could be dealt with
later on, on the special Bills of the London and
North Western and Great Western Railway
Companies 2 -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Not on the question of
classification.
Mr. Bidder.] If Sir Alfred Hickman would
allow me to make it quite clear, assuming that
these articles are restored to Class C., the London
and North Western Company and the Great
Western company are quite willing, that when we
come to discuss rates upon their schedules, if in
the case of South Staffordshire, or any other case,
it is shown that the effect of that coupled with the
Class C. rates, is to place the traders interested
in those rates at a disadvantage, as compared
with the existing powers of those companies, that
disadvantage and that grievance shall be redressed
upon the question of rates in their schedules, so
that it will be quite distinct upon the general
question of classification ; and leaving the iron
in Class C. will not prejudice Sir Alfred Hick-
man or anybody else who has got a grievance of
that kind.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] You were
going to say something to me when I stopped
you.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] What I snbmit your
Grace in reply to Mr. Bidder is, that that ought
to apply both ways. On the other hand the
Midland Company, when their schedule comes
up, will be able to object to rates.
Chairman. Are you dealing with the Midland
Company ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am dealing with Mr.
Bidder's objection.
Chairman.]
ON RAILwAY RATES AND cFIARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLs. 665
3 June 1891. ) Mr. TU RNER. [Continued.
Chairman.] But you are bringing in the Mid-
land ; Mr. Bidder spoke for the London and
North Western, and Great Western Companies.
What were you going to say to me when I
stopped you ? -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I was going with great
respect, your Grace, to submit that this question
of rates has nothing whatever to do with the
question at issue. Your Grace very properly, I
quite submit, stopped me when I was cross-
examining Mr. Lambert on the question of rates;
and I submit that we are here to discuss the
question of the appropriateness of classification,
and that the question of rates has nothing what-
ever to do with that.
Chairman.] Are you in anyway affected by
the Midland P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Certainly, I am a trader
on the Midland.
Mr. Hunter.] The only question as I under-
stand that is before the Committee at the present
time is that in certain acts a certain classification
has been adopted, defined by the word “un-
damageable ’’; and the question which we have
here to consider is whether in this new classifi-
cation we shall go upon the distinction between
damageable and undamageable iron. That is the
only point at present.
Mr. Shaw.] With the distinction of class.
Earl of Camperdown.] At this moment this
amendment is a question of classification, and not
a question of rates.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Wery
well, we have heard your objection.
The Commitee deliberate.
Mr. Yates.] We have taken no part up to the
present time in the question of classification, for
this reason : that your Grace has always said
that the question was a question of rates. A bar
of iron is the same, upon whatever railway it is
carried, and we shall ask that it might be dealt
with as classification pure and simple, and we
deal with the rates when we come to the rate
classes as affecting the rates of the companies.
Chairman.] We do keep it as separate as we
can, but we cannot avoid altogether mixing up
the question of rates. We do not wish to go,
and I was going to suggest to Mr. Bidder not to
go more into the question of rates than is abso-
lutely necessary. What we are dealing with is
classification ; but of course we cannot lose sight
of the fact that it will affect the rate to a certain
amount when you are taking articles out of one
class and putting them into another class, that by
so doing you would increase the rate at which
they would be carried.
Mr. Bidder.] I may say at once, your Grace,
that all along we all have been impressed with
the feeling that is on your Grace's mind that this
is a question of classification, and not of rates.
The difficulty, as Mr. Courtenay Boyle explained
to the Committee, of moving these undamageable
articles out of what is their natural class into Class
B., arose out of an attempt at uniformity, in con-
sequence of these special Acts with regard to
rates of the two companies; so that we have been
dragged rather against our own sense of the fit-
ness of things, into discussing rates to a certain
extent.
Chairman.] But now we understand the view
of the companies, and we do not want to go more
into the question of rates than is absolutely
essential. -
Mr. Bidder.] I shall put it very shortly, your
Grace. Of course, we know very well that no
practicable rate that either is proposed or could
be proposed for Class B. could cover the rates
that we are getting in respect of this iron ; not
only this rate, out any rate that your Grace
would be likely to sanction, or that would be fair
to other articles in Class B.
Mr. Hanbury.] By “we” you mean all other
companies except the London and North Western
and the Great Western ?
Mr. Bidder.] The Midland is, of course, more
in my mind at the present moment; but no rate,
I would say, that would be fair to the generality
of the articles in Class B. would cover the rates
which we are actually getting in respect of iron
at the present time.
Mr. Hunter.] Are the rates for the Midland
the same as those for the London and North
Western Company ?
Mr. Bidder.] The actual rates, do you mean?
Mr. Hunter.] No, the new maximum.
Mr. Bidder.] I think in this respect they are.
Mr. Hunter.] Are yours the same as the Lon-
don and North Western ?
Mr. Bidder.
5402. Yes, in Classes B. and C. they are the
same ; there is a difference in Class A. I will
now hand in to the Committee a statement show-
ing the estimated loss on the iron traffic by this
alteration in classification, and the application of
the rates of Class B. as compared with what they
are actually getting. (To the Witness.) This is
an estimate based upon your actual carriage for
a month in the year 1890 – Yes. We took
every entry out for a month.
5403. And as regards heavy scrap-iron you
took the actual carriage for a week?—Yes, I
might explain how that occurred. The reason
we took a week first occurred in this way. It
occurred to me that our greatest loss would be on
Class C. as prescribed in the Board of Trade
Provisional Order, and I had every entry
throughout fle line occurring in Class C. ex-
tracted, and upon that I based the calculation of
the week's traffic. Later on, when we saw the
Board of Trade Provisional Order in its entirety,
we thought that, in order to better realise the
consequences, we should take a month's traffic,
that is every entry for a month ; and that will
explain to you the reason why we have a month
in one case and a week in another.
(81.)
4 P
666
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Mr. TURNER.
[Continued.
The following table is handed in, and is as follows :-
MIDLAND RAILWAY.
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TOTAL LOSS ON IRON TRAFFIC,
Which would be caused if the Classification and Rates in the Schedule to the Bill were adopted.
| T onnage on which
occur (One Year).
Loss would
Loss (One Year).
Iron in Iron List A. of Railway Clearing
House - tº º * - - tº-
Heavy scrap tº - tº º -
Tons. - f.
562,709 45,344
51,779 1,667
614,488 £. 47,011
This estimate is based, as regards the traffic in Iron List A. upon the actual carryings of the
Midland Company for the month of March 1890, and as regards the heavy scrap upon the actual
carryings for the week ending 26th October 1889.
tº P e º
The result, although approximately correct, requires for strict accuracy to be corrected in the
following particulars:–
1. The rates are calculated as if station terminals were chargeable in all cases, whereas a
large part of the traffic passes to, from, or between sidings;
2. The raising of the minimum consignment from two to four tons will reduce the estimated
losss on traffic between those weights;
3. Upon through traffic the Midland Schedule is applied to them throughout distance, not to
the junction with the foreign line.
It is believed that the increase of loss under Head I will be rather more than balanced by the
reduction under Heads 2 and 3, but it is not possible to ascertain the figures with accuracy.
5404. That table shows the total tonnage
under both heads of 614,488 tons and a loss for
the year of 47,011 l. on the actual rates you
receive?–Off actual charges we are to-day
making. e e
54.05. I see there are certain qualifications
made in notes which you have appended : that
the result for strict accuracy requires to be cor-
rected in the following particulars : First, that
the rates are calculated as if station terminals
were chargeable in all cases, whereas a large
part of the traffic passes to, from, or between
sidings?—That occurred in consequence of an
earlier stage of these proceedings. In testing
these rates we allowed for a terminal upon every
item, so that our loss must be more, seeing that
we cannot always get terminals.
54.06. On that account your loss would be
greater. Secondly, you mean that your actual
rates that you are companing are rates inclusive
of such terminals when you get them *-Yes.
5407. You have assumed, for the purposes of
comparison, that you have got a double terminal
in both cases, knowing that in many cases you
would not get it?—Yes, because the traffic comes
from sidings.
5408. The second note is : “The raising of the
minimum consignment from two to four tons will
reduce the estimated loss on traffic between those
weights”? — That is what eccurred in this
tribunal.
Mr. Hambury.] But have you excluded all
consignments between 500 lbs., I think he said,
and four tons.
Mr. Bidder.] That is another paper, Sir, which
you shall have in a moment.
5409. (To the Witness.) And, thirdly : “Upon
through traffic the Midland schedule is applied
to the throughout distance, not to the junction
with the foreign line "?—It was impossible to
Say
ON RAILWAY RATES
AIND CHARGES PROV J SIONAL ORD EIR BILLS. 667
3 June 1891.]
Mr. Bidder—continued.
say what the powers will be for other railways,
and we take the entire distance upon the Midland
Schedule; that is upon the Provisional Order.
5410. That would be, of course, to some extent
to make the loss appear somewhat larger than it
otherwise would be, because the total journey
being, say, 120 miles, of which only 70 is on
your line, the rate for the 120 miles in the
schedule is a lower rate than the rate for the 70
miles?—We should have the benefit of the lower
rate on the other railway, and that would, to
that extent, affect the question.
5411. Applying your judgment, is it your
opinion that, in point of fact, the increase of loss
under the first head, practically about balances
the diminntiou under the other two heads 2—I
think it is quite fair to say so. I have looked at
it carefully, and studied it, and come to that con-
clusion.
5412. Have you tested the question in another
way, and given particulars as to the weight of
consignments, by taking certain of your most
important iron-sending stations 2 – Yes. In
order to test this thing fairly, I selected 13 of
our heaviest iron-sending stations.
5413. And you have extracted the actual
consignments in detailed papers which we can
put in but need not read them to the Committee;
anybody can refer to then which are numbered
M. 1, M. 2, and M. 3. (handing in the same)?—
That is so.
5414. But the result of those detailed state-
ments is given in this paper which is now before
the Committee, in which I see you have taken
Mr. TURNER.
–
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
13 stations which are amongst your most in-
portant iron stations 2-—They are enumerated at
the top of this list; Masboro’, Leeds, Chester-
field, Clay Cross, Codnor Park, Kirkstall Forge,
Sheepbridge, Stanton Gate, Staveley, Trowell,
Sheffield, Woodhouse Mill and Ambergate.
5415. And you have taken the traffic for one
month '' – I have taken the traffic for one month
to our local stations only, in order that the thing
may be realised properly, as it stands upon our
own schedule, without being complicated with
other railways or other schedules.
5416. You have divided the rate into covered
and uncovered, by which you mean rates which
would be covered or authorised by the proposed
rates in the schedule, and uncovered rates which
you would be no longer able to charge the
public 2–That is so ; it is the difference between
what we should get to-day and what we should
get if we adopt the Board of Trade Provisional
Order. - º
5417. You have divided the consignments first
into lots between three hundredweights and two
tons; secondly, into lots between four tons and up
to ten tons 2–Two tons and four tons.
5418. You have omitted that in the first
instance ; and, thirdly, lots exceeding 10 tons,
which appear to aggregate 104,912 tons —That
1S SO. -
5419. You separate the lots between two and
four tons, which, in conse.luence of the decision
of the Committee, making a minimum of four
tons, are practically in Class C. already, and are,
therefore, covered, and which amount to 16, 186
tons?—Yes.
The Witness hands in the following Table —
MIDLAND RAILWAY.
IRON TRAFFIC.
The stations on the Midland Railway, which are t
Birmingham and South Staffordshire), have been select
he largest iron-sending stations (excluding
ed, and the traffic examined in detail.
These stations are 13 in number, and are the following:—
Masboro’. Kirkstall Forge. Sheffield.
Leeds. Sheepbridge. Woodhouse Mill.
Chesterfield. Stanton Gate. Ambergate.
Clay Cross. Staveley. & )
Codnor Park.
Trowell.
The following detailed statements show the traffic carried for
each of these 13 stations and all local Midland stations,
excluding:—
the periods stated between
reached only by Midland lines, thus
(1.) Traffic carried at through rates to foreign stations.
(2) Traffic carried to Midland stations reach
railway.
ed by running powers over another Company’s
(81.)
4
P
2
668 MINUTEs of Evidence TAKEN BEFoRE THE Joint committee
3 June 1891.] T Mr. TURNER. [Continued.
The result of this detailed investigation as regards the 13 stations is as follows:–
No. of Rates at which Tonnage (estimate for
Traffic was sent One Year, based on
“. . a Month's Traffic).
A. Covered. | Uncovered. Covered. | Uncovered.
* Toms. Tons.
Satement M. 1. Lots 3 cwt.
to 2 tons - s - 10 83 1,548 4,294
Statement M. 2. Lots 4 tons
and up to 10 tons - - 9 143 2,135 33,242
Statement M. 3. Lots ex-
ceeding 10 tons tº- º 5 58 3,892 59,801
- - 7,575 97,337 = 104,912
Lots of two to four tons wº tº- tºº wº- &m – 16, 186
121,098
The total traffic from these 13 stations was 121,098 tons, or about one-sixth of the whole.
Midland traffic on which loss would occur.
Of this the station-to-station traffic was -
- 18,063 tons,
station to siding and siding to station 59,397 tons,
siding to siding
5420, That appears to show that, in the first
case, 83 out of 93 rates were uncovered 2–Yes;
10 covered and 83 uncovered.
5421. In the second case, 9 covered and 143
uncovered, and, in the third case, 5 covered and
58 uncovered ?–Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
5422. I see you give us in this Statement No.
2, in lots of four tons and under 10 tons; you
quote the two-ton station-to-station rate more
frequently; there are very few four-ton rates?—-
The actual rate to-day we give you ; that is, the
conditions of the present actual rate.
5423. I know ; but, under Class B, we are
dealing exclusively with four-ton rates ?—Pre-
cisely so ; and we have calculated upon that
view. That is why we have only taken over
four tons at the heading of the statement.
5424. I see : your proposed maxima are on
this scale P--- Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
5425. Have you taken into consideration, too,
that all consignments between 500 pounds and
two tons will go into Class 1 2–Yes; they are
there to day.
Mr. Bidder.
5426. I take it that, even in cases in Class B.,
where the proposed rates would allow you to
charge more than you are charging at present,
the conditions of business would make it quite
impossible for you to attempt to recoup your-
selves for the i. on other consignments, by
putting up those rates ?—I think that would be
/
43,538 tons.
121,098 tons.
*
impracticable. I think the trade to-day pays all
that the traffic will stand. -
5427. As the whole result of your investi-
gation, are you satisfied that the application
of this classification, coupled with any rates
you could have in Class B., would land
you in a loss of between 40,000 l. and
50,000 ſ. a-year to the Midland Company ?—
I should not like to mention a sum exactly :
but it is very clear to me that the ques-
tion of rate will not satisfy the losses which
we shall suffer by iron remaining in Class B.
and being subject to Class B. rates, whether it
will be 40,000 l. or a little more ; but it will be
Very near that I feel certain.
Mr. Humfer.
5428. In giving these consignments have
you included bar iron 2–Yes, we have in-
cluded every description of iron mentioned in
that list. -
5429. That is to say, in this table, as I under-
stand, you are giving us not only a complaint
against the particular amendment before the
Committee, but generally against Class B. P−
We have taken iron as placed in Class B. by the
Board of Trade, Schedule. We protest entirely
against its remaining in Class B.
5430. But the companies agree that bar iron
is to remain in Class B. P-I understand pig-iron,
not bar iron. * ' e
5431. I want to know whether upon these
tables which you have prepared, you have in-
cluded pig-iron?—No, it is exclusive of pig-
iron.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
669
3 June 1891.] Mr. TURNER. | Continued.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is it exclusive of everything
which the companies have agreed shall stop in
Class B '
Mr. Bidder.] It is not exclusive of those
things which I have named to-day, because that
is only the result of consultation last might.
Witness.] This table was prepared before that
was thought of -
Mr. Hunter.
5432. It is exclusive of blooms and all those
things?—Yes, everything except pig-iron.
Mr. Bidder.
5433. It does not include blooms, does it *-
Yes, everything except pig iron.
Mr. Lidder.] I am told, your Grace, that this
includes everything that is in Jºist A. of the
Clearing House Classification; and, of course, it
was impossible to modify it, so far as it would be
modified, by what I told the Committee this
morning.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do all those articles
which have been named the morning form any
appreciably large portion of the traffic
Mr. Bidder.
5434. (To the Witness.) Would you kindly look
at this List and say whether, out of your traffic
that you are dealing with, they form any large
percentage of it (handing to the Witness the list ºf
articles which the railway companies agree to remain
in Class B.) 2—I do not think they would form a
very large percentage of our traffic. But when
it comes to scrap iron it will be a very serious
item to us; we should lose on that of course,
and on nearly all the items more or less.
Earl of Belmore.
5435. On your existing rates?–Yes.
5436. Not your existing powers, but your
existing rates?—Yes, on our existing rates. I
am speaking entirely of our present charges.
Mr. Bidder.
5437. There is another point. Would it have
another effect besides the loss of revenue to the
company, that it would cause a disturbance of
your rates all over your system.”—Yes, it would
naturally do so; and I thidk it would be very
much opposed to the interests of the traders who
to-day are quite content. I
satisfied freighter with any of these rates in any
way.
Mr. 11ambury.
5438. But you let drop an expression (I do
not know which way it was intended to cut),
that the rates were as much as the traffic could
stand 2–Certainly that is so.
5439. What exactly do you mean by that?—
I mean to say that we are getting now as much
as we can from the trader for a particular traffic.
If we raise the rates it must really dislocate the
traffic.
5440. Does that apply to all consignments,
large and small alike –In this iron question,
certainly.
Mr. Humter.
5441. What is your maximum for iron between
Sheffield and Masboro’?—Twopence per ton per
mile up to 40 miles, and 1% d. beyond.
have not a dis-
Mr. Hunter—continued.
5442. I find the distance is five miles; suppose
we call it six miles, that would be 1 s. ; there-
fore your rate at the present time is 2 s. 6 d., or
1 s. 6 d. for terminals in addition to the existing
maximum ?–Are you referring to either of these
tables? If you look at the tables you will find
it explained. -
Mr. Bidder.] The proposed rate is 1 s.
Mr. Hunter.
5443. But the existing rate is 2 s. 6d. a ton P
—Yes.
5444. Your maximum for mileage is 2d. per
ton for five miles P –Yes.
5445. I suppose you get the six miles short
distance 2–Yes, we should charge the six miles
short clause.
5446. So that your maximum at the present
time would be 1 s. ?—Yes.
5447. Therefore you are now charging for
your terminals 1 s. 6 d. 2–Yes. For all this
traffic, we consider that we have terminals at .
each end ; we have calculated on these losses
that we should get the terminals in future, there-
fore that is why the losses will be more than are
estimated.
5448. Are you entitled to charge any terminal
between Sheffield and Masboro' 2–1. We think
SO.
5449. What is your Act. Some of the Mid-
land Acts contain terminals I know, but some
do not.
Mr. Bidder.] I think that has been settled by
the schedules.
Mr. Hunter.] Not at all. The decision applies
only to cases where it is their duty as carriers.
Mr. Bidder.] I think they go beyond that ;
at least it will be a question of rate and not
classification.
Mr. Hunter.] I know ; but then we are asked
to say that the Midland maximum rates are being
reduced.
Mr. Bidder.] Might I put it in this way: that
we certainly do charge in these cases 1 s. 6 d. for
terminal. We claim to do that as a right, and
for 40 years, 1 suppose I may say, it has been
accepted and unchallenged, and nobody has ever
suggested that we are not within our right in
making that charge.
Mr. Shaw.] Might I ask my learned friend,
Mr. Bidder, to clear up one thing 2 I have made
a copy just now of the list of those things which
the railway companies named. Mr. Bidder said
one thing about bar-puddle being struck out ;
where did he mean P
Earl of Camperdown.] That was done yester-
day.
Mr. Bidder.] It is struck out of the undamage-
able list, because it got there by mistake ; it
remains in Class B.
Mr. Shaw.] Why I asked was, that in the list
that Mr. Turner has just shown me bac-puddle
has been left in.
Earl of Camperdown.] If you will look at
page 20, line 11, you will find it again “puddled-
bar.”
(81.)
4 P 3 Mr.
670
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE a-
3 June 1891.]
Mr. TURNER.
—w
[Continued.
Mr. Shaw.] Quite so; but in the list I find it
twice over.
learned friend, Mr. Bidder, mentioned, “bars,
iron or steel, for tin-plate making.” That is not
specifically, mentioned ; is it to be specifically
mentioned ? . .
Mr. Bidder.] That would have to be an ad-
dition to our list.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
5450. Just one question with regard to the
“scrap heavy ‘’ mentioned here ; you have made
out that upon the schedule as it stood, referring
to two tons and upwards 2—No ; the minimum
for Class B. is four tons.
5451. It was until the other day two tons and
Yes.
upwards?
5452. When you made this calculation it was
two tons and upwards 2—Yes.
5453. It is now four tons and upwards?—
Four tons per truck. There is a distinction
between four-ton lots and four tons per truck.
5454. I quite understand, it is four tons per
truck 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
5455. With regard to that heavy scrap iron
it is proposed that when scrap iron heavy goes
in * tons per truck, it should go in Class B. P
— l (2S,
5456. Is there any necessity for the insertion
of that word “heavy,” or would it be sufficient
for your purposes if it were scrap iron that goes
in four tons to the truck 2–It would ; but we
are met with this difficulty : that we are always
in dispute with the traders as to what shall be
light scrap and what shall be heavy scrap. My
motion was that if we had the condition of four
tons per-truck, that would answer of itself.
5457. It was to get over that dispute that the
word “heavy" was struck out, and that
wherever it goes in four tons to the truck it
should be in Class B. 2–That would answer the
same purpose; the four ton minimum would
regulate it. w
Mr. Hunter.
5458. Taking this first case, I wish to under-
stand yonr position. From Sheffield to Mas-
boro' it is 2 s. 6 d., station to station, for two
tons. What is your quotation for four-ton lots 2
—Four-ton lots would be the same.
5459. You make no distinction ?—No ; that is
the minimum.
5460. Would that apply all through 2–You
see special rates are lower down, four-ton lost.
5461. But wherever two tons are quoted, it
means your minimum quotation is not four tons P
—No, the same rate would apply. *
5462. I want to know whether, apart from
these particular articles, the Midland Company
are satisfied with the rates they get for Class
B. 2–Yes, apart from this undamageable iron.
That will be a question of rate which will be
dealt with afterwards. *
5463. I want to know whether really your
objection is an objection to rates or to classi-
fication ?—Eirst of all, it is an objection to
classification ; we take that now.
54.64. I understand that, but iſ you have the
same objection to all the other articles as you
And there was another thing my
-**
Mr. Hunter—continued.
have to these specified articles in Class B., that
is a question of rates, not of classification?—
That question of rates will come up later.
Mr. Bidder.] We may have some special points
to raise on Class B. rates; but we say that it is
impossible for us to ask or to expect that the
Committee would ever-grant a rate for Class B.,
looking at the class as a whole, that would avoid
the position which we are in now with regard to
undamageable iron. Looking at Class B. as a
class, we cannot ask, and you could not give us,
a rate that will cover us with undamageable iron.
That is why we submit undamageable iron ought
to be in another class. º Q-
Cross-examined by Sir Alfred Hickman.
5465. Your- Almalgamation . Aet of 1846,
classes iron I believe with bricks, clay, Sand,
coke, pig iron and puddle bars and so on; they
are all classed together with the other kinds of
iron 2–It appears so.
5466. I would ask you whether, supposing,
when the question of rates comes up, the Com-
mittee should raise the rates under Class B. to
those obtaining in your Act of Parliament, that
would not meet your objection 2–I think that
had better wait till the question of rates doe
couie up. , - -
Chairman.] You are anticipating what we are
to do when we come to the rate question.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Precisely. Mr. Turner
objects to the classification because it will lower
his rates. I asked whether his objection will be
met if, when the rate question comes up, the
Committee raise his rates. ~~
Mr. Bidder.] It is impossible that he could
answer that.
Lord Belper (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Have
you got an amendment to the effect that we
should raise the rates in those classes 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No. * -
Chairman.] That will come up when we discuss
rates.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] That is all our evidence, your
Grace. -
Chairman.j Is that your case ?
Mr. Bidder.] That is our case.
Mr. Show.] Your Grace, after what the rail-
way companies have proposed to de with this iron
question this morning, so far as my particular
clients in this matter are concerned, we are quite
satisfied.
Chairman.] Who are they P
Mr. Shaw.] I appear for the Glamorgan
County Council; they are interested in Swansea;
it is the iron trade in Swansea that I represent.
I cannot speak for anybody else, but they are
perfectly satisfied with the way in which the
railway companies have met the case and divided
the iron up ; and if those things mentioned by
my learned friend Mr. Bidder this morning are
left to remain in Olass B., I has e nothing more
to say. * -
Earl
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGIES I* ROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
671
3 June 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not mind the
others going up into Class C.?
Mr. Shaw.] Really we have nothing to say
against them.
Mr. Whitehead..] I appear, your Grace, for the
Mansion House Association, and, subject to that
alteratiºn with regard to scrape iron, striking out
the word “heavy,” I have nothing further to
Say.
Lord Belper.] Do you mean defining it to be
four tons in a truck P
Mr. Whitehead.]. There is a double definition,
as the word stands at present, which would lead
to confusion and disputes between the traders
and the railway companies.
After some deliberation.
Chairman.] What is your objection to the
word “ heavy "; I did not quite understand it
before ?
Mr. Whitehead..] I shall be prepared to bring
evidence; your Grace, to show that there are two
kinds of scrap iron, heavy and light, technically
so called ; that light scrape iron is carried in lots
amounting to more than four tons per truck ;
and that if the word “heavy” were struck out
such scrap iron, which is in fact heavy, although
technically in the trade it is called light, wonld
go into Class B. ; whereas if the word “heavy "
were left there in the classification, it would be
raised a class and go into Class C.
Earl of Belmore.] I do not quite see how it
arises.
Mr. Whitehead..] The point is this: That the
word “heavy" has a popular meaning and a
technical meaning in the trade, and that techni-
cally heavy scrap iron would always amount to
more than four tons per truck.
Earl of Belmore.] That is technically heavy.
Mr. Whitehead..] Technically heavy scrap iron,
and that light scrap iron (again using the word
in the meaning of the trade) might often amount
to four tons per truck. And our case is this: that
where light scrap iron does amount to as much as
four tons per truck it should go at this lower rate,
because under those circumstances it stands on
exactiy the same footing as heavy scrap iron.
Earl of Belmore.] You want to do away with
the distinction between technical heavy and popu-
lar heavy P
Mr. Whitehead..] Exactly. The insertion of
the words “four tons per truck ’’ would meet the
difficulty and would be sufficient for the purpose.
Chairman (to Mr. Bidder).] Now what do you
say to that proposition ?
Mr. Bidder.] Having had my attention drawn,
your Grace, to the question of the technical
meaning, I do not think we want the word
“heavy,” and I think we may take out the words
“heavy" and “ light” in the other classification,
and put instead “ of less than four tons per
truck.”
Mr. Whitehead..] I am quite willing to accept
that ; and, subject to that, I am not instructed to
oppose the suggestion.
Chairman.] Then we have got rid of the Gla-
morgan county council and the Mansion House
Association.
Mr. Whitehead.] Certainly.
Mr. Bidder.] You are satisfied, upon those
conditions, if the other artieles go back into
Class C. -
Chairman.] Who is the next opponent?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I oppose the proposition
altogether, and support the classification of the
Board of Trade. With your Grace's permission
I propose to call a witness upon the subject.
MR. BENJAMIAN HINGLEY (a Member of the House of Commons) having been sworn ;
is Examined, as follows:
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5467. YoU are an ironmaster, a coalmaster,
and a chain cable and anchor maker P-Yes,
5468. How many men do you employ 2—About
3,000.
5469. You are Member of Parliament, I
believe, for North Worcestershire 2–Yes.
5470. You are chairman of the South Stafford-
shire Ironmasters’ Association ?–Yes.
5471. You are an ex-president of the British
Iron Trade Association ?—Yes.
5472. You are a member of the council of the
Mining Association of Great Britain –Yes.
5473. And a member of the Iron and Steel
Institute 2–Yes.
5474. You have been an
great many years 2–Yes.
5475. How many ?—Nearly 50 years; since I
was a boy.
5476. You carry on business on a very large
scale 2–Yes.
5477. Have you ever know a claim for damage
made on iron or iron articles when they are
declared undamageable 2–Not for daunage.
ironmaster for a
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
5478. Are iron articles liable to be pilfered 2–
Not heavy articles.
5479 They are too heavy ; anchors and bars
of iron are too heavy to run away with ?–As a
rule.
Chairman.] What is the point of this examina-
tion ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5480. It is upon the question of risk, your
Grace. I submit that they are not liable to risk
for damage and not liable to risk of being run
away with. (To the Witness.) With regard to
weight for bulk, is the iron heavier in proportion
to its bulk than any other article at present in
Class B. 2–1 think so; as a rule undoubtedly so.
548 l. As to the mass of consignments, can
you tell us, on the average, what your consign-
ments weigh ; for instance, what percentage of
consignments have you between four tons and
eight tons 2—I have it here taken out for three
months. The percentage between four tons and
cight tons is 12 per cent.
(8l.)
4 P 4 5482. And
672
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCY TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
- 3 June 1891.]
*—
Sir Alfred Hickman—continued.
5482. And of over eight tons ?–Over eight
tons the percentage is 88 per cent.
Chairman.] Why do you select between fonr
tons and eight tons Ž
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Because eight tons is the
full truck-load.
Earl of Camperdown.] Four tons is the truck-
load, is it not ?
Mr. Bidder.] Eight tons is a possible truck-
load.
Witness.] Of iron eight tons is the full truck-
load, the general truck-load.
Earl of Camperdown.] But the criterion of
Class B. is, of course, four tons 2
Sir A lfred 11 ickman.
5483. When these Acts were passed the trucks
were small. Now the companies are making
8-ton and 10-ton trucks, and the ordinary average
truck is now eight tons. (To the Witness.) And
then over eight tons (that is the full truck-load)
you have 88 per cent. of your consignments 2–
That is so.
5484. Can you give us some idea of the quan-
tity of iron produced during the last twelve
months in the United Kingdom?
Chairman.] What is the object of the ques-
tion ?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I wish to show the
importance of the trade.
Chairman.] One may assume that is is a very
important trade ; I do not think we want to have
it proved. You may really give us credit for
knowing that.
Witness.] It is about 14,000,000 tons all told,
of all kinds of iron.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5485. It has been put before the Committee
that iron is a finished article; but is not iron the
raw material for all the mannfactures in your
district 2–Iron is not a finished article in the
correct term ; it is not a correct term to call it
finished.
Mr. Bidder.] Some iron is finished and some
is not.
Witness.] There is iron in a more advanced
stage than pig-iron.
Mr. Hambury.] Ought we not to limit our-
selves entirely to those articles that the railway
companies propose to put in Class C.?
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Iron is one of those
articles that the railway companies propose to put
into Class C.
Chairman.] But a great number of iron articles
are to be left, according to the statement of Mr.
Bidder, in Class B. There are a certain number
of articles that he wished to have put into Class
C.; and those are the articles to which you had
better confine yourself.
Witness.] Bar iron is the important thing.
Mr. HINGLEY.
[Continued.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5486. The point is not of much importance.
(To the Witness.) Mr. Harrison yesterday put
it that the true test was what the traffic would
bear. Now I ask you, is iron generally brought
in large contracts?–Yes, bar iron is.
5487. And the price is cut very fine 2–The
price is cut very fine indeed.
5488. The buyer asks a great many people for
quotations 7–Yes, at home and abroad.
5489. Has it happened in your experience that
very large contracts have been given or withheld
on the turn of 1 s. a ton P-Yes, they have
turned upon l s. a ton. -
5490. Has it happened that a concession by a
railway company of a 1 s. a ton has enabled you
to take a contract for 10,000 tons, which would
otherwise have gone abroad 2–Yes, by a con-
cession amounting to 1 s. a ton, they have enabled
us to take the contract.
Chairman.] This might be very interesting so
far as the iron trade is concerned ; but how
it applies to the question whether certain articles
of iron are to be taken out of Class B. and put
into Class C., I do not quite understand.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] If your Grace will bear
with me I will explain later, when I have to
address you, how I propose to use the evidence.
Chairman.] You want to make out that iron
is a very important article, and that large con-
tracts are entered into, and that there is a
difference sometimes of a 1 s. a ton which makes
the contract accepted or not. We all understand
that.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The point of my ques-
tion was this : that what the traffic will bear is
a good test. A 1 s. a ton will make no difference,
I submit, to hay going to Brighton.
Chairman.] We have done with hay going to
Brighton.
Sir Alfred Hickman.
5491. It is merely an illustration; but 1 s. a
ton makes all the difference on iron, because the
traffic will not bear a high rate. (To the Witness.)
As to the cost of handling, what does it cost you
to load and unload iron 2–It costs 2; d. a ton.
Mr. Hanbury.
5492. I want to ask you one question. You
started by saying something about damage-
ability and undamageability. Are the articles
which the railway companies propose to put into
Class C. and to treat as damageable, in practice
carried at owner's risk now or not ?––At owner's
risk undoubtedly, and no claim for damage
arises so far as I am concerned.
5493. But, now the railway companies pro-
pose to put them into a higher class, and to take
the responsibility for damage to them as I under-
stand
Mr. Bidder.] That is so.
Witness.] We do not ask them to take any
resposibility, and it is practically nil.
Mr. Hambury.
, 3494. But the fact of sending things at owner's
risk has been in the past practically to bring
them down a class 7—Certainly.
5495. Wo
oN RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
673.
3 June 1891.]
Mr. HINGLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
5495. We are not dealing with owners’ risk
at the present moment ; but of course if they are
carried at owners’ risk you will probably get
much lower rates than Class C. rates for them, if
they are carried in that way ?–We are content
to have them carried at owners’ risk at the lowest
rate. That is what we want.
Lord Belper.
5496. There will be nothing in future, will
there, to prevent any railway company from
coming to an agreement as to their being carried
at owners’ risk, in the same way as they have
done in the past?—There may not be if they are
willing to make an agreement.
5497. If they are willing to make an agree-
ment and you are willing to take it, there will be
nothing in this schedule that will prevent your
doing in the ſuture what you have both agreed
to do in the past, and which has been satisfactory
to both parties?—We would rather not be at
their mercy; we would rather have them in
Class B. at once.
Earl of Belmore.
5498. Perhaps they would say the same of
you ; perhaps they would say that they would
rather not be at your mercy?—That may be
SO.
Lord Belper.
5499. As a matter of fact you have had no
difficulty about coming to an agreement as to
their being carried at owner's risk in the past 2–
I cannot say that I have had any difficulty
personally.
Mr. Hambury.
5500. Were you at their mercy whether they
should carry at owner's risk in the past or not,
or was there anything to force them to carry at
owner's risk *—That I cannot answer.
Mr. Hanbury.] I do not know how that is.
Cross examined by Mr. Bidder.
5501. There was something. You had not only
the competition of the railway companies, but
you had the competition of water carriage –We
had not much competition by water carriage. I
have heard it already mentioned, and it is a fact
that the railway companies have got the control
of the canals. -
5502, As a matter of fact there are carriers
upon the canals who carry quite independently
of the railway companies, are there not ?—There
are carriers to London.
5503. And to Liverpool?—I think not.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is not my point. I do
mot know anything about law ; I asked as a legal
question, whether there was nothing in the old
Acts to compel the companies to carry at reduced
rates at owners’ risk.
Mr. Bidder.] There was nothing.
Mr. Iſambury.
5504. Then the traders have been at the
companies' mercy in this respect in the past as
you are afraid they will be in the future ?—I
would rather not be at their mercy.
plained of the
Mr. Bidder.
5505, It has grown out of the mutual interest
of the companies and the traders, that bargains
have been made and rates quoted at owners'
risk?—Yes. -
5506. Have you any reason to suppose that
that will not be the same in the future as it has
been in the past?—I have no reason to believe
that the companies will do anything unreason-
able or against their own interests.
5507. As regards actual rates, do you send a
§: deal of your traffic by the Midland?—
€S.
5508. As well as by the London and North
Western and the Great Western ?—By all
three.
5509. And you are perfectly satisfied with
the actual rates ?–-Well.
5510. Well?—I should rather like to have
them lower.
5511. You would like them lower, but you
have made no complaint 3–They are the stand-
ing complaint. Yes; I think we ought to have
them lower.
5512. That is not yes; you have not com-
actual rates as being un-
reasonable; you have not complained to the
Companies.
Mr. Hunter.] The witness says it is a standing
complaint.
Mr. Bidder.] But he has never complained
whether they are reasonable or not.
Chairman.] You have put a question, and
this gentleman ought to give you an answer. I
want to hear his answer.
Witness.] We have not complained of the
actual rates.
Mr. Bidder.
5513. You say that you have not complained
of the actual rates ?—I think we have.
5514. When 2–We have a standing com-
plaint; we do complain.
5515. When have you ever made a com-
plaint 7–I could not give you a specific date;
but we do complain of the rates.
5516. To which company, and when 2–We
complain to the three companies with whom we
deal.
55 17. When P
Mr. Hanbury.
5518. Which companies 7–The London and
North Western, the Great Western, and the
Midland. -
Chairman.
5519. Have you complained within the last two
years?—Well, we have asked them from time to
time to make us various concessions, which they
have not always complied with. I do not per-
sonally make much complaint against them.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think I need pursue
that.
|Witness.] There is only one point I wish to
mention; that the list of exceptions read over by
Mr. Bidder, beginning with anvils, is altogether
illusory.
Chairman.] That we need not go into.
(81.)
4 Q 5520. Do
674
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Lord Belper.
5520. Do you say the whole list is illusory 7
—I begin at the beginning. The offer is to put
anvils in Class B. of 10 cwt. Within my ex-
perience, and I speak from knowledge, there is
no such anvil made.
5521. But you said the list is illusory ; do you
mean all the other articles in the list 2–No ; I
begin at the beginning. When they speak of
anvils of 10 cwt. and exclude anchors, which are
made, then of course the list is worthless to us.
5522. Leaving anvils out of the question, have
you anything to say upon the other part of the
list P− No. -
Lord Houghton.
5523. How far would your personal objections
be met, supposing that a special arrangement was
made with the London and North Western and
Great Western Companies?—If we have the
benefit of the 1846 and 1847 Acts in South
Staffordshire, personally I should be somewhat
content.
Mr. Hanbury.
5524. That is London and North Western ?—
London and North Western and Great Western,
and the Midland, by force of competition, I sup-
pose would do likewise.
Mr. Bidder.
5525. Then you would be quite satisfied that
the iron should go into Class C., provided that
the matter is properly dealt with on the schedule
of the Great Western and London and North
Western Companies 2—I think that Class B. is
the proper place for undamageable iron, un-
doubtedly. -
5526. But it never has been its place yet, you
know that ?—It has not been its place in the
Railway Clearing House Classification.
Earl of Camperdown.
5527. Just to take this list which has been
handed in ; you said that the anvils exceeding
10 cwt. in weight each are illusory. Why is
that ?—They are not made.
5528. There is no such thing made 2—Or so
rarely made that I have never seen one ; and I
have seen tens of thousands.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Bidder).] Would
you have any objection to leaving out those
words, “exceeding in weight 10 cwt.” P
Witness.] And insert “anchors.”
Mr. Bidder.] I am told that there would be
objection.
Earl of Camperdown.] You contend that such
things are made 2
Mr. Bidder.] That they are made.
Witness.] Then I say distinctly that they are
mistaken. I have knowledge of the trade. I
was in the trade in my youth, and I say they are
mistaken.
Mr. Bidder.
5529. You say that they are not made 2–I
say that they are not made, or so rarely made,
that I have never seen one.
Mr. HINGLEY.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown.
5530. Leaving that point and going to the
rest of these articles, “Bars for tin plates making,
buoy sinkers, cannon balls, and shot and shell
not charged, clippings, shearings, and stampings
of sheet iron and tin plates in compressed
bundles, filings, ingot moulds, open sand plates,
cast, scrap, heavy, minimum load four tons per
truck, swarf, wire rope, old, cut in pieces”; is
not that a very important concession which the
railway companies have made with regard to
scrap P –I think that is an important concession,
but they talk about putting buoys in and they
exclude bars.
5531. Then you would admit that apparently.
I should like to ask you with regard to those
other articles en bloc, whether you consider that
the trade would not derive considerable advantage
from this proposed concession ?—Buoy sinkers
are very rare things; they are scarcely ever
made ; they are a mere fraction of the trade.
5533. Go on; cannon balls, what do they
amount to now-a-days? Cast-iron cannon balls
are unknown.
5533, Shot and shell, there are some of them P
—Yes, that is of more importance; but it is all
insignificant as compared with undamageable
11’OIl.
5534. But that was not the question I asked
you. What I asked you was whether you think
or do not think that the railway companies are
giving what is valuable to the trade 2–It is
valuable so far as it goes, but the volume of trade
in these things is comparatively small compared
with bar iron.
5535. But you do not say that about scrap –
Scrap is a heavy item ; but it would not be ten
per cent. of the bar iron.
5536. Bar iron is to remain in Class B, 7–
That is the difference.
Mr. Bidder.] Not bar iron, puddled bar.
Witness.] Let it be clearly understood that
the amount of puddled bar iron which they carry
would not be five per cent. of the bar iron.
Earl of Camperdown.
5537. How would bar iron compare with
scrap, ten times 2–Ten times at least.
Mr. Bidder.] I understand that bar iron is the
finished article for the merchant, which is quite
a different thing from puddled bar. I was going
to say with regard to the anvil question of
10 cwt., that it was not intended that it should
be illusory. As a matter of fact, we know that
in the Sheffield district they are much larger;
but we did not intend to make it illusory, and we
should be quite content to put that limit down to
xceeding 5 cwt.”
Witness.] I do not know that that will be of
much service. If you say 3 cwt., that will be of
service.
Earl of Camperdown.
5538. You say you want 3 cwt. 2–Three
hundredweight is the average-sized anvil.
Chairman (to Sir Alfred Hickman).] Do you
wish to re-examine the witness?
Sir
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
675
3.Jume 1891.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] No, your Grace, I do
not propose to do so.
May it please your Grace, I submit that this
question is not a question of rate at all, but that
it should be argued fairly upon its merits as to
the appropriateness of the classification of these
iron articles in Class B. or Class C. I submit that
the greater part of the discussion that has taken
place is irrelevant, and that the objections which
the railway companies have made to the classi-
fication ought to be made, and would properly
be made, when the question of rates comes to be
discussed. It may be a hardship on the Midland
Railway Company to inflict upon them the
present rates of Class B. ; but it does not in the
least follow that the Committee will adopt those
rates, still less that they will adopt them on the
Midland schedule. Mr. Pope very fairly opened
the question, as it appears to me, by quoting
what the Board of Trade had laid down as the
principles which ought to govern classification.
And the first was value. Well, value, as inter-
preted according to Mr. Harrison, means what the
traffic will bear and the commercial necessities of
the case. I submit that there is no article in
Class B. that will so little bear being raised in
the rate as iron will. All these articles in Class
B. are for the most part things as to which there
is no competition. If you take from alabaster
stone downwards, you will find that that will
apply. Iron is the subject, as Mr. Hingley told
you, of keen competition ; it is a question of 1 s.
a ton which will make a contract English
or make it Belgium, but as to these other
things it does not matter really in the
least as to 1 s. Or 2 s. a ton; the trade is not
affected by that ; alabaster stone, antimony, ore
waste, asphalte for paving in blocks, and if you
take all the things from the beginning to the end,
I say that there is no single article in that list
which will not bear a higher rate, and the trade
of which will be affected so much as iron will
be.
Then there is another test, and that is liability
to damage. As to liability to damage, if there
is a declaration of undamageability, I submit that
there can be no liability to damage whatever; and
that if it is not perfectly clear that that is so
under the Board of Trade Provisional Order, as
Lord Belmore suggested, words may be added
which can make it absolutely clear and binding,
which it would be very easy to add, and that the
declaration shall be equivalent to a contract
under the Act of 1854. Then as to risk, as Mr.
Hingley said, and as the Committee themselves
very well know, these great big heavy articles of
iron do not run any risk in travel. You may
steal coal from a trucks, but you cannot practi-
cally steal iron or anchors; they are too big or
too heavy to be run away with. Then as to the
question of value, the honourable Member, Mr.
Hanbury, suggested that it does not matter
to the railway company what the value is ;
that so long as they have no risk and no liability
to damage, and they have a rate as much as the
traffic will bear, it does not matter to them what
the value of the article is.
Mr. Hanbury.] I did not go quite so far as
that. I implied that risk or damageability was a
very important element of value.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I am sorry if I put it
higher than you intended, Sir ; but I think you
might fairly put it as high as I have.
The next test is weight as to bulk. Again,
iron is heavier in bulk than any article in Class
B. As to facility of loading, Mr. Hingley has
told you that it can be loaded for 2; d. per ton,
which is the lowest rate that anything can be
loaded at. Then the next test is as to weight
and mass of consignments. They are greater
than that of any other article in Class B. : there
is no article in Class B. which is sent in such
large consignments as iron is. Mr. Hingley told
you that 88 per cent. (and I can confirm it from
my own experience) of his consignments are over
eight tons. As to quantity, probably the quantity
is one hundred times as much as that of any
article in Class B. ; and as to the necessity for
handling, there is no necessity whatever ; the
iron is loaded at one end mostly in the trader's
own siding at his own works, and is taken to the
other end, and when it gets there it can be
handled with great facility. Then I say that in
every respect, by every single test which you
can fairly apply to it, iron and those articles are
appropriately and properly classed in Class B.,
and not in Class C.
Now I have protested all along against the
question of rates being brought in ; but, as the
Committee have allowed it to be brought in to
such an extent as they have done, I may be
allowed perhaps to say one word upon the
subject.
Chairman.] Very well.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Mr. Findlay said in
answer to my question that 5 d. per ton per mile
would give a fair remunerative rate. Sir Henry
Oakley said that he ought not to be asked to take
less than 4; d., but that he often did voluntarily
take less than 4d., but that he thought that 4% d.
was fair. Mr. Staniforth said that it would be a
remunerative rate for them to have 20 s. for a
truck for 68 miles.
Chairman.] I think Sir Henry Oakley said
that he took 4 d. because he could not get more.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] That is so.
Chairman.] You said that he took it volun-
tarily ; he said he was obliged to take that or
nothing.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Voluntarily in so far as
it was under his maximum power, but not volun-
tarily in the sense that you put it.
Chairman.] That is the sense in which I
should read “voluntarily ’’; if 1 take 4 d. because
I cannot get 4; d., though I wanted 43 d., that
would not be “voluntarily.”
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I will adopt it as simply
being 4% d. which Sir Henry Oakley said would
be a remunerative and fair rate, and the one he
would like to get. Then we come to Mr.
Staniforth of the London, Brighton, and South
Coast Company, and he said that 68
miles for 20s. was a fair rate ; and that works
out at 3; d. Now, look at what iron will work
out at at the present Class B. rates, supposing
they are confirmed Taking the average of the
consignments, the lowest average that could pos-
(81.)
4 Q 2 sibly
676
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.
sibly be taken, that is six tons for 20 miles, at
the Class B. rate, that comes out at 10-8 d. per
truck per mile; that is more than double what
any of the railway companies say would be a
remunerative rate per truck; at 50 miles it
comes out at 10:2 d", again more than double
any rate that any railway director or manager
has ever been able to say was a fair rate ; at
100 miles it works out 8-7 d., and at 150 miles
7.5 d, ; but at the minimum that it can be
possibly sent (that is four tons), it works out for
20 miles at 7.2 d: ; for 50 miles at 6-8 d. ; for
100 miles at 5-8 d. ; and at 150 miles at 5 d., still
considerably in excess of what every railway
manager says is a remunerative rate to him.
But if you compare it with any other article,
say, a minimum truck load of hay of 30 cwt.,
why it comes out at very much less; it comes
out at somewhere about 3 d.
Then, your Grace, I say that iron is the most
important article which has come before this Com-
mittee, and that can come before this Committee :
it is one that is more dependent upon the fairness
and noderateness of the rate than any other article
and, if there is anything which this Committee
should protect against the railway companies in
the future, if there is any article that needs pro-
tection, and that even in the interests of the
railway companies themselves requires protection,
I say it is iron. Mr. Lambert told us here that
the three
Mr. Hanbury.] You must not assume, Sir
Alfred, that the special low rates of the London
and North Western and Great Western Com-
panies, will not be looked after when we reach
those special Bills.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I assume that the Com-
mittee will do whatever they think fair and reason-
able ; but I do say that this is the most important
question that will come before this Committee,
and that iron is an article that requires protection
in the future. Mr. Lambert told us that even
when he wished to reduce the rate, when he
thought it was reasonable to reduce it, fair to
reduce it, in his interest to reduce it, he was
unable to do so, because of this unholy compact,
I venture to call it, between him and the other
companies. Now, it will make no difference to
the trade in all these other cases. Brighton will
continue to buy its hay, whether at one rate or
another ; but if you raise the rates on iron, you
drive the trade from this district into foreign
countries, and we shall lose it here. Mr. Pope
said that iron was finished work, and therefore
not appropriately classed ——
Chairman] This district, Sir Alfred Hickman,
is going to be dealt with when we come to the
special Bill of the London and North Western
Company. Mr. Pope opened (I have read it
already twice to-day) that any special district
which was affected by the London and North
Western Act would be dealt with when we came
to the question of that particular Act.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I submit, your Grace,
that I have not said a word about the London
and North Western Act, or referred to it in any
way. -
Chairman.] But it is the Act affecting your
district.
Sir Alfred Hickuan.] Quite so; but I am
arguing the question upon the broad grounds of
the iron trade of the whole kingdom.
Chairman.] But then you talked about “this
district,” and you say now that you are arguing
the question upon the broad grounds of the iron
trade of the whole kingdom. It was when you
said it might be driven out of this district, if the
proposal was agreed to, that I suggested to you
that your particular district would be affected and
dealt with when we come to deal with the special
Bill that is applicable to that part of the country.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I admit that that is a
perfect answer from your Grace, and I go from
that part of my argument, and I venture to sub-
mit that the considerations which I have urged
before the Committee show that these iron
articles are appropriately classed in Class B., and
not in Class C.
Mr. Pope.] I should just like to say a few
words, your Grace, and only a very few.
Chairman.] Then we understand that we have
heard Sir Alfred Hickman upon the part of
those whom he represents. We have had a
statement from the Mansion House Committee
and the Glamorgan county council. Then there
is the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference.
Mr. Yates.] We do not take any part in this
discussion, your Grace.
Chairman.] You do not object 7
Mr. Yates.] We do not take any part in it one
way or the other.
Chairman.] Silence gives consent.
Mr. Hunter.] Do the Mansion House Associa-
tion represent any part of the iron trade?
Čhairman.] They have appeared.
Mr. Whitehead.] May I say on behalf of the
Mansion House Association that we only repre-
sent a very small proportion.
Chairman.] But whatever proportion you do
represent, you have already given your consent
to the amendment. -
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, because the articles
which we represent are included in that list.
Mr. Bishop.] For the Swansea and District
Freighters’ Association, all we have to ask is
that the railway companies will add to that list
iron and steel rails used for railway making;
and one would almost have thought that they
would naturally admit those into the lower class
so as to get them at a slightly lower price, and
to carry with that also bar iron generally. Bar
iron is carried in such enormous quantities for
the purposes of commerce that we ask that those
two articles should be added to the list. I could
have brought evidence on the question of steel
rails, but I do not think that we need weary the
Committee with that ; we could argue that the
rates at which they are carried now are sufficient
to classify them in Class B., according to the
present schedule, and that their readiness of
removal, and so on is rather in favour of their
being put, as the Board of Trade put them, in
Class B. ; and the same arguments apply
generally to the question of bar iron.
Chairman.]
ON REIILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
677
3 June 1891.
Chairman.] Then that deals with all the oppo-
In ent S.
Mr. Shaw.] Yes.
Mr. Pope. Then I will now say, a very few
words your Grace, and rather, perhaps, with a
view to remind the Committee of what I said when
I introduced the subject for discussion. I am only
anxious that the Committee should not forget that
we are dealing with the question of a classification
which not only will be applicable to all the com-
panies whose Provisional Orders are before the
Committee but which will of necessity form a pre-
cedent in the settlement of classifications for com-
panies that are nothere, and therefore I was anxious
at the beginning that any exceptional circum-
stances, whether of rate or of the peculiar charac-
ter of a district, should not be dealt with in a
general way which might affect companies, and
districts which were not under such special cir-
cumstances. And what I should desire certainly
if I can do so would be to bring the Committee
consider this question of classification as far as
possible apart from the question of the particular
rate to be attached to the particular class. That
may be a question which will involve discussion,
and, as part of that consideration, any special
circumstances, as Sir Alfred Hickman's in South
Staffordshire, might be dealt with in the way in
which very early in the inquiry we said that we
proposed to deal with the agreements of particular
traders and their statutory rights in particular
districts.
If that is the view that the Committee take,
practically is not the evidence with regard to
this classification all one way ? The Board of
Trade, as I would say with great respect, have
fallen into this error: that they have dealt with
one element of value or of cost, or of risk, or of
danger in the conveyance of commodities, and
reduced the whole of the commodities to the class
which I desire they should be raised from, simply by
a declaration, which, for the purposes of argument
we will assume, can be made a complete declara-
tion of undamageability, irrespecive of the other
considerations that attach to those articles. That
I say is wrong in principle; that there are other
considerations to which all these articles are
liable, which should deal with the questiou of
classification apart altogether from the rate which
is to be attached to the class when you have got
the class complete ; and that the mere declara-
tion of undamageability ought not to be sufficient
to reduce those articles from the class in which
they have hitherto stood, to the class below them
as is suggested. I do not think perhaps that
absolute justice was done to what Mr. Courtenay
Doyle intended to say in his exposition of what
the Board of Trade have done I do not think
that any of us on this side of the table would dis-
pute that any powers, which were given to the
Board of Trade to revise the classification,
involved, if it should become necessary, a re-
duction of the classification of any of the articles,
even though it might be followed by a reduction
in a particular rate chargeable. , But I do not
think that Mr. Courtenay Boyle intended for a
moment to say that the word “revision ”
in the Act of 1888 meant an instruction
that the classification should be reduced, or
that rates should be reduced, or that there
should be any cutting of the revenues of the
companies. That they had power to do that:
that this Committee have the power to do that,
if they think it a just and reasonable thing to do,
we should not dispute. But if Mr. Courtenay
Boyle did mean that the Board of Trade re-
garded that as an instruction, then there I should
differ from him, and I should say that that may
account for the dissatisfaction with which some
of the exhaustive labours of the Board of Trade
have been received by the companies.
Now, your Grace, what is it that we ask? We
have handed in to-day an amended list, so to speak,
of the articles which we say, whatever the rate
attached to the class, should pass into Class C.,
instead of remaining in Class B. We have
brmended that list by giving to this Committee a
further number of articles which we submit may
remain in Class B., after very careful con-
sideration, because, although they are not iden-
tical with such articles as pig-iron \which
legitimately appears to us to be in Class B.),
still they are not so distinctly different as to
justify their removal to a higher class. But in
regard to the other matters you have evidence ;
and evidence, as I submit, all in one direction,
namely, that the question of the user of a station,
of the difficulty of the loading and the handling
of the traffic, and the circumstances which ought
to be dealt with in the question of grouping or
classification of the particular articles, are such
that the articles as we say ought to be raised to
Class C.; they have hitherto stood in a class
which is the same as Class C., and ought in this
classification to be so raised. I do not know that
when once the question has to be dealt with as
a question of classification there is much more to
be said about it. As regards rates, that will be
dealt with when we come to deal with rates. As
regards distance and the district of South
Staffordshire, that will be deaalt with, if it has
any especial privilege by reason of there being
either statutory obligations to it, or that it has
the right to take advantage of statutory powers
of a less extent than those which apply to other
districts, that is a matter which must and ought
to be provided for specially when we come to
discusss the question of rates and exceptions.
But upon this simple question of classification.
I submit that the question stands very much
where it did when I first opened it to the Com-
mitte; that there are certain of these articles
which now standin Class B., which are not properly
placed in the same category as other articles in
that class, and that, whatever may be the rate
ultimately attached to the particular class in
question, these articles ought not either to be in
the class or subject to the conditions or charges of
the particular class in which they appear.
I do not know, your Grace, that there is
anything more to be said upon the matter. The
whole matter has been so thoroughly discussed.
and threashed out, that considering that you
have before you, and have been good enough to
intimate that what I said at the commencement
is present to the minds of the Committee, I do
not think I should sacrifice the interests of my
my clients if I ask you now to decide the ques-
tion without further intervention on my part.
The Committee deliberate.
(81.)
4 Q 3 Chairman.]
678
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.
Chairman (to Mr. Pope).] The Committee
think it will be convenient, before giving a
decision upon the removal of the articles in
Class B. to Class C., that we should hear the
evidence and the case for moving the articles
from Class.C. to Class 1 ; that is to say to deal
with the whole subject as one.
Mr. Pope.] If you please.
Chairman.] Do you see any objection to that?
Mr. Pope.] Not the least. I think very
probably it will be the more convenient course.
Your Grace knows that at present Iron List B.
is in Class 1 of the Clearing House Classification.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] Page 39 of the Clearing House
Classification is Iron List B. In Iron List B.,
as is plain upon the face of it, there are certain
articles which, if declared undamageable, that is
to say if declared at owner's risk ; I have not
argued of course the question how far the
Committee can make a declaration of undamage-
ability equivalent to owner's risk ; that is a
matter which we will discuss when we come to
say how that will be done ; but I assume that
the view and intention of the Committee was to
discuss the question upon the assumption that a
declaration of undamageability relieved from
all risk.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] Now I had better ask Mr. Har-
rison ; it is better so and I shall get it once
for all.
Earl of Belmore.] What are we on : Iron at
page 22, line 5?
Earl of Camperdown.] Just give us your
amendment, so that we can proceed in a regular
way.
Mr. Pope.] That is what I want to know from
Mr. Harrison, what the arricles are that he pro-
posed to raise. I think it is on page 8, at the
bottom. The proposal is to omit articles which
are there specified, in Class C., and then, if you
turn to Class 1, on page 11, we propose to insert
them there.
Earl of Camperdown.] You onlit them in one
case for the purpose of inserting them in the
other.
Mr. Pope.] That is the form of the amend-
ment. -
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is re-called, and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
5539. JUST let me understand the proposition
which we ask before the Committee. Taking
now Class B. first, all articles left in Class B.
will be carried at the risk of the company in any
event 2–Yes.
5540. And by raising the articles from Class
B. to Class C., the company will convey then
those articles at the risk of the company ?—That
is so.
5541. Leaving the questinn of owner's risk to
be decided, as now, by a special contract under
the Act of 1854 *—Yes, that is as I understand
it.
5542. In other words, there would not be in
either case now any necessity (supposing our
suggestion is adopted) for a declaration of un-
damageability, because in both classes the risk
of the company would be absolute unless limited
by a contract under the Act of 1854 2–Yes.
5543. Now then, would you kindly look at
Iron List B. 2–Yes.
5544. Putting it roundly, therefore, our pro-
position will be this ; that Iron List A. will
appear in Class C., that is to say, such portion
of it as the Committee, if they raise any, choose
to raise, and will be carried in Class C. at the
risk of the company, not being reduceable to
Class C. by the mere declaration of undamage-
ability ?
Mr. Hanbury.] As I understand, the existing
practice of the railway companies has been to
give the trader a power to reduce it if he
Jikes.
Mr.
Witness.]
Pope.] That is to raise it to Class C. P
No, to Class B.
Mr. Pope.] Class A. is the class that is carried
at owner's risk. Class A. is to be charged
Mr, Pope—continued.
under Class S., a special rate, and Class S. cor-
responds to Class C.; so that what we should
do now would be to take the whole risk.
Mr. Hanbury.] My question is directed to
this, that the existing practice of the railway
companies has been to give the trader the oppor-
tunity of having them carried at a lower rate if
he consigns them at owner's risk.
Mr. Pope.] Certainly.
Mr. Hanbury.] I want to know whether the
companies are willing to have that practice
adopted in the Act of Parliament and made com-
pulsory.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is to say that an
article which was classed under Class 1 might,
at the option of the trader, go down to Class C.?
Mr. Pope.] I do see very great difficulty in
making a statutory provision to that effect;
because the Act of 1854 expressly enacts, and
until it is repealed it will continue to be the law,
that the company shall only limit its absolute
liability as insurer of goods by means of a special
contract under the provisions of that Act.
Mr. Hanbury.] But, apart from that legal
difficulty, supposing that the Committee were
inclined to do that, would the railway companies
offer any objection to it?
Mr. Pope.] Yes; I think I follow what you
mean, and my answer for the railway companies
would be that, although it might be reasonable
to say that a declaration of undamageability
might result in a lower rate, it is not a sufficient
reason to reduce the class. And this Iron List
A. does not reduce the class ; it reduces the rate,
it is the list upon which the rate is fashioned.
The proposition, as it now stands, is a little more
complicated
ON RAILWAY RATES
6.79
AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
3 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[ Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
complicated perhaps than it was, by the list
which was given in this morning, which we are
willing should remain in Class B., and carried at
the companies’ risk, whether declared un-
damageable or not. Therefore, that is a con-
cession to the trader. Then we say that the
rest of the articles, if raised to Class C.,
should not by reason of a declaration of
damageability be reduced to Class C., be-
cause that is too great a degradation for
the mere declaration of damageability. Then
comes the question, of course, how are
you to accomplish in an Act of Parliament
the giving that declaration effect. It seems to
us only by raising it to Class C., leaving it at
the company’s risk in Class C., but leaving un-
touched the right which every trader has, and
every company has, by a declaration of two
different rates and the option of the trader, to
consign it either at owner's risk or company’s
risk.
Earl of Camperdown.] But it is not a right.
Mr. Pope, No, it is not a right.
Earl of Camperdown.] You use the word
“ right.”
Mr. Hanbury.] My question is, will you make
it a parliamentary right?
Mr. Pope.] No, not if we can help it.
Earl of Camperdown.] in other words, will
you stereotype your table of reduced rates at
owner's risk?
Mr. Pope.
5545. I quite follow what your Lordship
means. No, I could not say that ; and the diffi-
culty is this : what is to be the difference be-
tween the owner's risk rate and the ordinary
rate?. It certainly ought not to be the degrada-
tion of a class, and that is the question, there
fore, which you have at present to decide. It
certainly ought not to be the degradation of
a class. What ought to be the difference 2
You cannot legislate and say what should
be the difference of such an exceptional
rate as the owner's risk rate. It would differ,
of course, with different articles. (To the
Witness.) I should just like it to be
clear, and I should like you to say it in the face
of the Committee, rather than give it to me as
instructions: was I right in saying that such a
difference in rate does not proceed upon a uniform
basis when the trader desires to send at owner's
risk 2–No, not at all ; it is a question of actual
rate, the same as the other rates for traffic and is
varying in quantity for different distance. For
instance the special rate at owner's risk for iron
in List A., we will say for 80 miles between
South Staffordshire and Liverpool, would not he
the same rate as the special rate for iron in List
A. for 80 miles in another direction where there
is not competition ; it is not uniform at all; you
cannot fix a percentage that should appl;.
Earl of Camperdown.
5546. There is a specific agreement in each
case ?—Certainly so.
5547. In those specific agreements, do you
vary the rate recording to the circumstances !—
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
Yes, in the way I have been trying to explain.
It would depend upon the distance and direction
it was going.
5548. Then you do not adhere in all cases to
the table of rates which appears on page 83 of the
Clearing House Classification, because there is a
fixed table of rates there?—No ; that does not
apply to the iron.
5549. It does not apply to iron at all?—No:
the rates at which iron is carried at owner's risk
are exceptional rates dependent really upon the
circumstances of the traffic and the amount of
competition, and will vary in different directions,
not on a fixed basis like those on page 83 for other
descriptions of traffic.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know whether it is pre-
sent to your Lordship's mind that this Act of
1854 specially provides that, in order to enable
the company to relieve itself of the absolute risk
of insurer, it must give to the trader the option
of two rates : one to cover company’s risk, and
the other at owner's risk; but the amount of
that difference does vary, and in the iron trade
constantly varies according to the particular cir-
cumstances of the traffic which it is sought so to
relieve. Then the consignor exercises his option.
If he sends at the ordinary rate he sends at the
company's risk; if he signs a contract and sends
at the lower rate, then it is at his own risk.
Earl of Camperdown.
5550. (To the Witness.) How does the rate of
reduction which you give on iron when carried
at owner's risk compare with the rate of reduc-
tion which you give on other articles which
appear on page 83 °–Hardly any eomparison
can be made, really. The reduction on iron is
so variable, it is on no regular lines at all.
Mr. Pope.
5551. Now I want you, please, to turn to Iron
List B. First of all tell me exactly how you
propose now to deal with Iron List B., and what
articles you propose to raise up into Class 1 ?–
In Iron List B. of the Clearing House Classifi-
cation, after removing those articles which we
have already proposed should be placed in
Class C., namely, those with an asterisk opposite
them, there will remain axle boxes, dredger
buckets, and bucket backs, malt kiln flooring
(iron wire) packed in cases, pans, annealing
plates, Canada, for glass rolling and tin, railway
buffers, buffer heads, rods, and sockets, railway
spring steel, rings, scrap iron, giving a definition
of what is comprised in it.
Earl of Camperdown.
5552. But you propose to do away with that
word “light”?––Yes, I purposely left out the word
“light” shafts, Smiths' hearths, standards for hur-
dles, wrought not packed; standards for wire net-
ting fencing not packed, tinned iron in sheets not
packed, tram couplings, traps, sink, and stench.
Mr. Pope.
5553. Do I understand that all those articles
which now in Iron List B. can be declared by
the trader undamageable, you propose to place in
Class C. or Class B. P-In Class 8.
(81.)
4 Q 4 5554. In
680
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
5554. In other words you propose to treat
those articles to which an asterisk is affixed in
Iron List B. just as you propose to treat the
articles in Iron List A, which you raise from
Class B. to Clsss C. 2–Yes.
5555. You put them all together ?–Yes, all
the articles both in List A. and List B. that we
now give the option to the trader of declaring to
be carried at his risk, we propose should be
placed all together in Class C. Those articles in
List B. which we do not give that option for to-
day we propose should be placed in Class 1.
Earl of Belmore.
5556, Those you have just read 2–Yes, which
is the same class as they are in in the Clearing
House Classification.
Mr. Pope.
5557. So that the articles in Iron List B.
which could be by declaration reduced to Class
C. at owner’s risk, you propose to take into Class
C. but at the company’s risk?—At the company’s
risk.
5558. That is a concession of course to the
traders over the existing Clearing House Classi-
fication ?—Yes, a very substantial concession I
consider.
5559. Quite so. The rest of Iron List B.,
which you propose to deal with as a separate
list, you propose to take in a class above C.,
namely, Class 1 ?—Class 1, as they are in the
Clearing House Classification to-day.
5560. Remaining as they are to-day at com-
pany’s risk never being carried at owners’ risk
at all ?–-Never carried at owner's risk.
5561. I think I understand that ?—I should
like to say that the placing of these articles with
the asterisk in Class C. at the company’s risk is
a most substantial concession to the traders,
because those articles include some of the most
valuable, if not the most valuable, descriptions
of iron and steel, hoop and sheet iron, corrugated
iron and galvanised iron, which are very high-
priced articles.
5562. And therefore if your suggestion now
is acceptable to the Committee, that will remove
all difficulty of the declaration of undamage-
ability, but will leave you entirely to the special
contract which exists at present?—Yes, it will
leave us and the traders in the same position
to-day as regards the making of special con-
tracts with regard to risk that we are now in.
5563. And I suppose, according to thc authori-
ties, if you do agree to carry at owner's risk, it
would have to be at some reduction which has to
be agreed upon from the rate applicable to the
class in which they are now placed 2–Yes; we
have to put before them the alternative of two
rates, the one at Company’s risk, and a lower
rate at owner’s risk, and the trader elects which
he will have and signs the contract.
5564. The difference being that the trader
would not have the right without the will of the
company to compel such owner's risk rate 2–
Quite so.
Mr. Pope } I do not think, unless the Com-
mittee desire any further explanation, that I can
make it more clear.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
5565. Among the things which you propose to
raise to Class 1 would be tin plates ?—Yes.
5566, And they, as I briderstand, are the next
degree of manufacture after the tin plate bars
which you have allowed to remain in Class B. 2–
They are a very valuable article ; I can only say
that.
5567. There is only one degree more of manu-
facture ?—But there is a great deal of value
added by that process.
5568. But looking at it from a classification
point of view you will agree with me that there
is only one degree more of manufacture upon
these bars ?—Yes.
5569. There is a very large quantity of these
plates carried, is there not?—Yes'
Mr. Pope.] I do not find the plates.
Mr. Shaw.] You will find it in Iron List B.
Mr. Pope.] Plates, tin in boxes.
Mr. Shaw.] It is a special rate rather.
Witness.] Allow me to correct myself. The
finished tin plate is not after one more process
only from the tin bar; it goes through several
processes; first of all, rolliug it out into a plate,
cutting it into shape, and then tinning it. There
are three processes at least that it passes through
before it is finished and in this state.
5570. The black plate is not tin P—I think you
will find that we have already proposed that
black plate shall be in Class C.
5571. Canada plate 2–Canada plate is enter-
ing very closely on a technical question of tin-
plate making which I do not think I can follow
quite. The Canada plate and tin plate, I be-
lieve, are both the same ; but the one goes to
Canada and the other to America. -
5572. I am instructed that they are virtually
almost the same thing. But as to quantity of
traffic, in your classification you deal with quan-
tities us one of the ingredients of classifi-
cation ?——
Mr. Pope.
5573. Is there not some difference in the size
of the Canada plate and the ordinary plate 2—I
believe there is.
Mr. Pope.] That is what I have generally
understood.
Mr. Shaw.] Practically, I am told there is
hardly any difference ; they are almost the
same thing; and I should think, dealing with
one I might deal with the two together.
Mr. Hambury.] Does anything hang mpon the
difference 2 In the schedule it is only tin plate ;
in Class B. it is tin plates in boxes.
Mr. Shaw.
5574. I understand that tin plates are always
carried in boxes 2–They are bound to go in
boxes.
5575. Each box carries about 1 cwt. P-I think
that is about the weight.
5576. But this is a traffic that is nearly always
dealt with in truck loads?—Yes; at all events
from the works. &
5577. It goes chiefly from the works either
from South Wales to Birmingham or to the
coast for shipment to America 2–Yes, of º:
the
ON RAILW AY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
68
3 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
| Continued.
Mr. Shaw—continued.
the greatest quantity goes from the works. There
is a distributing trade in the interior of the
country. -
5578. It is a very easy traffic to deal with, is
it not, so far as handling goes 2–Do not ask me
too much about easy dealing with. It is a
very costly traffic to deal with, and in the neigh-
bourhood that you are speaking of at the present
moment the railway companies' waggons are
used for week after week as warehouses for hold-
ing the tin plates when they have travelled five
or six miles down to the port, because the
people will persist in sending them by rail before
they are ready to ship them. I will undertake
to say that the Great Western, the Midland and
ourselves have at the present time got probably
from 150 to 200 trucks standing with tin plates
which have been there a week or two.
5579. I have pointed out over and over again
that it is a question of demurrage entirely 2—It
is a question whether the traffic is easily dealt
with.
5580. But you have the power of charging
demurrage if they are delayed beyond a reason-
able period 2–We have got those powers.
5581. If you put that question out of the
question of classification entirely, you would tell
me that this is an easy trade to deal with so far
as the railway companies are concerned ?–It is
inot more easy than other traffic.
5582. It is not much more difficult than tin-
plate bars, is it 2–It is liable to considerable
damage.
5583. Not very much damage 2-—I say very
much. I say that if the box shows the slightest
sign of moisture, or of having been interfered
with, the ship's mates will not give a clean
receipt. We have to open the boxes and put
them in order. -
5584. It very seldom occurs that you have
auy damage to pay in that way, does it?–I
should not like to put it too high, but I should
say that it is the exception for there not to be
such cases.
5585. With regard to the amount that is
carried, it is about 400,000 to 500,000 tons, is it
not ?—The traffic principally at the present time
is from the works in South Wales down to the
port, travelling a very few miles over a railway :
and that large traffic that you speak of is practi-
cally independent of railway rates altogether; it
goes round from Swansea, Llanelly, and Cardiff,
to Liverpool by water, at the rate of 5 s. per ton
as compared with the railway rate of about
12 s. 6d. The traffic does not pass by rail to
any great extent, except down to ports.
5586. You do not think a box of tin-plates
would be ejusdem generis with such things as
chestnuts which I see in Class 1, or cyder, and
perry, bottled in cases or casks, it is nothing like
so damageable as that 2–I say that tin plates in
boxes are quite as damageable as cyder and
perry in casks, more so I should say.
5587. I am instructed that they are all packed
in wooden boxes and very carefully protected ?—
'Chat is not my experience, and it is not
the fact, and the traders when they came
to see us on classification, stated dis-
tinctly that it was the course of trade
now to pack them in their own tin boxes, that is
Mr. Shaw – continued.
a sheet of tin outside as a covering instead of a
wooden box ; that was the growing custom of the
trade.
5588. About 350,000 tons of them are sent to
America, I think?–They mostly go, as I say, by
water from South Wales to Liverpool, at a rate
of about 5 s. a ton and the railway rate cannot
be so reduced as to command the trade.
Earl of Camperdown.
5589. What is the practical effect of this pro-
posal which you make with regard to this very
important article of tin plates; what will be the
practical result of raising the charge ; give it me
in percentage if you can without going into
figures ; we will not dispute over pennies.
What will be the effect of raising this article
from Class C. to Class I. ; take it roughly. I
would much rather not go too minutely into it,
because those tables are never worth anything 2
– I can only take it on the figures that the
Board of Trade proposed for the two classes.
Mr. Pope.] I think what the noble Lord wants
to know is the actual effect.
Earl of Camperdown.
5590. The actual effect. I mean as compar-
ing your actual rate with the proposed maximum.
What do you charge now 2–I could not say.
There is no line upon which to charge; it is not
a uniform mileage rate ; it varies all over the
country. At the present time we charge the
rate applicable to Class I. of the Clearing House
Classification, and we propose to continue it in
that class.
5591. Then how did you make your calcula-
tion just ; how did you satisfy yourselves that
your calculation was a just one when you pro-
posed to raise this traffic from Class C. to Class
I., on what element —If you will allow me to put
it in this way; we only know the classification
now as it is in the Clearing House Classification.
We had to proceed on the basis of that, and pro-
posed rates to be applied to those classes. Find-
ing tin plates in Class I. of the Clearing House
Classification, and knowing what our actual rates
were, we proposed to the Board of Trade rates for
Class I. that would cover those actual rates.
We never contemplated, and could not form any
basis of calculation below the Clearing House
Classification. When we come to the rates
as you will see, the rates that we proposed for
Class I., are considerably higher, probably ;
speaking off the book and without the figures
before me, 80 or 100 per cent. higher than the
Board of Trade propose to give us even for Class
I. or for the lower class in which they propose to
put this article.”
5592. Am I correct in gathering from your
answer that you were simply taking into con-
sideration in this proposal the question of classi-
fication entirely, without regarding rates; that
is the effect of what you said to me. You said
simply to yourself, “this is in Class I. now, and
therefore it ought to be in what is to answer to
Class I. in future " ?— I think that is so, really.
5593. And you did not go further and enter
into the question of what under this new schedule
you would be entiled to charge in the way of
rate; you simply said, “I am considering the
question of class; I have nothing to do with
(81.)
rates.”
682 MINUTES OF
F.VIDENCE
TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
-º-
3 June 1891.]
Mr. FI Arrison.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
rates.” Is that so 7–I could not put it so far as
that.
5594. That was the effect of your former
answer 7—I have not made any calculation at
present with regard to tin plates, or what the
loss or profit would be on that article.
5595. Then if it was to come out that under
the new rates which are laid down in this
schedule, we were going to give you a largely
increased power of charge ; might that make any
difference, in your opinion, as to whether this
ought to be put up?—If you will give me a
largely increased power of charge sufficient to
cover the rates, undoubtedly that will make an
alteration in my opinion ; but I sttll do not
think that an article which has gone through four
stages at least of manufacture, should be in the
class next but one to the practically raw material,
like pig iron.
5596. Then am I correct in gathering that you
base your notions of classification upon the stage
of manufacture of the article entirely 2—No, to
some extent. But as I said yesterday, that has
been dependent hitherto, at all events (we are
trying to become very scientific in classifying ; I
do not think we shall succeed, we never have yet),
upon all the circumstances of the traffic as we
know it. We have never known tin plates being
carried under the circumstances of Class C., but
we have known them all these years being
carried under the circumstances of Class I., and
we have never had, if you will allow me to say
so, a representation from the traders that they
should be put in a lower class than they are in in
the Clearing House Classification.
5597. How far in making your calculation is
this an element in it, or is it an element at all,
what the traffic will bear 2—For classification
alone do you mean 2
5598. Yes, for classification, we will not say
alone, but for classification in the way in which
you look at it?—The whole business of a railway
is carried on, having regard to what the traffic
will bear.
Mr. Shaw.
5599. As much as you can get out of it?—No,
not as much as we can get out of it; as much as is
a mutual benefit to the railway companies and
the traders. I will put it in that way.
Mr. Pope.
5600. As much as the traffic will bear and
continue to be a profitable traffic to both the
trader and the company ?–Yes, and increase.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bishop.
5601. With regard to the question of damage-
ability, are you not aware that in packing these
tin plates lie very close to each other and that
a large number of them are placed in a strong
box made of elm, and are so rigidly protected
that nothing in the ordinary way can damage
them —I tried to state rather the opposite view,
and I know by experience that the tin plate
merchants or shippers at Liverpool have men
employed at our station for the purpose of
examining the boxes on arrival and before
shipment, to satisfy themselves whether they
are damaged or not, and they do so; and we find
Mr. Bishop—-continued.
that they are constantly damaged. Any sign of
moisture, as I said before, outside the box is
saken as a sign of damage to the tin plates inside,
and they will not give us a clean receipt.
5602. They are covered in covered trucks, are
they not, to keep them dry 2–Generally.
5603. You heard just now about some of them
being wrapped in tin ; those are Canada plates,
are they not ?—The traders said that was the
mode of wrapping.
5604. That was confined to the Canada plates
only, which are not tinned ; is that not so 7–I
am not Sure.
5605. They are plain iron plates in a pre-
liminary state of manufacture, and they are
wrapped in coverings of their own character ?—
Our proposal is to treat them both alike.
5606. You recognise that tin-plate bars
according to your own admission, though it is
not yet confirmed by this Committee, should be
placed in Class B. Tin plates are the next step
in the manufacture of the article, are they not?
—After having admitted that partly, I said I
was wrongly informed and that there were three
or four processes of manufacture in between.
5607. But it is always in the same works,
is it not ?—I do not know ; I am not sufficiently
informed to answer that.
5608. The tin-plate bars are rolled and washed,
and then covered with tin in the same works 2–
It may be so. And so a tin box may be made
at the same works; but it does not follow that it
is only one remove in the manufacture from the
tin-plate bar.
5609. So far as the trade is concerned, it is
only one remove in the manufacture, as a matter
of fact, especially as regards the Canada plates.
Now, as to the rates, take for example, from
Pontypool road to Liverpool, are you not there
carrying 140 miles for 12 s. 6 d. 2–I believe we
carry a small portion of the traffic at that rate
when it requires great expedition to get to the
steamer in time.
Chairman.] Are you going to take us into the
question of rates?
Mr. Bishop.] I am only showing that they are
carrying there at less than the C. rate would
give them. -
Mr. Pope.] You may take it that in competi-
tion with sea-borne traffic we cut the rates very
much indeed. -
Chairman.] We can hardly go far into that
question of rates now.
Re-examined by Mr. Pope.
5610. Practically, as to this local traffic, so far
as your traffic is concerned, this tin-plate traffic
is not of consequence; you only get this traffic
when you are loading a steamer ?—Yes.
5611. The rest is sent by trading steamers
round from Swansea to Liverpool 2–Yes.
Mr. Bishop.] One would think that is an
argument why they should get more. However,
the C. rate would allow them 1 s. 4d., while
they are actually carrying at I d.
Chairman.] The only objection we have heard
of yet is as to raising tin plates from Class C. to
Class I.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY
683
RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
*=-
3 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON
[Continued.
Mr. Bishop.] Yes.
Chairman.] That is the only article you
object to ?
Mr. Bishop.] Yes; that is all I am interested
in personally.
Chairman.] That is the only article which
anybody objects to, as I understand, that tin
plates should not be raised from Class C. to
Class I. P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Will you allow me to
say one word upon the question of owner's risk
which has been raised in connection with this
proposal 7
Chairman.] The question before us which we
have dealt with, and upon which we have not
yet given a decision, is the question of raising a
certain article in Class B. up to Class C. ; and
the proposal of the railway companies was, in
addition to that, to raise certain articles from
Class C. into Class I. We thought it more
convenient to hear all that could be said upon
both those subjects before we gave our decision
upon either of them. Having heard all that can
be said upon the question of raising these
articles from Class C. to Class I., we shall then
give our decision upon both the points. We are
now discussing whether certain articles shall be
removed from Class C. to Class [., and perhaps
you will be good enough to address yourself to
that point.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have nothing what-
ever to say upon that particular point.
Mr. Hanbury.] All these are articles carried
at the company’s risk, as I understand.
Mr. Pope.] Every one of them.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The question of owner's
aisk was raised by Mr. Harrison, and I thought
I might be allowed to ask a question about it.
Chairman.] It does not touch the article we
are dealing with now.
Mr. Hunter.] In Class B. I understand it was
agreed to omit the word “heavy" after the word
“scrap.” I gather that the whole of the other
consequently goes out, and that the whole
question of scrap iron has been considered.
Witness.] I understand that the proposal was
that the word “light" should come out, and that
there should be inserted “under two tons per
truck.”
5612. I understand it was to be “under four
tons °2—There are two distinctions. In Class B.
I understand the proposal was to strike out the
word “heavy’ after “scrap,” and insert “mini-
mum load of four tons per truck; ” then when
you come to the next class to strike out the word
“light" after “scrap iron,” and insert “under
four tons per trusk.”
Chairman.] Let us understand clearly what is
agreed upon.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understood that this was
assented to, that the word “light” after
“scrap * should be struck out in Class C., and
that the words “less quantity than four tons”
should be inserted.
Mr. Pope.] I daresay that was so ; but I can-
not tell you because I was not present.
Mr. Whitehead..] Mr. Bidder assented to that.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] I should like to ask Mr. Lambert
a question upon this; because it is more a Great
Western traffic than a North Western traffic,
because the Liverpool trade goes by sea mainly.
MR. HENRY L.AMBERT is again called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope
5613. TAKING the article tin plates, what is
your reason for desiring that it should be raised
from Class C., in which it is under the Board of
Trade proposal, and placed in Class I. 2–We
think the value of the traffic and the cost of deal-
ing with it justifies us in asking for Class I.
rateS.
5614. In what class is it now 2–Class I.
5615. Therefore, as regards any comparison of
the powers under Class I. and your actual rates,
the traffic is now conveyed under the rates
applicable to Class I. 2–Certainly. We do not
desire to raise it above the Clearing House
Classification, but to continue it in the same
class as it is now. -
Earl of Camperdown.
5616. How do those rates compare with the
schedule of rates in Class 1.2–1 think Mr.
Harrison explained———
5617. I did not quite understand his explana-
tion.—Then let me say that the rates vary so
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
much that it was impossible to compare with an
actual fixed seale.
5618. Then on what do you base your proposal,
to put this under Class I. if you cannot compare
the rates ?—Upon the value of the article, which
extends from 7 l. or 8 l. according to the market
up to 20 l. a ton, and also the cost of dealing with
it generally. I may explain that as one item in
the cost we are compelled to provide covered
trucks for it ; that is to say, van trucks with
fixed wooden tops. The makers turn the plates
out of their warehouse and they will not have
them loaded into ordinary open waggons with a
tarpaulin on them, but they require us to provide
these covered vans for them; and the result of
that is that we have moved many train loads of
empty vans from Birkenhead down to South
Wales to the works for the express purpose of
supplying the works with them; and, as Mr.
Ilarrison points out, the detention awaiting ship-
ment is very serious, and in the case of London
we ourselves keep a carpenter whose time is
wholly occupied in making up these boxes to
enable us to get a clean receipt from the shipper.
4 R 2 5619. That
684
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.]
Mr. LAMBERT.
[Continued.
Earl of Comperdown.
5619. That is not a question of classification ;
that is demurrage 2–It bears upon the cost of
dealing with the article, my Lord.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shaw.
5620. This traffic is carried in large quantities,
is it not ?—lt is.
5621. And in truck loads 2—As a rule.
5622. Of over four tons?—Of from two to
four tons, not always over four tons.
5623. It is carried up to ten tons I am in-
formed 2–Yes, it comes in loads of ten tons to
the port for shipment, and there as a rule the
case is met by special rates.
5624. At present nearly all this goes for
shipment 2–A good deal of it, but not all, be-
cause it is traffic that is carried all over the
country in small quantities. All blacksmiths
and tin Smiths use these tin plates. In London
we have a very large traffic which is distributed
all over London in carts to persons who manu-
facture.
5625. You want to put it into Class I, with
such things as chestnuts and others which have
been mentioned; do you think that tin plates in
boxes are ejusdem generis with such things as
those ?–1 think so ; I have known for a long
time a ton of plates to be quoted 1 l. a box, and
that means 20 l.
5626. They are not at that now 2–No ; but it
is always a fluctuating market. I am speaking
only of what I have known, and no doubt it will
be so again.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bishop.
5627. What proportion of the traffic is under
two-ton loads in South Wales?—In South
Wales it usually goes in truck loards to the ports
for shipment. •
5628. Practically in South Wales there is none
of that traffic you speak of, of under two tons for
a small delivery in the different parts of the
country 2–In South Wales it usually goes in
truck loads, but in other parts of the country it
might be sent in lots of 10, 15, or 20 boxes.
5629. In that case they would not be in Class
C. naturally, because they would be under two
tons?—No doubt that would come under the
higher rare.
5630. Are you aware that between 25,000 and
30,000 men are employed in South Wales in this
trade 2—It is an important trade, no doubt.
5631. Are you also aware that the trade is im-
perilled by apprehensions as to the McKinlay
tariff in America 2–No doubt there have been
apprehensions.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know why the railway
companies should get less for their services.
Mr. Bishop.
5632. (To the Witness.) That is a reason, is
it not, why every step should be taken to reduce
the cost of these articles as much as possible P-
The conditions of the trade does not affect the
cost to the railway company of handling and
dealing with the traffic.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr Pope).] Have you anybody
more to call P -
Mr. Pope.] No.
Chairman (to Mr.
tº Shaw).] Have you any
witnesses to call ?
Mr. Shaw.] No, your Grace. All I have got
to say on this matter is that really no argument
of very great weight has been given why this
particular traffic s' ould be penalised in this manner
by being put into Class I. It is a very special
traffic, I admit. lt will be a great hardship, I
am told, if this particular trade is put into Class
l instead of leaving it where the Board of Trade
have put it, in Class C. The railway companies
want to have it put into Class I.
Mr. Pope.] At the present moment it is in
what is equivalent to Class I.
Mr. Shaw.] It is all upon special rates now.
I am dealing with what is proposed to be done.
Mr. Pope.] You were speaking as though we
were proposing to penalise this traffic. We only
want to restore the traffic to the position it
occupies at present in the Clearing House
Classification.
Mr. Shaw.] It is now subject to special rates.
Mr. Whitehead..] On behalf of the Mansion
House Committee, your Grace, I would say we
do not oppose this second proposition with regard
to damageable iron, because we are not interested
in the trade to any considerable extent; but of
course it is entirely a question of rate, as the
witnesses have pointed out to your Grace
Chairman.] If it is entirely a question of rate,
we had better postpone it till we come to discuss
rates.
Mr. Whitehead..] I wanted to reserve our rights
in this way : of course we are interested in the
rates in these classes, and our decision not to
oppose as regards classification is guided very
much by the rates which the Board of Trade
propose in these classes.
Mr. Pope.] That you will be entitled to
discuss when we come to discuss any alteration
in these rates.
Chairman to Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Have
you anything to say to the Committee upon this
point 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I have explained the
position of the Board of Trade with regard to
iron. I have not offered any observations about
the second question.
Chairman.] Perhaps you would do so.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is very difficult to
do so in the absence of any attack upon the
proposal on the part of the traders. I have
conferred with Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and I
do not think we have anything to add except
this, that we had at the Westminster Town Hall
and at Richmond-to “race a considerable amount
more evidence than has been before the Com-
mittee at present with regard to the iron trade
generally. Upon this very question of tin-plate
which has been discussed, we had a good deal of
information from a gentleman who has unfor-
tunately
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
685
3 June 1891.
tunately died since the beginning of the inquiry,
Mr. Basil Jayne, who told us a good deal about
the cost of construction of tin-plates, the Canada
plates, the black plates, and terne plates, and
gave a considerable amount of information which
is not before the Committee. As it is not before
the Committee, it is not my business on behalf
of the traders to argue their position, and having
consulted with Lord Balfour when he was here,
I do not think we have anything to add. There
is one point that is before the Committee on
which a question was asked by an honourable
Member, as to which I should like to point out
this to the Committee with regard to that Mid-
land table which was put in, and which tended
to show that the Midland would lose 47,000 a-
year. -
Earl of Camperdown.] That is on the other
proposal.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. || Yes; but I understand
his Grace is asking about the two combined.
My point is this: it was admitted, in consequence
of the question put by Mr. Hunter, that the
actual rates set out in this table are justified only
if there is a 1 s. 6 d. terminal. That if a very
important factor for the Committee to consider.
Lord Belper.] I understand the neither you
nor Lord Balfour have had an opportunity of
going into the figures of the Midland table.
Mr. Covrtenay Boyle.] The Midland figures
are perfectly new ; we have sent them to the
Board of Trade, to our expert accountant, for so
much analysis as can be made in a few hours,
which, of course, cannot be very exhaustive.
That is all I have had the opportunity of doing.
Somewhat similar figures were put in, which were
very carefully analysed by Lord Balfour of
Burleigh and myself.
Lord Belper.] With regard to the tin plates,
I see they are put in a different class in the
Board of Trade Classification. May I ask
whether the reason for doing so is because they
vary in any considerable degree from the iron
articles which are put in Class B. under your
classification ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] If the point with
regard to tin-plates seems to be important to the
Committee, it would be worth while that they
should read what Mr. Basil Jayne told us. I
have his evidence here.
Chairman.] At the present moment, in what
class is this particular article of tin-plates as com-
pared with the class which you propose to put it
in P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Does your Grace mean
in the Provisional Order, or in the Railway
Clearing House Classification ?
Chairman.] The Railway Clearing House
Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is in Class I. now,
and we propose to put it into Class C.
Chairman.] Class I., in which it is now, is
equivalent to which class in the Provisional
Order, or how does it compare with the class in
the Provisional Order?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Class I, of the Clearing
House Classification is a higher-rated class than
Class C. of the Provisional Order.
Chairman.] Class C. of the Provisional Order
is where you propose to put it 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, as a matter of
classification, for the reasons very elaborately
explained to us by Mr. Basil Jayne, none of
which the Committee have heard.
Lord Belper.] I should like to ask whether,
quite irrespective of what classes these other
articles may be put in, you still consider that tin-
plates are in a different category from the other
articles put in the class 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Tin terne and Canada
plates we dealt with in common with othel
articles, and it is not for the Board of Trade to
say, having heard what is to be said about
damageable iron, which we propose to put into
Class C., they should now make any particular
difference between the tin plates and the other
articles in the class.
Lord Belper.] You put a uumber of articles
into Class B. I want to know, irrespective of
any decision of this Committee as to the articles
in Class B., whether you are of opinion that tin
plates ought to be treated differently from the
other articles in Class B.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We never proposed
that tin plates should be put into Class B, but
in Class C., in a class above the articles in Class
B. But now the railway companies propose to
put it into Class 1.
Lord Belper.] Are tin plates, in your opinion,
a different class of article altogether?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, certainly ; diffe-
rent from anvils and anchors, and so on.
Mr. Dickson.] You say that tin plates are in
Class 1 in the Clearing House Classification ?
Mr. Covrtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Mr. Dickson.] But they are also in Iron List
B.
Mr. Pope.] Yes; in Iron List B.
Mr. Dickson.] Is that a lower list than
Class 1 °
Mr. Courtenay Boyle] No, I thought that had
been explained. List B. is Class 1 and List A.
is Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Exactly.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle).] Although this gentleman who gave evi-
dence about the important tin-plate trade is dead,
still the Board of Trane must remember and be
aware of the reasons he gave which guided them
in their decision. Perhaps you could supply his
place and tell us what those reasons were 2
Mr. Courteuay Boyle..] I can quote his words,
my Lord.
Mr. Pope.] Surely you should not do that;
for then we have no opportunity of cross-exa-
mining upon them.
Earl of Camperdown.] I am asking Mr. Boyle
for the reasons upon which the Board of Trade
made up their mind. Will you tell me what the
reasons were for what you have done P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Lordship is ask-
ing why we put them in Class C. rather than
(81.)
4 R 3 Class
MINUTES OF EVIDENCF.
BEFORE THE JOINT commºtt EE
TAKEN
-º- - --- ~~~ ---º-º-º-º-
Class 12. It was because the evidence we had
before us went to show that they were not very
completely manufactured articles, and that all
that was done to them did not amount to a very
great deal of manufacture; they were very easily
carried, and very easily handled, and very easily
packed. Then further, here again comes in, and
I am afraid it is almost impossible to keep it out
of sight, the fatal question of rates. I am afraid
it is impossible that the reasons of our decision
can be asked for from the Board of Trade with-
out some reference to rates; that must come in.
The Committee should have before them what
the actual powers are for tin plates. Tin plates
are not named in very many Acts of the Great
Western, but they are named in some of them,
alid what are the rates and what are the powers
given by Parliament 2 In the Newport Aber-
gaveliny and Hereford Railway Act, 1846, it is
3 d. a mile ; in the Colford, Monmouth, Usk and
Pontypool Railway Act of 1853, it is l; d.; in
the Monmouthshshire Railway and Canal Act,
1861, it is 1; d. ; in the Cardiff and Ogmore
Valley Railway Act, 1873, it is 1 #d ; in the
Ogmore Valley Railway Act, 1863, it is 1; d.
On the other hand in the Llynvi Valley Railway
Act, 1855, it is 3 d. ; in the Aberdare Valley
Railway Act, 1855, it is 3 d. ; in the Llanelly
Railway and Dock Act, 1833, it is 3 ; d. #
Mr. Pope.] At Llanelly, where they are made,
it is 3; d. t
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is a short line of
railway.
Earl of Camperdown.] How do the rates of
Class C. compare generally with the existing
powers ? -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I will show you in a
minute.
Earl of Camperdown.] I mean generally ; I do
not want to go into detail.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I will not go into detail.
I will give it you very shortly. Our rate for
Class C. begins at 1-8 d., and goes down for
distances exceeding 100 miles to 1-25 d.
Mr. Hunter.] One question on the general
matter of the evidence you have heard; did you,
at the Westminster Town Hall, and afterwards
at the Board of Trade, confine yourselves entirely
to the hearing of evidence of witnesses who could
appear at this inquiry: that is, traders affected, or
did you take evidence from all parts of England.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We took evidence from
all parts of England, because all the companies
were before us, and you have only nine before
you.
Mr. Pope.] Upon this particular question of
the tin plates all parts of England were not
interested ; it is a limited district trade ;-it is a
South Wales trade.
Lord Houghton.] Is it not a Sheffield trade as
well. w *
Mr. Pope.] Not at all.
Mr. Yates.] It is a Staffordshire trade.
The Committee retire to consult, and
after some time resume.
-- **** -a --~ * * **, *-* * *-
3 Julie 1891.
# sº,” “... *- -* - ----→ *-*— -: *-**-* -*-*- :- - ?---- *~ + -—“ *.*.*. + ºs º f ... ºr * ~ ** ***…*** jºr
Chairman.* The Committee agree to the pro-
posal of the railway companies, but without any
limitation as to the weight of anvils; but they have
come to no decision as to bar-iron now ; they
wish to-hear further evidence. The Committee
have decided to leave out the word “undamage-
able " on page 18, line 38. The Committee liave
decided to remove the articles from the list be-
ginning, “ Axle boxes,” and ending with “traps,”
on page 22, fiom Class C. to Class I. -
Mr. Hanbury.] The question is whether bar-
iron is to be in Class B. or Class C.
Chairman.] We want to have evidence with
regard to that. *
Mr. Pember. Your Grace, I think the best way
to deal with that suggestion at the moment as to
bar-iron, and further evidence on the subject, is
to ask you kindly to take something else this
evening, and to give us the opportunity of consider-
ing what further evidence we can bring before
you to-morrow morning.
Earl of Belmore.] We want to know what bar-
iron is.
Mr. Pember.] That is one of the things we
want to consider, what really “bar-iron" will
COV GI’.
Chairman.] Then we will agree to your pro-
posal, and discuss the question of bar-iron to-
morrow morning ; we will begin with that.
Mr. Bishop.] I suppose steel rails will be taken
as part of bar-iron.
Chairman.] No ; bar-iron is bar-iron, not steel
rails. --
Mr. Bishop.] But steel rails——
Chairman.] You will have an opportunity of
showing to-morrow why bar-iron means steel
rails.
Mr. Pember.] If your Grace will kindly look
on page 6, you will see the amendment of the
railway companies ; it is the sixth, I think, in
order: page 20, column 2, line 9, omit “Posts,
iron or steel, for wire fencing.” As I under-
stand it, the Committee have put them into
Class C.
Chairman.] Yes, that is so.
Mr. Pember.] Then, I think, the next one I
had better mention of the railway companies
amendments is that which is last but one on that,
page 20, line 34, omit “Merchandise comprised
in Class A., if sent in quantities of less than
four tons.” That was postponed; I do not know
whether the right moment has come to take it
or not. It is suggested that that had better come
aſter you have settled all the other amendments
affecting the lower classes of merchandise; so
that, perhaps, we had better postpone that
still.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Poyser.] If I might interrupt my learned
friend for a moment, that amendment, I under-
stood, was withdrawn by the railway companies
for the omission.
Mr. Pember..] Omit “Merchandise comprised
in Class A., if sent in quantities of less than four
tons”] No, that was postponed.
Chairma n.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
687
3 June 1891.
Chairman.] That was postponed.
Mr. Poyser.] We were under that impres-
sion.
Chairman.] That was postponed.
Mr. Pember.] On page 7, omit “Ammoniacal
liquor for trade purposes;” but that has been
dealt with. I think that is still postponed.
Mr. Hanbury.] Ammoniacal liquor in Class B.
was postponed; I suppose it is on Class C.
Mr. Yates.] Yes, it was postponed on the
Minutes of the 17th May.
Mr. Pember.] We were to agree on a definition;
we have not received it yet, so we had better
postpone it. On the next page, “Cresote, gas
iar and gas water,” that I think is done with.
I think you agreed to do that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, it was postponed.
Mr. Pember.] It was not postponed on Class C.,
it was taken out of the lower classes.
Mr. Shaw.] It was postponed for a definition,
I think.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] Then the next one “Draft or
brewers’ and distillers' grains,” that is given up ;
that is covered by the two and four ton minimum,
that is gone. Then “Iron and steel,” that is
disposed of.
Earl of Camperdown | Subject to bar iron.
Earl of Belmore.] Then “Litter’ was disposed
of.
Mr. Pember.] “Litter” was disposed of. I
think there is nothing on page 9. And then of
course Class C., on page lo, is dealt with.
Mr. Shaw.] Everything has been dealt with
except the iron in this list, the whole lot. I
think your Grace if would save time.
stand from the railway companies everything in
this list has been dealt with.
Mr. Pember.] Never mind, let us go through
it.
Mr. Shaw.] Except hardware.
Mr. Pember.] Fruit.
Earl of Camperdown.] Fruit is a South-
Western and South-Eastern question ; it stands
over for the southern companies generally.
Mr. Pember.] Yes; it stands over.
Earl of Camperdown.] It stands for the com-
panies generally ; but if there is a special case
the South Eastern Company will bring it up.
Mr. Pember.] I said the one at the bottom of
page 10 was done with, but it stands over with
the others, it is not done with. Then “fruit *
stands over. Then at the bottom of page 11 is
“ iron and steel;” that is disposed of, subject, of
course, always to the bar-iron question, if that
comes into it at all.
Mr. Hanbury.] But “fruit" in the general
Bill stands as it is. It is only postponed for
alteration for a special case.
Mr. Pember.] The note I have is, “the Chair-
man intimated that the Committee were not
prepared to accept this amendment, but would
I under-
hear evidence from the northern companies, and
would also hear what the southern companies
have to say when their respective orders were
before the Committee.”
Earl of Camperdown.] “Fruit" was to stand
for the general scheme, but if the southern com-
panies had special proposals to make, they were
to make them.
Mr. Pember.] Then this note ought to be
read: “The Chairman intimated that the Com-
mittee were not prepared to accept this amend-
ment, but would hear what the southern com-
panies have to say when their case is before
them.” Then page 11 is disposed of. Then the
railway companies next amendment is about
timber ; that is dealt with ; and then there is one
at the botiom, that is postponed consequentially
once more, and “ Algerian fibre,” I have here as
postponed.
Chairma.] No, that has been dealt with under
‘‘ Straw.”
Mr. Peuber.] “Awl blades,” that comes
under “hardware,” which you will hear some-
thing of directly. I think you had better now
go to “ hardware.” I hope that the hardware
question is agreed.
Chairman.] However, now we had better take
“ hardware.”
Mr. Pember.] The only reason for suggesting
that you should not take it for the moment is
that it is agreed.
Mr. Mason.] It is agreed; but they want
time to put it into proper shape.
Mr. Shaw.] The agreement has not been put
into writing, so we do not quite understand what
position we are in.
Mr. Pember.] It is put into writing; but I do
not think it is in a proper form to go into classi-
fication.
Mr. Shaw.] Subject to that, we have come to
an agreement.
Mr. Pember.] I think you may take it that
that is agreed, and it shall be brought up to-
morrow in a proper shape. Then china grass
is gone, and esparto grass is gone. Flax straw
is gone, and I suppose e, o, h, p. ; what is that on
the bottom of page 13 °
Mr. Mason.] That is fruit.
Mr. Pember.] I suppose the next one has been
dealt with.
Mr. Masou.] Yes.
Mr. Pember.] So we may say of the next two.
Then hardware, again ; that amendment about
hardware on page 14 I believe is all right. Hay
goes the one on page 15. Palmetto leaf is dealt
with ; straw is dealt with ; timber round,
measurement, weight, is dealt with ; Algerian
fibre again is dealt with ; china grass is dealt
with ; flax straw is dealt with, and fruit is, of
conrse, dealt with, subject to what has been
already said. Hardware is agreed: hay is dealt
with, and hollow-ware is agreed; and hops ; I
suppose “hops’ stands with “fruit.”
Chairman.] Yes, I think it would.
Mr. Hunter.] That is a southern companies
question. w
(81.)
4 R 4 Mr.
688
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 May 1891.
Mr. Pember.] “Palmetto leaf” is dealt with.
Chairman.] What page are you on ?
Mr. Pember.] I have got to page 17; but
there is nothing for your Grace to consider up to
now by the railway companies; the one I was
mentioning was hops, about half-way down page
17; that stands with the fruit, I take it.
Mr. Hanbury.] How do you mean that it
stands with fruit. On the same footing with
fruit.
Mr. Pember.] Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is to say with regard to
all other companies except the southern com-
panies, the amendment is rejected.
Mr. Pember.] That is as I understand it. Then
I find nothing on page 18, your Grace. Then
we come to class 4, on page 19. Algerian fibre
of course is gone, and so are china grass and
esparto grass, and flax straw in the same way,
and fruit we know about ; Palmetto leaf again,
pine apples again, and then straw. Now we come
to Class 6, and there is the fruit, that stands on
the same footing, and hops and pine apples, that
is all. Then I think, so far as the classification
goes, subject to fruit when the southern lines
come up, and subject to hardware and hollow-
ware, which I hope you will not be troubled with,
and bar-iron and the one about ——
Lord Belper.] Pine apples would not follow
the southern fruit which affects the southern
companies; it is imported pine apples ; I think
they come just as much by the northern com-
panies.
Lord Houghton.] They mainly
Liverpool, I think.
come from
Mr. Pember.] I am much obliged to your
Lordship. I will ask. I do not think that any
of them care about that. It is the English pine
apples that the southern companies are anxious
about. My answer is of course confined to the
import fruit. Then subject to those things that
I have mentioned, with the question of bar iron
and the minimum weights at the foot of one or
two of those classes, there is nothing I think that
remains, by the railway companies.
Chairman.] Do not the pine apples remain P
Mr. Pember.] The pine apples we deal with in
this way. With regard to imported fruit I am
told that the companies most concerned are not
anxious to deal with any amendment, but with re-
gard to English hot-house pine apples, the southern
companies may wish to deal with them. Now
what does your Grace propose to go on with
next, I venture to ask?
Chairman.] Our attention is called to this :
that straw and algerian fibre and matters of
that kind have been taken out of Class 2, but
they have not yet been put into any other class.
Mr. Pember.] I thought they were taken out
of Class 2 and put into Class 3.
Mr. Hanbury.] But there is some more in Class
3. Is that to be shifted on to Class 4, and what
is in Class 4 to Class 5 °
Mr. Yates.] It is the unpressed in one case
and the pressed in the other.
Mr. Hanbury.] But is it a consequential
amendment on the first that all of them go up a
class 2
Mr. Yates.] Yes, I think it would be so.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, that was so. I think that
was the intention.
Mr. Hambury.] But we have not settled that.
Our decision was only to remove from Class 2
to Class 3 whatever it may be. We want to
know whether the other amendments are con-
sequential upon that?
Mr. Pember.] Yes; that is what I think it is :
that they all go up a class, and with the minimum
they are in Class 3 we will say, the same article
will be in Class 4 and so on. I think that we
ought to see exactly what form the amendment
should take in order to make the classification
right.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I venture to submit
that that point was not decided by the Com-
mittee; the persons interested in paper-making
materials were not before the Committee, and
what the Committee did decide was to put the
impressed raw material into Class 3, they did
not settle to put any other paper-making
materials into Class 4.
Mr. Pember.] With a minimum weight, was
it not ?
Mr.
Courtenay Boyle.] With a minimum
weight.
Mr. Pember.] Supposing it goes without the
minimum weight?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The Committee did
not settle what was the minimum weight that
was to go into Class 4.
Mr. Pember...] I am afraid then that that must
be a matter of discussion. I thought that had
been settled from what I heard.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I do not understand
that.
Mr. Yates.] It is quite right; it is only the
unpressed that was settled.
Chairman.] You had better bring that up to-
morrow morning.
Mr. Pember.] Very well, your Grace.
Chairmau.] Now the traders have had an
opportunity of seeing the case which the railway
companies have made, and the amendments the
railway companies have made, in the classifica-
tion, or, rather, what they have suggested, and
what we have agreed to, of course subject to
what we may do with regard to bar-iron. Are
the traders in a position to tell us what they are
prepared to do with the classification ?
Mr. Shaw.] For my clients, the landowners
and coal owners of South Wales, your Grace,
We have got an amendment upon the table here.
It is the first amendment; it is an amendment
which is practically this -
... Earl of Camperdown.] Are you going on with
it
... Mr. Shaw.] I was just going to explain what
It is.
Chairman.] Will you tell us the name of it 2
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
689
3 June, 1891.
Mr. Shaw.] Page 17, line l6, before the words
“Class A.” insert the words “Coal and coke
for shipment.” It is really to exclude coal for
shipment, so that when we come to discuss the
rate question it shall not be answered by the
railway companies saying, “We are now dis-
cussing the rate which is to be applicable, not
only to your coal for shipment, but to the most
expensively carried article in Class A.,” and we
want to have it more discussed upon rate than
upon classification. f
Chairman.] The other day Mr. Balfour Browne
informed us upon the part of the traders (I be-
lieve he represents nearly all ; 1 do not say
absolutely that he represents all), that they were
prepared to accept the classification of the Board
of Trade, supposing that the railway companies
were prepared to do the same. The railway
companies said that they were not prepared to
accept the classification, and I suggested then,
on behalf of the Committee, to the traders that
they should wait and see how far the classification
was altered by the representations made by the
railway companies, and when that was done we
should then hear from them whether they pro-
posed to go on with their amendments, or
whether they were prepared to accept the classi-
fication as it stood. That is the point I have to
put to you.
Mr. Shaw.] I am afraid I must go on with
this amendment.
Chairman.] Is that the only amendment P
Mr. Shaw.] I have one more about pit-wood,
but 1 think shortly that is a local question, and
might be dealt with locally.
Mr. Yates.]
friend Mr. Balfour Browne said.
ing that you have altered the classification by
putting in iron, we still adhere, believing it to
be mainly a question of rates, and we do not intend
to put forward any amendment to classification
at all.
I adhere to what my learned
Chairman.] For how many traders do you
speak 2 -
Mr. Yates.] For the Lancashire and Cheshire
Conference.
Chairman.] And the Mansion House Associa-
tion have already told us so, I think?
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace. It will be
within your recollection that my learned friend
Mr. Clifford in the first instance drew a distinc-
tion between the Mansion House Association
and the Lancashire and Cheshire Conference,
and said that there were some points on which
the Mansion House Association felt bound to go
forward with their amendments. At the same
time he promised that every effort should be
made to reduce the amendments to a reasonable
compass. Since that time we have made every
effort, and some amendments will be struck out,
but some we shall have to press before the Com-
mittee.
Mr. Poyser.] I had a number of amendments
to propose, but with a view of shortening time I
Notwithstand-
withdrew all except one as to the packed manure
and that I shall still have to maintain before
your Grace, and those notes to the different
classes which stand in my name on the paper.
Earl of Belmore.] The notes are to the same
effect as we are going to discuss on the railway
companies' amendments.
Mr. Poyser.] Yes. We have already discussed
one of those amendments.
Earl of Belmore.] And one decisions will cover
both amendments.
Mr. Poyser.] I think one decision will cover
both amendments.
Mr. Wills.] I appear for the firm of Greaves,
Bull, and ſuakin, a firm of lias lime burners who
have proposed an amendment in Class A. and
certain other subsidiary amendments; and they
are not prepared to withdraw their amendments
but propose to proceed with them in due course.
Mr. Capper.] On behalf of the South Wales
freighters, I am instructed to ask that your
Grace will hear evidence on the subject of pig-
iron. As rails have been raised a class they
wish to press their amendment about pig-iron.
Chairman.] We have heard during the last
three days nothing but iron, and we are prepared
now to hear evidence and argument on the
subject of bar iron. That is all that we intend
to do with respect to iron in the classification.
Mr. Bishop.] I have some amendments on
iron metals which I propose to proceed with.
Chairmam..] Yes, if you have amendments
down.
Mr. Darlington.] I have also an amendment
that I mentioned to your Grace the other day,
which I propose to proceed with, with regard to
slate slabs.
Mr. Pember.] Will those of my learned friends
who have amendments specify the amendments
which they propose to go forward with ? Cannot
you hand us to-night what you propose to proceed
with ?
Mr. Shaw, I have an amendment with regard
to coal and coke.
Mr. Poyser.] I shall be glad to begin with
packed manure to-morrow morning.
Mr. Pember.] Of course if my learned friends
will not answer, I must ask your Grace to give
an order that we should know at once ; they
ought to be prepared to give us a list of the
amendments that they intend to proceed with.
Chairman.] Nothing will be easier. You can
say what amendments you propose to proceed
with. -
Mr. Wills.] So far as my clients are concerned
we press all the amendments they propose ; no
alteration will be necessary so far as they are
concerned.
Mr. Pember.] Would you give us a list of the
amendments with regard to iron metals?
Mr. Bishop.] I will give them to you in a
moment.
Mr. Pember.] And I think we ought to have
them this evening.
(81.)
Chairman.]
4 S
690
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN REFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
3 June 1891.
Chairman.] It seems to me that there are
various amendments that have been put down,
and the parties putting down those amendments
must know which of them they are going to
bring forward and to press.
Mr. Poyser.] I have stated mine.
Mr. Shaw.] I may just mention to my learned
friend, Mr. Pember, that there is one on pit-
Wood carried in owners’ trucks.
Mr. Pember.] If you will kindly put them
down on paper, and send them over to us in a
quarter of an hour or more we shall be
satisfied. -
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I have two small matters
which have crept into the classification by mis-
take, as I think will be admitted by the other
side, and, if I am allowed, to-morrow morning
I should like to discuss them. They are both
relating to iron, but they have not been adju-
dicated upon at present.
Chairman.] What are they
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I think they are put in
by mistake.
Chairman.] What are they
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Rough castings ; that is
an article which the railway companies have
admitted should be in Class B., the articles in
which are of the same character and nature as
rough castings.
Mr. Pember.] That is re-opening the whole
thing surely. What amendment are you re-
ferring to there 2
Sir Alfred Hickman.] The amendment I pro-
posed is at the bottom of page 4.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you will be able
to move it.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I hope it will not be
necessary; I think the other side will be pre-
pared to accept it.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then what is the use
of talking to us about it if you hope it will not be
necessary P
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I merely replied in
answer to the appeal from Mr. Pember.
Mr. Pember.] Surely this comes under your
Grace's decision.
Earl of Camberdown.] Then it will be time to
answer that when he gets up to propose it.
Chairman.] What Sir Alfred Hickman is
alluding to is an amendment that he has down on
thy paper. Page 18, column 2. You will have
an opportunity Sir Alfred of moving that
amendment at the proper time.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] Thank you your Grace.
Chairman.] The railway companies have sug-
gested their amendments which we have accepted
or declined. Then I put to the traders what of
the classification they were prepared to accept.
, for the traders an
Mr. Pember.] But are you in a position to name
a day when you will take certain matters which
are matters of interest to all the companies, Parts
IV., W. and VI. ; in fact before we come to Rates?
Those are the only remaining matters of general
interest to all the oompanies.
Mr. Yates.] Is not rates the next?
Mr. Pember.] No.
Mr. Yates.] I think so.
Mr. Pember.] Rates may bo a separate matter
for each company.
Mr. Yates.] I think it would very much tend
to shorten matters if rates were taken next
because the contention ?
Chairman.] Very often you know the shortest
way suggested is the longest.
Mr. Yates.] They have been put back at
present ; they would have been in order before
classification.
Chairman.] We do not regret what we have
done, I assure you.
Mr. Yates.] So closely are they mixed up
with classification that we shall have forgotten all
about them before we get to them.
Chairman.] I think we should have the
amendments. I do not know when it will be, to
Parts IV., V., and VI.
Mr. Pember.] After the traders' amendments
on classification ?
Chairman.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] But Mr. Pember
wants to know by what day the amendments
should be put in. t
Mr. Pember.] That is what I mean. We
should be content I think if your Grace would
order them to be put in by Monday at least.
Chairman.] I think that might be done. We
will have all the amendments put in by Monday.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle] May I make a small
suggestion as a matter of order. Would the rail-
way companies in printing the amendments,
which they do with such care, just number
them?—I think that would be very advantageous.
Mr. Whitehead.] Would your Grace name
Tuesday instead of Monday.
Mr. Pember.] No, the Committee meet on
Tuesday.
Mr. But Monday is a free day
Whitehea º
they would have an oppor-
tunity of preparing.
Mr. Pember.] A free day !
day.
Mr. Whitehead.] But a great many of the
traders live in the country.
They have Satur-
Chairman.] This is an inqniry which will last
I do not know how long, and if we are to keep
on postponing amendments time after time we
shall never get on.
Mr. Pember.] They have had years.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 69]
3 June 1891.
wº-
Chairman.] This is a question which must Chairman.] You agree with me?
have been before the traders for at least I do not Mr. Whitehead..] I feel your Grace's difficulty,
know how many months. - but it will be a greater difficulty to my clients if
you order otherwise than Tuesday,
Chairman.] You think I am quite right, never-
theless. -
Mr. Whitehead..] I feel your Grace's point,
but I was instructed to make that suggestion on
behalf of my clients.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned till To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o'clock.
(81.) 4 S 2
( 692 )
( 693 )
I)ie Jovis, 4°
Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE of RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HOUGHTON.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Moon.] I AM happy to be able to inform
your Grace and the Committee that since the
adjournment last night, negotiations have passed
between the traders and ourselves which have
resulted in a compromise so far as regards bar-
iron. The description of bar-iron, which is to be
retained in Class B., as agreed to, I understand,
by the traders, is this: Bar-iron or steel exceed-
ing one hundredweight per bar in open trucks,
at the request of the trader, that is to say, that
includes all the heavy kinds of bar-iron or steel,
and does not include the lighter kinds, which, of
course, are more expensive,
Lord Belper.] The other is to all go in
Class C.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I understand is
agreed to.
Then, your Grace, I think it was agreed that
we should mention to your Grace the amend-
ment that had been come to with reference to
hardware. The parties have met on both sides.
“(1.) The following articles to be added to the
hardware list : bedsteads, metallic, in strawed
bundles ; fenders, packed in crates, cases, or
boxes; coal-scuttles, metallic, packed in cases or
boxes; ventilators, small, iron or brass, for
buildings, packed; tubes, brass or copper, ex-
cept steam tubes, packed ; brass-work, spun or
stamped, packed ; bit burnishers, packed; coach-
fittings, metallic, packed ; harness fittings, me-
tallic, packed ; horse clippers, packed in casks or
cases; sweat scrapers, packed. (2.) The hard-
ware list so amended to be transferred from
Class 2 to Class 3. (3.) Hollow-ware, as in
Class 2 of the classification, to be transferred to
Class 3, with the addition e. o. h. p. (4.) The
following entry to be made in Class 2 under
* hollow-ware, hollow-ware, cast-iron, nested and
packed ;” and this is the important matter, I
think, so far as we are concerned. (5.) The
London and North Western Railway Company
to agree that for hardware and hollow-ware in
Class 3, the maximum conveyance rates applic-
able to the portion of the railway governed by
the London and North Western Act of 1846,
including all routes from Birmingham and South
Staffordshire to Liverpool, shall not exceed the
maximum rates authorised by that Act, Class 3
terminals to apply.” It will be a little difficult
to put these into order.
Chairman.] “Class 3 terminals, and whatever
limit, with respect to small parcels, which is
adopted in the Bill to apply.”
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have not got that.
The copy I have is “Class 3 terminals to apply.”
Mr. Beale has been good enough to hand it to
me now ; it reads, “Class 3 terminals, and what-
ever limit, with respect to small parcels, is
adopted in the Bill to apply.”
Earl of Belmore.] That you say is agreed
to.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That I say is agreed to
on both sides. May I say, your Grace, on
behalf of those traders for whom I spoke before,
that is to say, the Lancashire and Cheshire Con-
ference, and a great number of others, that they
are going to adhere to the attitude they took up
previously P So far as they are aware, your
Grace has not made any such modification in the
classification as would make it necessary for them
to propose consequential amendments ; and there-
fore they will accept the classification of the
Board of Trade, modified in the way your Grace
has modified to. It is quite possible that we
may have even to resist some of the amendments
that may be proposed on this side.
Chairman.] That, I think, is more than prob-
able.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Your Grace,
before you pass from that hardware matter
we should ask that we should have a day or two
to look at it, because it will require in adjusting
a little more care than perhaps has been quite
realised. If your Grace refers to Class 3,
you will find that all , the hardware articles,
besides those mentioned in the hardware list, are
mentioned nominatim throughout the class ;
there are, I think, over a hundred of them,
and the descriptions have to be looked at with
considerable care, so that it will take a little time
and some adjustment to prepare the actual amend-
(81.)
4 S 3 "ment.S
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
COMMITTEE
TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT
4 June 1891.
ments which are really required, and it will really
have to be done with a considerable amount of
care. I hope, if the Committee will pardon me,
that no absolute decision as to what amendments
are to be made will be come to until time has
been given to us to examine it with care, not for
the purpose of upsetting the agreement, but for
seeing that it is carried out without causing diffi-
culties that might arise if that care was not
bestowed upon it at this stage.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I fully admit the
difficulty, and I think that they ought to have
time.
Mr. Moon.] We fully agree to what Lord
Balfour of Burleigh has proposed; and in point
of fact the matter was presented to the Com-
mittee in this form in order that some further
consideration might be given to it, and that it
might be put in a proper form subseqnently.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I beg to withdraw the
amendment to the classification that I have put
down, as Mr. Balfour Browne has done ; but
there is one point I would call your Grace's
attention to for a moment in connection with the
arrangement that has been come to as to bar iron,
and that is that at the end of the classification of
Class B. there is a proviso that if a consignment
is less than 4 tons-—
Chairman.] We are going to discuss that upon
the amendment moved by the railway com-
panies.
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I only wish to say this,
that if the consignments ——
Chairman.] Do not you see that that is not
before us now 2 We will hear everything you
have got to say when the particular amendment
is under discussion.
Mr. Whitehead.] Will your Grace allow me to
refer to the question of scrap iron 2 I see that
my learned friend, Mr. Bidder, has come
back to the room. A doubt has arisen in the
minds of my clients with regard to your
final decision as to the articles which were trans-
ferred from Class C. to Class 1. As I understood
the decision with regard to scrap iron, it was
that where there are consignments of more than
four tons to a truck, scrap iron of whatever
nature was to go into Class B., but that where
the consignments were of less than four tons to
the truck they were to go into Class C., subject
of course to the two-ton minimum as it at
present stands.
Mr. Bidder.] That is quite so.
Mr. Whitehead..] And that your later decision
with regard to the removal of this down from
Class C. to Class 1 did not apply to scrap iron.
Scrap iron you will see was included in that list.
Earl of Belmore.] It was settled before.
Mr. Whitehead..] That was settled before and
taken out of that final decision. As your Grace
will see, in Class C. of the schedule as it was
drawn, scrap iron, light, came almost the last of the
damageable iron and steel articles on page 22 of
the London and North Western schedule. Your
decision at the end of yesterdays sitting——
Mr. Bidder.] I was just getting instructions.
I do not know whether I said too much. Will
my learned friend repeat his observation again?
Mr. Whitehead.] Certainly. As I understood
yesterday, when scrap iron of whatever nature
was carried in lots of four tons to the truck, it
went into Class B.
Mr. Bidder.] There is no doubt about that,
that is quite clear.
Mr. Whitehead J When it went in consign-
ments of less than four tons to the truck the--
amendment was that it was to go into Class B. ;
that I understood.
Mr. Bidder.] It was not to be in Class B., but
I do not know whether we got further as to
any definite conclusion as to what was to happen
to it; because there is a great part of that light
scrap iron, as it is called, in Iron List B. If
your Grace will give me a minute I will see
how that is.
Earl of Camperdown.] I think I can tell you.
You agreed that scrap iron was to stay, and that
article was scratched out of your amendment
before we considered it.
Mr. Bidder.] There is no doubt about Class
C., if it is in more than four tons; the question
is only as regards scrap iron in quantities of less
than four tons.
Mr. Hunter.] This is what you said, at page
671 of our Minutes : “Having had my attention
drawn, your Grace, to the question of the tech-
nical meaning, I do not think we want the word
‘ heavy,’ and I think we may take out the
words “heavy and “light’ in the other classifica-
tion, and put in instead ‘of less than four tons
per truck.’”
Mr. Bidder.] That is so, that is settled ; scrap
iron in loads of four tons per truck is to be in
Class B. ; upon that there is no doubt.
Mr. Hunter.] Then if it is in two-two loads it
is to go in Class C., and if in less than two tons
in Class 1.
Mr. Bidder.] That I am not so sure about.
Chairman.] Will you discuss it together, and
then we shall be able to decide.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Grace will allow it to
stand over for my learned friends on the other
side, and to be mentioned again if it need be,
I should like to have a minute to consider about
the second point. About the first there is no
question.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace will look at
page 683, you will see that which, I understand,
was the arrangement; my learned friend, Mr.
Bidder was not in the room ; but, in answer to a
remark of my learned friend, Mr. Pope, Mr.
Harrison said, your Grace : “There are two
distinctions. In Class B. I understand the pro-
posal was to strike out the word ‘ heavy after
‘ scrap,' and insert “minimum load of four tons
per truck ’; then, when you come to the next
class to strike out the work light' after
“scrap iron,' and insert ‘under four tons per
truck.' (Chairman.) Let us understand clearly
what is agreed upon. (Mr. Whitehead). I
understood that this was assented to, that the
word “ light’ after “scrap should be struck
out in Class C., and that the words “less
quantity than four tons’ should be inserted.”
Mr. Beal.] That is as it stood in Class C. ;
that does not prejudice the removal to Class 1.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
695
4 June 1891,
Mr. Bidder.] Can you refer me to where the
matter was discussed previously 2
Mr. Whitehead.] The report of the previous
discussion is on pages 670 and 671 of the Official
Report.
Mr. Bidder.] I cannot give your Grace the
page, because my paging is different from yours :
but if my learned friend, Mr. Whitehead, will
look at what I said, it is in accordance with my
own recollection ; it is just before Mr. Hingley's
evidence.
Mr. JWhitehead..] It is at page 671, your
Grace, of the official copy. -
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace asked me what I
said to the proposition, and I said “Having had
my attention drawn, your Grace, to the question
of the technical meaning, I do not think we want
the word “heavy, and I think we may take out
the words “heavy’ and “light’ in the other
classification, and put instead of less than four
tons per truck.” So that that left the four tons
per truck in Class B. and it left the other in that
classification with the altered words.
Earl of Camperdown.] But then your “less
than four tons ° was a load. -
Mr. Bidder.] “Less than four tons load,” not
consignment. And it would go wherever that
classification goes by the decision of the Com-
mittee.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand the decision of
the Committee not to affect scrap iron, and it is
because of the difficulty that might arise that I
raise the point now.
Mr. Beale.] It might be met by another modi-
fication of the load ; it is very bad stuff to load.
Mr. Bidder.] I see exactly how the misunder-
standing has arisen. I say frankly for myself
that I was making a distinction between the two
classes, and as to the rate, I was not considering
particularly what its distinction was, except to
make the distinction clear between the two kinds
of scrap.
Mr. Hunter.] Would not “scrap
do P
Mr. Bidder.] There is no question about the
description at all.
After some consultation.
3
e.o.h.p. '
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have spoken, your
Grace, to Mr. Beale, and I think we can arrange
this matter. My learned friend Mr. Whitehead
will tell you how we propose to do it now.
Mr. Whitehead..] Mr. Beale, I think, consents
to this proposition, your Grace, that scrap iron
in four ton loads should go into Class B. ; scrap
iron in three ton loads into Class C., and scraps
in loads under three tons should go into Class 1.
Mr, Bidder.] That, I am told, is quite agreed.
Mr. Hambury.] But that is introducing a new
principle.
Mr. Hunter.] Why not draw the line at two
tons?
Earl of Camperdown.] What is your reason
for making a distinction at that particular point
between two tons and three tons?
Mr. Beale.] They are all in Class 1 now.
Earl of Camperdown.] But that is another
point altogether. It does not follow that we
should keep to the arrangement now in force ;
the question is what should it be. What is the
reason for having three classes in scrape iron,
whereas you do not propose three class for any-
thing else P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That was only because
Mr. Beale suggested it, and I thought it would
be a compromise. Personally I think the right
principle is four tons, and two tons, without
doubt ; and I do not like intermediate classes;
but I am ready to accept it if the Committee is.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know whether your
Lordships have the Clearing House Classification
before you, pages 38 and 39. The way it stood
in the old Clearing House list was that scrap
heavy (you will see it near the bottom of the first
column) was in List A, ; and then, if you look at
Class B., which is equivalent to Class 1 now,
“Scrap iron light (as defined hereunder), "you
will see the sort of thing that is included.
Mr. Hunter.] Two-ton loads.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, and you will see the kind
of things they were. Now, as we have abolished
the technical phrase, “Scrap heavy,” and take
the 4-ton loads, there is no doubt that whilst it
would be unreasonable to move down all these
light scrap articles from Class 1 to Class C., yet
there is a certain intermediate scrap which may
not have reached 4-ton loads, which it would be
rather unreasonable to move up two classes. I
should not have said to move up two classes, but
to move back two classes. Scrap heavy is at
present in what is equivalent to Class C., and
this specific light scrap is in Class I.
Mr. Hunter.] I do not see 3-ton loads in this
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Bidder.] No, there is no 3-ton loads in
this classification, but there is the technical
phrase “heavy" scrap and “light” scrap.
Earl of Camperdown.] As a matter of practice,
a trader would have to answer this, is there a
Scrap which is frequently sent in 3-ton loads and
is not sent in 2 or 4-ton loads 2
Mr. Bidder.] I need not say that I cannot
answer that.
Earl of Camperdown. I do not know what
scrap is.
Mr. Whitehead..] I did not gather your Lord-
ship's question ?
Earl of Camperdown.] Are there descriptions
of scrap which are frequently sent in 3-ton loads
which are not sent in 4 or 2-ton loads 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I am instructed that there
are no such loads.
Lord Belper.] Scrap iron may be of any
quantity whatever, any load whatever.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] I take it that it is because of the
character of the scrap, it can not be packed in a
Waggon.
Earl of Camperdown.] But is there scrap of
such character that you can frequently get two
tons in and cannot get 3 tons in, and that you can
get 3 tons in and cannot get 4 tons in 2
(81.)
4 S 4 Mr.
696
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] As regards that my difficulty
is that my witness, who could have instructed me
upon the point, thought that the question was
settled yesterday, and he is no louger in town,
so that I am unable to answer your question.
The three tons of course was suggested merely
by way of compromise to settle the question at
OI, CC,
Mr. Bidder, But in each case it is a moving
down from the present classification.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade anything
to say upon this question of putting scrap into
three classes, which appears to be agreed upon
between the two parties. No doubt it is un-
usual. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] So far as we can
see, your Grace, there is no objection to the three
classes except that the two distinctions at the
present time, were the adjectives “heavy" and
“light.” If the adjectives “heavy " and
“light ° are gone, as I understand it,
then by putting it in three classes you would
not be increasing the number of classes in which
scrap iron is, because there is heavy scrap ; there
is light scrap in four-ton loads and light scrap in
two-ton loads, which really amounts to three
classes; and by doing away with the adjectives,
and classifying according to loads in three classes,
you are really leaving the same number of classes
in the future as you have got at the present
time under a different definition.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Then if you
on your side agree to the amendment, and Mr.
Bidder on the part of the railway companies
agrees to it, we see no objection to it.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] Will you let us have it in writing,
so that we may have no question of it.
Mr. Whitehead.] Certainly, your Grace.
Chairman.] You will agree with the other
side when you have done so.
Mr. Whitehead.] Certainly, your Grace.
Chairman.] What is the next point we have
to discuss?
Mr. Shaw.] I think the next point is the
amendment that I am here to support on behalf
of the South Wales colliery owners. Page 17,
line 16, before the words “Class A.” insert the
words, “Coal and coke for shipment.”
Chairman.] Have the railway companies no
further amendment 2
Mr. Shaw.] There was ammoniacal liquor.
Mr. Bidder.] Except the postponed ammo-
niacal liquor, but that stands over, I think ;
all our amendments are dealt with.
Chairman (to Mr. Shaw).] Then on what page
is your amendment 2
Mr. Shaw.] This is the very first amendment,
your Grace, and it is practically this, that for
this particular class of traffic these coal-owners
ask your Grace to separate it out of Class A., so
that it should be entitled to a separate treatment
when you come to deal with the rates.
Chairman.] “Coal and coke for shipment” 2
Mr. Shaw. J “Coal and coke for shipment.”
Really this amendment comes more to the ques-
tion of rates than to the question of classification;
but in dealing with this question on classification,
first, I am obliged to raise it here because other-
wise, when we come to deal with the rates that
are to apply to this class, I shall be mof, and
fairly met, by the argument on the part of the
railway companies, that the rate we are going to
discuss is a rate which is to apply to the winole
class no matter what it contains, the most ex-
pensively carried article in that class, just as much
as to this coal for shipment. It is a very important
trade, as your Grace well knows; in fact, the whole
coal-carrying trade of this country is the most
important to the railway companies. More than
half of the carrying-trade of the London and
North Western Railway Company is coal; more
than half of the carrying-trade of the Great
Western Railway Company is coal. The out-
put alone in South Wales of coal is, roughly, 29
million tons, and about 20 millions of that go for
shipment along the ports ot the Bristol Channel.
Chairman.] Do you propose to put in “Coal
and coke for shipment” before Class A. P
Mr. Shaw.] Before Class A., simply to get it
separated.
Chairman.] Merely thosc words “Coal and
coke for shipment.”
Mr. Shaw J Yes, so that they should not come
in Class A.
Earl of Camperdown.] You propose to make
them a separate class all to themselves.
Mr. Shaw.] Yes.
Chairman.] Then I think you must show us
why it is that you propose to make a separate
class and not to put them in with other coal,
what different there is between coal for shipment
and other coal. •
Mr. Shaw.] I can very shortly do that, with-
out going into details. I have told your Grace
the importance of this traffic, especially to my
clients, that about 20 million tons out of the 29
million that they raise goes for shipment. The
rest of the coal for shipment in the country
comes to something under another 30 million,
and about 20 million out of that 30 million comes
from the North Eastern ports; so that there are
really only two great districts of the country
where this coal for shipment comes from, and
practically therefore it is a local question rather
than a question applying to the whole of the
districts of the railway companies in the country.
And this is not a new idea, your Grace. You
will find that in some of the North Eastern Acts,
coal for shipment is already treated separately,
and the practice by the railway companies in
the whole of South Wales is to treat it separately
and to give a much lower rate for coal for ship-
ment than for coal that has to go for stations in
uncertain consignments. But one of the main
reasons why I ask for this is, not that the prac-
tice of the railway companies has been to treat
it separately now, but that they treat it in such
enormous consignments, great big vessels coming
into the port of Cardiff carrying 5,000 tons some
of them, and on account of the ease with which the
railway companies have to manipulate that
traffic, they know exactly how much coal has to
come from the collieries to fill a ship of that
capacity;
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
697
4 June 1891.
capacity ; it comes down in streams and there is
no uncertainty about it ; they know that as long
as these ships come to Cardiff they can have this
traffic. And it is the least expensive traffic
they have to deal with, far less than coal going
for household purposes inland which has to go in
stopping trains and so on ; this is all a full train
traffic, and is of enormous importance. But I
should like to point out to your Grace also that
one of the reasons why I ask for it is this:
What is at the bottom of this whole in-
quiry really? why has Parliament suggested
that there should be a classification, and maxi-
mum rates to apply to it ! Surely it is to be
some protection to the traders ? Parliament,
from the very initiation of railway companies,
has granted to them what it cannot grant to
every one, namely, certain powers to take land
and other things. When Parliament did that,
Parliament said to the railway companies, You
shall not charge more than a certain amount for
this traffic. That was done in most instances
before really anybody knew what the railway
companies could do. We have now come to a
time when we know what the railway companies
can do ; the railway companies have found that
they can carry this coal at a great deal less ; and
when you come to the classification, in which
there are a large number of things that are
entitled to a much larger rate, we think it is a
very dangerous thing to give to the railway com-
panies the power to charge the same rate for a
description of traffic which is now carried at a
very much less rate ; in fact, as one of the rail-
way managers said once, we shall be entirely at
the mercy of the railway companies, or their
benevolent despotism. It is in order to get this
protection which we consider that Parliament has
always intended that the traders should have
that we ask that we should be separated out so that
they shall have only a reasonable margin over.
what is now a reasonably competitive rate. I do not
ask for a competitive rate where the railway
companies are cutting each others throats, so to
speak; but where railway competition has shown
what the railway companies can do to take that
rate and give a reasonable margin over it. If
you go and give a margin applicable to all the
other things in the class it will not be fair to my
coal for shipment people. That is really the
main reason. When you see what the actual rate
is now, and when you see what the actual rate is
that might be fair for coal, coke, and things in
Class A., you will see that there is a very large
difference between the two ; and we think that
you would be putting a power into the hands of
the railway companies that would be practically
no protection whatever to this trade.
Mr. Hambury.] I do not understand what this
distinction between these two kinds of coal is.
Is it by statutory enactment or by the practice of
other companies 2
Mr. Shaw.] It is old history. In some in-
stances in the North Eastern Acts you will find:
that coal for shipment is treated separately ; and
that in the clause which gives them their rate,
powers, coal going for shipment has a different
rate from other coal. In fact so long ago as 1821
when the Stockton and Darlington Act was
granted (which I believe was the first railway
Act granted in the kingdom), coal for shipment
was treated separately from any other coal.
Chairman.] 1821 ?
Mr. Bidder.] It is very ancient history.
Mr. Shaw.] It is ancient, but the honourable
member asked me the question.
Chairman.] There were not 5,000-ton colliery
steamers then.
Mr. Shaw.] I was going to point that out.
This is a trade that has grown up in South
Wales lately, and now at the present time we
find that the railway companies are able to deal
with this coal very much more cheaply than they
can with other coal, and we ask you now in this
revision of rates to put a maximum which will be
just and reasonable.
Lord Belper.] Is it admitted that this question
only affects two of the railway companies in the
United Kingdom 2
Mr. Shaw.] It affects the North Eastern
Railway Company, which is not before your
Lordships ; it also affects a certain group of
railway companies and only that group in South
Wales.
Lord Belper.] Then ought it not to be taken
on their Bill ?
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know on what grounds
my learned friend says that. +
Lord Belper.] Ought it not to be treated on
their schedule separately P
Mr. Shaw.] That is what I should propose
to do.
Lord Belper.] It is not what you propose.
Mr. Shaw.] If I do not raise the question
now I shall be shut out for ever.
Lord Belper.] That I do not see; otherwise I
should not have asked the question.
Mr. Shaw.] If your Lordship thinks I can
raise it then, and his Grace thinks so——
Lord Belper.] I am only asking the question,
because, if it affects only one railway company
out of the nine, it seems to me that that would
be the proper time to deal with it.
Mr. Shaw.] It would affect to a small degree
the London and North Western and the Great
Western Companies so far as my clients are
concerned. I hardly think it affects the Midland
so far as I am concerned.
Mr. Bidder.] It affects every coal district
except, perhaps, Central Staffordshire.
Mr. Shaw.] Those are my instructions, and I
cannot go beyond them. -
Mr. Bidder.] Are you going to call any
evidence 2
Mr. Shaw.l. I have one witness.
Chairman.] The Committee will not accept
the amendment.
Page 17, column 1. Bar iron.
is already dealt with, is it not ?
Mr. Poyser.] Yes.
Chairman.] South Wales and Monmouthshire
freighters.
I suppose that
Aº’
Mr.
(81.)
4 T
698.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.
Mr.
drawn.
Mr. Capper.j The South Wales freighters, my
Lord Duke, have withdrawn their amendment on
the question of iron, of course relying on the
statement of counsel, made on the other side yester-
day that when we come to the question of rates
the matter shall be gone into again.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have they withdrawn
bricks and clay. -
Mr. Capper.] Yes.
Chairman.] Class A., page 17, column 1, after
line l8, insert, “bricks, clay, common.”
Mr. Shaw.] That has been withdrawn.
Chairman.] Then the South and West York-
shire coalowners and the South Wales and
Monmouthshire freighters, “bricks, clay, com-
mon, and fire,” is that withdrawn 2
Whitehead..] The next one is with-
Mr. Bidder.] I understand the South Wales
freighters' amendment is withdrawn.
Earl of Camperdown.] What they said was
that they had withdrawn their iron amendment.
Mr. Capper.] We withdraw that too.
Chairman.] Then there is an amendment on
page 17, column 1, after 22, to insert “cinders.”
Mr. Capper.] That is the same ; that is with-
drawn.
Chairman.] "I hen we come to the amendment
on page 17, column 1, after line 23, insert
“clippings, shearings, and stampings of sheet
iron, and tin plates in compressed bundles.”
Mr. Bidder.] That is dealt with.
Chairman.] Then there is an amendment to
insert after the word “coal,” e.o.h.p., by the
landowners of South Wales.
Mr. Shaw.] That goes ; that is consequential.
Mr. Bidder.] That follows the preceding one.
Chairman.] The amendment of the South and
West Yorkshire coalowners on page 17, column
1, after line 24, to insert “Coal fuel patent.”
Mr. Bidder.] I do not know who appears for
South and West Yorkshire.
Chaºrman.] Does anybody appear for the
South and West Yorkshire coalowners? (No
person responds.)
Chairman.] If nobody appears, that amend-
ment goes. Then there is the airiendment of the
} * (TV tº *
landowners, &c., of South Wales to insert after
the word “coke,” e.o.h.p.
Mr. Shaw, That goes.
Chairman.] Then there is an amendment by
the South Wales and Monmouthshire freighters
on page 17, column 1, after line 30, to insert
* Furnace lumps” and “Furnace scrapings.”
Mr. Capper.] That is withdrawn.
Chairman.] The amendment by the South
Wales and Monmouthshire freighters on page
17, column 1, after line 34, to insert “ hoop-iron.”
Mr. Capper.] That is withdrawn.
Chairman.] Then the next goes. And then
with regard to “Iron ore refuse for gas puri-
e tº • ??
fying”?
Mr. Capper.] That is withdrawn.
aº-º-º- *
Chairman.] Then we come to “ entledge or
ballast-iron " ?
Mr. Capper.] That is withdrawn.
Chairman.] Now there is an amendment to
insert “Lime in bulk,” on page 17, column 2,
after line 19, by the South Wales and Mon-
mouthshire freighters.
Mr. Capper.] That is withdrawn.
Chairman.] The next is an amendment by
Messrs. Greaves, Bull, & Lakin, on page 17,
column 2, after line 20, to insert “ Lias lime in
bulk, lime in bulk, lime (chalk), lias lime,
e.o.h.p., lime, e.o.h.p.
Mr. Darlington.] If your Grace pleases, I
have received instructions to appear with Mr.
Wills in this case in support of this amendment.
Your Grace will see that the amendment proposed
is on page 17, column 2, after line 20, to insert
the words, “lias lime in bulk, lime in bulk, lime
(chalk),” (I rather think that ought to be “chalk
lime ’) “lias lime e.o.h.p., lime e.oh.p.,”
and in addition to those there are certain con-
sequential amendments in Cther parts of this
paper which depend entirely on this; this
amendment in fact raises the whole question.
The amendment in effect is to put lime into
Class A. As a matter of fact, in the Provisional
Order, at present Class A. comprises limestone
and chalk ; Class B. comprises burnt lime in
bulk, chalk lime, lias lime in bulk, and lime in
bulk; then Class C. comprises lias lime, e.o.h.p.,
and I think that is all.
Now, your Grace will remember that Messrs.
Greaves, Bull, and Lakin, at a former period of
this enquiry before this Committee, proposed an
amendment to a certain clause, Clause 2 of the
general clauses. That Clause 2 was to this
effect : “the maximum rate for conveyance is
the maximum rate which the Company may
charge for the conveyance of merchandise by
merchandise train; and, subject to the exceptions
and provisions specified in this schedule, includes
the provisions of trucks by the company. Pro-
vided that (a.) the provision of trucks is not
included in the maximum rates applicable to
merchandise included in Class A.” practically ;
I am not reading the exact words, and
by subsection (b) applicable to “merchandise
other than merchandise included in Class A.
of this classification, or lime, or lias lime
in bulk, or salt in bulk.” Your Grace
may remember that Messrs, Greaves, Bull,
and Lakin proposed an amendment on that
clause to strike out the words “lime or lias lime
in bulk.” It is material, I think, on this point to
read the sub-sections: “Where for the conveyance
of merchandise other than merchandise included
in Class A. of this classification or lime or lias
lime in bulk” (so your Grace sees that this sub-
section applies to Class A.), or salt in bulk, the
company do not provide trucks, the charge
authorised for conveyance shall be reduced by a
reasonable sum, which “shall in case of differ-
ence between the company and the person liable
to pay the charge be determined by an arbitra-
tor to be appointed by the Board of Trade. Your
Grace sees, therefore, that the effect of that is
that for all articles, namely, lime and lias lime
in bulk, which are not comprised in Class A., but
comprised in Class B., although they are in
Class B.,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
699
4 June 1891.
Class B., they alone of all the articles in Class
B. should have to pay in addition to the rate for
Class B. the rate for trucks. So that one of two
things happens, either they have to pay the
companies for truck, if so be that the company
carry the lime in company’s trucks, and if they
provide the trucks themselves they connot get
an allowance made out of the rate for class in
respect of the provision of trucks themselves.
The result of that is practically to place the
articles to which this section refers, which are
included in Class B. of the classification, in a
class which is higher than Class B., and which I
think comes somewhere intermediate between
Class B. and Class B.
Chairman.] Intermediate between Class B.
and Class C., how is that ?
Mr. Darlington.] In practical effect. Sup-
posing that f am a trader sending lias lime in
bulk, and that lias lime in bulk is included in
Class B., I am liable to pay, if the railway com-
pany chose to exact it, first of all any terminal,
secondly, the maximum rate for Class B., and
thirdly, I have to pay in some form or other for
the trucks. Now, all the other articles in Class
B, have not to pay for trucks; consequently the
charges that are applicable to these particular
articles have the effect of raising them, in so
far as charging power is concerned, to a place
intermediate between Class B. and Class C. I
think that this has practically been admitted by
the railway companies; because my learned
friend Mr. Pope took this point, and very kindly
suggested it to us when our amendment was on in
the previous instance.
Chairman.] But you are mixing up now rates
in clauses.
Mr. Darlington.] My point is this, your Grace,
that for practical purposes we shall be charged
something higher than the maximum rate, what-
ever it is, that your Grace may think applicable
to Class 13.
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not think any one
would dispute that. You are in this position:
You will have to pay for trucks if they are fur-
mished for you, and you will have to pay that
charge in addition ; and that is in the way of
rate and not in the way of classification.
Mr. Darlington.] It is quite true, my Lord,
but it has some application. Perhaps your
Grace will allow me to read from page 56 of the
railway companies edition of the proceedings
before your Grace (page 40 of the official report).
My learned friend Mr. Pope said this : “In truth
my friends '' will see that their argument, that
they should not be in Class B. but in Class A.,
will be strengthened if you exclude the provision
of trucks with regard to them, because if they are
classified in Class A. then there is no liability in
any case upon the company to provide trucks;
but my learned friend’s argument that he should
not be in Class B. but should be in Class A, will
be strengthened if your Lordships decide that
goods of this class should be subject to one of the
incidents of Class A., to wit, the non-provision
for trucks. Therefore I think I am justified in
mentioning that to your Grace, because the rail-
way companies have admitted that it is one good
argument for it to come down from Class B. to
Class A., and that is my point.
Lord Belper.] Have you referred to Clause 27
Mr. Darlington.] Clause 2 of the general
clauses.
Lord Belper.] Because there it says: “Pro-
vided that the provision of trucks is not included
in the maximum rates applicable to merchandise
specified in Class A. of the classification, or to
lime lias, lime in bulk.”
Mr. Darlington.] Yes.
Lord Belper.] So that even if it were in Class
A. it would not get the benefit,
Mr. Darlington.] Therefore we are subject to
one of the incidents, not of Class B., under
which the companies provide trucks, but one
of the incidents of Class A., under which the
trader has to provide trucks. I am using this as
an argument for it to come down out of Class B.
into Class A., because these articles alone, of all
the articles in Class B., are subject to the onus of
the trader providing his own trucks.
Lord Belper.] It is the same in Class A.
Mr. Darlington.] Exactly the same as in
Class A. ; therefore I say that we ought to be in
Class A.
Earl of Camperdown.] That would apply to
ammoniacal liquor, creosote, and all those things 2
Mr. Darlington.] So far as that goes, unless
there are other circumstances, of course. It is
of course only one argument. I think your
Grace will see that ammoniacal liquor and creo-
Sote, when they are in certain conditions, do go
now in Class A. ; it only applies to ammoniacal
liquor, &c., under particular conditions. But I wish
to guard myself from this, that it does not follow
necessarily that, because under certain conditions
creosote and coal tar may be put into some other
class, therefore it is necessary also that lime
should follow that example, because, as I shall
show your Grace presently, lime is of a totally
different character.
Now, if your Grace looks at the articles in
Class A., I think you will see this is
a matter of evidence, and I do not pro-
pose to dwell on it now ; that line has
a very much nearer relation to the articles that
are grouped in Class A. than it has to the
articles in Class B. I shall, when I bring my
witnesses (I think as a matter of evidence there-
fore I shall not dwell upon it now), show that
there are several reasons for grouping lime with
the articles in Class A., on account of the simi-
larity of the articles, and that the similarity
between lime and the articles in Class B. is not
nearly so marked as it is with regard to those in
Class A. Then there is a third reason, and the
third reason is this: that up to the present time,
whether in the Railway Companies’ Acts or, I
am instructed in the treatment accorded by the
railway companies to the traders, lime and lime-
stone have always been put and classed together;
the conditions that are applicable to the one,
whether with regard to rates or classes generally,
have almost always, I think I may say always,
applied to both. And connected with this in the
principal Railway Acts of the country, in three
English Acts (perhaps I had better give your
Grace the names of them, the North Eastern
Railway Act of 1854; the South Eastern Rail-
(81.)
4 T 2 way
700
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.
way Act of 1848, and the London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway Act of 1853) lime and lime-
stone are placed in a lower class than coal
and coke ; they are in fact in the lowest class.
If you come to look at Irish Acts, but I do
not press then, because the Irish Acts are
not before your Grace. You will find that
a very much larger proportion of the Irish
Acts classed lime and limestone below coal
and coke; and the same applies also to Scotland,
but I do not propose to read those Acts out,
because you are not dealing with either Irish or
Scotch Acts at the present moment. In five
other principal Acts of railway companies in
England, that is to say, in the London and South
Western Act of 1846, in the Midland Railway
Company’s Act of 1846, in the Great Western
Act of 1847, in the London, Brighton, and South
Coast Act of 1863, and in the London, Tilbury,
and Southend Act of 1852, lime and limestone
are placed in the same class as coal and coke,
being in the same way the lowest class of the
classification contained in those Acts. Then
in four other Acts, the London and North
Western Act of 1846, the Lancashire and
Yorkshire Act of 1859, the Great Eastern Rail-
way Act and the Great Northern Railway Act
of 1850; I think that is all, lime and limestone
are classed in a class that is higher than coal and
coke.
Mr. Bidder.] You are
Clearing House Classification.
of the
speaking
Mr. Darlington.] I am speaking now of the
Acts.
Mr. Hunter.] Have you got the Midland Act
as well ? My recollection is that lime and lime-
stone are almost invariably classed with coal and
coke in all Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Darlington.] I think you are right, Sir.
It was stated before Lord Balfour in the evidence
that was taken on classification, that the Midland
Company’s Act had lime and limestone lower
than coal and coke; but I am not sure that that
is correct, I have not been able to verify it. In
fact the Midland Act of 1846 put lime and lime-
stone in the same class as coal and coke, being
the lowest class.
Mr. Hunter.] But in the London Chatham
and Dover Act coal is in a bigher class.
Mr. Darlington.] In the London, Chatham, and
Dover Act coal is classed in a higher class than
lime and limestone; and the same applies to the
South Eastern and the North Eastern Com-
panies.
Chairman.] Where are they placed now in
the Railway Clearing House Classification ?
Mr. Darlington.] I will come to that in a
minute.
Earl of Camperdown.] In the Midland Act
limestone appears to be placed with coal in the
charges. The maximum charge for limestone is
1 d. and for coke 1; d.
Mr. Darlington.] I am much obliged to your
Lordship ; that makes five principal Acts instead
of three Acts in which the charge for coal and
coke is higher than that of lime and limestone.
Chairman.] What I want before you close
your remarks is that you should let us know
the class in which the lime in bulk, lime chalk,
and lias lime is in the Provisional Order so as
to compare that with the class in the Railway
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Darlington.] May I leave that for the
moment 2
Chairman.]. Certainly.
Mr. Darlington.] I will come to that in a
minute. Therefore, if you take a rough average
of all the maximum powers existing in the prin-
cipal Acts which I have given your Grace, we
find that in five they are the same, in four lime
and limestone are lower than coal, in five others
lime and limestone are lower than coal, in five others
lime and limestone are placed in a higher class than
coal and coke; and our submission is that with
regard to practical purposes, lime and limestone
being now classed practically in the same class
as coal, being in some above, in some the same,
and in others below.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is your argument that because
limestone under the Provisional Order is to be
classed in a lower class than under the Clearing
House Classification, all these other kinds of lime
are to follow 7
Mr. Darlington.] Yes; of course that is rather
a separate point, because you see this Provisional
Order has separated lime and limestone. Now,
up to the present time lime and limestone have
always been classed together.
Mr. Hanbury.] That I admit; but your argu-
ment is that because limestone is put in Class A.
all these others must follow, because hitherto
they have been in the same class.
Mr. Darlington.] I shall argue that, Sir, no
doubt. Perhaps I had better go on to the
Clearing House Classification at once. Prior to
1883 the Clearing House had one mineral class,
and lime and limestone were placed in that
class; and this mineral class was the very lowest
class. Somewhere about the year 1883 a change
was made in the Clearing House Classification,
and the mineral class was divided into two
class, M(A) and M(B); M(A), consisting of
coal and a few other articles, very limited in
number, while M (B) included lime and lime-
stone; but your Grace will see that this has only
been for seven years, that up to 1883, in the
Clearing House Classification, lime and lime-
stone were in the same class as coal and coke.
Chairman.] But you see the point I wanted
to arrive at was, not what was the practice in
the Clearing House previously to 1883, but what
the practice of the Clearing House is at the pre-
sent time, and whether there is any difference,
and if so, what, between the schedule in the
Provisional Order, and the present arrangement
in the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Darlington.] I am bound to admit, of
course, that it is at present in M(B) which is
the class that corresponds to Class B, in a cer-
tain sense of course of the Provisional Order.
Mr. Hambury.] Take them one by one, lias
lime in bulk, what class is that in in the Clear-
ing House Classification ?
Mr. Darlington.] I say at once that all these
articles come at present under lime, and that for
nearly
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
701
4 June 1891.
nearly all these articles probably the one defini-
tion of lime would be better. But since your
Grace has asked that, I had better read the
exact words of the Clearing House Classification
on page 42 of the 1st January, 1891.
Chairman.] We will take them seriatim. Let
us have lias lime in bulk.
Mr. Darlington.] Lias lime in bulk comes
under the heading of lime in bulk, because this
is the first time that any distinction has been
drawn between lias lime and lime.
Earl of Camperdown.] No.
Mr. Darlington.] I am wrong in that. The
distinction is that lias lime when put in bags or
casks is in Class S., the special class; but lias
lime when not in bags, I suppose, would come
under lime in bulk.
Mr. Bidder.] Class M (B), lime in bulk.
Mr. Darlington.] So that hitherto there has
been no distinction drawn between lias lime in
bulk and lime in bulk, there has been a distinc-
tion drawn when bags or casks are used for it.
Lord Belper.] And limestone was in the same
class in the Clearing House Classification as lime
in bulk.
Mr. Darlingtou. }. Limestone in the Clearing
House Classification was in Class M (B), which
is the same as lime in bulk.
Lord Houghton.] That has gained an advan-
tage under the Provisional Order ; it has gone
into Class A.
Mr. Darlington.] Limestone has got an ad-
vantage over lime; and our argument is that
hitherto the two have always been treated
together, and I hope to show by evidence that
there is really no distinction between lime and
limestone. If there is any distinction between lias
and lime, lias lime is probably, I am instructed,
the better of the two for the purposes of rail-
way carriage ; but that is a matter of evidence.
Then so far as the principle of classification, on
which the Board of Trade state that they pro-
ceeded, is concerned, I hope to show your Grace
MR, EDWARD LYON LAKIN. is called in ;
Mr. Darlington.
5633. I THINKyou are a brother of Mr. Michael
Henry Lakin, who gave evidence on a previous
occasion before his Grace 2–I am.
5634. And you are a partner in the firm of
Messrs. Greaves, Bull, and Lakin 2–Yes.
5635. And you have had considerable experi-
ence in dealing with lime traffic?—Yes.
Chairman.] In what part of the country P
Mr. Darlington.
5636. You come from Warwickshire 2–From
Warwickshire, near Leamington, on the railway
which is governed by the 1847 Act of the Great
Western Railway.
5637. The Act that most immediately affects
your traffic is the Great Western Act of 1847?
—That is so.
5638. Have you inspected this Provisional
Order?—I have.
in evidence that lime, as well as limestone, is
worthy of being placed in the lowest class; but
that, as I said before, is a matter of evidence.
I will also show to your Grace that so far as
certain of the maximum rates at present in force
are concerned, the maximum rates, at all events,
of the Great Western Act of 1847
Chairmon.] Do not go into rates.
Mr. Darlington.] It is impossible to separate
the subject altogether; but I will put it as
shortly as ever I can. The maximum rates of
the Great Western Act of 1847 are lower than
those for Class B. with respect to lime ; and
when you come to deal the actual rates, the actual
rates at present in force, as I shall show your
Grace, are very much nearer those of Class A.
than those of Class B. ; taking an average of all
the rates, I believe that the Class A. rates are
higher than those at present charged. Then the
last point I want to mention is that although we
have asked for all these articles, the various
descriptions of lime (namely, lias lime in bulk,
lime (chalk), lias lime, e. O. h. p., lime e. o. h.p.)
to be placed in Class A., we should very much
prefer to have the word “lime * put in pure and
simple, as it has always hitherto been put into
the Acts of Parliament, and for this reason, that
if a distinction is drawn in the Provisional Order
between lias lime and lime, or between chalk lime
and lias lime, or between chalk lime and lime, we
are very much afraid that when we come after-
wards to deal with the railway companies on
questions of undue preference, supposing, for in-
stance, we were to say that we sent lias lime, and
a rival trader sends chalk lime, you are giving
the trader who sends chalk lime an undue pre-
ference over us, who send lias lime, the railway
companies will answer that the cause as to undue
preference only applies to traffie of the same
class, and that lias lime is a different class of
traffic from chalk lime. I only mention that to
your Grace incidentally to show that we prefer
to have the word “ lime ’ left as it is at present.
Now I shall proceed to call Mr. Lakin.
and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Darlington—continued.
5739. And do you consider that nnder the
Provisional Order you will get no allowance for
your trucks, although you may have to pay the
maximum rates in Class B. 2–It was decided by
the Committee, I think, that we should have to
pay in addition for trucks over the rates of
Class B.
Lord Belper.
5640. If you use your own trucks 2–Unless
we use our own trucks.
Mr. Darlington.
5641. When you use your own trucks now do
you, as a matter of fact, get any allowance off
the rate 2–Yes, we do. The owners' waggon
rate is lower than the company's waggon rate.
5642. Will you look at the classification of
traffic proposed under this Provisional Order.
In the first place, I should ask you, is there any
(81.)
4 T 3 distinction
702
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. Darlington—continued.
distinction, do you think, that ought to be drawn
between lime and limestone, so far as regards
railway traffic 2 – I think not.
5643. Has any difference hitherto been made
in the treatment of lime and lime-stone by the
railway companies?—No.
5644. And while you are on this point, I think
the same applies to bag-lime?—It does.
5645. The rates for lime, whether in bulk or
bags, have practically been the same 2—It is
SO.
5646. So far as the value of lime is concerned,
whether in bulk or in bags, which class does it
most resemble, the articles which are comprised
in Class A., or the articles which are comprised
in Class B. P--We say it resembles the articles
in Class A., Coal and coke.
5647. We will come to that specifically in a
minute. What, approximately, is the ordinary
price of lime in bulk 2–The price of lime in bulk
varies altogether with the price of coal, for the
time being, and it is the same as coal and coke.
At the present time lime is really fetching a
lower price than coke.
Lord Belper.
5648. Might I just ask a question with respect
to a previous answer? I understood the witness
to say that lime, whether carried in bags or bulk,
was charged the same. (To the Witness.) Is
that so P-That is so.
5649. I find in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion it is in a different classification ?—Yes, but
the rates have been the same always,
5650. Then, how do you account for the fact
that they are in a different classification in the
Clearing House Classification ?—We say that
they ought to be in the same classification, and
that classification to be Class A.
5651. I am not asking what you say they
ought to be. I understood you to say that the
rates were always the same hitherto for lime
carried in bags or limestone in bulk 2–Yes.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think I can
probably explain what is meant. The Witness
means that he has had special rates for these
articles, and that the rate has been generally the
same, however they are packed.
Witness.] Yes, the rates have been the same
whether packed or unpacked.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] And that where
there is not only a difference of article but a
difference of classification, the rates may be the
same for articles which appear according to the
classification, to be put in different classes.
Lord Belper.] That is to say, he has been
treated more favourably by the railway company
than under their classification they consider
necessary for these articles.
Mr. Darlington.
5652. I think Lord Balfour is quite right
there. (To the Iſ"itness) It follows of course
that as you have sent your traffic in your own
waggons, the railway company have always
quoted you special rates ?—I do not know
whether they are special rates or not ; they are
the rates that are quoted, and they apply to all
these articles,
Mr. LAKIN.
[ Continued.
—º
Mr. Darlington—continued.
3653. But so far as your experience, goes the
railway company have always treated bag lime
and lime in bulk the same 2—That is so.
5654. I think you said before Lord Balfour of
Burleigh, when the question came up for con-
sideration--
Chairman.
5655. But let us know. When the rail-
railway companies do send lime in bags and lime
in bulk at the same rate, that is, is it not, a
special concession to your firm *—Not to our firm;
no, I do not think it is ; it applies to all lime
manufacturers; the same applies throughout the
country.
5656. But it is a special concession mixing the
two up and charging the same rate for both de-
scriptions of articles 2—I cannot say whether that
is so or not ; I should think not.
Earl of Camperdown.
5657. But the railway Clearing House Classi-
fication recognises a distinction between the two
articles 2— The Clearing House Classification
does, but it has not been acted upon.
5658. When it comes to the rate the railway
company treats them the same 2–Yes.
Chairmam.
5659. But then you say that the Clearing
House Classification has not been acted upon 2–
It has not. -
5660. Without being compelled to act upon it
therefore it is a voluntary Act of the companies 2
— I do not know whether the company would
have power, that is a legal question, to charge
more for lime packed than for lime in bulk.
Lime is mentioned under all their Acts as simply
lime; it does not say whether packed or in
bulk.
Mr. Darlington.] The maximum powers with
regard to lime, whether in bags or in bulk, are
the same.
Mr. Hambury.] But are they compelled by
any statute to carry lime in bulk and in bags at
the same rate 2
Mr. Darlington.] My opinion is certainly that
lime in bags would come under the definition of
lime.
Mr. Hanbury.] And that they are compelled by
statute to carry lime in bulk and lime in bags at
the same rate.
Mr. Darlington.
5662. That they are compelled at present to
carry lime in bags at the same rates as they do
lime in bulk.
To the Witness.) I was asking you at the
time about the value of lime. First of all for
lime in bulk, it is generally somewhat less than
coal, is it not ?—It is somewhat less than coke;
it is about the same as coal I should think.
5663. With regard to coke and lime, does lime-
stone bear a somewhat similar relation to lime
that coal does to coke 2–I think it does. In
making coke the coal is put into ovens and made
into coke ; in making lime, limestone is put into
kilns and made into lime; the manufacturers of
coke and lime are the same practically.
5664. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISION AL ORDER. BILLS. 703
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
ſ Continued.
Mr. Darlington—continued.
5664. But coal and coke I think are both
classed in the same class, are they not ?–Yes.
5665. Therefore so far as the manufacture is
concerned, there is no reason why limestone and
lime should be separated 2–No, I think not.
5666. Would you just go on with the com-
parison between coke and lime. In the first
place, of course, both depend upon the value of
coal for the time being, do they not ?–They do.
5667. Then with regard to the carriage of
coke and lime, which is the more profitable to
the railway companies 2–-I should say that lime
if far more profitable to the company.
5668. Will you explain why, which is the
heavier of the two 2–I was going to say that
our trucks, which are 8-ton trucks, and which
will hold eight tons of lime, will only hold four
tons of coke; and our traffic is almost invaribly
sent in these trucks of eight tons or close up on
it, where the same truck sent with coke would
only carry four tons; therefore I think the
heavier article must be the more profitable to the
railway company. -
5669. The railway company being able to get
a heavier bulk of lime into one truck than they
can of coke 2–That is so.
5670. With regard to the damageability, what
have you to say as to that *—I' can only say that
since our works were erected, I think in 1855,
we have made no claim for any damage to lime ;
and practically there is nothing to be said as to
that. The companies cannot I think put forward
that they have had to pay any compensation
for lime; and their rates are quoted at owner's
risk.
5671. As to the loading of lime and colze, is
there any similarity in that ?—It is very much
the same. The lime is loaded at the kiln in the
same way as the coal is loaded at the collieries;
in neither case do the companies have anything
to do with the loading or unloading.
Lord Houghton.
5672. Does lime go uncovered always —Lime
goes under cover in our covered trucks.
Mr. Darlington.
5673. Do you put covers on the trucks your-
selves?––We do.
5674. Do the railway companies supply any
service with regard to loading, unloading, or
covering 2–None whatever.
5675. If they did, of course they would be
able to charge for it separately 2–Yes.
5676. With regard to the quantity of the con-
signments, is there very much difference between
lime and coke –I think I said that lime goes in
larger quantities because the trucks will hold
II) Ol' C.
5677. And further, lime and coke are
both used, at all events, in one respect for the
same purposes, for smelting iron in blast
furnaces 2–I believe it is. We do not supply
any for that purpose ourselves, and I really do
not know much about it.
Mr. Bidder.
5678. You do not say lime is, but limestone 2
Limestone, I should think. I do not know
whether lime is or not.
Mr. Darlington.
5679. How do your consignments go as a rule,
in full truck-loads or in small quantities? —They
go in full truck-loads; about 13 per cent. of our
traffic goes in quantities of under four tons, the
bulk of it goes in six to eight tons.
5680. Somewhere about 98; per cent. goes in
full truck loads?--That is so.
4681. Have you considered the classification
with regard to lime 2—I have, and I do not quite
understand it. It seems to be rather incomplete,
I think.
5682. Will you explain why?—I see that
chalk lime, for instance, is put in Class B., I
suppose, whether it is in bulk or whether it is in
bags.
Mr. Bidder.
5683. Is it ever in bags 2–Yes. Then I see
that lime in bulk is put into Class B., but I do
not know where lime in bags is put at all. I
suppose it is unclassified and would go into
Class 3. I do not know why that is so ; but
it seems to me that lime alone would be a suffi-
cient classification, as it always has been. There
is no more reason for dividing the different varie-
ties of lime than there is in dividing the different
varieties of coal.
Lord Belper.] Would not “lias lime e.o.h.p.
cover lime in bags”
Mr. Darlington.] It would not cover chalk-
lime in bags, or lime in bags.
Lord Belper.
5684. I did not ask that question, (To the
Witness.) You said that lime in bags was not
mentioned, I asked if “lias lime e.o.h.p. would
cover that ?—No, I do not think it would.
Mr. Darlington.
5685. Are there other descriptions of lime
besides lias lime and chalk lime 2 – Yes,
there are many descriptions, they vary in
diffierent districts, as coal varies in different
districts.
5686. Lias lime in bags, I think, is put in a
different class from chalk lime in bags, is it
not? •
Chairman.] Will you refer us to the place
Mr. Darlington.] Class C.
Chairman.] Will you give us the page?
Mr. Darlington.] It is at page 23 of the Great
Western Act.
Mr. Bidder.] Had we not better keep to the
London and North Western Act 2
Chairman.] The London and North Western
Act is the one I want.
Mr. Bidder.] It is at page 22.
Mr. Darlington.
5687. Lias lime e.o.h.p., would mean lias
lime in bags, or would include lias lime in
bags?—It would.
5688. But lias lime e.o.h.p. comes in Class C.,
and chalk lime comes in Class B. P – Yes, chalk
lime in bags would be in Class B., I suppose.
5689. Chalk lime in bags would be treated
differently from lias lime in bags.
(81.)
4 T 4 Mr.
704
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
| Continued.
Mr. Hunter.] How do you make that out?
Chairman.] I wish you would put questions
to the Witness, and let him give you a really
distince answer.
Mr. Darlington.] Do you see chalk lime in
Class B 2
Earl of Camperdown.] But there is nothing
about bags.
Mr. Darlington.] No, it says nothing about
bags.
Pitness.] But when it is in bags I do not
know what class it is in. Many varieties of lime
are carried in bags besides chalk lime.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Not in the Clear-
ing House Classification.
Witness.] They may not be in the Clearing
flouse Classification, but practically it is so.
Lord Belper.
5690. Do you do business yourself in chalk
lime in bags 2—No, only lias lime.
5691. Do you know whether it is done in
bags 2—I have always understood that it is.
5692. Do you know that of your own know-
ledge 2–I do not know that of my own know-
ledge. I cannot say that chalk lime is, but I
believe it to be so. I know of my own know-
ledge that other lime, greystone lime, is carried
in bags, although it is not classified in bags, be-
cause I have dealt in it.
Mr. Darlington.
5693. At all events, lime is carried in bags
that is not lias lime 2—Yes.
5694. Do you see lime in bulk in Class B. 2–
Yes, I know it is there.
5695. Have you also seen chalk lime in Class
B., the same class 2–Yes.
5696. Have you been able to find lime in bags
put down in any class 2–No.
5697. Therefore lime in bags, unless it is
lias lime in bags, will be unclassified ?–It is so.
5698. Lias lime in bags is, however, in
Class C. 2–Yes.
5699. Because it would come under the defini-
tion of lias lime e.o.h.p. 2–Yes.
5700. Is there any reason why bag lime should
be treated differently from lime in bulk —None
at all that I can see.
5701. Is there any material difference in the
value of the two articles?—The lime in bags is
ground, and it is charged 2 s. 6 d. per ton more
than the lime in bulk, which is the cost of grind-
ing and packing. It packs closer in the trucks
when it is in bags, and therefore we can get a
greater quantity of bag lime in than we can of
lime in bulk.
Mr. Hunter.
5702. What is the ordinary value of a ton of
lime 2—It varies with the price of coal for the
time; at the present time it is from 10 s. or
11 s.
Mr. Hanbury (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
Where do the Board of Trade intend lime in bags
or lime e.o.h.p. to be 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I will explain the
classification in a moment.
Chairman.] Will you deal with this particular
point? We will ask you presently upon the
whole question.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] It will be a little
difficult without stating the basis of the classifica-
tion; but the reason that there is no mention of
lias lime in bags is that there is no such thing in
practice. The basis of our classification is the
Clearing House Classification, and with the sole
exception that we have put down limestone in
bulk to a lower class, everything else is founded
upon the basis of the practice of the railway
companies.
Mr. Hambury.] But the Clearing House
Classification has lime e.o.h.p. in Class C.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I think not.
Lord Houghton.] Why do you say lime in bulk;
why do you not call it simply lime?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Because in that
we are following the Clearing House Classifica-
tion. The Clearing House Classification has one
entry which we have not got, “lime in boxes”
(used in coal-reining for blasting purposes) in the
special class. We thought that that was going a
little too minutely into the matter, and we did not
insert the entry. I am not sure whether we were
ever asked to do so.
Mr. Dickson.] What is the difference between
chalk lime, lias lime, and line in bulk, those
three descriptions in Class 3. Why would not
“ lime in bulk º' cover all P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] This witness has
come and said that lime in bulk would cover
everything, but every other trader's witness that
I have heard desired that the classification
should be more minute than the classification in
the existing Acts of Parliament, if you could
call it a classification at all. This gentleman
wishes lime to cover everything ; but we have
endeavoured to meet the views of the traders
and to stereotype, as far as possible, the existing
practice by taking, as nearly as we could, with-
out going into too minute detail, the existing
Clearing House Classification which gives lime in
bulk, chalk lime, and then lias lime in bulk and
lias lime in bags.
Mr. Darlington.
5703. (To the Witness.) I want to call your
attention to page 21 of the Report by the Board
of Trade in accordance with Section 24, Sub-
Section 6, of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act,
1888 —I am afraid I have not got it.
5704. I will just read it to yon : “In fixing
the position of articles in particular classes we
have been mainly, but not wholly, guided by the
Railway Clearing House Classification. We
have also had regard to the following
important principles: — Value (including
damageability and risk), weight in pro-
portion to bulk, facility for loading, mass
of consignments, and necessity for handling.
I just want to take you briefly through those five
matters. With regard to value, does the value
of lime approximate more to that of the articles
in Class A. or those in Class B., just take an
instance 2–I am afraid I know so little of the
value of these things that it would be rather
difficult for me to follow you, but I say that it
approximates
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
705
4 June 1891.]
A-s--
Mr. Darlington—continued.
approximates to coal and coke, which it has
always been classed with. It is much lower
than a number of the articles in Class B.
5705. And you have already stated that the
present price of lime is about 11 s. a ton 2–I
said from 10 s. to 11 s.
5706. Is that delivered at the works 2–From
10 s. to 11 s. is the price at the works for lime in
bulk, 2 s. 6d. more for lime packed in bags.
5707. That would be 13 s. 6 d. 2–Yes.
5708. With regard to damage and risk, you
have already told us, I think, that you have
never made any claim for damage 7–We never
have.
5709. Then with regard to the facility for
loading, I think I have practically covered these
points 2–Yes,
Mr. Bidder.] He does not unload it.
Witness.] We or our customers do; it is never
handled by the railway company.
Mr. Bidder.] Then they do not charge for it?
Mr. Darlington.
5710. I should like you just to explain a little
more the difference between chalk lime and lias
lime. Is there anything very much more than
the difference of the place where the limestone
comes from, from which it is made 2–There is
nothing more than that. Lime varies through-
out the country; it is a local product. In our
particular district we have the lias formation ;
in Kent and Surrey they have the chalk ; and
in Lincolnshire they have the oolite or grey.
stone. I see no more reason for dividing lime
under separate headings than for dividing an-
thracite coal from bituminous coal or other coal.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
571 1. You will not for a momen admit that
your chalk lime is as good for building purposes
as your lias lime, will you ?—Well, of course, we
say, and we think, that our lime is the best ; but,
unfortunately, it is not everyone that does, and
we cannot get any more for it.
5712. Do you know what the price of chalk
lime is at the chalk pit 2–I do not.
5713. Is it not notorious in the building trade
that whenever you want good work you get the
lias lime 2— No, I do not know that it is.
5714. Is it not specified continually in con-
tracts 2–Cºreystone lime is much more frequently
specified.
5715. That is Aberthaw, is it not ?–No, it is
oolite lime ; it is more chalk lime of that cha-
racter.
5716. Is it not the case that either Aberthaw
or lias lime is constantly specified by engineers
and architects 2–It is often specified, but not so
often as the other, I should say.
5717. As regards lime in bags; this is one of
your prospectuses, is it not (handing a paper to
the Witness)?—Yes.
5718. I see you describe it in this way: “When
ground Greaves' blue lias lime averages” so and
so, “ground lime in bags should be kept in a
dry place, and, if not used within a short time
(especially in damp or warm weather), the
lime should be shot (under crover) to prevent
its bursting the sacks.” It is a higher quality of
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
manufactured articles; it fetches a higher price,
and apparently sooner deteriorates ?—No ; I do
not think so at all.”
5719. Then why do you put it in bags or
casks?–Simply for the convenience of handling.
5720. Why do you not put all your lime in
bags or casks?—Because this lime put in bags
is ground, and therefore you cannot handle it so
easily as you can lime in lumps; lime in bulk is
in lumps you know.
5721. But just let me see ; the limestone
which has gone into Class A., of course, you
know is , the new material which is used by
Smelters in very large quantities for iron manu-
facture ?—I believe that is so.
5722. And I do not know whether you are
aware that it was at their instance that it was,
as being the raw material required in the manu-
facture of iron, taken away from the class in
which it has hitherto been and put down into
Class A. as raw material P--I do not know any-
thing about that.
5723. Hitherto your lime and lias lime has
been, in the Clearing House Classification, in
Class B., and your bag-lime has been in Class 1,
has it not, or, rather, Class S., the special class 2
—We really knew nothing about the Clearing
House Classification until this inquiry came on.
We were simply quoting our rates for lime, and
they did not say whether in bags or bulk, or
lias lime or chalk, and any other kind.
5724. I daresay at rates satisfactory to you?
—They have been generally satisfactory.
5725. Are you aware that the result of putting
limestone in Class A. would be to reduce the
actual rates ?–No, I say it would not.
5726. One question about the Great Western,
1847, Act that you referred to. It is perfectly
true that lime (and I am perfectly prepared to
admit that lime would mean lime in bulk, and
lime in casks or bags) is in the same class with
coal, coke, and certain other articles 2—Yes.
5727. But have you noticed that, as a matter
of fact, every article under the sun is in that Act
comprised in five clauses.
Mr. Hunter.] What Act 2
Mr. Bidder.
5728. The Great Western Act, 1847. (To the
Witness.) Everything is in the five classes, and
therefore inasmuch as we are now classifying
in eight classes, it is obvious that things that
were together there must to a certain extent
become separate now. Were you aware of that ?
—If you say so, I have no doubt it is so. I did
not know how many classes there were.
5729. You said just now that there would be
no loss to the railway companies supposing that
the lime were put as you wished in Class A. ;
have you gone into any calculation as to the
effect that that would have 2–I have not myself,
but a gentleman connected with our firm can give
you the figures upon that.
Mr. Bidder.] Then I will wait till somebody
comes; I am going to give evidence upon that,
Mr. Hunter.
5730. Have you any experience of lime as an
article of manure ?–Yes, we sell a considerable
quantity for manure.
(84.)
5731. Have
706
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEF
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continuod
Mr. Hunter—continued.
5731. Have you had any experience with
regard to Scotland or Ireland 2–1 have not.
5732. Are you aware that in Scotland and
Ireland lime is much more employed as an article
of manure than in any other respect –I did
not know that.
5733. You have not examined the Acts to see
how lime and coal are respectively classified,
have you?—Personally I have not.
5734. Is there anybody here who has done so
—It has been examined for us, not in Ireland I
Suppose.
Mr. Hunter.] In the Scotch Acts lime and
limestone are universally put in a lower class
than coal and coke, and there is a general dis-
tinction of ; d. a ton in its favour, and every-
where lime and limestone are in the same
MR. MICHAEL HENRY LAIKIN, is
Mr. Wºlls.
7 38. YoU are senior partner in the firm of
of Greaves, Bull, and Lakin 2–I am.
5739. And will you tell me, please, what is the
difference, if any, between chalk lime and lias lime
in value ; do you consider that ihere is any differ-
ence in value between them 2–-The lime made
from the grey chalk is principally used in London,
and our lime is sold at precisely the same prices:
indeed, my London agent tells me that we fre-
quently have to undersell the grey chalk lime.
There is no additional value in lias lime.
5740. The difference between them is, I
believe, that chalk lime is found in a more or less
pliable or puddley state in nature, whereas lias
lime is found in a clayey or rocky state, and has
to be ground 7–Not exactly. There are many
kinds of lime in England. There is the car-
boniferous limestone, the magnesium lime-
stone, and the chalk limestone, these are all
found in different parts of England; they
are burnt and made into limes of different kinds.
I can see no object in distinguishing between
these limes, indeed I think that it would require
an expert to say what was carboniferous or mag-
nesian or lias lime.
Chairman.
5741. You say they are made into limes of
different kinds, what do you mean by that ?—I
should have said they are made into lime of one
kind. They are known by different names.
Lord Belper.
5742. When you say one kind, these different
limes have different qualities 7–The quality of
lime is that when you add water to it; it heats
and slakes and turns into mortar.
5743. I am aware of that. What I mean is
that these limes have different qualities in them ;
that they are of differeut sorts —Some limes are
more applicable to one thing than others.
5744. One lime will set under water and is
more suitable for that purpose, and another will
not ?– Quite so; and Derbyshire lime is a better
manure than other lime, but there are not such
category; and so in the Irish Acts, and so in
most of the English Acts.
Re-examined by Mr. Darlington.
5735. J think there are only two questions I
have to ask you. With regard to lias lime and
chalk lime, is there any material difference in
value between the two 7–No
5736. Is there any material difference in value
between lias lime and any other description of
lime used in commerce 2–No.
5737. You have been told that the great
Western Act contains five classes, and that there-
fore when you are dividing articles into eight
classes it is natural that some things that have
been put together before should now be separated ;
but do you see any reason why in doing the rate
on one of those articles should be raised ?–No,
I certainly do not.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
recalled ; and further Examined, as follows :
Lord Belper—continued.
should
differences as make an element in
value.
Mr. Wills.
5745. Do they correspond with any difference
in value 7–No ; the lime made in the district is
the cheapest lime ; the value at the kilns is about
the same.
5746. In Class B. lias lime in bulk stands, and
also chalk lime generally ; that includes chalk
lime in bulk. I take it that you have no objec-
tion to those two standing side by side, whatever
class they stand in 2–Yes, quite so.
5747. But lias lime e.o.h.p., denoting lias lime
in bags, is in Class C. P-In Class C.
5748. Do you think it fair that lias lime in
bags should be in Class C. while chalk lime in
bags stands in Class B. P-Certainly not.
Chairman.] Will you point out in the schedule
where chalk lime in bags occurs ?
Mr. Wills...] It is not mentioned specifically at
all, but chalk lime without any qualification
stands in Class B.
Mr. Bidder. I admit at once that if there were
such a thing as chalk lime in bags, inasmuch as
there is no qualification, it would come under
chalk lime in Class B.
Mr. PPills,
5749. From your experience or knowledge do
you agree with the statement of my learned
friend Mr. Bidder; do you know whether it is so
in the trade 2–Lime is manufactured from grey
chalk and sold in London in considerable quanti-
ties in bags, and it seems rather hard upon us
that it should be classed in a class lower than
Oll I’S.
5750. I see that it was stated in April at a
meeting of the Committee upon the question of
the clauses that chalk lime is practically the
chalk before it is burnt, a natural rock, and that
it cannot do any harm to the waggons. Is that
a correct definition ?--Oh no.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
707
4 June 1891.]
*—
Mr. Bidder.] It is chalk then ; it is not lime
all. -
Witness.] Mr. Bidder has given a correct
answer in my judgment.
Chairman.
5751. Perhaps you will repeat that answer?—
That it cannot be chalk lime, because chalk before
being burnt is chalk, not lime.
Mr. Wºlls.
5752. You tell me that chalk lime is carried,
within your knowledge, in bags”—Certainly.
5753. Do you think it fair that that should be
left in Class B. if lias lime in bags is carried in
Class C. 2–No, I see no reason for that.
one would be able by the appearance to distin-
guish one from the other.
5754. With regard to the lowering of all the
classes of lime altogether into Class A., have
lime and limestone always been carried together
at the same rates ?—Yes.
5755. And in your Great Western Act they
are classed in the same class?—I believe so.
5756. Has any difference been made, can you
tell me so far as you know, in the rates for the
carriage of any of any of these limes or lime-
stone 2––The rates for lime are universally
quoted all over the country for lime only. That
refers to lime in bags or in bulk, as the traders
choose to send it.
Mr. Wills.] There was a letter put in at the
Westminster Town Hall, the price list of Messrs.
Ashton and Green, I think. I think the Board
of Trade hold that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] They have some thou-
sands of letters. I should think it is very likely
that they have it.
Mr. Wºlls.
5757. Perhaps I may refer to a copy of it.
(After a pause.) I will pass from that for a mo-
ment. I do not want to take up the Committee's
time while the letter is being found. (To the
Witness.) You have heard the evidence that your
brother Mr. Edward Lakin has given with regard
to the placing of lime and limestone along with
each other ?–Yes, I have.
5758. Do you agree with that?—I do.
5759. What do you say with regard to any
difference in value between lias lime in bulk and
other articles in Class B. 2–I think that there
are very few articles in Class B, which are of so
low a value as lias lime.
Chairman.] Is it possible to compare all the
articles in Class B. How can you compare lias
lime with pea and bean sticks 2
Mr. Wills.] Your Grace, of course, you cannot
strictly take a comparison between them, I only
take it generally.
Chairman.] But can you make any com-
parison 2
5760. Lord Belper.] You said that your lime
was worth about 11 s. a ton at the works?—
About 10 s. to 11 s.
5761. Are you aware that there are articles in
Class B., not of a very different character, worth
2 s. 6 d. at the works?—Will your Lordship tell
me which they are 7
Mr. LAKIN.
No
[Continued.
—- sº
5762. Yes. Gypsum stone in lumps; inferior
gypsum is not worth more than 2 s. 6 d. Are
you aware of that?—No, I am not aware of that.
I do not know anything about it.
Chairman.
5763. Perhaps you have not compared the
articles in Class B. P−I compared all the articles
I know. Gypsum is not an article that I know,
and beansticks I do not know the value of.
Lord Belper.] I take gypsum as being a simi-
lar article to limestone.
Chairman.] I do not think you can institute a
comparison, it is impossible.
Mr. Wºlls.
5764. I will just ask the witness his opinion
with regard to the comparison between lime and
coke as a matter of manufacture. (To the
Witness). What do you say to that?—We
think that we are entitled to be in the same
class as coke, because the manufacture of lime is
similar to that of coke. Our value is rather less
than coke. We manufacture exactly in the same
way, and we send in the same sort of consign-
ments, except that the railway companies have
the advantage of getting a larger quantity of
lime in a truck than they could of coke.
5765. I think you do all the loading and un-
loading of your own lime yourselves?—Yes.
5766. And you carry in owner's trucks?—
Yes, usually.
5767. Is that a copy of the letter that was put
in at the Board at Trade inquiry at the West-
minster Town Hall (handing a paper to the
Witness)?—Yes. This is a copy of the trade
circular of Messrs. Ashton and Green, well-known
builders' merchants, showing that they quote the
same prices for blue lias or for grey lime, both
ground and in lump.
Mr. Bidder.] Let me see that, if you please.
(The Witness hands the document to the learned
counsel.)
Lord Houghton.
5768. Grey lime is lime from grey chalk, is it
not?–Yes, the Surrey chalk, and from the banks
of the Medway, near Rochester.
Mr. Bidder.] This is not Messrs. Ashton and
Green's circular, if you will forgive my saying
SO.
Mr. Wills.] It is a quotation of prices, includ-
ing carriage.
Mr. Bidder.] It is not a printed document
at all.
Mr. Wills.] The original was sent to the Board
of Trade, with notice to produce it to-day.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I have had no notice.
Mr. Wills.
5769. I am instructed that notice was given;
it is in the printed notes of the evidence at the
Board of Trade Inquiry. (To the Witness.) The
cost of grinding the lias lime and putting it into
bags, I think, is 2 s. 6 d., is it not ?—We charge
2s. 6 d. more for ground lime than lump, that
is º price of grinding it and of putting it into
$8,0KS.
(81.)
4 U 2 Mr.
708
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I am informed that you
were allowed to take that copy; it does not much
matter ; that was the procedure.
Mr. Wills.
5770. In that list there appears to be no
difference in the carriage, you told me there has
been none between the different kinds of lime *
—That list does not refer to carriage; that is
merely a price list. +
5771. Does not that include carriage 2–Yes.
I beg pardon, that includes delivery. I have
not got it in my hand now.
Mr. Wills (to Mr. Bidder).] Will you let the
witness have it back?
The document is handed back to the Witness.'
M. Wills.
5772. (To the Witness.) . Does that include
carriage 2–1 think this can hardly be a correct
copy, as it appears to quote different prices at
different stations, and adds the words, “you
paying carriage,” which is a contradiction in
terms. - -
Mr. Bidder.j It seems to me to be very
puzzling, I confess. It appears to me to be a
lawyer's document; there is a solicitor's name on
the back.
Mr. Wills.] I do not know whether you have
examined the various Acts — w
Chairman.] But he is examining your letter
In OW.
Witness.] I have answered the questions upon
that, your Grace.
Mr. Wºlls.
5773. Have you examined the various Acts of
Parliament to see how lime is classified in others
besides the Great Western Act, or not ?—I have
not done it personally, but I have heard my
brother’s evidence just now, in which he said that
he had had it done.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
5774. I do not know whether you took part in
the discussion before the Board of Trade when
the question was raised, whether limestone should
go into a lower class —Yes, I believe I did.
5775. How far do you agree with what took
place. I see Sir Bernhard Samuelson said, “I
think there is no doubt that limestone should be
put into Class A.” Then later down he said,
This I am told was at a conference between the
traders and the railway companies; this was not
the Board of Trade meeting 2—I am afraid I
cannot say anything about it.
5776. You were not there 2—No.
5777. I want to know how far you agree with
this view expressed by Sir Bernhard Samuelson:
“I think it is perfectly fair that there should be
a different classification for lime and limestone.”
Limestone, the raw unmanufactured article, what
is it worth a ton 2–We sell our limestone for
about 5 s. 6 d. a ton.
5778. And your lime I may say is worth
just double the limestone, the manufactured
article 2–About.
5779. And after it has been ground, another
2s. 6 d. on the top of that ?– Quite so.
sº
Mr. Bidder—continued.
7780. I think I am right that if you look at
Class A., you are proposing to ask the Committee
to put lime generally down into Class A.,
because limestone has gone there?—That is one
of the reasons. -
5781. That is the main reason, is it not ?—
We say generally that all lime should be classi-
fied together, and we think they ought to be in
the same class.
5782. I want to put to you this: limestone is
the raw material, and lime is the manufactured
article. I think I am right, I do not know
whether you have looked through Class A., but
with the exception of coke I do not think there
is anything in Class A. that can be called a
manufactured article in any sense ?—Creosote, I
do not know what that may be, and gas-lime.
5783. That is refuse ; that is the refuse of
manufacture ?
Mr. Dickson.] Does not coke go through the
very same process as lime 2
Mr. Bidder.
5784. Yes, I say with the exception of coke.
(To the Witness.) I want to draw attention to
this. There is this great distinction between
coke and lime as a manufactured article ; you
said the manufacture was the same, but the
manufacture of coke is a very profitable process,
because you get the gas. Although it is true in
one sense that coke is a manufactured article, it
is in one sense the residual result of the manu-
facture of gas. I take it that your gases in the
manufacture of lime are not very valuable 2–
They are more pleasant.
5785. It is true in one sense that coke is
manufactured in the same way as lime ; but
there is this distinction, that it is to a great
extent the residual of another manufacture, which
lime is not ?—That, I think, refers to the gas
coke, but other coke which is made in an oven is
perhaps more nearly compared with our lime.
5786. You mean that there may be some coke
made in retorts where they do not utilise the
as 7–Yes, in collieries. -> *
5787. But if I recollect right, I think they
are more and more in the practice of utilising
the gas in that case ?—I am not an ironmaster;
but there is a considerable amount of coke made
in that way. *
5788. You see that, with that exception, there
is no manufactured article at all in Class A. ; it
is all entirely a class of raw material?—I cannot
admit that. I see here something which catches.
my eye. Iron pyrites burnt; that I imagine
would be something like burnt lime, would it not?
5789. I admit that I know nothing about it 2
Chairman.] What is that you know nothing
about 2 4.
Mr. Bidder.] Burnt iron pyrites, your Grace.
I thought it was never burnt, but used for the
manufacture of sulphuric acid.
Lord Houghton.] I suppose you say that gas.
coke is a waste material 2
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, in the same way as gas tar
and scoria.
Mr. Dickson.] What is creosote?
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
709
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder.] Creosote is waste gas manufac-
ture, creosote, gas tar, and gas-water are all pro-
perly classed together as waste material.
Mr. Hunter.] Stone, whole and undressed,
straight from quarry is a much more valuable
thing than lime.
Mr. Bidder.] That is not a manufactured
article.
Mr. Hunter.] In our part of the world it is
much more valuable than lime.
Mr. Bidder.] I should not like to admit that ;
it may happen to be some particular stone.
Mr. Hunter.] There is a very large trade in
granite in our part of the country. *
Mr. Bidder.] But you will observe that granite
is not put into that class.
Mr. Hunter.] Surely it is, stone, whole and
undressed.
Mr. Bidder.] You will find granite in Class
B. in blocks, rough or undressed.
Chairman.] That is the Aberdeen granite.
Lord Houghtou.] Gannister is a
material, I think.
Mr. Bidder | I am told gannister is natural
sand.
Lord Houghton.] No, it is a silicate stone
which is ground up for the purpose of steel
making.
Mr. Bidder.
5790. I have no knowledge, my Lord, upon
the point of gannister (To the Witness.) One
other question, and I think I am done with you.
With regard to the other question of the lime in
bags, the ground lime is put in bags or casks to
protect it, I suppose, from moisture?—It is picked
for convenience of handling, because after you
have ground it you cannot shovel it.
5791. And obviously there is this additional
risk, that if through carelessness by rough hand-
ling you stave a cask or tear a sack, the lime is
lost 2–No, it is much safer than if it were
packed in the truck, where it would run through
the chinks.
5792. But there is no danger of staving casks
or tearing sacks, because there are none to stave 2
—No.
5793. In the case of lime, if it is roughly
handled and they stave in a cask, there would be
a claim upon the company P---I am only talking
of sacks. -
5794. In either case ?—I think a sack would
be difficult to stave in.
Earl of Camperdown.] He said they did both
the leading and unloading it themselves.
Mr. Bidder.] I am told that it often is
handled by the company.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is there not this difference
between lime in bags and lime in bulk, that
under Clause 2 of this Provisional Order Bill,
lime in bags will be carried in such a way as not
to injure the waggons, and therefore will be
carried practically at a lower rate than lime in
bulk 2
Mr. Bidder.] I cannot say that, because it is
in Class C.
ground.
, Mr. Hanbury.] But is not this broad distinc-
tion drawn between lime carried in such a way as
to injure companies’ waggons, and lime which is
not so carried, which makes a great difference in
the rates? 8-)
Mr. Bidder.] But the lime in bags and sacks
of course no doubt comes in the classification
under Class C. ; therefore the truck is found,
but I believe at a higher rate.
Mr. Hanbury.] But chalk lime, a good deal of
that is carried.
Mr. Bidder.
5795. (To the Witness.) Chalk lime in bags is
a Very exceptional thing, is it not?–Oh, no.
5796. Where is it dealt with in bags 2—We
have bought it ourselves in London, it is used
considerably in London now. It is a trade that
has increased very rapidly of late years.
5797. Obviously if so it is a casus omissus, and
it ought to have followed lias lime in bags? If
you followed the circular of Messrs. Ashton and
Green you will see that it is ground grey lime.
5798. D9es grey lime mean chalk lime —
Yes, it is lime manufactured from grey chalk.
Chairman.] What is the difference between
grey chalk and white chalk 2
Mr. Bidder.] The grey chalk is the lower
chalk.
Witness.] They are lower measures.
Chairman.
5799. Which is the most valuable lime made
from, white chalk or grey chalk 7–I believe the
grey chalk is rather. It depends upon what
purposes it is to be used for.
Mr. Bidder.
5800. Under which head does the Aberthaw
lime come 2–It is the blue lias lime.
Mr. Hanbury.
5801. Have you thought of this fact, that the
rates for lime in Class B. do not include the use
of company’s trucks 2-—We understand that.
5802. Whereas for all other articles in Class B.
º do include the use of the company’s trucks 2
— L 6 S.
5803. Therefore lime is practically charged
much higher in Class B. than any other articles in
Class B.”—-Quite so.
Re-examined by Mr. Wills.
5804. Just two questions with regard to lime
in bags ; does it travel more compactly than lime
not in bags?—Yes, you can put a larger load in a
truck.
5805. With regard to the risk to the lime, I
understand the lime is carried chiefly in owners’
waggons ; has the Board of Trade found it to be
so 2–Yes.
5806. And has the lime always been carried, so
far as you know, by your company, at any rate,
the Great Western Company, under the terms of
the notice that they will not be common carriers,
but only carry under special conditions ?–Yes.
(81.)
4 U 3 5807. The
7 10
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LAKIN.
[Continued.
Mr. Wiſ/s.
5807. The notice is in these terms, if I may
read it from the printed Bill of the Great Western
Company : “ Notice is hereby further given that
the company are not, and will not, be common
carriers of any of the under - mentioned
articles,” and there are a number of articles
mentioned, including coal, coke, lime, and lime-
stone, and materials for road repairs, pyrites, and
so forth, “nor will any of the above mentioned
articles be received by the company except upon
special conditions to be ascertained at the stations,
including the condition that all risk be borne by
the sender.” (To the Witness.) Can you tell me,
with reference to the other question, to what
extent coke is manufactured, not for the purposes
that have been named in the manufacture of gas”
—It is a very considerable trade, oven coke, as
they call it.
5808. Do you remember whether anyone,
except Sir Bernhard Samuelson, who has referred
to by my learned friend, Mr. Bidder, drew a
distinction at the Board of Trade inquiry at the
Westminster Town Hall between lime and lime-
stone for the purpose of carriage 2—I believe not,
5809. Have you compared lias lime in bags
with other articles in Class C. ?—I have.
5810. And how do you say it stands com-
parison for the purpose of value 2–It appears to
me to be much lower in value than most of the
articles in that class.
Mr. Bidder.
5811. In Class C. 2––Yes.
Chairman.
5812. Have you compared it?—I have.
Mr. Bidder.] Peat, for instance.
Mr. Wills.
5813. Have you got the clause before you?—
No, I have not.
5814. Perhaps you will take it in your hand,
and just refer to a few examples with regard to
what you are telling me?—This appears to in-
clude all kinds of grain, and lias lime is of very
much less value than any kind of grain ; scrap-
iron, I also see, and oil cake, nitrate of soda, and
millstones in the rough.
5815. You think, generally, that lime is a good
deal lower in value than the articles included in
Class C. 2–Yes, certainly ; and flour I see.
5816. Do you know whether anyone except
Sir Bernhard Samuelson at the Westminster
Town Hall drew the distinction between lime
and limestone; were you present at the con-
ference between the traders when Sir Bernhard
Samuelson gave some evidence with regard to
the distinction between lime and limestone 2–
I was not.
5817. I believe your manager, Mr. Harding,
has instituted a comparison with regard to the
rates, and the effect of the Provisional Order
upon the rates?—Yes, he has.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. HENRY JOSIAH HARDING, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. [47]ls.
5818. YoU are an agent of Messrs. Greaves,
Bull, and Lakin —Yes.
5819. And you have been with them for some
years 2–Yes.
5820. Have you heard the evidence that has
been given by Mr. Michael Lakin and Mr.
Edward Lakin 2–Yes.
5821. And, speaking generally, do you agree
with the testimony they have given 2–Yes,
generally so.
5822. You, I think, have examined the effect
that the Provisional Order will have upon the
maximum, and also the actual rates, the differ-
ence it makes in the different maxima, and in the
different existing rates?–Yes, I have.
5823. And you have made a table, I think.
Will you just turn to your table comparing the
existing actual rates with the rates proposed in
the Provisional Order 2—I will hand in these
tables (handing in the same.)
Chairman.
5824. Are these all one 2–Yes, they are all
one, your Grace.
Earl of Belmore.
5825. Are they all the same 2—Yes, they are
all the same.
Mr. Wills.
8256. Is the table you have before you
the table comparing the present actual rates
with the rates proposed in the Provisional
Order?—No, this is a comparison between the
existing maximum and the Provisional Order.
5827. I want you first of all to turn to the
table with the existing actual rates.
Mr. Bidder.] But I would like to point out
that with reference to this first table it proposes
to show that the rates in the Provisional Order
would be higher than the existing maxima
under the Act of 1847.
Witness.] Quite so.
Chairmam.
5828. What do you intend to show by this
paper which you have handed in 3–That the
existing maximum of the 1847 Act, which is the
Agreement Act, for I look upon the 1847 Act as
an Agreement Act, that is the Agreement of
Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway Act
of 1847.
5829. How do you mean an agreement?–In
this way: that the Great Western were allowed
by Parliament to take over the Birmingham and
Oxford Railway Act, conditionally on their re-
ducing the whole of their lines to a scale of
charges not exceeding the 1846 Act, and there-
fore
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
711
4 June 1891.]
Mr. HARDING.
[. Conſinued.
ass-—-
Chairman—continued.
fore that is the reason I have taken the 1847
Act. The rates were reduced in 1847, and that
particularly applies to our district; our lime
works are situated on that line.
5830. You cannot call it an Agreement Act,
because Parliament would not make any agree-
ment with the company. Parliament allows a
company to have certain powers and it puts certain
clauses regarding the tolls and rates in the Bill,
but there is no agreement 2–I do not wish, your
Grace, to go into a legal question, but I gathered
my impressions really, from the Debates which
occurred in the House in 1847, and I gathered
from that that it was an Agreement Act.
5831. You must take the Act as it appears
upon the face of it, and not what took place in
the Debates ?–On the face of it, then, this state-
ment is a comparison with the 1847 Act, only
with the Provisional Order.
Earl of Camperdown.
5832. And you are working under the Act of
1847 now 2–Yes.
5833. And there is a fixed maximum rate in
that Act 2—Yes.
Mr. Wills.
5834. And the lists which you have handed in
to the Committee are lists comparing the actual
maxima with the Provisional Order maxima P-
Yes,
5835. I think the table that this witness has
prepared is a comparison between the existing
actual and the proposed maxima, and therefore I
think it will save your Grace trouble if we turn
to that table. (To the Witness.) In this table
you have taken a number of places with the
distances from Leamington to all those places,
have you not 2–Yes.
5836. And then in order to get at the present
actual rate you have taken first of all the rate in
the fourth class for lime generally, including the
rates for all lime, whether in bulk or otherwise ?
—Yes.
5837. Is that the rate which they make to you,
or which they quoted to you upon the assump-
tion that you carry it in your own waggons, as
you ordinarily do?—Yes.
5838. So that that first column represents con-
veyance rates only F-No ; the first column re-
presents the actual rate, which is inclusive of
terminals.
5839. But the actual rate with the terminals
is exclusive of any charge for waggons 2–Yes,
that is so.
5840. Then I believe you do not know what
has been charged hitherto and what is now
charged under the head of terminals, as opposed
to conveyance 2–No, I do not. -
5841. And in the second column you have put
down as the terminal to be deducted from that,
in order to ascertain the conveyance rate, the
amount of terminal proposed in the present
schedule to the Provisional Order ?—I have.
Mr. Wills—continued.
5841*. And the first page deals with Class A.
of the Provisional Order 7—Yes.
5842. And you have taken the terminal at
6 d. throughout 2—Yes.
5843. That is a 3 d. terminal each way ?—
Yes.
5844. And then deducting those terminals
from the actual rates, you bring out what you
consider a fair conveyance rate 7—A fair com-
parison.
5845. And then, in the last column of all,
you have put down the rates for conveyance
alone under the Provisional Order º–Yes.
5846. Taking all those places together, in the
case of the first one or two, the Provisional
Order rates are a little bit lower than the actual
conveyance rates, are they not, which you have
put down in the third column, the first one or
two 2–Yes; that is, in other words, supposing
the lime to be classified in A., the Provisional
Order would give the railway companies an
increase of about 6 per cent.
5847. I say that, in the first few of the short
distances you have given, the Provisional Order
conveyance rate is a little bit less than the
actual rate which you have estimated, is that
so 2–Yes, for the first three or four short dis-
tances.
5848. And then the proportion alters, and at
the bottom part of the table there is a considr-
able increase ?—Yes. -
5849. And in the middle they are about the
same 2—Yes.
5850. Then you have worked out the per-
centage upon the whole, and you find the
Provisional Order conveyance rates are about
5% per cent. higher than the actual conveyance
rates?—Yes, that it is so.
5851. If the terminals allowed by the com-
pany are greater than those you have estimated
in the second column, the comparison would be
more in your favour, would it not ?—Yes; for
instance, if the Clearing House terminal was
deducted, you see, instead of having to deduct
6 d., you would have to deduct 1 s. 6d., so that
the comparison would be then something like
100 per cent. instead of 5 per cent.
5852. Do you say that I s. 6 d. is the Clearing
House terminal 2–Yes, I understand so; I
understand the Clearing House terminal on
mineral traffic is 1 s. 6d., that is 9 d. at each end
generally. I think there are a few which may
be charged, some at 6 d. and some at 3 d.
5853. Now will you go to the second sheet of
that table, that is a comparison between the
actual rates estimated for lime of all kinds
calculated in the same way, and the maximum
conveyance rate which lias lime would be liable
to pay if it stood in Class B. 2–Yes, lias lime
in bulk, that is.
5854. The lime that does stand in Class B. 2–
Yes.
5855. And you have worked out the percent-
age, and that comes to very nearly 63 per cent.,
is that so 2–Yes.
5856. Now, will you turn to the third sheet,
which is a comparison between the actual con-
veyance rates estimated in the same way and the
maxima of Class C. in which your lias lime in
(81)
4 U 4 bags
7 12
XJ INTJTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. Wills—continued.
bags stands, and the percentage of increase is
estimated to be about 218 per cent., is it not ?—
Yes, that is so ; but you must understand that I
have reduced the maximum rate for conveyance
there generally in Class C. by the charge that is
put in the Provisional Order for waggons. That
point has not been decided, but, as I say, had I
deducted——
5857. Just one moment. This remark applies
to table C. alone, does it not ?—Yes.
5858. Because lias lime, under Section 2 of the
Provisional Order, only has to pay for its own
waggons if it is, of course, in Class B. or Class
C. 2–Yes; in fact I was comparing lias lime
e.o.h.p.
5859. And therefore for the purpose of
estimating what their actual rate is you have
added on what the maximum rate under Class C.
is ?—I have deducted the amount from the con-
veyance rate, or rather from the rates worked out
here, at what the charge as proposed as in the
Provisional Order, but had I deducted the
amount which was proposed in the Board of
Trade Return, it would have made a slight
difference, but only a slight difference.
5860. Which column are you speaking of?—
The third column, the Provisional Order column.
I am dealing with traffic and comparing it with
the rate in owner's waggons. I must, in dealing
with Class C. make a corresponding reduction
off the conveyance rate, because Class C. includes
the waggon hire.
5861. You have assumed, for the purpose of
of that estimate, that the waggon rate will be at
that which stands in Section 10 of the Provisional
Order, and which stands over for consideration
like the maximum rates ?—Yes, that is so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
5862. In the first place, this first table that
you have put in comparing the rates with your
existing maxima appears to show that what you
would propose would be a reduction on the
existing maximum powers in many cases?—I do
not quite follow you there, because in the one
case it is inclusive of terminals, and in the other
it is not. I rather think it is the other way about,
is it not ?
5863. I am only taking what you have
put in here. In the case of Oxford you your-
self say that the existing maximum is 3 s.
5 d., and in Class C. you have got 3 s. 1 d. 2
—But if you take the other cases in that table
you will find that it comes out exactly as I worked
Out.
5864. I do not say it is so in all cases, but it is
so in some cases? — It may be so in one or two
CàSCS.
5865. Now I come to the other table which
deals with actual rates. It is a little difficult to
grasp the meaning of this 'second table, but you
are comparing, are you not, what we get for con-
veyance at the present time and the rates which
we are actually charging with what we should
get for conveyance under, first, Class A, and then
Class B., and so on 7–Yes, that is so ; that is
assuming you take off the terminals that you are
now proposing to take off.
5866. The meaning of this is to show the Com-
Mr. HARDING.
• * - - - - - - - - ----...-- - - ---------> **---------------- ~~~~~~~~–------------------~~~~~~. --------- - - --~~~~~-- - - - --~ *----------- ~~~~--- - *-** * *-* *-**-* -
–msº
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
mittee the comparison between what we are re-
ceiving for conveyance and what we should revise
in case of being under Class A. or Class B. 7–Yes.
5867. Take Table ; the third column is what
you say we are receiving for conveyance as dis-
tinguished from terminals at the present time 2–
As distinguished from the Provisional Order
terminals.
Earl of Camperdown.] Assuming the terminal
charge is the terminal which it is proposed to
charge.
Mr. Bidder.] That, my Lord, is what I am
coming to, because unless this table is a com-
parison of our actual rates with what we should
receive under the Provisional Order, it is not
worth much.
Witness.] It may be advantageous to the rail-
Way Company.
Mr. Bidder.
5868. I do not say whether it is advantageous
to the railway company or disadvantageous, but
either this purports to show that we should lose
or that we should not lose, or it does not purport
to show anything 2—All I can say is that I have
reduced your actual rate, which you say includes
terminals, by the terminal now proposed by the
Provisional Order.
5869. Take the first rate ; the rate to Strat-
ford, 15 miles ; you show that our conveyance
late, which at present is 1s. 4d., is to be reduced
to 1 s. 2 d. 2–Yes, that is so.
5870. Then, on the next page, when I look at
my Stratford rate, you represent my actual rate
as lo d. ; they cannot both be true; if my rate
is 1s. 4 d. for conveyance rate it cannot be 10 d. 2
—Then, nominally, it must be in terminals.
5871. I am dealing, first of all, with your
table, and I say that your table must be wrong
one way or the other ; it cannot be true that my
actual rate is 1 s. 4 d. and 10 d. at the same
time ; one of them cannot be true P-It means
this, that you get a shilling for terminals in
the one case and you only get 6 d. in the other
C2S6.
5872. It is the same case ; 1 s. 10 d. is what I
am charging you to Stratford 2–Yes.
5873. The actual rate I am charging you is
ls. 10 d. ?—Yes.
5874. And on the first page you represent
that 1s. 4 d. of that represents my conveyance
rate 2–Yes, if you take off the sixpence ter-
minal.
Chairman, J There is no “if” in the ques-
tion.
Mr. Bidder.
5875. Is that what you mean to represent?—
I represent that in the event of your going into
A., by taking sixpence off for terminals, you get
1 S. 4 d. for conveyance rate.
5876. What the Committee is going to do
under this Provisional Order cannot alter the
facts with regard to what we are charging at the
present time ; our present charges do not depend
upon whether limestone will in the future go
into Class A. or into Class B. 2–Quite so; but
we do not know what you are charging for con-
veyance
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
713
4 June 1891.]
Mr. HARDING.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
veyance rate at the present time. We are appeal-
ing for lime to go under Class A.
5877. Then in point of fact it comes to this,
that in each case you have arrived at what I
will not, to offend you, call a hypothetical con-
veyance rate by deducting from our actual
charge the maximum terminal of the class;
you are going to give us a conveyance rate 2–
Yes ; which would give a fair comparison for
your maximum conveyance rate.
5878. In all these cases our rates are con-
siderably below our maximum, are they not ?—
I could not answer that question unless I knew
what your maximum rate for terminals was.
5879. And that is not all; but now, to come
back to the first page, your deduction on your
own principle for station terminals is 6 d. (I am
at the Stratford case again), is it not ?–Yes,
5880. How have you arrived at that 6 d. for
station terminal P--Threepence at each end.
5881. That is to say, adopting the 3 d. at each
end for Class A. in the Provisional Order 2–
Yes. -
5882. Were we not told by the preceding
witnesses that it was siding traffic at one end ?—
No ; this is Leamington traffic; there is no siding
there. The company deal with the traffic them-
selves.
5883. Is not the bulk of your business this
lime, which is put into your own trucks on your
own sidings, and even at the other end the com-
pany do not handle it. That is the bulk of the
traffic, is it not ; and that being so, what right
have you to charge upon your own assumption
two terminals 2–In the first place, the 3 d. at
each end is station terminals.
5884. But there is no station terminal if it
comes out of the siding —But these rates that
I have given you are not into the siding, they
are from Leamington ; but the rates I may say
charged from our siding are precisely on a
similar basis to those charged from other sta-
tions.
5885. Then these tables do not in the least
refer to your own traffic 2–No, but I have given
you the comparison.
5886. Why did you take Leamington ; why
did you not take your own traffic 2–I took
Leamington because the question of siding did
not arise. As I understand, the siding is quite
a different thing.
5887. Is Leamington the centre of the lias
lime manufacture ?—Yes, and is a lime sending
station. *
5888. Is lime burnt in Leamington 2–No, but
it is put on the rail there. It is barged up by
the canal ; it is carried in by cart.
5889. That must be done to a very limited
extent as compared with your wholesale manu-
facture ?—Yes, certainly it will be ; but the rates
quoted and given to us at Harbury are on pre-
cisely a similar footing to the Leannington.
5890. But why have you ignored your own
trade altogether, and proposed hypothetical
figures with reference to Leamington – I have
not ignored my own trade altogether. I can
give you the exact comparison, if you like, with
Harbury.
Mr. Hanbury.] I see that lime in bulk in the
Mr. Bidder—continued.
Clearing House Classification is an M (B.); does
that include the provision of company's waggons.
Mr. Bidder.] I am told that in actual practice
they always quote different rates, one in owner's
waggons and one in company’s waggons, both of
them under the head of M (B.), and neither of
them under the A. rate.
Mr. Hanbury.] We are told that lime in bulk
is an M (B.), and I have got a general idea that
that M (B.) corrresponds to the “B.” of the Pro-
visional Order.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes.
Mr. Hambury.] And that “ B.” of the Pro-
visional Order does not include company’s
trucks.
Mr. Bidder.] No.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does this M (B.) include
oompany’s trucks.
Mr. Bidder.] Generally M (B.) does, but with
regard to lime two different rates are quoted, one
in the company’s trucks and one in the owner's
trucks.
Mr. Ha, bury.] All I have here is M (B.); does
“M (B)" mean company’s trucks found, or
not ?
Mr. Bidder.] Generally it does.
Mr. Hambury.] Therefore there is this differ-
ence between “B.” of the Clearing House Clas-
sification and Class B. of the Board of Trade,
that one includes finding company’s trucks and
the other does not?
Mr. Bidder.] Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Wills.
5891. Has there been, in fact, any difference
in the charges between station to station and
siding to siding 2–No. As far as I can make
out, the charge from Leamington to other
stations, which would represent station-to-station
traffic, is precisely on the same basis as the charge
from Harbury, which would be a siding at one
end, and a station at the other. I have the com-
parison of the two rates here if you would like to
See it.
5892. Is it possible, as far as you know, to
ascertain what the existing conveyance rate of
the company is 2—No, because we could not tell
what they charge for terminals. We can only
tell that there is something charged for terminals
when it exceeds the existing maximum rate.
5893. And the terminals you have deducted
here are admittedly hypothetical?—They are as
much hypothetical as the Provisional Order, of
COUll'S6.
Chairman | But we do not consider that the
Provisional Order is at all hypothetical.
Mr. Wills.] It is very actual.
Chairman.] It is a very transparent fact, I
think. I do not think the Board of Trade will
admit that there is anything hypothetical in it.
If these calculations are made upon hypothetical
charges and terminals, I do not think the
evidence will carry us much further.
(81.)
4 X 5894. Then
7 14 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
TAKEN BEF ORE
Mr. HARDING.
[Continued.
4 June 1891.]
Mr. Wills.
5894. Then, your Grace, I wish now to ask
this witness some questions upon his other table,
with regard to the comparison of the maxima.
Undoubtedly, the comparison between the exist-
ing actual and the proposed maxima must be
hypothetical to some extent because we have no
means of ascertaining what the actual terminals
are. (To the Witness.) You have also made a
comparison, have you not, between the existing
maximum charges and the proposed maximum
charges?—Yes, the existing maximum charges
of the 1847 Act.
5895. And that is the table which was placed
before the Committee just now, at the beginning
of your evidence 2–Yes, that is so.
5896. Now, I see in the first column of that
table you have taken the distances between
Harbury, and a number of other distances, rang-
ing from six miles up to 99 °–Yes.
5897. And you have put in the first column
the existing maximum charge for lime and lime-
stone 2–Yes.
5898. That is on the assumption that the com-
pany carry in their own waggons ; is that so?--
Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] Make that quite clear, will
you ?
Mr. PPºlls.
5899. Certainly. (To the Witness.) That
table is prepared upon the assumption that the
company is carrying in its own waggons for you ?
—Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] Are they obliged to do that ?
Mr. Jºlls.
5900. And under the Act of 1847 the maximum
charge is on that footing, is that so?—Yes; that
is to say, they are obliged to provide waggons,
and in fact most railway companies are obliged to
provide waggons, unless otherwise specified. I
only know of one railway company that is not
obliged to provide waggons and that is the
London and North Western Railway Company,
but there they have a reduction off the existing
maximum.
5901. I see that Section 49 of the Act of 1847
provides, “And with respect to the conveyance
of goods, the maximum rates of charge to be
made by the company for the conveyance thereof
along the said railways, including the tolls for
the use of the said railways and waggons or
Mr. Wills—continued.
trucks, and locomotive power,” and so forth, shall
be so much, and you have calculated the table
upon that footing 2–I have.
5902. Then in the next column you have
placed the conveyance rate under the heads of
A. B. C. and E. of the Provisional Order, and
you have added to them the waggon ratss also P
—I have added them in the case of A. and B.
only.
5903. In the case of C. it is already included
in the rate 2–That is so.
5904. And upon that footing you have cal-
culated that if lime were placed in Ciass A.,
there would be an increase in the maxima of
about 1; d. , is that so?—No, a decrease in A.
5905. And in B. there would be an increase of
about 26 per cent 2–Yes.
5906. And in C. an increase of about 60 per
cent 2–Yes, that is comparing the existing maxi-
mum in the 1847 Act, with the Provisional Order
as it now stands.
Chairman (to Mr. Bidder).] Do you want to
ask this witness anything?
Mr. Bidder.] No, your Grace, I do not think
I want to ask him anything more.
Lord Belper.
5907. What is about the average weight of
your consignments 2—I should say nearly eight
tons, my Lord.
5908. You do not often send small consign-
ments, do you ?–No; and when we did, as a rule
the small consignments would become less by
being taken as a full truck load than it would if
it wº taken at the Clearing House Classifica-
tion S. -
Mr. Dickson.
5909. Do I understand you to say that the
actual rate that you are charged for lime in bulk
to Coalbrookdale, a distance of 55 miles, is
4 s. 2 d. 2–Yes.
5910. Is that in owner's waggons or company's
Waggons 3–That is in owner's waggons, I can
give you the charge in company's waggons if you
like. The corresponding charge in company’s
waggons would be 5 s 4 d.
Mr. Bidder.] That is our case, your Grace.
[The following tables are handed in:—]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
715
4 June 1891.]
Mr. HARDING.
[Continued.
Tables referred to.
(A.)
GREAT WIESTERN RAILWAY. PROVISIONAL ORDER.
LIAS LIME.
TRAFFIC IN OWNERS’ WAGGONS.
—-
Comparison of the Present Actual Rate less the proposed Maximum for Station Terminals,
with
The Maximum Rate for Conveyance applicable to Class A. under the Provisional Order.
BETweeN STATION AND STATION.

PRESENT ACTUAL RATE.
Provisional
Rate now in * {{Paw,
Lime in Four-ton Loads. Force for Less the Difference, Order,
M Lime proposed being the Class A. ;
Miles. Leamington generally - ºr. 11; e *===sº
§ including' Maximum Equivalent | Maximum
to Lias * tº to Rate for
wheth er in for Station Rate for
Bulk or Terminals. ate fol Conveyance.
6. O. h. p. Conveyance.
2T -* > TS-
S. d. s. d. s d. s. d.
1 5 Stratford - gº º tº º * > 1 10 – 6 1 4 I 2
20 | Banbury - tº tº tº tººk 2 2 – 6 I 8 1 6
24 Birmingham & ſº tº º 2 – 6 2 — 1 9
31 | Heyford - tº . º. * * * 2 9 – 6 2 3 2 3
35 | Bletchington tº tº * º 3 1 – 6 2 7 $2 G
43 | Oxford - tº * * * tº 3 S – 6 3 2 3 1
46 Chipping Norton - º tº tº 3 5 – 6 2 I l 3 4
55 | Coalbrookdale - tº tºº º 4 2 gº 3 8 3 7
60 || Much Wenlock - - º tº 4 4 – 6 3 10 3 9
($6 Uffington - tº tº º º * > 4 8 – 6 4 2 4 2
70 | West Wycombe - wº tº º º 4 l () – 6 4 4 4 5
75 | Twyford - * > cº * * à 2 – 6 4 8 4 9
79 Henley tº-e gº º gº & º 5 2 – 6 4 8 5 —
87 Slough {- º tºº {- * * 5 6 – 6 .5 — 5 6
91 | Kentbury - tº * sº º 5 2 – 6 4 8 5 9
* * * Increase per
95 || 3 range Court - gº gº sº 5 2 – 6 4 8 6 — cent. of the
- - correspond-
102 | Box - ſº gºs gº tº * = 6 3 — 6 5 9 6 3 ing charges
for convey-
8,1] Cé.
per cent.
ToTAL 17 Rates - tº 69 10 61 4 64 9 5' 57
(81.) 4 X 2
71.6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE"JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.] Mr. HARDING. [Continued.
(A.)—continued.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER.
LIAS LIME IN BULK. TRAFFIC IN OWNER'S WAGGONS,
Comparison of the present Actual Rate, less the proposed Maximum for Station Terminals,
with
The Marimum Rate for Conveyance applicable to Class B., under the Provisional Order.
BETWEEN STATION TO STATION.

PRESENT ACTUAL RATE.
Provisional
Lime in Four-ton Loads. c Order
Rate as now Less Difference, Maximum
Miles. Leamington, Great Western, appli cable to tºº." *...* º: Rate for *-
Lime 8XIIIlliuſ) quivalent Conveyance
to enerally for of for
in i. din iias Station Rate for Class B.
g "| Terminals. Conveyance.
— `- -
S d s, d. S s. d
15 Stratford - tº- tº-e º - 1 10 ! — – 10 1 7
20 | Banbury - º - - tº- 2 2 1 — 1 2 2 I
24 Birmingham -> º º - 2 6 1 — 1 6 2 4
31 | Heyford - º -- gº - 2 9 1 — 1 9 3 —
35 | Bletchington tº- tº-e * * -e 3 1 I -- 2 1 3 5
43 || Oxford º - - º — 3 8 1 — 2 8 4 2
46 | Chipping Norton - - º - 3 5 l — 2 5 4 5
55 | Coalbrookdale - - º - 4 2 1 — 3 2 4 10
60 || Much Wenlock - - º - 4 4 I — 3 4 5 --
66 Uffington - -> - º - 4 8 1 — 3 8 5 6
70 West Wycombe - º tºe - 4 10 1 — 3 l O 5 | 0
75 Twyford - - tº sº tº- 5 2 1 — 4 2 6 3
79 | Henley º - º & * 5 2 1 — 4 2 6 7
87 | Slough º - - tºº - 5 6 1 — 4 6 7 3
91 Kentbury - - - - - 5 §2 1 — 4 2 7 7 || Increase per
f cent. of the
95 || Grange Court tº- º º - 5 2 1 — 4 2 7 I l correspond-
ing charges
102 | Box - - - - º - 6 3 1 — 5 3 8 4 for convey-
a. Il CéS.
Per cent.
ToTAL, 17 Rates - - - 69 10 52 10 86 1 62. 93.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 717
4 June 1891.] - Mr. HARDING. [Continued.
-sº
(A.)—continued.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY PROVISIONAL ORDER.
LIAS LIME (.e.o.h.p.). TRAFFIC IN OWNER'S WAGGONS.
Comparison of the Preseut Actual Rate, less the proposed Maximum for Station Terminals,
with * •
The Maazimum Rate for Conveyance applicable to Class C. under the Provisional Order.
BETWEEN STATION AND STATION.
\

- PRESENT ACTUAL RATE. Provisional
* Order
Lime in Four-ton Loads. * . e
Rate as now Less Difference, *
MILES. Leamington, Great Western, applicable to the proposed being the C O &lte IOl sº
-- Lime Maximum | Equivalent ë. ey *
to generally, for to \, * •3
including Lias Station Rate for W *H
(.o.h.p.). | Terminals. Conveyance. "*889" ".
s. d. 3. d. s, d. s. d.
1 5 | Stratford - º tº ſº sº 1 10 2 — — 2 2 : —
20 | Banbury - tº * * sº tº 2 2 2 — — 2 2 9
24 || Birmingham tº tº ºs se wº 2 6 2 — – 6 3 2
31 Heyford tº tº § - * > - 2 9 2 — – 9 3 11
35 | Bletchington tºº * } cº - || - 3 I 2 — 1 I 4 6
48 Oxford - - - - - 3 8 2 — 1 8 5 8
46 Chipping Norton “º tº . tºº 3 5 2 - 1 5 6 1
55 | Coalbrookdale - tº tº tº º 4 2 2 - 2 2 6 4
60 | Much Wenlock- - tº wº º 4 4 2 — 2 4 6 6
66 Uffington - tº º ise * > 4 8 2 — 2 8 7 3
70 | West Wycombe - tº {º sº 4 10 2 - 2 10 7 9
75 | Twyford - - - - - 5 2 2 -- 3 2 8 4
79 | Henley tº dº tº - - 5 2 2 — 3 2 8 7
87 | Slough tº & sº gº tºº gº 5 6 2 — 3 6 9 7
Increase per
91 || Kintbury - tº º & 5 2 2 - 3 2 10 — cent. of the
- correspond-
95 || Grange Court - - - - 5 2 2 — 3 2 10 6 ing charges
- for convey-
102 | Box - tºº tº º tº gº - 6 3 2 — 4 3 1 1 1 8. In Ce.
--------- we Per Cent.
ToTAL 17 Rates, - º 69 10 35 10 I 14 — 2.18° 14
(22.) 4 X 3
718 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
-ms
4 June 1891.] Mr. HARDING. [Continued.
sº---
(B.)
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY.
LIME, COMPANY'S WAGGONS.
COMPARIson of the Existing Maximum Charge (1847 Act) with the Provisional Order Maximum
Rate for Conveyance and Charge for Waggons (A. and B. Classes only), where such Charge is not
included in the Rate for Conveyance.


tº a 6. Provisional Order Rate for Conveyance.
The Existing
Maximum
* ſº Class A. Class B.
Miles. Between Harbury and * Waggon charge added. Waggon charge added. Class C.
Lime and
Limestone.
e Rate. °/o Rute. °/o Rate. °/o
S S. d s. d. s. d
6 Leamington - tº tº- gº – 7 – 9 – 11 — ll
8 Warwick - * = sº º gº – 9 – 11 1 1 I 3
10 Cropredy * = º tº gº I - 1 — 1 4 | 6
12 Halton - tº & tº tº I 2 1 2 I 6 1 10
14 | Banbury - - - - 1 4 1 4 1 9 2 2
16 Kingswood º gº gº tº 1 6 1 6 I 11 2 5
18 King's Sutton - Q = 4- tº- 1 9 | 8 2 2 2 9
20 Aynho - gº º gº tº- 1 II 1 9 2 4 3 -
30 Birmingham - * gº º 2 10 2 8 3 5 4 3
36 Oxford - gºs º * -º * 3 5 3 1 4 - 5 2
44 || Wolverhampton - - - 4 2 3 8 4 9 6 3
64 || Reading - - - - - 4 9 4 9 6 1 7. 9
71 , | Swindom - s * {º tº 5 3 5 3 6 8 8 7
88 Chippenham - tºº tº * 6 5 6 6 8 4 16) 8
93 Castle Hill º gº tº º 6 10 6 10 8 9 II 3
99 Paddington - tºº * --> tºº 7 3 7 3 9 3 12 –
Decrease Increase - Increase
Total, 16 Rates - º 50 11 50 I 1.49°ſ. G4 3 2605°), 81 9 60.5°/2
NoTE I.—In the event of the Waggon Charge being fixed as first given in the Board of Trade's Report, the Rates in Classes A.
and B. would be further increased.
No1 E II.-The Terminals which the Company are authorised to Charge in addition to the above, increases their power still
further, especially when it is borne in mind that under the 1846 (Agreement) Act, they had no powe: to charge Station Terminals
nor even Coverings.
LIME (INCLUDING LIAS) IN OWNER'S WAGGONS,
COMPARISON of the EXISTING MAXIMUM CHARGE (1847 ACT) with the RATE FOR CONVEYANCE under the PRovisionAL ORDER
for CLASSES A., B., and C. The reduction for Waggons from the Existing Charge is shown on four different bases, viz., as follows:–
C.
GREAT WIESTERN RAILWAY.
Column (1.) Less The Statutory Toll of 4 d. (one farthing) per ton per mile.
Column (2.) Less The same pro ratá (i.e., as the aggregate of the three separate Tolls, &c. is to maximum).
Column (3.) Less The Actual Difference now made by the Company between the Owner's and Company's Waggon Rate.
Column (4.) Less The charge under the Provisional Order—also (in total) that proposed by Board of Trade.
In the Margin are also shown THE ACTUAL RATES in OWNER's and COMPANY’s WAGGONs,
Mile) of these Rates, inclusive and exclusive Terminals, as under the Provisional Order, with the Rate for Conveyance of Classes A., B., and C.
Greeves, Bull, and Lakin.--Petitioners.
with an Average Comparison (per Ton per
|
The Existing Maximum Charge for Lime and Limestone,
less Charge for Waggons as hereunder.
The Provisional Order charge Rate for Conveyance only.
Distance (1.) (2.) (3.) (4) Class A. Class B. Class C.
Lime generally, including • Between Harbury, Great Western The Actual The Charges Limestone. Lime in Bulk. Lias Lime, e.o.h.p.
Lias (e.O.h.p.) in four- 1Il The Statutory | The pro rată | Difference now in the -
ton loads. - (Southern Road), and Toll Of of the 4 d., made by the Provisional
Miles oue Farthing Viz., as the Company as Order, and Per-centage -
Per Ton Aggregate is per Rates also as in Rate Of Rate Per-centage Rate Per-centage
Owner's Company’s Per Mile. to the shown in the Board of \ºil. UWO, s Incraese - of Increase. Cº. ºº e of Increase.
Waggons. Waggons. Maximum. margin. Trade Report. Or Decrease.
º – “- Tº-J
S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d.
1 — 1 6 6 Leamington - - - - - – 6 – 6 – 1 — 4 – 6 – 8 – 8
I 2 I 8 8 Warwick - - - - - – 7 – 8 — 3 – 6 – 8 – 10 1 —
1 4 1 10 10 Cropredy - - - - - – 9 – 10 – 6 – 9 – 9 1 1 1 3
| 6 2 — 12 Hatton * * - - - – 11 1 — – 5 – 11 – 11 1 3 1 7
1 8 2 2 14 Banbury - * * - - 1 1 . 1 2 – 10 1 1 1 1 1 6 I 11
1 10 2 4 16 Kingswood - - - - - 1 2 1 4 1 — 1 3 1 3 1 S 2 2
2 — 2 6 18 King's Sutton - - - - 1 4 I 6 I 3 1 6 I 5 1 11 2 6
2 2 2 8 20 Aynho - - - - - 1 6 1 8 I 5 1 8 1 6 2 1 2 9
2 8 3 4 30 Birmingham - - º - - 2 3 2 5 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 11 3 9
- 3 2 3 11 36 Oxford - - - - - 2 8 2 11 2 8 2 11 2 7 3 6 4 8
3 9 4 8 44 Wolverhampton w- - * - 3 3 3 7 3 3 3 8 3 2 4 3 5 9
4 6 5 9 64 Reading - - - - - 3 8 4 1 3 6 4 – 4 – 5 4 7 –
4 11 6 2 71 Swindon - - - - - 3 9 4 6 4 — 4 6 4 6 5 11 7 10
5 6 6 9 88 Chippenham - - - - - 4 7 5 7 5 2 5 5 5 6 7 4 9 8
5 10 7 1 93 Castle Hill - - - - - 4 11 5 10 5 7 5 10 5 10 7 9 10 3
5 — 5 10 99 Paddington - - - - - 5 2 6 3 6 5 6 3 6 3 8 3 ll —
Aggregate
Total - 48 – 60 2 Mileage, Total, 16 Rates - - 38 1 43 10 38 9 42 11 42 1 56 3 73 9
- 629
Average per Tom per Mile, in- Ditto if Board of Trade's Report is taken as fixing the charge for waggons,
clusive of all Terminals now deduct from Column (4) and C., respectively, 28. 6 d. - * - - * 40 5 42 1. 56 3 71 3
charged— e -
d. d. Comparison with Pro-
•91 1-15 visional Order.
The Actual Rates charged
since 1877.*
Excluding Terminals, i.e., de-
ducting the Terminals as under
Provisional Order Classes A., B.,
and C.—
s, d. d.
As A. 40 - O.W. •76
B. 32 – •61
C. 16 — •31
IPer Ton Per Mile.
d.
S. d.
42 1 = 80
56 3 = 1°07
* NOTE.-Previous to 1877 the Rates were for Six-ton Loads and were practically the Existing Maximum for Company's Waggons, and the same, lessthe Statutory Toll of 3 d. for OWner's Waggons.
Difference between Column (4) and A., B., and C.
Shows a percentage of Increase : Provisional Order
d. d. d.
- Tecrease l'94 Increase 31-07 Increase 71-84
Shows a percer tage of Increase : Board of Trade Report, Increase 4:13 Increase 39°18 . Increase 76.29
:



g
ºf
720
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BIEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is recalled; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
5911. YoU have a good deal of this lias lime
traffic, I think, carried on your line, have you
not?—Yes.
5912. And the works of Messrs. Greaves,
Bull, and Lakin are upon your line 7–Yes, they
have two works situated upon the Great Western,
on our main line practically at Harbury, to which,
as the last witness said, the powers of the Act of
1847 would apply, and they have on upon the
Statford-upon-Avon line at Wilmcote, where the
powers are considerably higher.
5913. First, with regard to the present practice,
the Clearing House List shows us that lias lime
in bulk is classified M(B.)?—Yes, that is so.
5914. What is your practice with reference to
the quotation of rates?--In quoting rates for the
conveyance of lime to Messrs. Greaves, we in-
variably give them two rates, one rate being for
their own waggons and the other being for Com-
pany’s waggons. I may say that they are the
only traders upon the Great Western Railway
who supply waggons for the conveyance of lime,
and they do it as a part of a bargain with the
company in respect of other matters.
5915. Your quote, you say, two rates, one of
which is owner's waggons and the other com-
pany's waggons!—Yes.
5916. Take the owners' waggon rate; is it on
a level with Class A. rates, Mineral A. P-Of
course it would exceed Mineral A., but would be
less than Mineral B. -
5917. Do you agree with the principle that the
lias line in bulk should follow the limestone 2–
No.
5918. And is it properly elassified with articles
in Class A. 2–I should distinctly think that it
would not be a fair or reasonable classification.
We brought limestone down from Class B. to
Class A. under great pressure from the iron-
masters and limestone quarry-owners and others,
but we certainly did not expect that the manufac-
tured article of lime would be expected to follow.
5919. And the ground upon which you com-
ceded that limestone should go down was what ?
—That it was an unmanufactured material ; that
its value was very small, that it travelled practi.
cally in regular and large quantities; I think those
were the reasons.
5920. And, also, I suppose, that it was required
in the iron manufacture, which is a great source of
traffic 2–Yes, that would be one element, no
doubt.
5921. Have you compared the actual rates you
are charging with what you would be entitled to,
supposing the limestone were put into Class A. "
—Yes, we have made an estimated calculation.
5922. What is the result 2—That in a number
of cases the actual rates now charged would be
cut down. f
5923. In other cases they would not be, I
suppose?–In other cases they would not be.
3924. Now just explain how the matter stands
with reference to lias lime in bags or casks. In
the first place, I should like to ask you this.
Something was said about chalk lime in bags or
Mr. Bidder—continued.
in casks; are you familiar with chalk lime being
carried in bags or casks P - No, I am not. I am
not acquainted with the practice in reference to
the grey chalk lime spoken of, from the Medway
or the Thames, but speaking of what I do know
of the practice on the Great Western Railway,
I say it is very seldom indeed that we carry lime
of that description packed.
5925, As a matter of fact we know that the
Clearing House Classification puts lias lime in
bags or casks into a special class"–That is so.
5926. Which do you consider it ought to be,
in the higher class as distinguished from lime in
bulk 2–I find some difficulty in answering that
in the face of what the two Messrs. Lakin
have said, but I do know this, that Great
Western Company are very large purchasers
and users of lias lime, and we have always been
told that it is much better than any other kind
of lime and we have been told so by those gentle-
men or their representatives.
5927. You are speaking generally of lias lime
as compared with the chalk lime !—Yes.
5928. But more particularly I ask you with
reference to the lime in bags or casks ; do you
conceive that is a more highly manufactured or
finished article than the lime in bulk 2–Yes,
clearly ; it has undergone another process ; it
has been carefully ground.
5929. And I suppose there would be a certain
amount of an element of damageability that there
is not about lime in bulk, namely, the possible
staving in of the cask, or something of that sort”
Yes, there would be ; that would also come
into calculation. º
Lord Belper.
5930. With regard to that lime, is it the fact
that you charge the same rates for all dif-
ferent qualities and sorts of limestone and lime
now 7–No, that is not the case. Where we
quote rates for limestone from places from which
it is carried in large quantities for ironworks, we
invariably give a lower rate for the limestone.
than we should give for the manufactured article,
the lime.
5931. Why I ask you the question is because
a former witness said that it was the universal
practice all over England, not only with lime-
stone, but lime and lime in bags, which are
carried at the same rate 2–I have not the exact
figure here, but from places like Minera, in
Wales, that supplies the South Staffordshire dis-
trict locally, and from Porthywaen, and other
points where the iron works are supplied from,
we do give lower rates for limestone.
5932. But, as far as regards the two gentle-
men we have had before us, you give them the
same rate for all their different qualities of lime
in bulk and lime in bags 2—This is entirely a
local grievance; and I may say that, as you have
seen, the objection stands alone, and that firm is
the only firm that find their own waggons. We
have not charged them a different rate for the
ground lime in bags to the rate we have charged
them for any lime they may have sent in bulk;
but,
()N RAILW A Y
O R D E R B II, LS,
RATES AND CHARG U.S PROVISIONAL
721
4 June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
—-ºsmº
ſ Continued.
$ms
Lord Belper—-continued.
but, apart from this particular firm, the custom
is to charge something higher for the ground
lime than for the bulk lime.
5933. That is to say, you follow more or
less the Clearing House Classification ?—Yes,
that is so. -
5934, Still, that makes some difference?—
Yes; we make some difference.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wills.
5935. I do not understand you to dispute the
statement that Messrs. Lakin have made in re-
ference to the price of lias lime in bags, as com-
posed with lias lime in bulk 2–No ; I have no
knowledge of the subject, and I have not made a
comparison. -
5936. And you never quote different rates for
the carriage of any of the different kinds of lime
as opposed to limestone, do you ?--No, we do
In Ot.
5937. And in regard to limestone, you have
not done so as towards my clients, nor do you
do so generally 2–If your clients were sending
large quantities of limestone off, we should cer-
tainly be prepared to deal with the matter when
the rate was fixed, and to take that element into
consideration. -
5938. But you do carry limestone to a great
many parts, do you not, at the same rate as you
carry lime 2—No ; I have already said that in
the case of all the large places from which lime-
stone is sent in considerable quantities, we are
quite prepared to give them rates that are lower
than lime rates, and we do it in practice.
5939. Are there not many places from which
you carry lime and limestone at the same rates ?
—No ; because limestone is only sent from com-
paratively few places.
5940. I only want to have the fact 2–No, I
do not think so.
5941. But in the case of persons situated in
the same way as Messrs. Greaves, you are in the
habit of doing so, are you not 2–It is not
customary for limestone to be sent away in large
quantities from persons situated as your clients
are. I may mention that at the Board of Trade
Inquiry, when the question of lime and limestone
was dealt with, amongst other witnesses, Sir
Alfred Hickman quite agreed that it was a
reasonable thing that lime should be in a different
class to limestone.
5942. It depends, I understand, rather upon
the ‘ſuantity than anything else ?–Yes, and the
fact that the one is the rough, unmanufactured
article, and that the other is the manufactured
article.
5943. You have stated that lime which is
ground and put into bags has undergone another
process. You have heard the difference in price,
2 s. 6 d., between that and lias lime ; have you
instituted any comparisons between that differ-
ence in value and the difference in the rates in
conveyance terminals, and so forth, which is
affected by putting one into Class B. and the
other into Class C. ; is it not the fact that the
rates in Class C. are in some respects very much
higher than that, in proportion, over Class B. 2–
The answer to that question is that you are speak-
ing in the interest of one lime branch only, and we
have to deal with the traffic of the whole country.
Mr. Iſ ills—continued.
We have been told of large quantities and weights
that are sent out by your clients. Those go to
points from which the traffic is aſterwards distri-
buted, and we have to carry in less quantities,
instead of getting five or six or eight tons we
have to carry no quantities of two tons and in
less quantities even than that ; and the proposal
to put the traffic into Class C. is in my opinion a
reasonable one.
5944. Supposing you do carry in quantities
under two tons in B., that has the effect of raising
it into Class C ; is not that so 2 – For two tons,
yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
5945. And four tons, too, is it not ?– Yes.
Mr. PVºlls.
5946. Yes, it is four tons. (To the Witness.)
You speak of this being a local grievance because
we carry in our own waggons, but you know that
the Board of Trade have found that that is the
general practice throughont the whole country,
do you not ?-- No I have never heard such a
thing before.
Chairman.] Do you mean in this district, be-
cause the witness has told us exactly the oppo-
Slte.
Mr. Hambury.
5947. What is the practice on your line with
reference to lime in bulk, is it carried in owner's
or company’s waggons?—There is only one case
in which it is carried in owner's waggons, and that
is the case of Messrs. Greaves, who are before
you.
Mr. Wills.
5948. Are you speaking of this section of your
line or of the whole of your line 2–I am speak-
ing of the whole of the Great Western line.
5949. Now, you say that you have calculated
the effect of the Provisional Order upon your
actual rules; will you take an instance, please,
and show me how you work that out; for instance,
from Harbury to Birmingham is 30 miles. I
want you to tell me how you make out that the
actual rate will be decreased by the Provisional
Order in Class A.; what do you say is the
actual rate for 30 miles 2—I am compelled to
make my comparison from the figure you have
given, because we have not got our rate-books
here, but there are many millions of rates.
5950. May I take it that the first column in
that paper that you are looking at does represent
accurately the actual rates ? Yes; I will take
that from you.
5951. And that the last column represents
those of the Provisional Order ?–Yes.
5952, Can you tell me how much you reckon
to deduct out of the actual rates for terminal
charges; is it more than 6 d. or less 2- There
would be no necessity to make any deduction.
5953. Do you make no terminal charges at
all ?—Yes, we do ; but it is included in the gross
actual rate that is given. The traffic is entirely
local to the Great Western Railway.
5955. Take, for instance, the sixpence upon
that table. Oxford 43 miles, 3 s. 8 d., is your
actual rate 2–I am trying to understand your
table and I really cannot.
5956. Take Oxford No. 6, 43 miles, actual
(81.)
4 Y rate
722
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
**—
4 June 189].]
Mr. Wills—continued.
rate 3 s. 8 d. ; that includes terminal charges and
everything else, does it not ?—Yes.
5956. Now, under the Provisional Order you
see in the last column there is 3 s. 1 d. 2–Yes.
5957. And besides that you would be entitled
to charge 6 d. for terminal charges 2–In what
class P In Class A.
5958. In Class A. do you make any difference
between stations and sidings in calculating your
charges 2–It is proposed that we should do so.
5959. But do you actually do so at present —
I have explained that we should not take the
terminal element into consideration in making a
rate at present. As a matter of fact this would
include something for the accommodation both at
Leamington and at Oxford if any traffic passed ;
but your clients would never send traffic from
Leamington to Oxford.
5960. Then your first column does include any
terminal service that may be required 2–Yes.
5961. If you add the companies, 3 s. 1 d., the
maximum terminal charge you are entitled to
make them is 6 d., that would be 3 s. 7d., only a
difference of a penny ?–A penny less instead of
giving us a reasenable margin of profits,
5962. If you take any of the figures down
below you will find that there is no decrease at
all. Take Uffiington, for instance 2—I do not
agree with you at all.
5963. Take Kentbury. You show that the
present rate is 5s. 2 d., or 5 s. 9 d. under the
Provisional Order ?– Will you take Henley,
where you show that the present rate is 5 s. 2d.
The Provisional Order would give us 5s.
5964. Add to the 5 s. your terminal charge in
order to ascertain the true maximum that you
are entitled to make for all purposes, and that is
5 s. 6 d. , that is an increase of 4 d. ; is not that
so 1-Yes, it would be so in this particular
Cál Se. -
5965. Now, that practically comes to the same
effect as the way in which the table has been
drawn, does it mot ?—We are getting very wide
of classification now,
5966. The general result is this, is it not, that
in the case of the first three places on that list,
Stratford, Banbury, and Birmingham, there is a
very slight diminution; and then there are several
where it is equal, and the rest of them are
higher, so that you get an increase upon the
whole "—No, that is not so. Take West
Wycombe, you show a present rate of 5 s. 10 d. and
proposed powers 4 s. 5d., or take the case before
that
5967. Put it in your own way; 4 s. 10 d. is
your actual charge 2–Yes.
5968. And 4 s. 5 d. is the Provisional Order
maximum ?—Yes.
5969. Add to that the maximum for terminal,
that is 4 s. 11 d., that is a rise of 1 d.
Mr. Bidder.] That is assuming that there are
two station terminals, and that it is not siding
traffic.
Mr. Hºlls.
5970. But then, you, as a matter of fact,
make no difierence in that respect, do you ?—
No, as a matter of fact there is no lime traffic
from Leamington to West Wycombe. Take the
case in front of that, Uffington; present rate,
4 s, 8 d. ; proposed power, 4 s. 2 d.
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
_*
Mr. Wills—continued.
5971. Now, as a matter of fact, lime and lime-
stone have always been together before, have
they not, without any Acts, and in the Clearing
House Classification ?–In most of the Acts, yes;
not in all.
5972. But in most of them 2–Yes.
5973. And lime has also been in the lowest
class, and is in the lowest class in the majority
of the Acts, is not that so, with coal and coke *
—I do not like to answer that without looking,
but I will take it from you.
5974. Were you present at the inquiry before
the Committee in the month of April last, and
did you hear Mr. Lambert examined ? —
Yes..
He was asked at Question 35, “First of alſ,
So far as your company is concerned, it is your
general practice not to provide waggons for lime,
either lias or chalk in bulk ; ” and he replied
“That is our general practice, there are excep-
tions by agreement.” This is the exception.
5976. But he was asked, “Is it not your
general practice not to provide waggons for lime,
either lias or chalk in bulk.” And he said,
“That is our general practice, there are excep-
tions by agreement " ?—Yes.
5977. You, I understand, do not agree with
that ?–No, that is what I have said. Saving
this : that I limit the exception to one case,
making it singular instead of plural.
Re-examined by Mr. Bidder.
5978. As a matter of fact, you say these
gentlemen are the only case in which you do not
provide waggons —To the best of my knowledge
that is so. I would only add to that that there are
two or three cases where people sending general
limestone may send a considerable consignment of
lime, and perhaps in that case they would use
their waggons, but that is very seldom.
5979. As regards this question of treating the
lias lime in sacks and casks in a higher class they
are the only people on your system who object to
it 2–Yes, it is the only objection that we have
seen or heard of. -
5980. And you are not bound to treat them at
the same rate now 2–No.
5981. But you voluntarily do give them in
their waggons the same rate both for lime in
bulk and lime in casks 2–Yes.
5982. And therefore they ought to be the last
people to fear to be injured by the classification ?
—I think that is a very fair assumption.
5983. I suppose in their case the same reasons
that would induce you to give them that accom-
modation in rates that you do now would operate
in the future ?—That is so.
Mr. Hunter.
5984. You are speaking, of course, only for
your own railway ?—This is a local matter and 1
am speaking for my own railway.
5985. Are you not aware that in almost all
the railways, without exception, in Scotland and
Ireland, the lime is always in the lowest class,
and always in a class lower than coal?—No ; in
their Acts of Parliament I was not aware that
was the case.
5986. Are you not aware that on the ground
of public policy it is required that it should be
put in the lowest class 2—I think not, Sir.
The Witness is directed to withdraw
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OF DER BILLS.
723
4 June 1891.
[Continued.
MR. JABEZ LIGHT, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Bidder.
5987. YoU carry a good deal of lime by the
South Eastern Railway, do you not ?–Yes, we
have several works upon our line.
5988. As far as your line is concerned, have
you anybody on the course of the line who
objects to the proposed classification ?–I am not
aware of any objection either to the proposed
classification or to the rates.
5989. Do you think it reasonable that lime in
bulk should be put down into the A. class with
the unmanufactured limestone 2–No, I agree
with the previous witness that the articles in the
A. class do not in any way agree with lime, so far
as the character of it is concerned. One is the
raw article, and the other is, to a certain extent, a
manufactured article.
5990. Do I understand that all the traders on
your line are satisfied with the proposed arange-
ments, and that you have heard of no objection
whatever ?—None whatever.
5991. I do not know whether you can say the
same of your own knowledge with reference to
other companies, for instance, the London, Brigh-
ton, and South Coast, and the London, Chatham,
and Dover, that there is no objection on their
systems to the classification?—Not that I am
aware of. -
5992. Have you compared the effect of putting
lime into Class A. with your present powers ?—
The tolls proposed for Class A. would be very
much lower than our present maximum tolls ;
and what is more, the adoption of tolls in Class
A. would mean a very serious loss upon our
present revenue as compared with the actual
rates.
5993. What do you say your maximum is at
the present time for lime !—From 2; d. to 1; d.,
where they are specially mentioned, but for 186
miles they are not mentioned. It is what the
company shall consider fair.
Mr. Hunter.
5994. Look at the 8th and 9th Victoria,
Chapter 157, which governs about 171 miles of
your railway. I find lime, chalk, and limestone
put down at l; d. per ton P-That is only for
tolls; that does not include locomotive or truck.
5995. I understand that to include the loco-
motive as well ?—No.
Mr. Bidder.] What Act is it, Sir 2
Mr. Hunter.] The 8th and 9th Victoria, cap.
157; the Tunbridge Wells Act.
Witness.] } have not the Act before me.
Mr. Hunter.] But that governs 81 miles of
your system.
Witness.] The Tunbridge Wells Act only
controls the distance between Tonbridge and
Tunbridge Wells, and Tunbridge Wells and
Hastings.
Mr. Hunter.] Does that cover 81 miles?
Witness.] No, it is about 37 miles.
Mr. Bidder.] There appear to be some other
Acts of the same character if you look at the
Blue Book.
Witness.] There are some other Acts to which
the same toll would be applicable if that is the
Cast.
Mr. Hunter.] Yes.
Płºtness.] Then the same tolls are applicable
to the Deal Branch, North Kent, Croydon, and
Oxted, Grove Park, and Bromley ; the 2 d. ap-
plies to the Western Valley, the Hundred of
Hoo, Wickham and Hayes, Elham Valley, and
others ; and then in other cases we have a mini-
mum charge over short distances, as the Mid
Rent, Lewisham, and Beckenham, of 10 d. per
ton, and over the Charing Cross Line 1 s.
Mr. Hunter.
5996. But in the same Act which gives you
1 s. 1; d. for lime and limestone it gives you 2 d.
from Kent for coal and coke, does it mot ?–In
some cases it does. - -
5997. Take your original Act, the 6th of
William IV., chaper 75.-Unfortunately I have
no copy with me.
5998. The tolls for the use of the railway are
1 d. per ton per mile for lime and limestone and
l; d. per ton per mile for coals and coke 2–Yes.
5999. So that whatever objection you have to
putting lime in Class A, there is a still stronger
objection to putting coal and coke into that class 2
—But still, that only applies to certain sections;
take, for instance, where the l ; d. applies to lime
it also applies to coal.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, it is 1; d. and 2 d.
Limestone always comes in under the heading of
dung, compost, manure, and so on, and coals is the
next One.
Mr. Bidder.] It is not so in all cases, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown] I have looked at half-a-
dozen cases, and in all those cases it is.
Mr. Bidder.] No doubt in a great number of
these Acts lime comes under the same category.
Earl of Camperdown.] In a very considerable
number of Acts.
Mr. Hunter.
6000. I put it to you that your grievance
is a grievance of rates and not of classifica-
tion ? – Our grievance is this, that by the
proposed alteration it would make a reduction in
our receipts.
6001. It may be that those rates may be too
low for you, having regard to your railway; but
your grievance is a grievance of rates and not
of classification ?—I think upon the question of
classification it would be exceptionally unfair,
looking at the character of the articles, to put
lime among such articles as are in the A. Class.
I am afraid that the present Acts have rather put
a few anomalous things together.
Mr. Bidder.] I think I might point out that
we have entirely gone away from the classifica-
tion, because you find hoop-iron classified with
coal, for instance.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is perfectly true, but
the argument, whatever it may be worth, is this :
that so far as rates are concerned, Parliament
(81.)
4 Y 2 has
724
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFoRE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
4 June 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT. }
[Continued.
has recognised the fact that lime ought to be
carried, certainly as low, and in many cases lower
than coal. That is the whole position.
Mr. Hunter.
6002, With regard to Scotland, it is equally
true of the old and new Acts of the Caledonian
Company and all the other companies. (To the
Witness.) Have you anything to say with regard
to the contention that was made by a former
witness, that lime stands in much the same
relation to limestone as coke does to coal —No.
6003. You do not give any opinion upon that?
—No.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wills.
6004. You say that the reduction of lias lime
in bulk to Class A. would result in a great loss
to your company ?–Yes.
6005. Have you made any calculation or have
you prepared a table that will show that?—It
does not require very much calculation. Take
for instance the toll which is proposed for lime
and limestone, which is 1:50 d. *
6006. Are you taking the actuals?—The
rates proposed in the Board of Trade Order,
six miles would be 9 d. Assuming that this
came from a siding, we should get another
3 d., that would be 1 S. in future. The
rates given for the A-classed goods under the
|Board of Trade original order would be upon
the South Eastern Company’s country stations,
not metropolitan, l'50 d. If you take that for
six miles that is 9 d. with our terminal, because
the lime works upon the sidings would be
ls., our present charge being 1 s. 8d., and a
charge uncomplained of, and you can extend that
to almost every works we have. \
6007. How does the ls. 8 d. compare with
your maximum power in that case ?--I should
consider within the powers that it is a question
of terminal, of course.
6008. Do you know what your maximum
power is 2–In some cases 24 d., in others 2 d.,
and in others l; d. ; the lowest being 1; d.
6009. In regard to many places, on the other
hand you would get an increase under the Pro-
visional Order P- In long distances it would be
in our favour, but theni you see we do not carry
lime long distances, for this reason, that of course
the moment we get out of, say, 10 or 15 miles
we get into another lime burning district.
6010. Have you made any calculation based
upon that footing 2–I know, as a matter of fact,
that we cannot get long distance traffic in lime.
6011. Have you made any calculation of the
total amount of loss which you allege you would
sustain 2–No; I have not had an opportunity.
It would necessitate my taking out the whole of
the returns at each lime station.
6012. Do you carry any lias lime upon your
line at all ?—I believe there is a little passed
to us from the other companies. All our lime is
chalk line,
6013. Supposing the rates in Class A. were
raised so as to prevent loss upon the lime, is there
any reason why lime and limestone should not go
together, assuming that the rates under Class A.
were such that if lime were carried into Class A,
you would not be losers by it. Can you tell me
any reason why lime should not be classed along
Mr. Wills—continued.
with limestone as it has been classed hitherto 2–
If you give me the same rates for all goods traffic
in Class C. -——
Chairman.] You are now going into an argu-
ment. On rates.
Mr. Wills.] I am speaking of rates upon
the assumption that
Chairman.] That is exactly what we do not
want to do.
Mr. Wills.
6014. (To the Witness.) Can you tell me,
quite apart from the question of rates, is there
any reason why lime should not be classed with
limestone 2–I have already said that I do not
think the articles in Class A. are to be compared
in any way with lime itself.
6015. You are not acquainted with the manu-
facture of coke, I understand 7–No.
Re examined by Mr. Bidder.
6016. Looking at the general list of the
articles in Class A. and Class B., do you con-
sider that lime distinctly falls in Class B., and
not in Class A. 7–Certainly.
Mr. Hanbury.
6017. I do not know whether you have stated
already, but if you did I did not hear it, how do
you carry lime in bulk on your line, in owner's
waggons or company’s waggons!—The whole of
the rates are quoted either for owner's waggons
or for company’s waggons.
6018. But in which do you mostly carry it?—
It is mostly carried in company's waggons.
6019. Much the larger proportion is carried
in company’s waggons 2 –Yes, it is a very objec-
tionable traffic, but we have found it necessary
to carry it in company’s waggons if we are to
keep the trade at all.
Lord Houghton.
6020. Do you carry chalk lime in bags 2–
What little we carry in bags is chalk lime,
ground ; but the traffic is very small compara-
tively with us.
6021. Your chalk lime traffic is chiefly in
bulk 2–Yes. -
Mr. Wills,
6022. I forgot to ask one question. Do you
see any reason why lias lime in bags and chalk
lime in bags should be treated differently 7–No,
except as regards the difference in price ; but I
do not see any reason why chalk lime in bags
should not be charged a higher rate, the same as
lias lime is. I do not agree with the Clearing
House Classification in that respect. I consider
that the two should be charged at a higher rate.
6023. Whatever class they should go into,
whenever lime is carried in bags, whether it is
chalk lime or lias lime, it ought to be on the
same footing 2—At the upper class; a class higher
than ordinary lime in bulk.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
725
4 June 1891.
Chairman.] Have you another witness to call,
Mr Bidder P
Mr. Bidder.] No, I do not propose to call any
more evidence.
Chairman.] We should now like to hear what
the Board of Trade have to say, and to know the
reason that induced them to put the limestone in
one class and lias lime in another, and also why
they have treated lime in owner's wagogons in
Class B. differently from the other articles in
owner's waggons where they are in the same
class.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] To take the last
question first, your Grace, some of the evidence
which has been given here to-day, especially by
Mr. Light and Mr. Wilkinson, is in direct con-
tradiction to the information given to us before
as to what was the prevailing custom. The
learned counsel read out what Mr. Lambert said
and pointed out very accurately on that point
that the evidence of the two railway experts did
not agree ; and to that extent I am bound to
admit that the evidence given here to-day that
the prevailing rule with these two companies
(and these two companies meant the Great
Western and the South Eastern), whose wit–
messes said here to-day that they carried lime in
company’s waggons not owner's waggons would,
to some extent modify that one passage in our
report which was presented to Parliament.
With regard to the general basis of the classifi-
cation which we have put in the Provisional
Order we have founded it upon the existing prac-
tice as instanced in the Clearing House Classi-
fication. There are two points which seem to
have attracted the attention of the Committee :
Why limestone has been put into a different class
from lime. Well, the explanation of that is very
simple. In the first place it was done not by us,
but it came to us, if I recollect rightly, as a
matter of agreement between the traders and the
railway companies.
Mr. Bidder.] That is so.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] And if an agree-
ment of that kind has been arrived at it did not
seem to us wise to disturb it. The reasons for
the arrangement given to us were that limestone,
which was put in bulk in Class A., was carried in
large quantities and went for the purpose of
manufacture and smelting iron. A point is
attempted to be made out of that here, and the
question has been asked, do you not at the present
time carry limestone and lime at the same
rate 2 I think the explanation of that
that is quite plain ; that when they are so car-
ried it is limestone in bulk in small quantities
that is carried, but at the lime rate; it is not that
the limestone and lime are grouped together at a
lower rate, but that where limestone is carried in
small quantities it is carried on the same condi-
tions as lime, but at the lime rate not at the
lower limestone rate. A point has been made
again that there is no provision for the carriage
of chalk lime in bags. The reason why we have
not made such provision is very simple, it is not
so classified in the Clearing House Classification,
and we were in all probability not asked to make
a special class for that. If we had been so
asked, we should, I may say with absolute cer-
tainty, have put the chalk lime in bags into the
quantities.
same class as lias lime in bags. Lias lime in
bags is classified just now, and it seems to be so
carried according to the existing practice, and
therefore we continued it. The general principle
upon which we have gone as regards the differ-
ence in Articles in Classes A. and B. is that Class
A. is ſor the roughest, unmanufacturer, undressed
articles, I may say straight from the earth; they
are mostly coal and undressed materials for the
repair of roads, the roughest possible article.
With the sole exception of coke, I think
there is nothing which is in Class A.
which has undergone any process of manufacture;
and we thought that lime, having undergone a
process of manufacture, was more properly classed
in Class B. than in Class A. It is possible of
course that lime may be carried in very small
If it is so carried in small quantities
under four tons, it will of course go up to the
higher class ; but certainly you cannot compare
the quantities in which lime is carried with the
quantities in which these articles, most of them
in Class A., are carried as a rule. Upon the
whole we thought that the existing practice was
a fair one, and at any rate no good reason was
given to us for making a difference. There can,
I think, be no doubt that the value of lime is
very much greater than the value of limestone.
It was stated to us (I think perhaps it may have
been a slight over-statement) during the classi-
fication proceedings upon the 10th April last
year, that the value of lime as compared with
limestone is as ten to one ; I am not quite sure
whether the difference is so great as that, but at
any rate there is a very considerable difference ;
and there can be no doubt whatever that lime in
its burnt state, its manufactured state, is much
moreliable to damage than limestone. I think Ineed
not press upon the Committee the point which has
been made by the railway companies, that, if lime
is put down into Class A., and the rate for Class
A. maintained as it stands, there will be a con-
siderable reduction in the earnings of the com-
panies on that particular article.
Mr. Hunter.] Was your attention called to the
use of lime for manure in Scotland and Ireland?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes; but as
a rule it is not so carried in large quantities.
Mr. Hunter.] But is not that all the more
reason when it is carried in large quantities, that
it should get the benefit of the lowest rate.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] But our point is
that it is not carried in large quantities.
Mr. Hunter.] Then in that case it will do no
harm to put it into Class A.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, I think there
is a mistaken apprehension in the mind of the
honourable Members. Although it may not be
carried in large quantites, large quantities may
be carried; there may be a large number of small
consignment; and although it is not an important
article in the sense of going in large quantities
from point to point, a great deal of it is taken
about the country in the course of the year in
small consignments.
Earl of Camperdown.] But taking these various
articles in Class A., and taking limestone, do I
rightly understand you to say that the lime
trade is not a very large trade in point of volume
and bulk ''
(81.)
4 Y 3 Lord
MINUTES OF Evidence "TAKEN #EFoEE THE JOINT "Cow MITTEF
------------ - - - - - ------- ... ++-----, -º- +--- x *-*- - - ------ * ~ *-* * ----------- **-*-* -- ~~~~ *- --~ *-------- ~~~ *
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No; I said it may
be a large trade in point of bulk, but that the
individual consignments are not large ; they are
mostly in truck loads.
loads.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Yes, they would
be truck loads. But this limestone in bulk,
which goes for smelting iron, goes in very much
larger quantities than truck loads.
Earl of Camperdown.] Quite so; but at the
same time what is important for the railway com-
panies is that articles should be sent in truck
loads, is it not?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That is one point
of importance, no doubt; I do not mean for a
moment, in admitting that, to say there is not a
great difference between articles sent in truck
loads and articles sent in half train or train
loads. w
Earl of Camperdown.] But supposing that an
article is sent in three truck loads at a time, it
does not matter so long as it is in truck loads;
the importance of the traffic and its remunera-
tive nature remain about the same.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] It is obvious, to
this extent, that there is a difference. Supposing
that a train load of limestone is sent from point
to point, it would be taken, at less cost, a train
load of lime, which, although it was a full train load
to start with at the point of origin than had to be
dropped at a dozen different places on the way.
To that extent there is a difference between a
truck load and a train load.
Mr. Hambury.] I did not quite understand the
answer that you gave to the first question. We
assume of course that all the articles put into a
particular class are to be treated alike so far as
regards rates.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Certainly.
Mr. Hanbury.] Then why is it that lime,
when carried in owners' waggons, will pay
exactly the same rates as all the other articles
in Class B., carried in companies' waggons.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Because unlike
the other articles in Class B. the point present
to our minds was that lime was liable to damage
the ironwork of the waggons.
Mr. Hambury.] But it damages the ironwork
of his own waggons, and he is to have no reduc-
tion when it is carried in his own waggons; all
other articles in Class B. are carried in companies’
waggons. Lime is carried in owners' waggons
with no reduction.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] But the rate we
were basing it upon was the owners' waggons rate.
Mr. Hanbury.] You are comparing lime in
owners' waggons with the other articles in Class
Tº º 2 o
B. in companies' waggons, and they are paying
exactly the same rate.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I think not. You
4 June 1891.
Earl of Camperdown.] But they are truck
- -*-*-*-***-–4 – ~ * ~ *------- - ----- **** - --- r -º-
* * *
ception of lime, are earried at a rate which in-
cludes companies' waggons; but lime in Class B.
is carried at that same rate, but they have to
find their own waggons. *
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.j That is correct.
Earl of Camperdown.] They are allowed no
reduction under Sub-section (b) of Clause 2.
Mr. Hanbury.] So that you are giving two
different rates for articles carried under the same
class. - t
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] There is no doub
whatever that that is so, and that the Committee
by a decision which they gave earlier have added
to the number of articles which are in the same
position. - - -
Mr. Hanbury.] But dealing with lime, we are
in this position: that lime in owner's waggons
being in the same class with all other articles in
Class B., will pay higher rates. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Certainly, it is some-
thing more than Class B. ; it is Class B., plus
something. *
Mr. Hunter (co Lord Balfour of Burleigh).
What I want to know is whether you had in
your mind, when you resolved to put lime into
a higher class than coal, the fact that in our
Scotch classification lime is universally put in a
lower class than coal 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Certainly ; but if
it might be thought not to be hypercritical I
should say that we have not so much put lime up
into a higher class than coal, but have brought
coal down from a higher class than lime. It was
pointed out by the learned counsel that in very
few Acts are there as many as eight classes, that
most of the Acts only give five or six classes; and
therefore, although two articles may be in the
lowest class of five, it does not follow that the
article in the second lowest of eight has been
raised above the relative position that it held in
the original classification. -
Lord Belper.] Speaking strictly of classifica-
tion, the principles of which have been explained
by you, if this lime in bulk was put up into Class
A. do you not consider that there are many other
articles which would equally be on the same sort
of footing with regard to the principles which
govern classification. t
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I have no doubt
whatever that that is an argument that will be
used; the Committee have heard it used already;
the two articles are in the same class in the
original classification, and, therefore, if you alter
one you must, in order to be quite fair to my
article, alter the other one. -
Lord Belper.] Take for instance what Mr.
Hunter regards as important, lime used for
manure. There is an article, gypsum, which is
used, for manure and which is much less valuable
than lime, absolutely in the rough without any
dressing or manufacture at all. Would not that
clearly, on those principles, be one of those
articles which should follow lime 2 I do not
Want you to answer that particular case, but
taking those facts, is not that the case ?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] There is no doubt
whatever that is an argument which would be
have been told that there are two rates for lime
quoted ; one the M(B) rate for lime, and the
other a lower rate when carried in owners’
Waggons.
Mr. Hanbury.] I am talking of the schedule.
All the other articles in Clause B., with the ex-
used. I have no doubt whatever of that.
Mr.
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARG.I.S PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
7
2
7
4 June 1891.
Mr. Bidder.] There is one point which Lord
Balfour of Burleigh did not refer to, and which I
should like to point out with regard to the lime-
stone question. I think Lord Balfour will re-
member that it was shown that although under
the Clearing House Classification limestone was
classified with lime in bulk in Class B, yet, as a
matter of fact, it had long been the practice of the
companies generally to give much lower and
special rates for limestone going to iron furnaces
for smelting purposes ; so that, in point of fact,
in the case of limestone, putting it down to Class
A was practically only recognising what had for
a long time become the existing practice, that a
distinction in rate between lime in bulk and lime-
stone had in practice obtained for a long time.
And I should like also to point out, not only that the
proposal to put the lime in bulk down to Class A,
would make an actual reduction, as has been
shown in the actual rates now charged, but that
in point of fact out of all the systems of all the
railway companies these gentlemen are the only
persons who are quarrelling with the present
classification, and it so happens that in their case,
for reasons of expediency, they do get the benefit
of rates which are satisfactory to them, and they
get the benefit of having the same rate for lime
in casks as for lime in bulk. I should have
thought, therefore, that they were the last people
who had any ground for complaint, since expe-
rience shows that the policy of the company pro-
tects them in their case, and they are the only
people complaining.
Mr. Wills.] I should like to be allowed to
address a few remarks to the Committee upon the
evidence that has been given in this case. First
of all, your Grace, with regard to the smaller
point in regard to the lias lime in bags. There
are two points as to that. First, whether the
lias lime in bags and chalk lime in bags should
be together, and then what class they should be
in. It seems to have been conceded practically
by Mr. Light that there is really no distinction
between chalk lime in bags and lias lime in bags,
no reason for differentiating between them ; and
I rather gather that the Board of Trade would
have adopted the same view had they thought
the facts were the same. Mr. Lakin has given
evidence to-day that there has rather a
new trade sprung up in which chalk lime is
carried in bags. I do not think I ought to
address the Committee at great length upon
that. It seems to be a differentiation in classi-
fication which is unfair to the trader, and based
perhaps upon a misapprehension of facts.
Then the next question upon that class of
lime is what class it should be in, whether it
should be, as was suggested by Mr. Light,
in Class C or reduced to a lower class, a
lower class than lias lime in bulk. The only
real distinction between the two is the differ-
ence in value, and the evidence given is that
the lias lime in bulk is worth per ton 10 s. or 11 s,
and when ground it was worth 2 s. 6 d. more. In
other words there is an addition of 25 per cent.
to the value by the grinding of it. It seems to
me that that difference of value (and after all
value is only one element out of the five that the
Board of Trade have proceeded upon in the clas-
sification) is not sufficient to warrant a difference
of class, because when one examines the differ-
ence of the maximum rates between Class B and
Class C, it will be seen that the difference is
more than that ; and when you take terminals
into consideration, in which I think there is an
increase of something like 100 per cent., that
difference is out of all proportion between lime
ground and line unground. I believe that, sup-
posing it was a question between those two
classes, the difference seems to be something of
this kind. The terminal of Class B is double the
terminal of Class A, so that the terminal of Class B
would be 6 d., and the terminal of Class A 3 d.,
which is an increase of 100 per cent. ; and with
regard to the conveyance rate, roughly speaking
(and it is only speaking roughly upon the point),
it seems to me that the increase is about
30 per cent. ; and if you take those two
together in any case, either for a short
distance or a long distance, the conveyance rate
differing with the distance and the terminal not
differing, you will have a difference between the
two classes very considerably larger than the
difference in the price of the articles, and value
is only one element in the classification. There-
fore I submit that if lias lime in bulk remains in
Class B. lias lime in bags should come down there ;
but that if on the other hand lias lime is reduced
to Class A., lias lime in bags should follow it. . I
will not trouble the Committee with more remarks
upon that point.
Chairman.] You do not draw a distinction
between his line and lias lime in bulk. Lias lime
in bulk is lias lime.
Mr. Wills.] Yes; and I submit that lias lime
in bags should follow lias ime in bulk, wherever
lias lime goes.
Chairman.] Your contention is that lias lime
and chalk lime in bags should be treated alike,
and that they both should be treated as lias lime
in bulk. .
Mr. Wills.] Yes, that is the point. Then there
is the larger question : , where lime itself, what-
ever is included under the groups of limes, should
go?' My clients are not themselves interested in
chalk lime, they have not at present found any
in their district, and they do not manufacture it,
but as a matter of symmetry they are logically
bound to contend to you that chalk lime as well
as lias lime should come down to Class A. They
are not interested in it as in their own lime ; but
the same observations would apply to chalk lime
because it is the same in price, the same in value,
and the same in other respects. Upon that it
seems really to me that the objection which the
railway companies have made to-day by their
witnesses to the alteration which we have pro-
posed is very much, as was thrown out by an
honourable Member of the Committee, a ques-
tion of rate, which can be adjusted at a future
stage of the inquiry, and that the real question
before you to-day is whether, from the nature of
the materials themselves, the classification is
right as it stands, or whether it should be altered.
With regard to that I find that out of the twenty-
four principal Acts which my learned friend who
opened this case referred the Committee to, in
14 lime and limestone are placed in a lower class
than coal and coke, and in the lowest class; in
five others lime and limestone are placed in the
same class as coal and coke, and that again is the
(81.)
4 Y 4 lowest
728 MINUTES
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN PEFORE
4 June 1891.
lowest class; and that in five others lime and
limestone are classed higher than coal and coke.
Mr. Hunter.] Are those English Acts?
Mr. Wills ] The first 14 contain some relating
to Ireland and Scotland. Shall I shortly
enumerate them P
Mr. Hunter.] No.
Mr. Wills.] They comprise the Belfast and
Northern Counties, the Midland and Great
Western of Ireland, the Waterford and Limerick,
the Glasgow and South Western, the North
British, the Great North of Scotland, and the
Caledonian. Those are the Acts in which
lime and limestone are lower than coal and
coke. Now the result of that is that Parliament
has evidently acted on the principle consistently,
with only very few exceptions, of placing lime
and limestone together, and together with coal
and coke, and placing them in the lowest class ;
and I have heard no reason alleged outside the
rates which are really outside the consideration
before us now, which seems to me to be sufficient
for disturbing that old mode of classifying these
articles. Then the Board of Trade have pro-
ceeded upon five grounds, all of which seem to
me to warrant our asking that lime should go
down into the lowest class. With regard to the
bulk of the consignments, no doubt there is
evidence that the consignments are not quite so
large as they are in the case of many other
articles ; but the chief point seems to me to be,
so far as the convenience of the company is con-
cerned, their going in truck loads; and that
undoubtedly they do. With regard to value,
evidence has been given I believe that lime
follows coke in value. And the other grounds
are with regard to the handling of it. In regard
to the handling and loading there is absolutely
nothing to be said, because it is carried, accord-
ing to the finding of the Board of Trade, for the
most part, although it has been said not to be so
upon the Great Western Railway, in owners
waggons; and therefore those considerations do not
really apply. And in regard to damageability,
too, there is no evidence. It has been proved, I
think, that no claim has ever been made with
regard to damage done to lime. It is obviously
not a very damageable article if carried in owner's
trucks, loaded and covered by them, and it is
very difficult to see how any claim could be made
by the railway company, and especially when it
is carried in the way it is by their giving notice
that they will not be common carriers, and will
only carry the traffic on special conditions.
Therefore, upon all these grounds upon which
the Board of Trade have acted, it appears to me
that there is no reason for taking lime out of the
lowest class, where it has been classed along
with goal and coke. I felt the difficulty that
your Grace pointed out in making anything like
detailed comparisons between an article like the
one I am interested in and others either in the
class in which it stands, or that below it, because
the differences are very minute between them ;
and the only real close analogy is between lime
and coke, and that is really a very close one.
It is quite true that a great deal of coke is refuse
from the manufacture of gas ; but there is a large
quantity that is manufactured quite apart from
that, and there the processes are much the same ;
and it appears to me that it is a natural and
proper thing that lime should be placed in the
same class as coke.
Then, in regard to the rates upon which there
was some discussion, although, as I say, that is
not an ingredient in the question of principle
here, I think that the result of my clients and
Mr. Harding's evidence was this, and also from
the admissions made by the witnesses for the
railway companies, that although there would be
a slight decrease in the rates if lime were put
down into Class A. as Class A. now stands, yet
in other instances there would be an increase,
and the railway companies have not made out
what the total effect would be, whether there would
be a loss or not, although they have generally
estimated a loss. The evidence of Mr. Harding
was that there would be a percentage of increase.
Even so, that was upon the supposition that no
alteration is made in the rates in Class A.,
which is a supposition which we are not entitled
to make at this stage of this inquiry. I will not
trouble the Committee with any further remarks;
but upon these grounds I submit, your Grace, that
we have made out a case for the amendment
which we have proposed.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee have resolved to
class “lias lime” and “chalk lime ’’ together
under the one head “ lime ’’; to retain “lime
e.o.h.p.” in Class C. and “lime in bulk '' in
Class B., and, when carried in owner's waggons,
the trader to be entitled to a reduction.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CEIARGES PROVISIONAL OIR}} ER BILLS.
729
Oie Veneris, 5° Junii, 1891.
PRESEN '1' I
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Lord HoughTon.
Mr. DICKSON.
Mr. HANBURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Chairman.] THE next amendment is “litter,”
that is dealt with ; then there is the amendment
of the South Wales and Monmouthshire freighters
with regard to mill-scale or smudge.
Mr. Capper.] All the amendments of the
South Wales freighters are withdrawn, except
the question of pitwood, your Grace. Mill-
scale and pig-iron are withdrawn, and then the
next one is the question of pitwood.
deal with
Chairman.] Then, now, we will
that.
Mr. Pope.] “Pitwood for mining purposes.”
Chairman.] Page 17, column 2, after line 25,
insert, “Pitwood for mining purposes.”
Mr. Capper.] We simply ask your Grace
that pitwood for mining purposes should be
taken out of Class C. and put into Class A., for
three reasons: first, because it is a very rough
raw material which comes straight from the
earth, and goes into the earth ; secondly, be-
cause it is of about the same value as coal ; and,
thirdly, although Class C. includes the provision
of trucks, pitwood is always carried in owners'
Waggons.
Mr. Pope.] No, not always.
Mr. Capper.] Nearly always, at any rate ;
and it does not require to be covered or un-
covered and is invariably loaded and unloaded
by the colliery owner or his servants. And
lastly, the rates for coal include the return of the
empty trucks which carry the pitwood.
Mr. Pope.] But I do not admit the facts that
are stated by Mr. Capper. If he proposes, your
Grace, to base anything upon those statements
they must be proved, because I do not admit
them to be accurate.
Chairman (to Mr. Capper).] Do you propose
to call any witnesses 2
Mr. Capper.] I should simply repeat the
evidence that was given before the Board of
Trade. We do not propose to call any wit-
IléSS6S.
Chairman.] But we must have evidence before
us; we cannot take the evidence that was put
before the Board of Trade as being before us.
Mr. Capper.] Then we have no evidence, your
Grace.
Earl of Belmore.] I know of my own know-
ledge that a large quantity of pitwood goes upon
Irish lines, and I am pretty sure that they have
no owners' waggons.
Mr. Pope.] In fact, so far from its going in
owners' waggons in the London and North
Western case for South Staffordshire, the coal
owners will not allow it to come in their own
waggons, we are obliged to provide waggons for
it; but your Grace will remember, supposing
there be a case, as I know in South Wales does
occasionally exist, the pitwood is sent up from
the port to Liverpool in coal owners' waggons,
the decision of the Committee would allow them
a reduction in the rate in respect of the user of
their own waggons if it is carried in their own
Waggons.
Mr. Hambury.] That is a further amendment
that is withdrawn.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Chairman.] No evidence being produced, we
cannot accede to the amendment.
Then the next amendment is by the land-
owners, &c., of South Wales, on page 17,
column 2, after line 25, to insert “pitwood and
mining and debenture timber, when carried in
returned traders' trucks.”
Mr. Shaw.] I beg to withdraw that amend-
ment
Chairman.] Then the next amendment is by
the South Wales and Monmouthshire freighters,
on page 17, column 2, after line 25, to insert,
“ plates of iron slabs and billets,” that is with-
drawn.
Mr. Pope.] Then where are we now Ż
Chairman.] There is an amendment on page
17, column 2, after line 26, to insert, “ salt in
bulk,” proposed by the Mansion House Associa-
tion.
Mr. Whitehead.] With reference to this, I
think a proposition has been made to the railway
companies that salt in bulk should be treated in
the same way as lime in bulk and lias lime, in
accordance with the alteration made in the
(81.)
4 Z schedule
730
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEEE JOINT COMMITTEE
* 5 Junv 1891.
schedule by the Committee yesterday. Whether
or not that has been accepted, at the moment I'
am not instructed.
Mr. Pope.] No. Besides it should not be,
because the injury that is done to the springs
and iron work of the truck by salt packed in bulk
is very considerable.
Mr. Whitehead..] Your Grace will remember
that yesterday afternoon the Committee granted
a reasonable rebate to the trader when lias lime
was carried in owners’ trucks, any lime, in fact;
and the proposition which we have made to the
other side with regard to salt is that where it is
carried in owners’ trucks we should be entitled
to a reasonable rebate. If your Lordship looks
at the second clause of the general conditions,
Sub-section A., you will see that the provision of
trucks is not included, and salt in bulk follows
lime in bulk.
Mr. Pope.] But surely the proposition you have
made now must involve either the withdrawal or
rejection of your amendment as proposed. I
cannot at the moment say what the effect of your
proposition to deal with it as lime may be, because
I have not made myself familiar with what the
decision of the Committee was upon lime yester-
day, but it is obvious that your proposal to insert
salt in bulk in Class A. must be either withdrawn
or disposed of. .
Mr. Whitehead..] I may answer that in this
way: that if this modification of our proposal is
accepted we would withdraw our amendment :
but if on the other hand it is not accepted, then
salt in bulk we consider to stand upon a higher
footing than even lime in bulk, and should there-
fore go into Class A. \
Chairman.] I think when we come to discuss
Clause 2, with the Sub-sections A. and B. (which
we shall have to do in order to make them corre-
spond with the decision that we came to yesterday),
salt in bulk will have to be treated in the same
way as lime in bulk.
Mr. Whitehead..] As your Grace pleases.
Mr. Pope.] That, your Grace, will be a ques-
tion which we shall have to discuss when it
comes on, and probably the best way will be for
this matter to be postponed until this question of
lime comes up for adjustment. -
Chairman.] Yes. (To Mr. Whitehead.) Your
proposal now is to take salt in bulk out of
Class B, and put it into Class A.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so; but if salt in bulk
is treated in the same way as lime in bulk we
should be content.
Earl of Belmore, That will give you the same
thing.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is to say, it will give you
a reduction if carried in owners' Waggons.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, and if that is granted
we should be willing to withdraw the amendment
as it stands on the paper. -
Mr. Moon..] If your Grace will look at the
Clearing House Classification you will under-
stand the contention of the railway companies,
which is that salt ought to be treated differently
from the way in which, under your decision of
yesterday, lime is to be treated. If your Grace
will look at the Clearing House Classification
as regards lime, you will see that lime in
bulk
Chairman.] At which page?
Mr. Moon.] At page 42. Under the existing
practice lime in bulk is classified in \lineral
Class (B.); but there is no provision that in the
case of lime in bulk the traffic shall be carried
in owners' waggons. Now, if you look at salt
you will see at page 61 salt, in bulk or packed,
M. (B.); but with a provision that “salt in bulk
is not carried, except in owners' waggons,” and
the equivalent class, if it were carried in com-
panies' waggons, would be Class S.; but it is put
down to Class B., accompanied by that pro-
vision, which requires salt to be carried in
owners' waggons, that is to say, it is only in
M(B.) upon the condition that it is carried in
owners' waggons. That is the difference between:
the case of lime and the case of salt. The prac-
tice of the railway companies differs at the
present time; and we ask to have that difference
recognised in the Provisional Order. Of course,
your Grace, we shall have to give reasons for
that by calling evidence. -
Chairman.] Then, possibly, we had better
postpone the consideration of this amendment
until we deal with that section.
Mr. Pope).] That will be more convenient, I
think, because until this moment I have not
perfectly understood what you did yesterday
with regard to lime, and therefore I am not in a
position to give an 'answer to that suggestion.
But now I do know, and I can go on ; but I
think it would be more convenient to post-
pone it.
Mr. Whitehead.] We have got our evideuce
here from the country, and I think it would be
more convenient, if it is the same thing to my
learned friend, to proceed with the amendment
IO.O.W.
Mr. Pope.] It will be no additional inconve-
nience to us; we are quite ready.
Chairman.] Then we had better hear the
witness, and then we can, if necessary, reserve
our decision until we deal with the whole
question.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is Mr. Whitehead
oing to argue for the amendment as it stands 2
r) 8.5
Mr. Whitehead..] I am going to withdraw the
amendment, substituting for it that salt in bulk
shall be treated in the same way as lime in
bulk. º º
Mr. Pope.] Simpliciter the amendment as it
stands is withdrawn, and we are going to discuss
the amended amendment.
Mr. Whitehead..] Dealing first of all, your
Grace, with the questiou of the present statutory
classification as distinguished from the Clearing
House Classification, which is, of course, an
arrangement by the railway companies amongst
themselves and to which reference has now to be
made
Earl of Camperdown.] The Statuary Classifi-
cation is rates you mean P
Mr. Whitehead..] It is.
Earl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
73]
5 June 1891.
ºs---
Earl of Camperdown.] That is a different
thing.
Mr. Whitehead.] With regard to that, it is the
fact that in most of the Acts of Parliament which
have dealt with salt, it is placed in the same
class as those minerals which are placed in Class
A. at present.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is for rates.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is for rates ; that is to
say with iron and ironstone, clay and, sand, and
articles of that kind. It is an article that will be
proved of very small value, so far as value is im-
portant, at the works, averaging about 6 3. per
ton.
Mr. Pope.] Not now that the Salt Union
have it.
Mr. Whitehead..] So that in that respect it
should receive consideration. And this addi-
tional charge which would be placed upon it were
not a rebate given, when carried in owners'
trucks would add very largely to the cost, and
would be comparatively a very high increase in
the rate. With regard to the carriage in
owners’ trucks, that is chiefly a question of evi-
dence, and I will at once call a witness who has
come to give evidence on the point.
Mr. JOHN MAJOR FELLS, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as follows :
Mr. Whitehead.
6024. YoU are superintendent accountant and
superintendent of the Cheshire district of the
Salt Union, Limited 2–I am.
6025. At the present time is salt in bulk
carried in owners' trucks 2–Eleven-twelfths of
it is carried in owners’ trucks. In the Cheshire
district it is carried entirely in owners' trucks,
and nine-tenths of it at least in the Worcester-
shire district is carried in owners’ trucks. In the
Middlesborough district a small quantity is carried
in trucks belonging to the North Eastern Rail-
way Company.
Earl of Camperdown.
6026. How is the 1-12th classified under the
Clearing House Classification that is not carried
in owners' trucks, how is it charged for 7—A.
special rate is charged for the truck in some
cases, and in other cases the railway companies
make no charge for the trucks; that is dependent
upon whether they would be train loads going
to Gloucester, and so on. In those cases I
believe the railway companies provide trucks for
nothing.
Mr. Whitehead.
6027. So far as classification is concerned, it
generally goes at the M (B.) Class when carried
in bulk —That is so.
6028. And is this provision, which is inserted
in the Clearing House Classification of salt in
bulk, not carried except in owners' waggons,
insisted upon in fact –In 19 cases out of 20 it
is, for the reason, of course, that, we are large
owners of trucks, having no less than 3,000 trucks
in the different districts of the Union.
Chairman.] But in the Clearing House Classi-
fication it appears that salt is never carried
except in railway companies' waggons.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand, your Grace, the
evidence to be on the other hand that in some
cases it is carried in trucks of the railway com-
pany, and that when that occurs they occasionally
make a charge and occasionally they do not make
a charge.
Darl of Camperdown.] But when that occurs
it is not carried under M. (B.)
Mr. Whitehead..] That is a question I asked
the witness, and I understood him to say that it
W &S SO.
Witness.] Yes, it is carried under M.(B.)
6029. Whether they make a charge for their
trucks or whether they do not ?—That is so.
Mr. Pope.] I understood the witness to say
that whatever the classification of the article
might be, if conveyed in the railway company’s
truck an extra charge is made for the truck.
Witness.] Sometimes.
Mr. Pope.] He then said that full train loads
to Gloucester might be exceptional, but that the
rule even for the Middlesborough case is that
they charge for the truck.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I think that that is his
evidence.
Earl of Camperdown.] He said also that some-
times the railway companies did not make a
charge.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
In certain cases he said.
Mr. Whitehead.
6030. Under those circumstances do you con–
sider that the trader, when the salt is carried in
his own truck, should receive a rebate from the
rate charge 2–Certainly.
603 i. Such a reasonable rebate as shall be fixed,
in case of dispute, by the Board of Trade 2–That
1S’ SO.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6132. You, I think, are the accountant of the
Salt Union are you not 2—I am the superintend-
ing accountant to the Salt Union, and also super-
intendent of the Cheshire District of the Salt
Union, which comprises seven-eighths of the com—
pany’s property.
6033. That I know ; but have you yourself
personal experience in the conveyance of the
traffic from the works 2–I have seen it a great
many times.
6034. Taking Cheshire, which you know the
most of, because that is the bulk of the property
of the Salt Union, it is always carried in owners'
trucks, is it not?—That is so.
6035. The only case in which it is carried in
companies' trucks, you said, was from Middles-
borough, in the Middlesborough District 2–I
beg your pardon ; I think I included Worcester-
shire also ; and occasionally a small quantity is
taken from Staffordshire in compauies' trucks.
6036. Where is the salt district in Stafford
(81.)
4 Z 2 shire 2
732
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. FFLLS.
ſ Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
shire 7–Billington, near the town of Stafford;
about nine miles from Stafford.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] It is a comparatively
Small district.
Mr. Pope.] So small that, although I thought
I knew all about salt, I never heard of it before.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] We heard of it before
in the Brine Pumping Bill.
Mr. Pope.
6037. (To the Witness).] As I understand,
if you state the fact correctly (of course
we will ascertain how far the practice prevails),
even in those cases in which the salt is conveyed
in companies’ trucks, excepting in special in-
stances, a charge is actually made for the truck?
—A charge is made for the truck.
6038. Assuming, you know, that it is carried
under the class and a charge made for the truck,
how do you base any argument that there is
always to be a deduction from the class rate
when it runs in trucks because you are charged
for the truck extra 2–Our argument is for the
inclusion of salt in Class A., but in view of the
decision of the Committee yesterday we did not
wish to trouble them with arguing the matter
over again. We thought the question of lime
was almost identical with our own as to classifica-
tion ; we are always classed with lime in the
Acts ; and we thought therefore that it might
save the time of the Committee by proposing
this compromise to the railway companies.
6039. In fact, what you are really seeking
now is, by an amendment in the classification, to
get a reduction from your present rate by the
amount of allowance for waggon 2–Our position
is this: we consider that we ought to be in
Class A., but we are now placed in an inter-
mediate class between Class B. and Class C.;
that is to say, that whereas the railway companies
provide trucks for all other articles in Class B.,
they now strive to put salt in a class special to
itself, a class intermediate between Class B, and
Class C. ; that is with the maximum classification
plus the provision of trucks.
Mr. Hambury.] Is it not the fact, that if the salt
in bulk stands exactly where it is, the maximum
under the Provisional Order will be exactly the
same for salt whether it is carried in owners’
trucks or in companies’ trucks, although there
has been a difference in the past P
Mr. Pope.] No.
Mr. Hanbury.] Yes, it is so. e
Mr. Pope.] I think not; let me see how that is.
Mr. Hanbury.] Yes, it is exactly the same as
lime which was dealt with yesterday. You
cannot deduct for the use of owners’ trucks as
the Bill stands.
Witness.] That is so.
Mr. Pope.] Mr. Beale tells me that under the
|Provisional Order, which is a matter to which
your question was relating, our maximum power
for salt is to carry it in Class B, with an extra
charge for waggon hire when waggons are
supplied.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That really brings it
to what the Witness said, putting it in an
intermediate class between Class B. and Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Dealing with it in principle as it is
dealt with in the Clearing House Classification.
Earl of Belmore.] How do you arrive at that?
Is all Class B. in that positiou? I understand
it is to be intermediate.
Mr. Balfour Browne] Only as to certain
articles in Class B.
Earl of Belmore.] Reading Class B.
what, something in the conditions f
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Reading it with Class
2nd, and the only thing left in that position now
is salt.
Mr. Hanbury.] (To Mr. Pope.) No doubt
you are right in saying that Class B. in the
case of salt, provides for its being carried in
owners' waggons.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.] That, of course, is the result
of putting it in a distinctly higher class than
everything else in Clase B.
Mr. Pope.] Certainly ; it has the effect of
making the classification of salt in Class B.
exactly as it is now in the Railway Clearing
House Classification. w
Mr. Hanbury.] And do you contend that
under the Provisional Order you can charge more
if you provide waggons?
Mr. Pope.] Yes; for salt.
Chairman.] What part of the Provisional
Order do you say gives you that power ?
Mr. Pope.] Clause 2, Sub-section (A) I think,
and Clause 6. In the first place, the provision
of Sub-section (A) of Clause 2 is, “The pro-
vision of trucks is not included in the maximum
rates applicable to merchandise specified in Class
A. of the classification. or to lime, lias lime in
bulk, or salt in bulk.” Now, then, under the
decision of yesterday, you have dealt with lias
lime and lime in bulk; out, if salt be not dis-
turbed, then the iower rate shall not apply to
merchandise in Class A., or to Salt in bulk.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is right.
Mr. Pope.] Then, if you look at Clause 6–?
Mr. Hanbury.] Clause 6 is struck out.
Mr. Pope.] The amount to be charged if we do
find trucks will be settled when you settle con-
tingent Clause 6. -
Chairman.] But that is postponed.
Mr. Pope.
6040. Yes. Therefore, so far as classifi-
cation is concerned, it stands in this way: that
Sub-section A. of Clause 2 of the conditions
excepts salt in bulk from the obligation to find
trucks, notwithstanding that it is not classed in
Class A., because it is specially mentioned ; but
the amount that should be chargeable for such
finding is not yet settled, but has to be dealt with.
Your Grace has had pointed out to you by my
learned friend, Mr. Moon, that in the Clearing
House Classification, if it is maintained as the
Provisional Order would maintain it, lime in
bulk is classed in the same class as salt in bulk,
with the exception that in regard to salt in bulk
it is only to be conveyed in owners' waggons; so
that the Clearing House Classification with those
conditions leaves salt in bulk practically as it has
hitherto
with
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
733
5 June 1891.]
Mr. FELLs.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
hitherto been dealt with by the practice of the
companies in the Clearing House Classification.
(To the Witness.) I am now desired to ask you,
you will kindly, I daresay, be able to give me
information, what the effect of your proposition
of the companies finding waggons without ad-
dititional charge would have upon your rates
from Cheshire?—Upon our railway rates from
Cheshire do you mean?
6041. Yes. In every case it would reduce
your rate, would it not?—I do not think it
would ; the actual rates are less of course than
the maximum authorised. All we wish to do is
to be legally safeguarded.
6042. I did not ask you that ; in fact I dealt
with you, I thought, rather frankly ; you will see
that my information about rates was derived at
the moment, therefore I did not want you to
give me a general answer that would be a put
off. I want to know whether the effect of your
application would not be to make a considerable
reduction in every railway rate for salt through-
out Cheshire P –It would not.
6043. In how many ? Take from North-
wich 2—I think it would make very few altera-
tions indeed.
6044. Could you give me how many ; have
you not taken the trouble to ascertain how that
would be 2–As a matter of fact the actual rate
charged is always less than the maximum
authorised.
6045. That is not what I am asking you.
Have you taken the trouble to ascertain what
the effect upon your rates would be if your
proposal were adopted ; have you or have you
not ?—I am afraid I cannot say Yes or No to a
question of that kind.
6046. Cannot you ?—No, for this reason: I
know that the actual rates charged are always
less than the maximum.
6047. That is not the question.—And even
the deduction of the amount for the hire of rail-
way trucks from the maximum rate would not
bring the then maximum within the actual rate
charged.
6048. But you can tell me how, you can give
me the particulars. I am told that the managers
will point out that the effect of it will be to
reduce your actual rates in every instance on all
the traffic sent from Northwich 2–There I
venture to differ from them.
6049. Then tell me what it is. Be kind
enough to tell me if you have ascertained it.
We have ascertained it.
Earl of Camerdown.] Have you worked it
out 2
Mr. Pope.
6050. Can you give me any information on
the subject P--The actual rates are always less
than the maximum rates, even allowing a reduc-
tion of 6 d. for railway trucks.
6051. Can you oblige us by saying Yes or No
to a simple question. Have you worked out and
ascertained what the difference would be as a
matter of fact P--I have worked out some cases
and I find that no reduction would arise.
6052. What cases have you selected ; give me
what you have worked out, and let us see ?–I
have taken the rates for London for instance.
Mr. Pope—continued.
6053. Ah : that is long distance 2–Quite so.
6054. Let me know what you have done in
order to see how fairly you have treated us; give
me the list of your cases 2—Unfortunately I
have not got the list; but I have had statements
prepared, and I find that in the vast majority of
cases there is no reduction.
6055. I cannot take an answer about the vast
majority of cases. Can you give me the figures 2
—If the Committee will allow me, I will put in
a statement to that effect.
Chairman.] Let us have it now.
Witness.] I have not it with me, your Grace.
Mr. Hanbury.
6056. Apart from rates. You admit at any
rate that you are asking to be put in a lower
classification than you are in under the Clearing
House Classification ?–Quite so. We ask to be
put in the class which we think we belong to
under the varius Acts of Parliament that have
been passed on the subject.
Chairman.
6057. The effect of being put into that class
would be to raise your rates, would it not ?—Not
to reduce the actual rates, but to reduce the
maximum chargeable ; the actual rates never
come up to the maximum chargeable.
Mr. Pope.J. You say something about your
statutory classification at present; what Acts do
you refer to that class. Salt as you say?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Will you allow me to
give them 2
Mr. Pope.] No, that is his answer; (to the
Witness) you are not mentioned in the London
and North Western Act of 1846 2–The Great
Eastern Railway Act.
6058. No, give me the London and North
Western ?—The London and North Western
Act, 1846 °
6059. Where are you there ?–In the same
class as dung, compost, and lime, as regards the
toll clause, we are mentioned.
6060. But in the rate clause you are not
mentioned at all !—That is so, I believe. We
are also classed in the Worcester and Hereford
Act with culm, coal, coke, and clay.
Chairman.
6061. In the rate clause ?—Yes, in the rate
clause, I believe ; if you will allow me one
moment to turn up the return (after referring to
the same). Yes, in the rate clause. Also in the
Severn Tunnel Act of 1872, and the Worcester
and Severn Junction Railway Act; the London,
Chatham, and Dover Railway Act, 1860; the
Redditch Railway Act, 1858; the Midland Rail-
way Additional Powers) Act, 1881; the Western
and Redditch (Midland) Railway Act, 1863; the
Manchester and Stockport Act, 1866; the Scots-
wood, Newburn, and Wylam Act, 1871; the
Hylton, Southwick, and Monkwearmouth Act,
1871; the Scarborough and Whitby Act, 1871;
and the Nottingham Suburban Act, 1886.
Mr. Hunter.
6062. Have you got the Manchester, Sheffield,
and Lincolnshire Act 2–No, I do not know whe-
(81.)
4 Z 3 ther
734
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. FIELLs.
[Continued.
Mr. Hunter—continued.
ther it has been missed.
see. (After referring.)
we are mentioned in it.
6063. In the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin-
colnshire Act, dung, compost, and salt, 13 d. ;
in the London, Brighton, and South Coast, salt
for manure ?—I am sorry that the return I have
does not mention that.
6064. Did you mention the Great Eastern ?—
Yes, I mentioned the Great Eastern.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] The return is not abso-
lutely perfect in many respects. I have gone
over several Acts and found it imperfect.
Mr. Pope.] It is obvious that the classifications
in all these Acts are more or less imperfect;
there are other articles included with salt,
coal, and culm, and so on, which obviously, by
consent, ought to be in higher classes.
Mr. Hunter.] But where salt is mentioned, it
is mentioned in the lower classes.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That is so.
Mr. Pope.] I have nothing further to ask.
I will turn it up and
No, I cannot find that
Re-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
6065. As I understand, you thought that
salt ought to be in the lowest class 2 — That
is so.
6066. As a compromise, seeing what was done
yesterday with regard to lime and lias lime, you
proposed that it should be in an intermediate
class between the two classes 2–That is so.
6067. And that you should have a similar
rebate to that which the Committee thought fair
in the case of lime and lias lime, when you supply
the trucks?—That is so.
6068. As I understand, although you have not
got the return with you, that would not reduce
the actual rates in a large number of cases 3–
So far as I can ascertain, it would not.
6069. Therefore the railway companies will
not be worse off if the Committee should adopt
this proposal 2–That is so.
Chairman.] What is his proposal now, perhaps
you will ask him in so many words :
Mr. Balfour Browne.
6070. Tell us, just in your own words, what is
is your proposal 2–The proposal is that the
railway companies should not have the power to
charge us the maximum under Class B. plus an
amount for trucks, when trucks are provided, but
that we should be placed in Class B. with all the
advantages or disadvantages of that class.
607 l. That is to say, that you are to pay the
Class B. rates; but when you provide the
waggons, you should have something off the
Class B. rates ?—That is so.
6072. In the same way that the owners of lime
and lias lime will have 2–That is so,
6073. And you claim that on the principle
that you have always been classed with lime, and
wught to be in the same position as lime now.
Mr. Pope.] That is not so, he cannot do that.
Witness.] No, not quite. Our position we
contend ought to be more advantageous than that
of lime, on the ground that the value of salt is
much less than that of lime.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I was going to ask you
that question next. -
Mr. Pope.] Forgive me. What I wanted to
interrupt you for was because you put the ques-
tion that he based it upon the fact that salt is
treated at the present time the same as lime. It
is not treated the same as lime.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, not treated at
present ; classed at present.
Mr. Pope.] But he is not classed at present
the same as lime.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Not in the classification.
I am speaking of these Acts of Parliament that
you have been referring to.
Mr. Hanbury.] But if he is left in Class B, he
will be classed with lime still. f
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But he will not get a
rebate unless you give it.
Mr. Hanbury.] But he will be in exactly the
same position as at present.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] True as compared with
the Clearing House Classification, but not as
compared with the Acts.
Earl of Camperdown.] For rates ?
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
6074. What is the value of salt carried in
bulk 2–Some of it is 2 s. 6 d. a ton, and some of
it 10 s. a ton for agricultural purposes we sell
salt at 2 s. 6 d. a ton.
Mr. Pope.
6075. How much goes 2 –Probably 60,000
tons.
6076. How much is the total production of salt
by the Union ?–The total quantity carried by
rail is 600,000 tons roughly. A great deal of it
is carried by rail.
Mr Balfour Browne.
6077. So that the salt at 2 s. 6 d. would be a
fair proportion ?—A tenth.
Mr. Pope..] A tenth of what is carried by rail P
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Yes.
Witness J In addition to that, a large quantity
is carried for chemical traders, which is supplied
at specially low rates. -
6078. You have told us that the value of salt
varies from 2 s. 6 d. to 10 s. ; is it less valuable
than lime 2—On an average total quantity it is
less value than lime.
6079. Therefore, under these circumstances,
you ought not to be treated worse than lime; but
if classification is to be based upon value, you
ought to be treated better?—That is so.
Lord Houghton.
6080. What is about the average price 2–The
average price works out for 1888 at 6 s. a ton, and
for 1889 at about 7 s. a ton.
Mr. Pope.] I do not follow how a tenth can
affect a large average. The Salt Union has raised
the price of salt.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] But it is not all at 10 s.
that is a very high class.
Witness.]
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
735
5 June 1891.]
Mr. FELLS.
[Continued.
Witness.] A good deal of rock salt is supplied
to chemical manufacturers at the rate of 3 s, 6 d.
a ton.
Mr. Pope.] We are not talking of rock salt, we
are talking of salt in bulk.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
6081. But this includes rock salt ; it goes as
salt in bulk 2–It goes as salt in bulk ; it is in
the same classification,
Earl of Camperdown.
6082. Why do you propose a treatment for
salt in bulk different from rock salt P. —Because
under the special schedule there is a special treat-
ment for salt in bulk, that is to say, we are not to
get a rebate.
Mr. Hambury.
6083. But rock salt in M (B.) at the present
moment is carried in companies waggons 2–No,
it is carried entirely in the Salt Union waggons.
Chairman.
6084. Here, I see in the Clearing House Clas-
sification, on page 61, rock salt M (B.), salt M (B.)
in bulk or packed “minimum charge per load as
for five tons, Salt in bulk is not carried except
in owners' waggons.” So that in one case it
must be carried in owners' waggons, and in the
other case it is carried in companies waggons
according to this book 2–Yes; but the actual
practice is for all rock salt to be carried in Salt
Union waggons.
6085. But not of necessity ?—No, not of neces-
sity ; but the rate for rock salt and white salt is
the same.
6086. You say that the rate for rock salt and
white salt is the same, whether carried in owners’
or in companies' waggons?–As a matter of fact,
that is not so always; there is only a very small
quantity of salt carried in the railway companies’
Waggons.
Chairman—continued.
6087. But is the rate the same whether it is
carried in owners' waggons or in companies’
waggons 2–In some cases it is, and in a few
Cases it is not.
Mr. Hunter.
6088. But is rock salt carried and treated in
precisely the same way as other salt in bulk 2–
Yes. -
6089. As regards the condition of owners'
waggons 2–As regards the question of owners’
Waggons.
Mr. Hanbury.
6090. You quoted an instance where rock
salt was carried in owners' waggons, and com-
paring that rock salt carried in owners' waggons
with salt in bulk, the rate is the same, as a rule 2
—That is so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
6091. Might I ask what proportion rock salt
bears to the other ; is it a large proportion ?—I
should say it is about one-fourth, roughly speak-
ing, principally for chemical works.
Mr. Hanbury.
6092. But in speaking of that cheap 2 s, 6 d.
salt, are you referring to rock salt”—No ; agri-
cultural Salt pure and simple.
Mr. Pope.
6093. Dirty rough stuff?—Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] That will be all the
evidence we shall call, your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] I think, your Grace, that the best
thing will be to let Mr. Harrison put the case of
the railway companies before you.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, having been re-called; is further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Moon.
6094. You do at present, under the Clearing
House Classification, treat salt differently from
the way you treat lime, as regards rate, do you
not 2–We treat them differently.
6095. And you treat them differently in this
Way ; that the mineral rate (B.) includes
Waggons in the case of lime, and does not
include waggons in the case of salt —That is
so ; we do not carry salt in bulk in the com-
panies' waggons at all, and we charge the mineral
(B.) rates for it, unless, of course, where there
are exceptional rates below.
6096. We have heard that mineral B. Class in
the Clearing House Classification corresponds
to Class B. in the Provisional Order ?–Yes, it
is supposed to do so.
6097. If you exclude that condition which is
now attached to Mineral Class B., as regards
salt, you reduce, do you not, the rate for Class
B. in the Provisional Order?—Yes.
6098. Now, then, the reason for that, if you
Mr. Moon —continued.
please, the reason for that condition being
attached to salt in the difference of treatmentº
—The reason why we object to carry salt in
Companies' waggons is mainly on account of the
injury to the waggons; they are not suitable for
other descriptions of traffic afterwards; and the
drippings or drainings from the salt deteroriate
the ironwork and destroy the waggons very
rapidly. Q-
6099. Is there also this to be considered per-
haps, that there is a liability to injure the other
goods which are afterwards packed in the wag-
gons 7–That is so. &=>
6100. Are Salt waggons more liable to break
down than other waggons 2–It is only fair to
say that it was so for a great many years, but
that latterly, since the Salt Union have taken
the property into their hands and the whole of
the rolling stock, they have given greater atten-
tion to that than the smaller private owners did
before ; and it is only fair to Say that the stock
(81.)
4 Z 4 is
736
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRIson.
| Continue d.
Mr. Moon—continued.
is in a better condition than it was. But we do
look upon salt waggons as a stock that is more
liable to break down than other descriptions of
Waggons. -
6101. And salt waggons require greater care
in inspection and so on than others ?—Yes, un-
doubtedly; we require to have special examiners
appointed for the salt waggons, that we do not
need for the coal waggons and others of that de-
scription.
6102. How would the proposition of the Salt
|Union affect your actual rates ?—Without refer-
ence to this particular proposal, we examined the
proposals of the Board of Trade for Class B. and
we found that the rates at such distances as 16
miles would be reduced, at 40 miles they would
be reduced, and at 60 miles they would be re-
duced ; and those are rates that are not the ordinary
Mineral B. class rates, but exceptional rates be-
low that class ; they would be reduced by the
application of the figures in the Board of Trade
Provisional Order.
Mr. Pope.] Therefore, of course, if there were
waggon hire they would be still further reduced.
Mr. Moon.
6103. That I understand you to say is the re-
duction that is caused by the proposition as it
stands in the Board of Trade Provisional Order ?
—Exactly.
6104. And of course if for the maximum rate
which is now afforded you, which does not include
waggons, the same maximum is retained and the
condition is put upon you to supply waggons that
would further reduce your power of charging?—
If an allowance had be made off that maximnm
rate that would further reduce the rate. There is
no doubt a considerable traffic in salt carried, as the
previous witness said, to chemical works at lower
rates even than Class B. ; but this does not apply
generally ; that is only a special rate to the
chemical works.
6105. You refer to that rock salt that the
witness spoke of 2–Yes, rock and common salt
goes to chemical works.
6106. And goes in large quantities at special
rates ?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Balfour Browne.
6107. Did you compare, first of all, actual
rates with the Board of Trade's proposal 2–
Yes.
6108. Have you got that comparison here 2–
I have the cases I mentioned here.
6109. Would you let me see the cases?—I
will read them out, I think that is better ; it is a
grain of fact amongst a multitude of papers.
6)06. I question even if it is a grain of fact ; but
let me ask you this ; you have not made any com-
parison at all as regards this proposal, made by
the Salt Union ?—I cannot say that I have.
6111. You cannot tell me how much that
would reduce the rates. When you did make a
comparison with the Board of Trade's proposal
did you select certain places?—No.
6112. You did not take your whole trade 2-—
We took the whole trade for a day in each
month, as we did for the iron and all other de-
scriptions of traffic on the London and North
Western Railway.
6113. And how much was it reduced 2–I have
not got salt offhand.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
6114. As I understand, you were speaking of
all the matters and things in Class B 2–No.
Mr. Hunter.
6115. At what time were these figures taken
out 2—About a year or 18 months ago.
6116. Then your figures are based upon an
assumption that two tons is what you have to
carry 2–No, the figures were taken out a year
or two ago, I mean that the traffic was taken out
a year or two ago, and a calculation has been made
up to the latest date of the figures in the Provi-
sional Order, but without the alteration two tons
to four tons.
6117. Have you taken into account the fact
that the Class B. applies now only to four-ton
lots —No, I have not taken that into account.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Of course not.
Witness.] I have not taken that ; but it is only
right to say that in regard to one of the instances
that I have in my mind and have here, that would
not have any weight because it was a 10-ton lot.
6118. On one it might not ?—I mean one of
the examples between two pair of stations.
6119. You might find even in one particular
case that it did not affect it ; but on the whole
traffic it would have some effect?—I do not think
it would, because I have never heard, in a great
many years' experience, of any consignments of
salt in bulk going in less than four-ton lots.
61.20. As a matter of fact the traffic in salt is
almost all train load traffic, is it not; No, I
cannot say that.
6121. Very largely 2-—To chemical works no
doubt it is, but not otherwise; it goes in single
waggons.
6122. With regard to break downs, is it a fact
that there are only three cases, or rather one
failure in every 60,000 waggon trips with regard
to salt P
Chairman.] The witness has admitted that
the salt waggons were very indifferently looked
after when they were in private owners’ hands,
but that since they have been in the possession
of this large company there is not much to be
said against them.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
6123. That is so 2–That is so. And I might
answer that further by saying that I have no
information to support such a statement, and
until the Salt Union became the owners of nearly
all the salt waggons, nobody else had much in-
formation.
6124. The Salt Union are the owners of a
very large number of waggons ——
Chairman.] He has admitted very fairly that
they were very bad at one time when they were
in private hands, but that since they have been
in the hands of the Salt Union they have been
very much better.
Mr. Balfour Browne.
6125. Now, I want to ask you something else.
We hear from the last witness that rock salt is
probably one-fourth of the whole traffic, you
treat rock salt differently from salt in bulk at
the present time 2–That is the Clearing House
Classification.
6126. I am
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
737
5 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne—continued.
6126. I am speaking of the Clearing House
Classification, and that is what you are founding
the claim upon. Rock salt is M(B.), and salt in
bulk is M(B.), with this note that “Salt in
bulk is not carried except in owners' waggons,”
so that one-fourth of your whole traffic is not
subject to that note?—That is the Clearing House
Classification which is applicable to all the com-
panies, but if the previous witness' statement
was correct, and I have no doubt it was, that
one-fourth of all the traffic in salt, is in rock salt.
I should say the London and North Western
carry a very large proportion of that one-fourth,
and they never carry it in their own waggons
notwithstanding the Clearing House, therefore,
the two classifications become alike.
6127. But if you never carry it in your own
waggons and otherwise treat it in the Clearing
House as if it were so carried, you ought surely
to give a rebate upon that at any rate.
Lord Belper.] Under the Provisional Order
salt in bulk and rock salt would not be in the
same position, because Clause 2 refers to salt in
bulk.
Mr Balfour Browne.] I thought, my Lord,
with great respect, that rock salt was covered by
salt in bulk.
Lord Belper.] No, not at all ; salt in bulk
and rock salt are different things in the classifi-
cation. -
Chairman.] You have the book before you, on
page 42 you will see it.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] What Lord Belper was
referring to was in the classification of the
Board of Trade. (To Lord Belper.) I see you
are right.
Lord Belper.] You are keeping on the differ-
ence which the railway companies limit to one
article.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] I have nothing more to
ask you, Mr. Harrison.
Re-examined by Mr. Pope.
6128. If you carry the bulk of the trade as
you say in owners' waggons, manifestly the
obligation to make an allowance for the waggon
must of necessity pro tanto reduce the amount of
your rate 2–Quite so.
6129. The rock salt mainly goes over the Lon-
don and North Western Railway; it is in
Cheshire mainly that the salt mines are 2–Yes ;
and it goes mainly to the chemical works at excep-
tional rates altogether.
6.130. At Widnes 2–Yes, at Widnes.
6131. Your practice has been certainly not to
carry rock salt except in owners' waggons?—
Yes; that is so.
Mr. Hambury.
6132. Then do you charge by the M. (B.) rate?
—-No, there are exceptional rates for rock salt.
I do not think it can be considered with the salt
in bulk quite.
6133. As I understand, you charge exactly the
same rates for salt in bulk and rock salt 2–Yes.
6.134. They are both carried in owners' wag-
gons 2–Yes, they are both carried in owners'
waggons.
Mr. J1ambury—continued.
6135. They are both therefore carried at
the M. (B) rate, or a good deal less than that?—
At the M. (B.) rate or less, without any allow-
ance for waggons.
Earl of Camperdown.] You do not enforce in
the latter case the condition which appears in page
42 of the Clearing House Classification. Under
the classification, it can only be carried under the
M. (B.) rate if it is carried in owners' waggons.
Mr. Pope.] It never is carried in anything
else. So far as the London and North Western
Company is concerned it does not arise, because
nobody asks us to find waggons.
Mr. Hambury.
6.136. But when you carry the rock salt in
owners' waggons, seeing that M. (B.) is for rock
salt carried in company's waggons, do you nake
a reduction for rock salt in consequence?—No
we do not.
Lord Belper.
6137. To put in another way, why do you give
a lower rate for rock salt than you do for salt in
bulk 7–They are practically treated as the same,
but the point I want to mention is that the rock
salt is going to chemical works, and it is treated
exceptionally to the Clearing House Classi-
fication.
Lord Belper
6138. The point I want to find out is whether,
when you carry the salt in bulk damaging your
waggons, you would charge anything higher, and
you say you do not 2–We will not supply
waggons for salt at all.
Mr. Pope.
6139. But in the case of rock salt and white
salt sent to the chemical works, you make a
special rate below the Clearing House Classi-
fication altogether ?—Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
6140. Is the proportion of salt sent to
the chemical works large or small ?—I cannot
say the proportion ; the chemical works people
would know better than I do, because I do not
get it in a concrete shape.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] I am told it is three-
eighths.
Mr. Hambury.
6141. Then as regards three-eighths of the
trade in salt, rock salt and salt in bulk are treated
precisely alike 2–
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] What is the exact amendment 2
Mr. Moon..] To let the traders have the same
rate if the salt is carried in their waggons as
that which the traders in lime and lias lime
would have if that were carried in their
Waggons.
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Yes.
Chairman.] Not to go to Class A.
(81.)
5 A - Mr.
738 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] No, do not ask A. ; but that the refined, or the more costly or
that. troublesome ammoniacal liquor in casks or drums,
The Committee retire to deliberate.
On their return.
Chairman.] The Committee have decided that
e - e -e e 5
as to salt in bulk when carried in Owners
waggons, the traders be entitled to a reduc-
tich.
Mr. Pope.] That will make salt in exactly
the same category as lias lime.
Mr. Hanbury.] Lime in bulk.
Mr. Pope.] Yes; lime in bulk. I think, now,
your Grace, that concludes all the amendments
I have before me which appear in Class A. In
Class B., the first one is ammoniacal liquor; but
mv learned friend, Mr. Whitehead, says it would
be convenient if we waited a little to dispose of
that. We have settled with Messrs. Brunner,
Mond, and Company, but not with the whole
of the traders who are interested in the ques-
tion.
Chairman.] Then the first part,
Brunner, Mond, and Company, goes out.
Mr. Pope..] Yes; Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and
Company’s amendments are struck out.
Chairman.] With regard to ammoniacal liquor,
what do you propose about that.
Mr. Pope.] Let it stand over till the parties
interested can appear. We have settled the
classification with Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and
Company, but not with the whole of the traders.
Chairman.] Therefore you apply for that to
be postponed.
Mr. Whitehead..] Then you will allow that to
be postponed till the whole of the parties
interested are present.
Earl of Belmore.] Who are the parties you
appear for 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I appear for the Mansion
House Association.
Mr. Pope..] I do not know that the difference
between crude and refined ammoniacal liquor
has been settled.
Earl of Camperdown.] That was done yester-
day.
Chairman.] No, it was not done yesterday.
Mr. Pope.] We are prepared to go on with it,
except that some of the parties interested are
not present who are not prepared to assent to
that which we have agreed with Messrs. Brunner,
Mond, and Company.
Mr. Whitehead.] We are ready to go on with
it, so that if it is convenient to go on with it
In OW W C Call.
Mr. Pope.] Then I may say that what we
have agreed with Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and
Company, with regard to this classification is
this: The question which I understand arose
with regard to classification was this; the
difference between crude ammoniacal liquor and
refined ammoniacal liquour under the circum-
stances in which it is sent; and we have agreed
with Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company,
that a fair compromise for ammoniacal liquor
when sent in owners' tank waggons, would be
that it should be reduced from Class B. to Class
Messrs.
should be raised to Class C. ; in fact, it gives us
a higher class for the refined article, it gives the
trader the advantage of a lower class where
he has that crude article carried in his own
tank waggons under the second class of circum-
stances as Class A. already provides.
Chairman.] You take it out of Class B., and
put part of it into Class A., and the rest into
Class C.
Mr. Pope.] The agreement is that where it is
conveyed in owners' tank waggons we are willing
that it should go into Class A., and where it is
conveyed in casks or drums that it should go
into Class C.
Mr. Hanbury.] And you will have money of
it in Class B.
Mr. Pope.] None of it in Class B. That is
the agreement with Messrs. Brunner, Mond,
and Company, so that the classification will be
amended in this way : In Class A. it will be
creosote, coal tar, gas tar, and gas water, or
ammoniacal liquor, in owners' tank waggons,
that is Class A. In Class B. it will be omitted
altogether, and the following will be inserted in
Class C. : Creosote, coal tar, gas tar, gas water, or
ammonaical liquor, e.o.h.p. ; c.o.h.p., referring to
Class 1 in owners' waggons.
Mr. Hambury.] Those are casks and drums are
carried in company’s waggons.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, those are carried in company’s
Waggons.
Mr. Hunter.] Is ammoniacal liquors mentioned
in the Clearing House Classification ?
Mr. Pope.] I think not.
Chairman.] ‘‘Ammonia liquid,” that is
not the
S3,100 €. thing. *
Mr. Pope.] It is under gas water, page 30.
Mr. Hunter.] Is that the same thing 2
Mr. Pope. Yes; we propose that it should
appear in the classification.
Mr. Hunter.] Gas water we have already.
Mr. Pope.] In owners' tank waggons.
Mr. Hunter.] Is that the same thing as am-
moniacal liquor.
Mr. Pope J Yes.
Chairman.] That is your proposal.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, that is our proposal, and it is
agreed to by Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Com-
pany, but not assented to by those whom my
learned friend represents.
Chairman.] Where are your amendments?
Mr. Whitehead..] This is the proposal by the
railway companies : to omit ammoniacal liquor
from Class B., as settled by the Board of Trade.
We oppose that amendment, we desire to retain
the classification as regards that article in the
same condition as it was left by the Board of
Trade.
Mr. Hanbury.] I understand that the agree-
ment with Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Com-
pany goes beyond ammoniacai liquor and in-
cludes creosote, and other things.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
739
5 June 1891.
Mr. Pope.] The agreement with Messrs.
Brunner, Mond, and Company is this: that in
Class A. you are to read creosote, coal tar, gas
tar, gas water, or ammoniacal liquor in
owners’ tank waggons. You will observe that
“creosote, coal tar, gas tar, and gas water in
owners' tank waggons” is the entry at present in
Class A. We propose to add after “gas water"
“ or ammoniacal liquor,” I am told by somebody,
I do not know who, that ammoniacal liquor is not
always gas water, but that gas water is always
ammoniacal liquor, and that therefore it may be
desirable to have the two included. Then a
similar entry will be made, if you assent to our
proposition, to its being entirely omitted in
Class B. ; but an entry will be made similar in
words to the entry in Class A., so far as the
articles are concerned in Class C., with the letters
e.o.h.p. (To Mr. Hanbury.) Then you were
asking, Sir, whether the effect of placing it in
Class C. would render the companies always
liable to providing waggons, subject to the condi-
tions of Sub-section 27
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Now we will
hear you. (To Mr. Pope.) You have no witnesses,
I suppose.
Mr. Pope.] I have no witnesses.
Mr. Whitehead..] I do not quite understand the
position.
Earl of Camperdown.] You are arguing against
alteration ? -
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Chairman.] The railway companies, so far as I
understand, have so far amended that amendment
which is at page 18, column 1 : Omit “ammoni-
acai liquor,” and substitute for that amendment
the amendment upon the paper which Mr. Pope
has read.
you have now to direct your attention to is the
proposal made by Mr. Pope, which he says has
been agreed to between the railway companies
and Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is again
Mr. Moom.
6142. Now as to ammoniacal liquor. How is
ammoniacal liquor at the present time classified
in the Clearing House Classification ?–It is not
there at all by that name.
6143. Not under that name, but it is there
under the term gas water and is classified in
the Special Class; it is page 30 –-Yes; that is
so. Special Class “ in casks or iron drums.”
6144. And you are asking to have it placed in
the corresponding class of the Provisional
Order Classification ?—Yes, when it goes packed
in that way.
6145. In Class C.?—Yes, in Class C.
Mr, Moon.] I think, your Grace, it would
perhaps be convenient to have the other articles,
creosote, coal tar, and gas tar, as to which the same
proposition is made, they all really depend upon
the same principle.
Chairman." Very well.
(To Mr. Whitehead.) Therefore what
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand ; that is to say
that with regard to one trader this has been
agreed to, but with regard to the other traders no
agreement has been come to with the railway
companies, but that the railway companies now
propose, having come to that agreement, to raise
certain kinds of ammoniacal liquor and other
articles e.o.h.p. from Class B. to Class C. I
understand at the present time there have been
no reasons alleged in favour of that change 7
Mr. Pope.] Yes; as the matter originally
stood before it was postponed, our evidence was
directed to striking ammoniacal liquor out of
Class B. altogether, and raising it to Class C.
Mr. Whitehead..] I did not understand that
any evidence had been called at all as regarded
that proposition. I say that as the case stands,
the railway companies have proved nothing in
favour of their proposition ?
Mr. Pope..] I think we have entirely proved
it, but we will call witnesses if you desire it ; it
has gone out of my mind altogether.
Chairman.] I think, Mr. Pope, you had better
lead some evidence. -
Mr. Pope.] I think what was in my mind was
that it was discussed upon the waggon question,
rather than upon classification ; there was some
evidence called about it with regard to that.
You are quite right, we have not called any
evidence strictly as to this.
Mr. Whitehead..] If it is the wish of the Com-
mittee, we are prepared to go on; we have our
witnesses here and could go on at once.
Chairman.] But it is for the railway com-
panies to prove their case.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is exactly what I feel,
my Lord.
called in ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Moom.
6146. (To the Witness.) You are also proposing
to raise from Class B. of the Provisional Order
to Class C., -creosote, coal tar, and gas tar 2–
Yes. -
6147. Where they are not in owners' tank
waggons 2–Yes, where they are not in owners'
tank waggons.
6148. Where they are in owners’ tank wag-
gons all those articles are to go in Class A. 2–
Yes.
6149. That is a lower class than they are at
present carried in according to the Clearing
House Classification. I find in the Clearing
House Classification, gas tar, and so on, in
owners' tank waggons or in loose tanks in eight
tons are carried in Mineral B. 2 –Yes ; that
is so.
6150. It is now proposed that this should go
to the lowest class 2–Yes.
6151. Why are you asking that those arti-
cles should be restored to Class C. 2–We con-
(81.)
5 A 2 - sider
740 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
TAR EN BEFORE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. J100m--continued.
sider that Class C, or the corresponding class in
the Clearing House Classification, is a fair classi-
fication, and that we have never had much objec-
tion raised to it, for those things when they are
going in the company’s waggons in casks and
drums, and in that way. -
6152. Messrs Brunner, Mond, and Company
are very large manufacturers, are they not 2–Yes.
6153. Do you consider that is a fair proposition?
—I should rather say they are rather large con-
sumers of it, they do not produce it.
6154. Any how, they either sell or purchase ?
yes. I do not know whether I am at liberty to
mention the result of our interview.
Mr. Mason.] Yes, it has been mentioned.
Witness.] At the interview the railway com-
panies had with Messrs. Brummer, Mond, and
Company and several representatives of the
trade Messrs Brumer, Mond, and Com-
pany’s repesentative stated that they would be
quite content with that proposition to put these
articles in owners' tank waggous into Class A.,
and he thought it was a fair equivalent to the
companies’ if they provided the waggons that they
should be put when in casks and drums and recep-
tacles of that kind, into Class C.
Mr. Moon..] I have not it before me, but as
Clause 2 of Part I. stands at present amended by
the decision of the Committee, your obligation is
to provide trucks except where ammonical liquor
creosote, coal tar, and so on, are packed in such
form as when conveyed in such manner, to injure
the trucks of the company ; that was the amend-
ment your Grace will remember which the Com-
mittee accepted.
Witness.] That is so.
Mr. Moon.
6155.] But in other cases you are bound to
provide trucks?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6156.] Now those articles are of a very low
value per ton at the works, are they not, before
they have been carried by rail?—“Low * is a
comparative term. I do not know the exact
value myself.
6157. I will put it to you that it is about 5 s.
a ton 2–I do not know the value. I had better
not say.
6158. But the question is that the raising of
the article as you propose from Class B. into
Class C. would make the rate a very heavy rate
in relation to the value of the article –The
carriage is not based entirely upon the value of
Mr. HARRISON
-ms
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
the article, because in many cases it exceeds it.
It must of course vary in proportion to the value
of the article according to the distance that it
travels.
6159. But value being an element, as you
have so often said, in making this calculation, so
far as value is concerned, the rate for Class C.
would bear a very high proportion in relation to
the value of this article?—It depends upon the
distance travelled. *
6160. Then take a short distance, say 30
miles, the rate for Class C. for 30 miles would
amount to what ? Taking the London and
North Western Company’s schedule for any
distance exceeding 20 miles, but not exceeding
50 miles, Class C. is 1:70 d. per ton per mile 2–
What distance do you suggest that I should
take P
6161. Thirty miles. Then taking the station
terminal at each end that would be 1 s., and the
service terminals, what would the carriage for 30
miles amount to ? —I make it 6 s. 9 d.
6162. And if the value, as I put it to you, of
this article is about 5 s. a ton, that 6 s. 9 d. for
railway carriage bears a very high relation to the
value of the article, does it not?—Yes ; but you
must bear in mind that the value of the station
accommodation and the services which are per-
formed in relation to it form a very large propor-
tion out of the 6 s. 9 d. At the unprofitable rate
that is put down here for station services and
labour there is 2 s. must be deducted for which
we say we shall have spent considerably more
than 2 s. -
6163. May I put this to you, that virtually at
the gas works this gas water is a waste product 2
—No ; I do not think that is correct.
Mr. Pope.] “Residual product” is the term
properly given to it. *
Witness.] I do not think it can be said to be a
waste product, because I understand at the gas
works they are laying out capital to utilise it and
make a profit out of it.
Mr. Dickson.
6164, Is not the technical term “residual” ”
—Yes; and some of the residuals are very valu-
able, I believe. -
Mr. Pope.j Some of the gas works make al-
most all their profit out of the residual products.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] I do not propose, your Grace, to
call any more witnesses.
MR. JAMES MITCHELL STEELE, is galled in, and having been sworn,
is Examined, as fºllows:
Mr. Whitehead.
Mr. Hambury (to Mr. Pope).] You propose
that in consideration of ammoniacal liquor or gas
water going from the Clearing House Classifica-
tion in this classification ; and going down a class
from Class B. to Class A., creosote, coal far, gas
tar, and gas water in casks and drums go up a
Class.
Mr. Pope..] Yes, I am told that “refined am-
moniacal liquor ’’ is a wrong phrase.
Mr. Hanbury.] What is the right one?
Mr. Pope.] I cannot tell you, but whatever
answers to that.
Mr. Whitehead. -
6165. (To the Witness).] You are a member of
the firm of Messrs. Sadler and Company, Limi-
ted, 85, Gracehurch Street, London 2–Yes.
6166. With regard to the agreement which
has been entered into between Messrs.
Brnnuer
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
74.1
5 June 1891,
Mr. STEELE.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—-continued.
Brunner, Mond, and Company and the railway
companies, is it the fact that Messrs. Brunner,
Mond, and Company are only interested in one of
these articles 2–That is so. -
6167. Ammoniacal liquor 2–Yes.
6168. And that in return for having a reduc-
tion upon that article, when carried in owners'
waggons, they have conceded to the railway Com-
panies an increase of rate or a rise of class in re-
spect of articles in regard to which they are not
interested 7–That is so.
Mr. Hanbury.] But are they not interested in
it when it is carried in casks or drums.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand not.
Mr. Pope J No doubt they are interested in it;
there can be no doubt of it that they are large
consumers and men of capital and would bring
the bulk of the ammoniacal liquor to their works
in their own tank waggons.
Mr. Whitehead.
6169. (To the Witness.) So that Messrs.
Brunner, Mond, and Company have given up
the benefit that was conferred upon you and have
gained a benefit to be conferred upon themselves
in exchange 2–That is so. . .
6170. With regard to the value of these
articles, what is the value of ammoniacal liquor
at the gas works?—At the present moment to
be carried 30 miles under Class B. would be its
full value. Any gas works situated 30 miles
from a chemical works could not get rid of this
waste at ail at the present moment, if it had to
be carried 30 miles.
Mr. Dickson.
617 l. Does not the value of ammoniacal liquor
depend upon the degree of its strength P--That is -
so, but practically ammoniacal liquor is taken as
having 10 ounces of ammonia to the gallon.
6172. How many degrees —That is five
degrees Twaddell or 10 ounces to the gallon.
If that article were carried 30 miles under
Class B. it would just enable the gas company to
get rid of it; to carry it 30 miles under Class C.
they could not get rid of it at all, because nobody
would take it. Under the conditions of gas
manufacture they are obliged to get rid of it;
they must wash the gas, and the result is that
the gas water contains 95 per cent. of water and
only 5 per cent. Twaddell, of ammonia, the
article which is of any value.
6173. Under these circumstances it is very
desirable in every interest that the rate charge-
able upon these classes of goods should be as
low as possible 2–That is so.
6174. What is the price at the works, per ton,
for ammoniacal liquer. I put it to Mr. Harrison
that it was about 5 s, a ton 2–At the present
time, taking the case of gas works with a che-
mical works adjoining, it would be worth 5 s.
Chairman.] Let me quite understand. Is it
your contention that, as regards these articles
proposed by the railway companies to be reduced
from Class B. to Class A. that ought not to be done.
Mr. Whitehead..] No ; we consent to it.
Chairman.] What you object to is that part of
the articles in Class B. should be put up to
Class C. -
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then everybody is
agreed to put down the articles “ammoniacal,
liquor ’’ in owners’ tank waggons?
Mr. Pope.] The traders would like to have it
carried for nothing.
Chairman.] What point are we discussing 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Raising ammoniacal liquor,
when not carried in owners' waggons, from
Class 3., where it has been placed by the Board
of Trade, up to Class C.
Mr. Pope.] We do not agree to it at all; we
did not wish a reluction of the rate at all, but as
part of the compromise we were willing that it
should be so if we got the compensation of
raising the other class.
Chairman.] If we consented that the articles
should remain in Class B., and not go to
Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Then we should refuse our con-
sent to creosote in tank waggons going into
Class A, *
Mr. Hanbury.] The refined article is what
we have to limit our attention to.
Earl of Camperdown.] To whatever answers
to refined ammoniacal liquor and all those other
articles e.o.h.p.
Mr. Whitehead.] Our proposition is this ; that
these crude articles should go into Class B.,
rather than Class C., because, being of low
value, the rates charged in respect of Class C.
traffic would be far too high in every way in
regard to the value of the article; and, with
regard to the other articles, creosote, which is
not of a higher value than coal tar and gas tar,
we would be willing as a compromise to put it
into Class C., provided the crudest of the materials
was retained in Class B. in accordance with
the Board of Trade proposal.
Mr. Pope.] That is a counter proposal.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead.)] You had
better formulate your proposal.
Mr. Pope.] I would look at it iſ my learned
friend would formulate it more specifically.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead.)] Will you
formulate it, in some shape, and say what you
are willing should go to Class B., and what other
articles should go to Class C.
Mr. Whitehead.
6175. (To the Witness.) Will you state what
articles you would be willing to see put into
Class B., and what articles should go into
Class C. 2–0nly the crude ammoniacal liquor
and the coal tar.
6176. Those should go into Class B. 2–Yes;
on the part of the industries we would be willing
that the crude coal tar should go into Class B.
and creosote into Class C., because it might be
argued, and was argued by Mr. Pope the other
day when the compromise was suggested, that it
was a semi-manufactured article ; I think that
was on Wednesday last.
Mr. Whitehead...] That had reference to the
waggon amendments, and will be found on page
878.
Chairman.] We do not care about that.
(81.)
5 A 3 Mr.
742 |MINUTES OF
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
à l'une 1891.]
Mr. Whitehead. But that is the proposition,
that when these articles are in the crudest con-
dition they should be in Class B. ; when, on the
other hand, they have gone through the process
of manufacture, as in the case of creosote, they
should go into Class C.
Mr. Hambury.] Only in Class A. when carried
in owners’ tank.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] No ; supposing there were any
such compromise, as to owners' waggons, then to
remain in Class B., except creosote which might
go fairly to Class C.
Witness.] I understand that there is no ques-
tion as to either of the articles in owner's tank
waggons being all in Class A., but we are quite
willing to give way on the matter of creosote,
that it should be raised to Class C., as proposed by
the railway companies, providing that crude coal
tar and crude ammoniacal liquor should remain
remain as recommended by the Board of Trade.
Mr. Hunter.] You say “crude,” but the word
“crude * does not exist in the classification.
Witness.] We should be willing that that
should be added for the protection of the railway
companics.
Mr. Hanbury.
6177. If it is in iron drums, how is the rail-
way company to know if it is crude or
refined 2–Gas works is bound at the siding to
put it into drums to get rid of it.
Mr. Pope.
6178. At the gas sidings 7–Yes, there are a
number of them, but the principal works of the
Manchester Gas are not on railway sidings, and
the tar is carted through the town in the early
morning.
Mr. Whitehead.] Would this meet your case :
“ crude coal tar and crude ammoniacal liquor
from gas works.”
j%tness.] That would meet the case.
Mr. Pope.
6179. I have the evidence which Dr. Hewett
gave before the Board of Trade. Is it not the
fact that of the whole of this trade of ammoniacal
liquor 95 per cent. is sent from gas works in
owners’ tank waggons 2–Distinctly not. Take
the case of the London manufacturing industries;
it goes by railway or by river or canal, if it exists,
but not to that extent in tank Waggons.
6180. I may be wrong in saying “in tank
waggons.” I will add in tank barges, but not in
so large a proportion ?—No.
6181. Take the deliveries from the gas works
in London to the sulphate of ammonia makers,
which are the great consumers of ammoniacal
liquor; is not 95 per cent. of it sent from gas
works which provide their own tank waggons and
send it in that way, not in casks or drums ?—Not
in that proportion.
6182. I may be in error in saying “tank wag-
gons,” but including barges from the gas works in
London for instance, the sulphate of ammonia
trade is made up by the carriage of waste of
that kind which is barged from the works in
Mr. STEELE.
[Continued.
—w
Mr. Pope—continued.
Pimlico and landed in those tank barges at the
sulphate of ammonia works 2 –That is so.
6183. Including that, is not 95 per cent.
of the total production of gas water conveyed
away from the gas works in tank waggons or
tank barges?—Not the whole of it; I would
concede 90 per cent.
6814. Then this question would affect only ten
per cent. of the entire product which is sent
away in casks or drums?—Of the entire product.
6.185. According to the last Board of Trade
return, the coal carbonised for gas making would
be 1,500,000 tons annually, so that this question
would affect 150,000 tons per a num out of that
quantity ?—Yes.
6186. Out of the 1,500,000 tons 2–Yes.
6187. Now, answering the question of the
honourable Member, supposing you delivered
to the railway company, say, a quantity of
ammoniacal liquor in a cask or drum, how are
the railway company to tell whether it is crude
or not ?—Because they would take the delivery
direct from the gas works.
6.188. But your supposition is that they cannot
take it direct from the gas works there being no
sidings at many of them 2–It would be carted
direct from the gas works to the railway siding.
6189. How can they tell when it is carted
direct from the gas works whether it is crude
or not?--The rate would be from the particular
gas works.
6.190. Then it is not a question of general
classification if the traffic is to be classified ac-
cording to the place it comes from ?—I am speak-
ing as to identity; they would know perfectly
well where the tar or the liquors were carried
from the gas works, because it is not an article of
value; it would not be produced in any other
way : it is the necessary produce of a gas works.
Mr. Dickson.
619.1. The tank waggons are principally pro-
vided, I think you said, by the gas companies,
where they are near their own sidings 2–But the
gas makers, it must be remembered, are now to a
considerable extent chemical manufacturers, who
utilise their products. -
6192. Gas works, not near sidings, and produc-
ing ammomacial liquor in small qmantities, would
cart it to the station in bulk?–Yes; these gas
companies you know are obliged to produce
their gas in competition with companies who
have more favourable facilities.
Mr. Pope.
6193. And they charge more for it?—Not
always.
Mr. Whitehead.
61.94. In that case the country station-master
would have no difficulty in identifying the am-
moniacal liquor, because it would only come frºm
the neighbouring gas works 7–That is so.
Chairman.] How would he identify it; how
would the station master know whether it was
crude or refined 2
6195, (To
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
7.43
5 June 1891.]
Mr. STEELE.
[Continuca.
Mr. Whitehead.
6195. (To the Witness.) Do the gas companies
ever send any other ammoniacal liquor than
crude 2—No. -
Mr. Pope.
6196. Do not you know that lately several
of the gas companies are in the position of having
got Parliamentary powers to manufacture their
own gas water into sulphate of ammonia 2–Cer-
tainly, but those who have not the power would
have to get rid of their ammoniacal liquor.
Mr. Whitehead.
6197. Sulphate of ammonia is a product of
ammoniacal liquor, is it not ?–It is.
Mr. Dickson.
6.198. And -sulphate of ammonia is generally
carried in bags, is it not ?–It is, white or
grey. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Now I should like to hear what
the Board of Trade has to say upon the sub-
ject.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Most of us have heard
a great deal of what has been said to your Grace
before, and we have also heard what has been
said to-day. The principle of the classification
of the Board of Trade is to put creosote, coal
tar, gas tar, and gas water in owners' tank wag-
gons in Class A. ; ammoniacal liquor is not so
treated, because, as Mr. Pope admitted, all gas
water is ammoniacal liquor, but all ammoniacal
liquor is not gas water. There are certain classes
of ammoniacal liquor which are not gas water.
We were very much pressed by the railway
companies to put ammoniacal liquor, creosote,
gas tar, coal tar, and gas water, when carried in
casks or drums (which, practically, is the effect
of the words “e.o.h.p.”) into Class C. We did
not see our way to doing that. The value of
those products is very small indeed ; the trouble
of carrying them is not very great, and we were
not satisfied that the damage which they did to
the company’s waggons was, as a rule, con-
siderable ; consequently, we put those articles
into Class B. Now, you have heard of the
agreement between the railway companies and
Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company, but we
2.Te
Mond, and Company, being very large manu-
faciurers, had before then rather the con-
siderations affecting large manufacturers than
they had before them the considerations affecting
small manufacturers. There are many small
gas cºmpanies in the country who are very con-
siderably interested in the conveyance of creosote,
coal tar, gas tar, and gas water, which are gas
residuals, in Small quantities, and consequently
in the rate applicable to those small quantities.
Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company, and
other very large manufacturers, may not care what
becomes of the creosote, and the other articles,
e.o.h.p., so long as they get them in owners' tank
waggons into Class A., but we had before us the
interest of file small companies, and the small
dealers in those articles, and having regard to
them, and having regard to the very low value of
quite convinced that Messrs. Brunner,
- -* * *
those articles, we put them into Class B., and
not into Class C. ; and so far as anything we
have heard to-day affects our judgment, we do
not suggest to the Committee to make any
alteration in the classification.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay
Boyle.)] I think, if I understood you rightly,
you declined to put ammoniacal liquor carried in
owners' waggons in Class A.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We did, because
ammoniacal liquor is different from gas water.
There are certain classes of ammoniacal liquor
which are not gas water, and which are a more
important product than gas water ; consequently
we cannot treat ammoniacal liquor as we should
treat gas water; but that is a very small point
indeed.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you still adhere to
that opinion ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Yes, without much
insistence, we do not think it is a very important
matter.
The Committee further deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee decide to leave
the matter as the Board of Trade have put it in
the schedule; so that practically that will not
be to omit ammoniacal liquor.
Mr. Pope.] Quite so.
Chairman.] Then the next amendment with
regard to arseniate of soda is not appeared upon,
and the next, barytes ground in casks or bags,
that is not appeared upon. Then bi-carbonate
of soda in casks, and bi-sulphite of soda, nobody
appears upon those.
Mr. Whitehead..] All the amendments pro-
posed by Messrs. Brunner, Mond, and Company
have been withdrawn,
Chairman.] That is very satisfactory.
Earl of Camperdown.] There is an amendment
with regard to bleaching powder, on page 4.
Chairman.] And there is an amendment pro-
posed by the Mansion House Association.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is also withdrawn.
Chairman.] The amendment proposed by the
South Wales and Monmouthshire freighters and
South and West Yorkshire coal owners with re-
gard to bricks, clay, common or fire, that is with-
drawn 2
Mr. Mason.] I understand they are all with-
drawn except pitwood.
Chairman.] Nobody appears, that is withdrawn.
Then chalk lime, that is done.
Mr. Pope.] The next is chima clay. In that
case we have discussed it among ourselves and we
proposed to leave china clay simpliciter, in the
class where it is, neither using the words “ in
bulk '' nor “packed,” in Class B. or whereever it
is to omit it from Class C. and put it in Class B. ,
the Mansion House Association proposed to add
words “ in bulk” or “packed.” The shortest
way is to strikes out those words and leave itas
china clay, simpliciter, and say nothing about it,
and strike it out of Class C.
(81.)
Lord
5 A 4
744 MINUTES OF
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
EV 1 DENCE T A K F.N. BEFORE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. STEELE.
[Continued.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] That will require
a consequential amendment in Class C.
Mr. Pope.] Yes, it must be struck out in
Class C.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] I just mention it,
it had better be taken a note of.
Mr. Pope.] It was mentioned, Lord Balfour,
at this moment, that consequence is that it comes
out of Class C. of course.
Chairman.] But has Lord Balfour something
more to say than that?
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] No, nothing
more than that ; but it is from our previous ex-
perience that if you make an alteration upon one
matter, unless a consequential alteration is noted
at the same time, it is very often apt to be for-
gotten.
Chairman.] I understand. Then china clay is
dealt with. Then the next amendment is with
regard to coal fuel patent, which is proposed by
the South and West Yorkshire coalowners.
Mr. Pope.] They do not appear upon that,
your Grace.
Chairman.] Then that is done with. Then
the amendment by the Swansea freighters, as to
copper ore, nobody appears ; that is settled.
Then the amendment as to draft, or brewers’ or
distillers’ grains, is settled, and that also with
regard to furnace lumps and furnace scrapings
is settled. And then the amendment of the
Mansion House Association as to grain whole,
what is that ?
Mr. Whitehead..] That is withdrawn.
Chairman.] Then the amendment to omit bar,
that is done.
Now then, page 18, column 2, after line 33,
insert “castings, mill-forge, and other rough and
heavy unfinished castings, iron or steel.”
Sir Alfred Hickman.] I think the most con-
venient plan will be for me to offer evidence
upon this rather than to address your Grace.
SIR ALFRED HICKMAN, having been called in, is sworn.
Witness.] My amendment, your Grace, is to
move castings into Class B. ; but after the de-
cision that the Committee came to yesterday I
would not press that, but would be content to
have it go with other iron articles into Class C.
Castings, mill, forge, and other rough and heavy
unfinished castings are of the commonest,
cheapest, and most undamageable form.
Chairman.] What are you doing now Ż
Mr. Pope.] This amendment goes of course.
Whether Sir Alfred Hickman should move an
amendment when he comes to discuss the iron
articles included in Class C. may be another
matter, but at all events, as he says, after the
decision the other day this amendment to insert
in Class B. these articles cannot be persevered
with.
Witness.] That is so.
Chairman.] Then we had better wait to hear
you until we get to Class C.
JPitness.] If your Grace pleases.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Then the amendment as to
clippings, shearings, and stampings of sheet iron
and tin plates in compressed bundles goes out,
and the proposal of the Swansea freighters to
insert or bound, nobody appears on that. Then
the amendment as to colliery tubbing, nobody
appears upon that. Forging iron ore steel in
the rough, hoop iron, keel bars, ladles, puddlers,
lead ore, Canada, tin, plate or sheet iron an-
mealed, rods (common), scrap heavy, sheet iron
not packed, those are not persevered in. Speige-
leisen, that is settled; wheels, fly and spur, Iron
ore, refuse for gas purifying, lias lime in bulk,
or in casks or bags, lime in bulk, lime, e.o.h.p.,
when carried in companies' waggons, litter (moss
or peat), hydraulic or steam press packed, man-
gamate of soda (crude in casks), that is done
Manure, other than street, stable, and
Is that done with ?
with.
farm yard.
Mr. Poyser.] No, your Grace, I wish it had
been, but the railway companies are not quite so
reasonable as they might be.
Chairman.] Then Class B. page 20, column 2,
line 1, after “Manure * omit “other than street,
stable, and farm yard in bulk,” and insert
“e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Poyser.] I will just call your Grace's
attention to what the meaning of the amendment
is. When the railway companies were asked to
send in lists to the Board of Trade of their new
classification, they sent in (I daresay they got it
from the Clearing House Classification) these
two classes of manure, “street, stable or farm-
yard in bulk º' which they put in Class B., and
manure, other than street, stable and farmyard
in bulk,” which they put in Class C. When
they came before the Board of Trade, they re-
duced the first of those into Class A., still leaving
manure other than street, stable and farmyard
in bulk in Class C. The Board of Trade dealt
with that, and those were the only two things
argued before the Board of Trade, and the result
of it was, that when they published their first
schedule the Board of Trade put manure, street,
stable or farmyard in Class A., and they put
manure other than street, stable or farmyard in
Class B. Then we thought we were perfectly satis-
fied with that ; but there appears to have been
some mistake made about that, and though we
were resting under the impression that we were
in Class B. for packed manure, and the railway
companies were also under the same impression,
because they got out figures and put them before
the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade said that
was not their meaning, and so they added in
their Bill to the classification in Class C, the
words “Manure, e.o.h.p.” The result of that
is to put packed manure up into Class C. and
manure, other than street, stable, or farmyard, in
bulk remaining in Class B., but not applying to
packed manure; that only deals with manure in
bulk. What I submit, your Grace, is that in
this
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL ORDER PILLS.
745
5 June 1891.
this case we ought to have our packed manure
conveyed under the classification of Class B. and
not of Class C. I must go a little into ground
that has been before the Committee this morn-
ing, because I think that I show to the Com-
mittee that we have always in every Act of
Parliament almost enjoyed the position of being
in the lowest class; and it may be said now, that
in the Clearing House Classification as modified,
they are dealt with in the same way ; but the
position I want to put before your Grace and the
Committee is that when we were put in the
lowest class in the various Acts of Parliament,
that was part of the bargain, and that that
bargain ought to be maintained just as much as
the bargain of the railway companies upon
which they say they make their present
charges, ar.d they hope the Committee will not
reduce any of their earning power. We say, just
as that is an argument which they may put for-
ward, so we say we gave good value in considera-
tion to have ourselves placed in the lowest class
of all ; and I ask that you will maintain that
bargain that we made. Your Grace is aware
perfectly well that at the time these Acts of
Parliament were passed the agricultural interest
was heard and was considered in legislation of
this sort. Almost every railway company which
wanted to serve an agricultural district, in order
to make friends with the people through whose
lands they were going, and in order to get posses-
sion of that land, they made a bargain in every
one of these Acts of Parliament. Your Grace
will see that it is so ; the very first thing provided
for was things necessary for agriculture, and for
the use of the farm. So if you take any Act of
Parliament almost that serves an agricultural dis-
trict, you will find that the first class is dung,
compost, all sorts of manure, lime, limestone, and
all undressed material for the repair of public
roads and public highways. That is so in the
London and North Western Act, with which we
are now dealing ; dung, compost, all sorts of
manure, lime, limestone, and all undressed
material for the repair of public roads,
and so on. I need scarcely quote the
whole of them. The Great Western Com-
pany, going to a coal district very much, has
coal put in its first class, because it wants to make
its bargain with the people in that district, but in
the second class, and with the same rate that is
given in the London and North Western Act for
dung, compost, and so on, the Great Western Act
1847, has exactly the same classification and the
same charge of 1% d. per ton. If you go to the
Lancashire and Yorkshire, you will find the same
thing occurs, dung, compost, and all sorts of
manure always classed together and always
classed in a low class ; and in the Great North of
Scotland dung, compost, and all sorts of manure.
Mr. Pope.] What are the dates of those Acts 2
—There was no superphosphate of lime then, you
know. -
Mr. Poyser.] I will deal with that shortly.
That was in 1859, and if my learned friend thinks
there was no superphosphate of lime in 1859, I
think he will find that is not quite accurate. Still
we will give you dates when these things were
first introduced. But the Great North of Scot-
land I quote for this reason, dung, compost, and
all kinds of manure are the words there in the
class, and those words being in the class, the
railway company have tried to do what they
have tried to do to-day with the Clearing House
Classification, that is to say, to contend that the
words “all sorts of manure " did not apply to
artificial manure. That case was taken into
the law courts; it is known as the Aber-
deen Case ; and it was decided there that
those words “all sorts of manure * did
include and do include artificial manure. I
submit that that of course is the natural meaning
of the words “all sorts of manure,” and that it is
put there not in the interest of the chemical
manure manufacturers, but in the interests of
agriculturists and those who possess the land, in
order that when the railway companies were
taking land there they might be conciliated and
might make a bargain with the company. That
has been decided, but the Clearing House Classi-
fication treats it differently; and what I am going
to ask the Committee to do is to say that we
shall be bound by the Legislature and not by
the Clearing House Classification, which is
merely an agreement between the companies in
which we have had no hand or part, which we
cannot control in any possible way, and in which,
having taken from us all the considerations we
could offer when the land was taken from us,
they now turn round and say that it will be a
more elegant or symmetrical classification, if you
put packed manure up into a higher class.
Mr. Pope.] Was the land taken from the
chemical manure manufacturers; those you are
representing P
Mr. Poyser.] If you will follow me kindly.
Mr. Pope.] You said you wished to abide by
the bargain that was made when the land was
taken from them ; that was your phrase.
Mr. Poyser.] I had already stated before that,
that the matter was one that concerned the
agricultural classes more than the chemical
manure manufacturers.
Mr. Pope.] But they do not ask for it ; it is
the chemical manure manufacturers who ask
for it.
Mr. Poyser.] We ask for it, and ask for it on
behalf of these people; they are our customers,
and we sell the goods to them; and no doubt
eventually they will have to pay any increased
rates. Your Grace is aware, and my learned
friend is aware, that this legislation has been set
on foot, which you are undertaking here, to a
great extent by the agricultural interest, in
order that they might be able to compete with
foreign places, and that they really are to a
great extent the authors of this very Bill which
is now being discussed before the Committee
The result of this packed manure has been that
whereas three bushels of wheat per acre have
been grown on land without manure; when this
manure has been used there has been got as
much as 36 bushels of wheat to the acre as the
result of the application of this kind of manure
to the land.
Chairman.] Will you insure that for any
number of years 2
Mr. Poyser.] I cannot; but you shall have the
chemical manure manufacturers before you who
(81.)
5 B will
746
MINUTEs of Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT com MITTEE
5 June 1891.
will tell you no doubt that it will follow year
after year.
Chairman.] I shall not pretend that a chemical
manufacturer can tell me it is so.
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace knows a great deal
about these things; I only say this: that if it is
used, when the tenant goes out of a farm, it
being a permanent improvement the landlord
will have to make some compensation to the
tenant of the farm.
Chairman.] If it is a permanent improvement
the landlord will not object to pay for it.
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to the Acts, and I
have cited some of them in which dung, compost,
and all kinds of manure are set out in the first
class, there are one or two other Acts of Parlia-
ment like the Brighton and South Coast, and
the Great Eastern where the matter has been
treated a little differently ; my learned friend,
Mr. Pope, says you get these words, because they
did not know of the existence of these artificial
manures. In the Brighton Company's Act, the
words “guano and manufactured manures” are
exactly set out, and the rate is still fixed at the
lowest class rate. The words in the Brighton
Act are “bones for manure,” “guano,” “manure
of all sorts,” “ nitrate of soda,” “ salt for
manure *; to that my learned friend cannot turn
round and say that these articles were not known
or included in all sorts of manure. When you
come to the Brighton Act, there the Act is,
and it deals with these things. The Great
Eastern Railway Company who, according to
Mr. Birt, when we dealt with the matter
below, have got one of the best tariffs for
'ailway companies now existing, have got “all
sorts of manure * defined, and, there for all,
except two or three, they go into the lowest
class, that is the three-halfpenny class; but
there are one or two like guano in which the
rate is put up from 1; d. to 2 d. ; but I do not
think there is any principal act of any railway
company in the kindgom where they are taken
at a higher rate than 2 d.
Chairman.] The Brighton Act is about 1845,
is it not ?
Mr. Poyser.] The Brighton Act of 1863.
Chairman.] That is a recent one. That is not
the original Brighton Act.
Mr. Poyser.] This was an Act by which all
their charges (26th and 27th Vict., cap. 218)
were fixed; and it is a very favourable Act so far
as the trades are concerned. There are a large
number of articles put into the earliest class ;
bricks, bones, for manure, salt, chalk, clay,
grain, guano, and manure of all kinds. That is
in the year 1863; and long after all these
manures had been dealt with.
Chairman.] What I mean is, that the original
Brighton Act was somewhere about 1845.
Mr. Poyser.] Yes, it must have been some-
where about that.
Mr. Hambury.] Your argument can only apply
to particular companies, otherwise you will have
to argue that the Clearing House Classification
at the present moment is above the statutory
rates.
Mr. Poyser.] The Clearing House Classifica-
tion at the present moment is of course controlled
by the rate they charge for the article, and we
were assured by one railway company after
another (and you will find it is the case), that
they do not charge above the maximum rate set
out in their Acts of Parliament. And what I
contend is that if we could ever have caught them
charging above the three-halfpence, we could have
had the cases taken into court like that of the
Aberdeen company, and got them defined in this
country, just as that was defined against the
Great North of Scotland. But they have never
done that, and they have always been able (of
course I deal with the Brighton case in a loose
sort of way) to prevent charging above their
maximum rates as set out in their Acts of Par-
liament.
What I want next to call your attention to is
this: that in every one of these Acts of Parlia-
ment, from beginning to end, the rate, either the
penny or the three-halfpenny rate is applicable
to consignments of one ton. In the last schedule
the class to compare with that is the one-ton
class; and that is the class we should go into if
we send one ton of our manufacture. There we
are put up to a very considerable height over
two pence a ton for short distances, 2.20 d. run-
ning off from that ; and that is the correct com-
parison to make.
Mr. Pope.] Class C., is it not *
Mr. Poyser.] Class 1, when you said one
ton.
Chairman.] Do you contend that manure is
sent as a rule in one-ton consignments?
Mr. Poyser.] No, I do not. What I say is
this: that under their old Acts of Parliament
(there are cases where it is sent in one-ton con-
signments) they were bound to take our one ton
at l; d. That being so, if they wanted to en-
courage the traffic in two tons, they were obliged
to make a slight reduction from the three-half-
pence rate, and bring it down to 1; d. ; if they
wanted to take four tons, bring it down still
lower, and make it 1; d. in order to induce us to
send the biggest consignments rather than a con-
signment of one ton. That being so, there being
a three-halfpenny rate here, for one ton, in this
present Provisional Order, what is done is to put
manure into Class C., which at once handicaps
us to the extent of saying: “You must send
two-ton consignments. If you send a one-ton
consignment, you are put up into Class 1, which
is a 2-20 d. rate. Then we do not get down if
we send a four-ton consignment; by this present
arrangement we cannot get into Class C., be-
cause we are not in Class B.; and, therefore, if
we send four tons, we must send four tons at the
Class C. rate. And the consequence of that is,
that we only get two steps: one ton down to two
tons, instead of places hitherto of having a rate
for two tons and four tons, there, of course, being
no maximum power that the railway companies
can charge.
Chairman.] What do you contend that the
average quantity sent is as a rule 7
Mr. Poyser.] As a rule, rather over half the
amount of consignments will, I think, come out
as under 4 tons; so that it is really to half the
traffic
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CELARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BII, LS.
747
5 June 1891.
traffic about that this would apply. And, of
course, when we only send two tons, if we are
put up into Class B., we shall still have to pay
the Class C. rate for those two tons, which is a
rate more than equivalent to anything that the
railway companies have to suggest.
Chairman.] I suppose the sending of one ton
of manure is a very exceptional quantity.
Mr. Poyser.] I have got here the consignment
from one works, and they run in a comparison of
this kind : under two tons 89 consignments, over
two tons and under four tons, 363 consignments,
over four tons or five tons, 90 consignments :
five tons and over, 284 consigments : so that I
think you may take it that fully half, or rather
more than half, would come under Class C., even
if moved up into Class B. for the decision of
this Committee.
Mr. Pope.] Moved up 2
Mr. Poyser.] You call it moved down; it is an
advantage, so we call it moved up, it will only
apply to about half our traffic, In order to deal
with this a little further I must point out to
your Grace, that while we have been discussing
other amendments on classification by the railway
companies here, certain tests were put forward by
the railway companies as showing value of con-
signment to have some effect upon the classification
going up one class or two classes as the case may
be ; and I venture to say that if you take
any one of those tests suggested by the rail-
way companies, we ought to have this advantage
of going into Class B. The only one that prob-
ably operated upon the mind of the Board of
Trade I should think would be the one of value ;
and you will remember what Mr. Findlay said with
regard to value. Value, he said, is only the fringe
of the matter, it is an element, but only the fringe.
And when you have been already dealing with
articles valued at from 5 !. to 30 l., as iron was in
this particular class, in asking for packed manure
to be put there, I am only asking for goods that
average about 4 f. a ton to be placed in Class B.
because by the amendment, I have not asked the
Committee (and I do not think it ought to be
taken advantage of by the other side to say I am
illogical) to alter the position of guano, or to alter
the position of nitrate of soda; they would still
remain in Class C. they would not come under
the words e.o.b.p.
Mr. Hunter.] Are these the only articles of
manure that would remain in Class C. 2
Mr. Poyser.] All other articles would remain
in Class C. except packed manure, and manure
e.o.h.p. as a consequential amendment to Class
C. to the amendment I am proposing in Class B.
Mr. Hunter.] But what would be left in
Class C. P
Mr. Poyser.] In Class C. there would be
certain articles: blood for manure, bone ash,
bone waste, bones for size or manure.
Mr. Pope.] That would not be left in Class
... ?
Mr. Poyser.] It would be left in Class C.
Chairman.] It would be convenient if you
would give us seriatim the articles, so far as you
can indicate them, that you propose should be
left in Class B., and also state the articles, indi-
cating what they are, which you propose to put
in Class C, P -
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to that I can do it.
I will make a list of them, and I can give you
that list ; but the only article I am really asking
to have put into Class B. now, is what is com-
monly known as packed manure.
Mr. Hunter.] But that is not a description of
manure, it is a mode of treating it.
Chairman.] What is packed manure; guano in
bags -
Mr. Poyser.] No, guano in bags would come
under the name of guano, and is dealt with as
guano in Class C.
Chairman.] Then what we really want to
know is what you include under e.o.h.p. 2
Mr. Poyser.] That is manure other than these
particular ones that are specified in Class C., and
some that are already specified in Class B. You
will find in Class B. kainit, and one or two
articles of manure particularly specified, copro-
lites and rock phosphate, brown.
Mr. Hanbury.] But they are not treated under
the head of manure, but under their own special
names just as guano is.
Mr. Poyser.] That is so.
Mr. Hambury.] So that they are not affected
by your amendment one way or the other.
Mr. Poyser.] No.
Mr. Hanbury.] It is no good therefore allud-
ing to them. We want to know what e.o.h.p.
IO 68l. 11S.
Mr. Poyser.] We want to have put up into
Class B. all the manures not specifically mentioned
in the classification.
Chairman.] I conclude you mean put down.
Mr. Poyser. Put down into Class B. ; and
that includes a very large proportion of the trade
of the artificial manure manufacturers.
Mr. Hunter.] We want to know what the
articles are 3
Mr. Poyser.] Superphosphate is one.
Lord Houghton.] Is there any other ? It
seems to me that every one of the known articles
is named separately.
Chairman.] Can you give us a list of the
articles proposed to be put into Class B. which
are not there already.
Mr. Poyser.] I will let my first witness do
that if you will allow allow me ; there is a long
list.
Chairman.] I only draw your attention to it,
because e.o.h.p. does not convey much to my
mind at present.
Mr. Poyser.] We will deal with those already
set out in the classification. My first witness
shall give your Grace that. I may say that it
affects a very large quantity of our manufacture
if we can get this word e.o.h.p. put in Class B.
Mr. Pope.] My difficulty is exactly that of the
Committee, namely, to follow what it is you
propose to put into Class B.
Chairman.] That he will do through the first
witness.
(81.)
5 B 2 Mr.
748
M1 NUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
Mr. Pope.] I have half a dozen lists and every
one of them gives manure the same name.
Chairman.] That will be an interest topic for
cross-examination.
Mr. Hunter.] Had we better not have the
witness?
Mr. Hanbury.] What is the good of argument
until we know what the argument is directed to ?
Mr. Poyser.]. We will have the witness first.
I quite understand.
Chairman.] You understand what it is we
want. We want to know what is to be put into
Class B. that is not there already.
Mr. HERMANN WOSS, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Poyser.
6199. YOU are Ex-President of the Chemical
Manure Manufacturers Association, I think 2-—
Yes.
6200. And you have made a study of the
subject of chemical manures for years past 2–
Yes.
6201. You are also the manager of the Anglo-
Continental Guano works?—Yes.
6202. There is an amendment put on the
paper here to strike out the words, “other than
street, stable, and farmyard, in bulk,” and to
substitute the words, “e.o.h.p.”; that is to say,
to provide for all goods not otherwise specified in
the classification. What I want you to tell the
Committee is to what manufactured articles that
would apply, goods that you manufacture that
are not already specified here 7–I will just
mention which articles are specified, and then I
will give a list of the rest. In Class B, we
have specified the following manures: Basic
slag, ground, packed coprolites and rock phos-
phate ground; gypsum for manure.
Mr. Pope.] I have not got that.
Earl of Belmore.] It is at line 37.
Witness.] Kainit is another manure.
Mr. Poyser.
6203. That is on page 20 °–Yes. Then
manure other than street, stable, and farm yard,
in bulk, salt in bulk, sulphate of potash. With
the exception of salt in bulk, all these manures
are carried in bags in Class B.
Mr. Pope.] You have not mentioned that, in
Class B. if in bulk as these are, all other manures
are included, because it is manure other than
that in Class A. in buſk.
Mr. Poyser.] Yes, we know that. These
things are in Class B. and are carried in bags
which have been already cited by the witness.
Witness.] If the Committee will allow me, in
order to explain what manures are classed in this
generic name, I want just to show what manures
are specified in order to say what remain under
the generic name. Therefore, I begin in
Classs B., and give examples. Coming to
Class C., the manures specified are : blood for
manure in casks, boneash, bone waste, bones
calcined, bones for size or manure; on page 22,
line 39, guauo and gypsum ; on page 23 we
come to manure e.o.h.p., and on line 18 is muriate
of potash; on line 20, nitrate of soda.
Chairmam.
6204. Then you wish all those manures to be
taken up into Class C. 2–I only mentioned
Chairman—continued.
these as being specified, and then I come to those
that are not specified, in order to explain to the
Committee what is comprised in our amend-
ment. On the first line of page 4 is sulphate of
ammonia ; that concludes the list of manures
specified in the classification. Then under the
generic name of “manure, other than street,
stable, and farmyard,” which they class in bulk,
the most important manure is superphosphate,
which comprises about half of the whole traffic in
artificial manures.
Mr. Hunter.
6205. Super-phosphate of lime 2–Yes, super-
phosphate of lime ; they are carried to something
like half a million tons. Then come bone
10:1. In Ull'GS.
6206. Bone is included ?–No, it will not be ;
it is bone waste; those are bones of various
descriptions. But bone manure is a different
article.
Lord Houghton.
6207. It is a different article?—Yes.
Mr. Pope.
6208. Bones dissolved ?—Yes, those are speci-
fied in the raw articles. It is an article that we
sell direct to the farmer. The next thing would
be various kinds of special manures.
Chairman.
6209. The two articles you now mention are
super-phosphate of lime and bone manure ?–Yes,
under the generic name of manure other than
street, stable, and farmyard manure.
6210. Those would be all ?—Yes, there are
some special manures.
Earl of Belmore.
6211. Cannot you tell us what they are 7–Yes.
Those are the two principal manures that are
being sold.
Lord Houghton.
6212. And some of the artificial guano 2–
Those come under the name of guano.
Mr. Poyser.
6213. Will you give us the names of those
various special manures 2–13arley manure, root
manure, grain manure, in fact various composi-
tions for various crops.
6214. Made to suit the particular crop 7–
Yes.
6215. Is
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER IBILLS.
749
5 June 1891.]
Mr. Dickson.
6215. Is the bone manure that you refer to
carried in bags 2–Yes. ſº •
6216, How does it differ from grain manure or
barley manure?—It is the same kind of article
only of a different composition, different ingre-
dients.
6217. It is an artificial manure ?–Yes.
Mr. Poyser.
6218. Are superphosphate and bone manure
ever as a matter of practice carried in bulk 2–
Not to my knowledge.
6219. So that those words “in bulk” added to
Class B., which we want to omit, exclude super-
phosphate and bone manure altogether from that
classification ?—That is so.
6220. It is really only a paper advantage that
they give us 7–Yes.
Chairman.] It is not carried in bulk, you say ?
Mr. Poyser.
6221. It is not carried in bulk at all; it is car-
ried in bags?–Yes.
6222. And you say, taking superphosphate and
bone manure, that there is over half-a-million
tons of it in which the association trades 2–Yes,
it is the principal part of the whole trade.
Earl of Belmore.] I am glad you pointed that
out ; I should have read it differently. I see it
is as you put it, that the “bulk” applies to
manure, and not “other than street, stable, and
farmyard manure.”
Mr. Poyser.
6223. That was the mistake we made at first,
and the railway companies made the same mistake,
because they applied to the Board of Trade in
the matter. (To the Witness.) Have you looked
Mr. WOSS.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
through a number of Acts of Parliament and
found the position that manure occupies in those
Acts 2—I cannot say that I have examined the
Acts of Parliament, but I can only say that from
the statements put before me——
Mr. Pope.] No. Mr. Poyser has examined
the Acts of Parliament, and he will make his own
Statement.
Mr. Poyser.] With regard to some of these
railways, take the London and North Western,
the London, Brighton, and South Coast, and the
Great Eastern.
Mr. Pope.] How can he tell us if he has not
examined the Acts of Parliament 2
Mr. Poyser.] You will, perhaps, wait till you
hear my question.
Chairman.] That would be more convenient.
Mr. Poyser.] Taking the London and North
Western Act, say, 14 d. is the maximum for 15
miles, and l ; d. beyond 15 miles, that is their
principal Act of 1846. If I am wrong, Mr.
Pope will correct me, perhaps. -
Mr. Pope.] I am waiting for your question,
and then I will object to it if I think it wrong.
Mr. Poyser.
6224. Taking those figures, have you worked
out what the rate would come to under Class C. P
—Yes; I have worked it out for various mile-
ages.
6225. Have you done that with regard to the
London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway,
taking th ir traffic at 1; d. a-ton a-mile 2–
Yes.
6226. And also for the Great Eastern Railway,
taking their traffic at 1; d. a-ton a-mile?—Yes,
I have.
[The following Paper is handed in :-)
C L A S S I FI C A TI O N.
STATEMENT OF RAILWAY RATES FOR MANURES. PRESENT MAxIMA comp ARED
- WITH CLASS RATES PROPOSED IN BILL.
TERMINALS EXCLUDED.
LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY, 1846.
PRESENT MAXIMUM.
- 13,
FOR. “ALL SORTS OF MANURE * ſ l;
up to 15 miles.
d. beyond 15 miles.
Per ton per mile.
10 miles. 20 miles. 40 miles. 60 miles. 100 miles.
Present maximum rate, as above, for one ton - f º f * § º º % § f
Proposed rates in Class C., two-ton lots - - || 1 6 3 () 5 8 7 3 12 1
Gain to Railway Company per ton - * - || 0 3 1 l; w 1 11 1 7% 2 83
Proposed rates in Class 1, under two-ton lots - || 1 10 3 8 6 10 9 O 15 ()
Gain to Railway Company per ton - - - || 0 7 1 9% 3 1 3 4% 5 7%
(81.)
5 B 3
750
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY, 1863.
26 & 27 Vict. cap. 218.
PRESENT MAXIMUM.
“BONES FOR MANURE, GUANO,
MANURE OF ALL SOIRTS, NITRATE
OF SODA, SALT FOR MANURE”
ſ
1 d. per ton per mile.


10 miles. 20 miles. 40 miles, 60 miles. 100 miles.
S. d. s. d. S. d. S. d. S. d.
Present maximum rate, as above, one-ton lots - 1 3 2 6 5 () 7 6 12 6
Proposed rates on Class C., two-ton lots - - || 1 5% 2 11 5 4 || 7 3 | 2 |
Gaim to Railway Company per ton - - - || 0 23 || 0 5 0 4 *º-º-º: *
Proposed rates on Class 1, under two tons * | 10 3 8 6 : () 9 3 15 5
Gain to Railway Company per ton - * --> - || 0 7 I 2 1 10 1 9 2 11
GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY, 1862.
IPRESENT MAXIMUMI.
‘‘ BONES IN BULK, ALL OTELER l
SORTS OF MANURE (except as here- ) 13, d. per ton per mile.
after mentioned), COPROLITEs, SALTs” ſ
10 miles. 20 miles. 40 miles. 60 miles. 100 miles.
s, d. s. d. s. d. s. d. S. d.
Present maximum rate, one-ton lot - º tº 1 3 2 6 5 () 7 6 12 6
Proposed rate on Class C., two-ton lots - - || 1 6 3 () 5 8 7 3 12 1
Gain to the Railway Company per ton - - || 0 3 O 6 () 8 gºs-sms *==
Proposed rates on Class 1, under two tons - || 1 10 3 8 6 10 9 O 15 O
Gain to the Railway Company per ton - - || 0 7 1 2 1 10 1 6 2 6

ON RAILWAY RATES AND CIIAIRGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
75]
5 June 1891.]
Mr. Poyser.
6227. You have taken distances of 10 miles
20 miles, 40 miles, 60 miles, and 100 miles 2–
Yes.
6228. Before you deal with the figures, tell me
is your traffic on the whole a short distance
traffic or a long distance traffic 2–It is a short
distance traffic.
Chairman.
6229. From where 2 — From London and
from the various provincial towns where there are
manure works direct to the agricultural districts.
- Mr. Poyser.
6230. I think we were told that about 80 per
cent. went of the traffic under 80 miles?—I should
say about 60 per cent goes not above 60 miles from
the place of manufacture.
6231. So that it is the short distances that
specially affect you ?–Yes.
6232. Looking at that London and North
Western Railway Act of 1846, their present rate
for one ton is 1 s. 3 d. 2–One shilling and three-
pence for 10 miles.
6233. The rate proposed by the schedule for
one ton is 1 s. 10 d. 2–One shilling and tempence
in Class 1.
6234. An increase of 7 d. per ton for the 10
miles?—Yes.
6235. If that had been put in Class C. of this
Provisional Order what is the increase of the
charge P−The increase would be 3 d. a ton.
6236. For 20 miles their present powers are
ls. 10; d. under the 1846 Act for one ton; what is
the proposed rate for one ton –Three shillings
and eightpence.
6237. Giving an increase over 20 miles of
1 s. 9; d. a ton over their present powers ?—That
is so P -
6238. Or, if it is carried in more that one ton
lots in Class C., giving 1 s. 1; d. increase over
their present powers ?–Yes.
Chairman.] Will you ask him how much he
has generally carried ? It strikes me that there
must be rather a small number of consignments of
one-ton lots.
Mr. Poyser.
6239. Will you just tell us about the propor-
tion of consignments?—The largest proportion is
small consignments under four tons, because
the farmer cannot buy large quantities at a time,
and he wants to have it sent direct when he
requires it. It goes in two tons, one ton, and
sometimes in half-ton lots direct to the farm from
the place of manufacture, and the larger consign-
ments are the smaller number.
Chairman.
6240. Do you do business direct with the
farmers ?—Yes, partly.
6241. As a rule?—If it goes to dealers it prin-
cipally goes by water.
6242. As a rule do you deal with the farmer
direct –Our company deals to a larger extent
with the dealers and to a smaller extent with the
farmer direct ; but in the country of course the
trade is different, and these rates will govern not
only our trade from London, which is with
dealers, but in the country from the dealers to
the farmers.
Mr. WOSS.
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury.
6243. What proportion of the trade is under
two tons that goes up into a higher class?—I
have not gone into that.
Mr. Poyser.
6244. The next witness will give you that.
(To the Witness.) I see that for 100 miles the
present Provisional Order would give an increase
of 2 s. 8; d. for one ton over the present powers
on the London and North Western ?—In Class C.
6245. But if it is one ton it gives an increase
of 5 s. 73, d. a ton in Class 1 ?– Yes.
Chairman.] But this gentleman tells us that.
he deals with dealers as a rule in large quantities.
and not with farmers, but that the farmer deals
with the dealer in his own neighbourhood.
PWitness.] We do both kinds of trade. We do.
a direct trade with the farmer as with the
dealer.
6246. But in very small proportions 2–I would
say perhaps 30 per cent.
Mr. Hanbury.
6247. Surely you can tell us roughly what
proportion of your trade is under two tons ?–At
a guess it may be 25 per cent. of the whole.
Mr. Poyser.
6248. I can give you the exact figure. I have
had it taken out by another manure merchant.
(To the Witness.) With regard to the Brighton
Company you have treated that in this table in
exactly the same way, and it shows in Class C.
per ton up to 40 miles 2}d., 5d., and 4d. increase
over their present powers for rate 2–Eor 10, 20,
and 40 miles.
6249. Then the figures are not quite level but
Very nearly afterwards. Then for one ton the
increase is 7 d., l's, 2 d., 1 s. 10 d., I s. 9 d., and
2 s. 11 d. for those respective distances 2–
Yes.
6250. And you have also treated the Great
Eastern Railway in the same way ?–Yes; I
have. -
Chairman.
6251. What part of the Brighton system
comes over 100 miles 2–I should say that that
does not apply to the Brighton line really,
because it does not go much beyond 60 miles.
Chairman.] Your calculation is for 100
miles.
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace will see that it does
not hurt them when it is a long distance, but
when it is a short one.
Chairman.] I asked the witness what part of
the Brighton system will be affected by his cal-
culation as to 100 miles.
Witness.] I know of none.
Chairman.] So I thought.
Mr. Poyser.] And you will see that we have
not taken it out for 60 and 100 miles when there
is no profit. w
Mr. Hunter.
6232. In your figures of the proposed rates in
Class C., two-ton lots, you have given conveyance
rates alone with terminals —Yes; as stated.
(81,)
Ö B 4 6253. It
752 MINUTES OF
EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. WOSS.
[Continued.
Mr. Hunter—continued.
6253. It is a mere comparison of the convey-
ance rate 2–Yes.
Mr. Poyser.
6254. Because the Act dealing with classifi-
cation only deals with conveyance rate 2–
Yes.
6255. And whatever the reasonable terminal
is, you leave that to be decided by the proper
court 2–Yes.
6256. But there has been no confusion in
regard to terminal in this table ; you left that
out altogether ?—Yes; it is simply conveyance
rate.
6257. The Acts of Parliament themselves
simply give conveyance rates l ; d. a ton, and the
question of terminals is left 2–Yes.
6258. Now, we will go to some other tests that
have been suggested about this packed manure.
First of all I will ask you able the time this Act
was passed of 1846. Had guano been imported
into this country long before 1846 –Yes, it
was first imported in 1840.
Mr. Pope.] You do not propose to touch
guano.
Mr. Pºyser.] But it is a packed manure.
Mr. Hanbury.] It is not affected by your
amendment.
Mr. Poyser.] It is not.
Chairman.] Guano is dealt with by name, and
therefore would not be touched by any amend-
ment.
Mr. Poyser.] That is so.
Chairman.] Then you had better not touch it.
Mr. J’oyser.] I am only showing that it was a
known article in the trade at that time.
Chairman.] That might be interesting to agri-
culturists, but it is not a matter that is now before
UlS.
Mr. Poyser.
6259. I will take superphosphate, it is only
another way of arriving at the same thing. (To
the Witness, ) When was superphosphate intro-
duced Y-Sir John Bennett Lawes used surper-
phosphate for the first trials that he made at
Northampton in 1841, and continued them ever
since.
6260. And from that time has the trade gone
on steadily growing in importance and bulk 7–
Yes.
1261. From 1841 to the present time 2—
Yes.
6262. And there has been a trade in it and
also in guano 2–Yes.
6263. From that time, 1846, the increase has
been considerable ; but it has been a steady
growth, has it not ?—Yes, in 1860, the trade was
about 200,000 tons and has now increased to
about 1,000,000 tons a-year.
6264. When these manures are sent out by
you how do they load ; are they good loading for
the trucks as to weight compared with bulk —
They are full weight; we can put as much as
the truck will hold into it, from five to nine tons
into a truck. In fact I may say with regard to
shipping that I know the measurement when we
ship by water is not more than the weight;
Mr. Poyser—continued.
therefore we always ship according to the rates
by weight which is a very good test in this
matter.
6265. So that if that is one of the elements in
dealing with this question of classification, it
packs well for its bulk 2–Yes.
6266. With regard to the loading and un-
loading of the trucks, is that loading generally
done at the works 2–At the works.
6267. On the traders’ siding 2–Iſ it is put on
a siding as in our works, we load it ourselves ;
if it is brought to the terminal station it is dealt
with by the railway company in the yard.
6268. When it is delivered to the country
purchaser, how is it delivered at the station as a
rule 2–The farmer generally unloads the truck
himself.
6269. He takes his horse up to the truck and
unloads it into the cart 2–Yes.
Chairman.] That you say is only 25 per cent.
of your whole trade.
Mr. Poyser.] Twenty-five per cent. of this
gentleman's trade.
Lord Houghton.
6270. But you are speaking more or less for
the whole trade, are you not ?—Yes.
Mr. Poyser.
6271. The next witness I will call will deal
with the country matter further. (To the
Witness.) You have told us about loading and
unloading. What would be the effect on a
truck of manure packed as compared with manure
sent in bulk; which would be more destructive P
—Manure in bags of course could not touch a
truck before the bags were burnt, therefore I
should say the bulk manure would affect the
trucks much more and destroy them than manure
packed in bags; it is cleaner carrying.
6272. You say it is a cleaner carriage; and
what about handling ; what do the bags contain ;
about how much is in each bag?—Generally
2 cwt. or l; cwt.
6273. And is that easier to handle in loading
and unloading 2—There is no difficulty whatever.
6274. Easier than in bulk 7–About 14 2-cwt.
bags go to a ton, so that a ton is very quickly
carried out of a truck.
6275. With regard to the element of value,
what do you say the average value of this packed
manure is that you are dealing with now, leaving
out guano you know?— The present value of
that class of manure, which we enumerated as
superphosphate and bone manure and special
manures, I estimate at 4 / per ton.
Mr. Pope..] Oh I shall give my next order
to you certainly.
Mr. Poyser.] No doubt Mr. Voss will be very
happy to receive it.
Witness.] I may say that the price has been as
low as 2 l. to 2 l. 10 s. a ton two years ago.
6276. That is with regard to value, but the
value would only affect classification so far as the
railway companies are concerned in the item of
compensation, which they would have to pay for
the injury done to the manure?—Yes, that would
be so.
6277. What
() N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
753
5 June 1891.]
Mr. Voss.
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
6277.] What do you say with regard to the
amount of compensation paid for injury to
manure by the railway companies; has it been
slight or great in comparison with the bulk of
the traffic?—I cannot recollect in our business
during the last 15 years that we have had any
serious claim for compensation at all.
6278. During the 15 years?—No compen-
sation for damage to our manure in transit.
Mr. Hambury.
6279. On the question of value you say
that bone manure is one of the articles included
in this e.o.h.p. Which is more valuable, bone
manure or bone waste, which you still leave in
Class C. 2–There is not much difference I should
Say.
6280. Why do you leave one in Class C. and
put the other in Class B. 2–It is a very unimpor-
tant matter. We did not like to trouble the
Committee with more than we could help.
Mr. Poyser.] We objected to it in our petition,
but we have tried to cut out as much as we could
to meet the views of the Committee.
Mr. Hambury.] I think there are a good many
others you leave in Class C., which are more
valuable than those you are putting up,
Chairman.] We had better leave that in the
hands of Mr. Pope.
Mr. Poyser.] We have really tried to meet the
views of the Committee as much as we could.
Chairman.] Do not put it upon the Committee.
You said that you wanted to meet the views of
the Committee.
Mr. Poyser.] Perhaps I ought to say other
people ; I will not say the Committee.
Chairman.] We really have no views upon the
matter till we hear your arguments.
Mr. Poyser.
6281. (To the Witness.) With ragard to ma-
nures in Class B., how are they for value, those
that are specified there?—Sulphate of potash is
worth 10 l. a ton.
6282. That is actually in Class B. now 2–Yes.
Mr. Pope..] Where is that ?
Earl of Camperdown.] On page 20, line 24.
Lord Houghton.
6283. What is the present value of nitrate of
soda. ?—Eight pounds ten shillings to 9 l.
6284. And sulphate of ammonia, a little less 3–
No, a little more, l l l to 12 l.; but these values
of course change every day : they have been
up to 20 l., as they are now down to 10 l.
Mr. Poyser.
6285. I see that in the classification, there is
basic slag already in Class B., how does that
compare with superphosphate, it is basic slag
ground and packed 2–Basic slag is a new article
which was not known five years ago to any
extent in the agricultural community. It is a
ground slag from iron manufacture, and is now
used as phosphatic mamure, and it competes very
Seriously with superphosphate; it is very nearly
of the same value, and there is no reason, so far
as we can see, why basic slag should not be in
Mr. Poyser—continued.
Class B. and superphosphate in Class B. ; it is
practically the same manure. -
6286. Then all these other manures, like
kainit, are packed in bags 2–They are all packed
in bags. -
6287. With regard to the present practice of
the railway companies, do they give you a two-ton
rate at the present time -—Yes, always two-ton
rates, but they give us the option of four tons
and sometimes five tons.
6288. They also now give you the option of
four and five tons, but you have one or the
other ?—Yes.
6289. The effect of your being in Class C. is
to give you a two-ton rate throughout?–Yes.
6290. Whereas if it were put into Class B.
there would be a four-ton rate as you have in the
present practice 2–Yes.
6291. I mentioned to his Grace just now some
experiments made with regard to the growth of
crops, will you just explain to his Grace what
that was 2
Chairman.] I do not think you need go into
that.
Mr. Poyser.] You have got the figures there
which show the result of the use of manure.
Chairman.] This gentleman is not a practically
agriculturist.
Mr. Poyser.] But he knows the results of
those experiments.
Witness.] I have made a study of all the ex-
periments, but I have also written several books
upon it, so that I know a great deal about it.
Chairmam.
6292. Experiments in a small way ?–In the
garden, of course.
6293. You have never held a farm 7–No ; but
I have studied the experiments of Sir John Lawes
and others, and I know what the result has been.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6294. Would you kindly take in your hand the
Board of Trade Classification. I want to under-
stand clearly what it is you propose. On page 20,
what you call the generic entry is, “ Manure,
other than street, stable, and farmyard, in bulk?”
—Yes. •
6295. Street, stable, and farmyard manureis in
Class A. 2–-Yes.
6296. And all other manure, if it could be sent
in bulk, including superphosphate, would go into
Class B., would it not?—According to the present
classification.
6297. Then what you want is to bring super-
phosphate into Class B., although it cannot be
sent in bulk, but must be packed in bags P--I do
not say that it cannot be sent in bulk, but it is
not done so as a rule.
6298. If it can be sent in bulk, then you have
the advantage of Class B. if you choose to avail
yourselves of it?—Yes; but there are certain
difficulties in the way of sending it in bulk.
6299. And certain advantages?–No ; if you
sent superphosphate in bulk you could not
guarantee the weight; you would certainly lose
a good deal through the trucks.
6300. It does not answer your purpose to carry
it in bulk, but if it did answer your purpose to
(81.)
5 C send
754
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr, Pope—continued.
send it in bulk you could send it in Class B. 7 –
The advantage would be imaginary, not practical.
6301. What you are asking is to reduce
superphosphate in bags to the same classification
as the other class of manure in bulk 2–That
is so.
6302. Now turn to Class C. In Class C. I
find blood for manure in casks, bone ash, bone
waste, bones calcined, bones for size or manure,
and various other matters : you went through a
number of them, I did not tick them or i would
give them, guano, gypsum, and so on. Are
those articles packed in bags, too —Partly in
bags, Blood for manure is packed in casks.
6303. What reason is there why 'superphos-
phate in bags should be in any different class
from bones in bags, or guano in bags, or gypsum
in bags, or any of the articles that you propose
to leave in the classification ?—The reason may
be this——
6304. That you make it; that is the reason, is
it not ?–If the Committee would make the
change we should be glad to accept it, but we
did not like to propose it because they are very
Small matters of very little consequence, whilst
the most important matter, the millions of tons
of manure
6305. But you have already told us that you
call them manure when you take any of these
articles, and mix them and make a composition of
them. If you take bone ash and mix it with
guano, or something else, to give it a little more
stimulating and fertilising property, you call it
a chemical manure. I want to know what reason
you can give why superphosphate in bags is to be
treated differently from any other manure in bags?
—I do not see any reason, but that Class C. in this
classification has other articles of the same kind.
Chairman.] What are you upon now P
Witness.] Mr. Pope has brought before the
Committee the Articles in Class C., which I do
not desire specially to put in Class B, ; but he
did not show to the Committee the articles
already in Class B. by the decision of the Board
of Trade, such as kainit, coprolites, basic slag;
those are manures in bags now in Class B., and
we desire to put superphosphate into the same
class. -
Mr. Pope.
6306. Coprolites are not artificial manures 2–
They are ground.
6307. So is basic slag ground 2–Yes.
6308. But it is a totally different thing from
superphosphate ; from the manufactured article 2
—Not for the farmer; not the slightest.
6309. But I am speaking now of the classifica-
tion. Give me a reason now why superphoshate
in bags is to be treated differently from any
other manure in bags; never mind whether it is
treated differently or not, but give me a reason
why it should be 2–Superphosphate is the prin-
cipal article in the trade.
6310. That is the only reason; and made by
the firm of which Mr. Voss is chairman 2–
Partly ; and by other firms as well,
6311. Then I understand why it is to be ex-
ceptionally treated, of course ?— But these other
articles are manufactured by our firm. Super-
phosphate is not a specialty of ours.
Mr. WOSs.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
6312. With regard to the value of super-
phosphate, what do you say ? I have here
5 l. 10s. from the price list of Weedon Brothers?
—If you were to see our prices published in the
“Agricultural Gazette.” - tº-
6313. This is bone superphosphate 7–That
may be something of a higher degree.
6314. What do you make yours from ?--Our
published price is 3 l. 5 s.
6315. Do you make it from coprolites ?—Yes.
6316. Then yours is mineral superphosphate P
—Yes.
f;317. Then I want to know if we are to deal
with superphosphate, what is the value of bone
superphosphate 2–Bone superphosphate is very
little sold in this country; it is called bone manure.
6318. I find some difficulty in following your
names, because every chemical manufacturer has
a different name for the stuff he makes?—That is,
quite right. • .
6319. But you know what I mean by bone
superphosphate 7–Bone superphosphate may be
of a high class or a low class. -
6320. Is it worth 5 l. 10 s. ?—It may be so,
6321. “Mineral superphosphate 4 l. 5 s. ; dis-
solved bones 6 l. 5 s. ; blood manure 6 l. 5 s. ;
guaranteed analysis of the above given on appli-
cation "P--And what are the terms; credit or
delivered P
6322. I will give you that in a moment. “Dis–
count of a ton allowed for cash. Special quota-
tions for large quantities”?—I daresay you
might deduct 10 s. first and then the railway
carriage.
6323. No, delivered free by rail to destination.
Now you talk of claims being made, who makes
the claim when manure is damaged, the consignee.
or the manufacturer?—It depends upon who pays
the carriage.
6324. As a rule I judge from this list that you
delivered them to the railway, and leave the con-
signee to pay the carriage 2–Some firms sell at
the works and some firms sell delivered in the
country.
6325. Which do you do?-- We do both.
6326. Which is the largest amount of your
trade 2–I think there is not much to be chosen ;
the larger quantities are sold, delivered, and
perhaps the smaller portion is sold at the
works.
6327. I thought you said it was about equal,
and now you say the larger quantity ?—What I
mean to explain is this: if a man buys larger
quantities he is generally a keener buyer, and
buys at the works, and if he buys Smaller quan-
tities he buys them delivered.
6328. Small parcels, you say, are delivered,
and large parcels are sold on the railway at the
works?—Yes.
6329. What proportion of your trade is in
small parcels, and what proportion is in large
parcels?—I should say about half-and-half.
6330. Then, at all events, for half your trade
you would not make any claim for damages, that
would be left to the consignee ? — That is
right. -
6331. Well, now, have you considered this.
Take the Great Northern Railway; the Great
Northern Railway do a considerable traffic in
artificial manures, do they not; a good deal is.
made
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
755
5 June 1891.]
Mr. WOSs.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
made in Boston, in Lincolnshire, and places of
that kind?—That is the smallest make in the
whole of the United Kingdom.
6332. What on the Great Northern ?—Yes;
the largest producers are in London, Liverpool,
and Newcastle.
6333. Be it so ; there may be less made there
than at other places, but I daresay there is more
distributed there than in most places, for I
should call Lincolnshire an agricultural district”
—Lincolnshire is a good agricultural district,
and they use a good deal of manure, but not
more than in other districts.
6334. Have you considered what the effect of
your proposal would be upon the actual rates
charged by the Great Northern Railway Com-
pany for this traffic 2–No, I have not got the
rates of the Great Northern Company.
6335. What you have done has been to take
the lowest Acts of Parliament you could find
and apply the rate clauses in those Acts of
Parliament to justify your application ?–No, I
do not think so unless you call the Brighton and
the Great Eastern Acts the lowest Acts of
Parliament.
6336. I know nothing about the Brighton
Company, except that you have put 100 miles in
the comparison, and 100 miles does not exist on the
railway ?—That is, of course, of no consequence.
If I have put 100 miles in it can only be in their
favour, because I have shown that there is
no loss.
Re-examined by Mr. Poyser.
6337. You have been asked about some of
these railways. There is the list (handing a list
fo the Witness.) It is suggested—
Mr. Pope.] This is new matter.
Mr. Poyser.] It arises out of my learned
friend's cross-examination.
Mr. Pope..] It cannot arise out of my cross
examination to put a list in.
Mr. Poyser.
6338. My learned friend asked the Witness if
he had not taken the lowest existing railway Acts
in the kingdom. Here is the Midland list sent
in by themselves. (To the Witness.) Read these
figures, if you please ?–Per ton per mile, 40
tons and upwards a penny.
Mr. Pope..] What is that?
Mr. Poyser.] The Midland Act, 1846. (To
the Witness.) Just read them across the page.
Chairman.] I do not object to your doing that,
but I do not think it is regular.
Mr. Poyser.] The suggestion is that he has
picked out the lowest Acts.
Chairman.] You ought to have put it in
examination in chief.
Witness.] A penny for 40 miles and, upwards,
13 d. for less than 40 miles; then 2 d., lá d., 1} d.,
# d., 2 d., 1} d., 1 d., 1; d., 13 d., and 13 d.
Chairman.] Is this classification or rates ?
Mr. Poyser.] It is the only way that you can
deal with classification. The railway companies
told us it was absolutely necessary to go into the
question of rates.
Mr. Pope.] I was not aware of this when I
was cross-examining, Mr. Voss, therefore I could
not put it to him ; but I am just now told that
you have made, shall I say a mistake, in your
statement about the Great Eastern Company,
for I find by a return which has just been given
to me by the Great Eastern manager that the
rate for ground bones, ground coprolites and
guano is 2 d. a ton a mile.
Witness.] But that is not under our amend-
ment at all.
Mr. Pope.] But excuse me, your statement is
“ present maximum bones in bulk, all other sorts
of manure (except as hereafter mentioned),
coprolites, salts, l ; d. per ton per mile.”
Mr. Poyser.] Those are the words of the Act
of Parliament.
Mr. Pope.] But the terms of the Act of
Parliament give ground bones, ground coprolites,
and guano, 2 d.
Lord Houghton.] I suppose those are un-
ground.
Mr. Pope.] Then they would not come in
bags.
Mr. Poyser.] These are the exceptions that
my learned friend is dealing with. “All other
sorts of manure (except as hereafter mentioned)
coprolites, salts, 1; d. per ton per mile.” Those
“hereafter mentioned ’ are given in the list Mr.
Pope mentioned, 2 d. a ton.
Mr. Pope. I see.
I am much obliged to my
learned friend.
Mr. Poyser.] I will hand it to your Grace ;
that is the one he has been referring to (handing
in the same). You will see in one or two instances
2 d., but in the great majority of cases a 1 d, or
1; d. rate. That is the Midland line.
Lord Houghton.
6339. Can you tell me how kainit comes
generally, in bulk or in bags 2––Alvays in
bags.
6340. Is there any reason why kaimit should
not be in the same class as super-phosphate 2–
None whatever.
Mr. Poyser.
6341, Guano and these other articles men-
tioned in Class B. are already in Class S. of the
Clearing House Classification with the manure
we are dealing with ?–Hitherto we have only
known one class, packed manure, without any
distinction. All the higher valued articles like
guano have been carried at the same rate ;
although some railway companies have had
power to charge more, they have been in prac-
tice carried at the same rates as those.
6342. You have been asked why you do not
apply to have those other things, bone ash and
bone waste taken out of Class C. You have
told us before it is because of the smallness of
the trade in those ?—It is because of its little
importance ; we did not think it worth while
going into the matter.
6343. But with regard to this manure which
is carried in bags, Mr. Pope has put to you the
question of its being carried in bulk. Would it
(81.)
5 C 2 be
756
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.]
Mr. WOSs.
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser—continued.
be practically possible to carry it in bulk —No,
it would not.
Chairman.] Which manure are you speaking
of P
Mr. Poyser.
6344: Super-phosphate. (To the Witness.) It
would be physically possible to put it into trucks
but practically for trade purposes it could not be
put into a truck in bulk 2–No.
Mr. Hunter.
6345. Are consignments of superphosphate of
lime of four tons and upwards common P-Yes,
they are also sent in four tons and upwards, but
they are very often sent with superphosphate and
guano, and things all in one truck mixed ; and
now of course we have got no distinction ; but in
future we should have one or two classes for two
or three articles in one truck, which would be a
great difficulty.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. EDWARD PACKARD, JUNIOR, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Poyser.
6346. YoU are a member of the firm of Pack-
ard and Company, manure manufacturers, of
Bramford and Ipswich, Suffolk 2–Yes.
6347. And I think you have compared several
of those old Acts of Parliament, and found the
rates for manures there 2–Yes, I have.
6348. Do you find that manure is generally
put down in the lowest class?—That is so.
6349. And 1% d. is about a fair rate of average,
or rather in the great majority of cases l ; d. is
the rate per ton for such manure ?—Yes. That
is the case for the Great Eastern specially I
know.
6350. Have you taken out for the purpose of
this Committee the number of consignments sent
by you in a single year?—Yes, I have.
Chairman.
6351. Do I rightly understand that the pre-
sent maximum rate allowed by these Acts of
Parliament to which you have referred is 1; d."—
The Great Eastern Act is l ; d. per ton per mile
and an additional sum for terminals.
6352. That is the maximum rate they are
allowed to charge by their Act 7–It is so.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh. On the assumption
that manure of all sorts is included in the word
“ manure.”
Mr. Poyser.
6353. No, it is not quite that. (To the
Witness.) Would you read the two classes you
have got there?—This is the Great Eastern Act,
1862, Class 2, for “ Dung compost, bones loaded
in bulk, and all other sorts of manure except as
hereafter mentioned, coprolites and salt.” The
exceptions are ground bones, ground coprolites
and guano.
6354. And they are charged what?—They are
charged under Class 3, which is 2 d. a ton, I
believe.
Mr. Bidder.] Yon
to 1; d.
want them pnt down
Mr. Poyser.
6355. Have you taken out a list of the con-
signments of manure that you sent during one
year?—Yes, I can give a certain number of
tons sent to farmers direct ; 993 tons were sent of
under four ton lots; 2,309 lots of four tons and
over, that is specially a farmer's trade.
6356. And the amounts of one ton and under
Mr. Poyser—continued.
two tons, can you tell me how many consign-
ments you sent of that amount 2–Of one ton and
under two tons, 89 consignments, of two tons
and under four tons, 363 consignments.
6357. Have you worked out the total amount
of charge by the Great Eastern on the consign-
ments you have sent during that period 2–On
the farmer's trade the 3,004 tons, the total
amount charged by the Great Eastern Railway
Company, is 714 l. 6 s. 9d.
6358. Have you worked out the same con-
signments under the proposed Provisional Order
scale 2–On Class C., including two terminals,
the amount comes to 1043 l. 2 s. 9 d. ; that is on
the Board of Trade proposal. But the Provi-
sional Order, I believe, increases that charge by
about 6 per cent, upon the rates, so that it
would be a higher amount than that.
Mr. Bidder.
6359. Could you keep separate the carriage
and terminals?—I am afraid I cannot ; I have
them mixed.
Chairman.] The gentleman talks of the pro-
posal of the Board of Trade and the Provisional
Order. I do not know what distinction he draws
between the two 2
Witness. In the Provisional Order the charges
are increased about 6 per cent. upon the Report,
I should say, of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, no.
Witness.] I have the Report here.
Chairman.] We have the Provisional Order
before us.
Mr. Poyser] The Provisional Order is a fortiori
the argument.
Witness.] The Report of the Board of Trade
was 1.70 d. per ton per mile under 20 miles, and
the Provisional Order is 180 d.
Chairman.] What I mean is that we had better
deal with what the Board of Trade have finally
decided upon, and not what they proposed before
their revision.
ſystness.] Quite so. But I have unfortunately
worked out the figures upon the Report of the
Board of Trade, which I purchased as late as
February last.
6360. That
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISION AL ORDER BILI,S. 757
5 June 1891].
Mr. PACKARD, Jun.
[Continued.
Mr. Poyser.
6360. That was 1,043 /. 2 s. 9 d. ; but now
worked out under the Provisional Order, you
say that it would be six per cent. more ?—
Yes.
Mr. Bºdder.
6361. Let me see the details if you have
them 7–I have not the details here.
6362. Kindly let me see what you have 2–
These are the memoranda (I can show you the
details if you wish), which will give an idea of
how it is done ; that is upon Class B., Class C.,
and upon Class I., as proposed by our amend-
ment (handing the same to the learned counsel).
Mr. Poyser.
6363. That will give them a margin over
their present actual charges of something like
31 per cent. 2–Something like that.
6364. Now, would you tell me with regard to
the packing of this manure, the loading of it; it
is a good loading for a truck, is it not ?—Yes;
the Great Eastern Company have some
10-ton trucks, and those we can always load
10 tons into ; whatever weight the truck is
authorised to carry we can put that amount of
manure into it.
6365. Have you taken the number of tons
consignments under four tons and over ; the
mumber of consignments, and worked out the
number of tons consigned in the consign-
ments 2—I have done that ; but that is rather
upon the larger trade, which includes traffic
between Bramford and Ipswich.
6366. Taking out those consignments, what
were the number of tons you sent 2–2,553 tons
loaded into 417 trucks, an average of 6:1 tons
per truck.
Chairman.] I do not think the railway com-
panies will dispute the fact that guano or super-
phosphate in bags are very easy articles to
handle, and that they can fill their trucks with
them without any difficulty.
Mr. Bidder.] Superphosphate is not more
difficult than guano. They are not good neigh-
bours for other goods.
Mr. Poyser.
6367. That is why we want to get it a truck,
if we can, for itself, a four-ton truck in the four-
ton class. (To the Witness.) You say it averages
6:1 tons per truck actual consignments; would
that, give as the rate of Class C. 10-87 d. per
truck mile 2–That is so.
6368. Do you remember that Sir Henry Oak-
ley said 4; d. was the rate they tried to get?
—Yes.
6369. This actually gives them 10:87 d. per
truck mile 2—That is on the 20 miles.
Mr. Hunter.] Does not that go on the assump-
tion that it is applicable to guano equally with
superphosphate of lime 2
Mr. Poyser.] It is quite as applicable as guano,
and we should have guano moved down as
well.
Mr. Hunter.] But you have no amendment to
that effect.
Mr. Poyser.] Our petition was to that effect,
and we wished to get it.
Chairman.] With regard to what Sir Henry
Oakley said, it was that he was never satisfied
with less than 4% d.
Mr. Poyser.] That he tried to get it.
Chairman.] That he was never satisfied unless
he got it.
Earl of Camperdown.] He would like to get
II) Ol’63,
Mr. Poyser.] But now he has got 10-82 d. per
ton in Class C.
Mr. Poyser.
6370. (To the Witness.) If it were in Class B.
what would the rate be 2–8-54 d. on the 20 miles.
6371. You say that you have taken two ter-
minals in working out your figures. You send a
considerable amount of this from siding to
station, I think 2–All the traffic is loaded on a
private siding ; it is then transferred on to the
railway company’s siding, and from thence by
those on to the main line.
6372. And for that there are two charges pro-
vided in the Provisional Order at the present
time, one by Clause 5 and the other Clause 5A P
—For services rendered by the company at, or
in connection with, a siding not belonging to the
Company.
6373. Then Clause 5A, which used to be
Clause 19, that is for station accommodation,
which is practically the same as a station ter-
minal 2–-Yes.
6374. Mr. Voss was asked about as to a
distinction between these other articles, bone
waste and other manures 7–I think bone waste
is very objectionable stuff compared with packed
manures; it is as a rule rather highly scented and
there are many reasonable objections attached
to its being carried. I therefore should think
it only fair to charge a higher price for that than
for packed manure.
6375. Do you agree with Mr. Voss that super-
phosphate is one of the most important of all the
articles that are manufactured by your society f
—I think so.
6376. And comparing it with some of these
other articles already in Class B., would it be
under many of the same conditions as to packing
and otherwise, as basic material, coprolites, rock,
phosphate ground, and so on ?–Just the same :
there is no difference whatever.
6377. It is the lower rates in these tables that
affect you most 2—The short distances.
6378. Will you tell me now the comparisons of
your consignments, under 20 miles, how many
tons there were 2–There were 692 tons under
20 miles, 1,319 tons between 20 and 50 miles, out
of a total of about 3,000 tons.
6379. And the great majority of the traffic is
under 100 miles ; there is very little traffic
beyond 100 miles, is there 2–No.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder,
6380. I have not had much time to examine
these details of yours; but in the first instance,
in making your comparison of the figures that
there would be under the Provisional Order,
what actual charges have you added on ; did I
understand a terminal at each end ?—I did so.
6381. But in your case you have a siding into
(81.)
5 C 3 - your
7.58 MIN UTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
Mr. PACKARD, Jun.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
your works, have you not 7–We have a siding
in our works, and the Great Eastern Company
have sidings which lead to the works.
6382. Therefore, in your case, there would be
only one station terminal chargeable 2–I cannot
interpret this Clause 5, Sub-section 1, in that
way.
6383. You do not suppose Section 5 entitles us
to charge station terminal where we do not pro-
vide a station ?—You are entitled to charge for
“services rendered by the company at or in con-
nection with sidings not belonging to the
company.”
6384. That is not a station terminal. You
are not under the impression that that is the
same thing as the 1 s. station terminal under
Class C.?—I am under that impression “Nothing
herein contained shall prevent the company from
making and receiving, in addition to the charges
specified in this schedule, charges and payments,
by way of rent or otherwise, for sidings or other
structural accommodation provided or to be pro-
vided for the private use of traders, and not
required by the company for dealing with the
traffic,” and so op.
6385. I am quite aware of that ; I only want
to get the fact. In making a comparison between
what you say your actual charges are and what
would be charged under the Provisional Order,
you have assumed that there would be a 1 s.
stational terminal charged at each end ?–I have
assumed that you have the power to charge that.
In the figures that I have given to the Committee
it is so. If you take off one terminal you must
deduct 150 /. from those figures, which would
leave the amount, I think, at 893.
6386. I will only test your details in two re-
spects, to say nothing about what would be the
effect if the Committee granted your application
and put these manures into Class B. 2–I shall be
very happy to give you that.
6387. Just take these. I have only had time
to try two. There is a place here I happen to
open by accident, called Castle Hedingham. I
cannot say that I have heard of it before. What
is the distance?—Thirty-four miles.
6388. What is the actual rate 2–I have not
got it here, I cannot give it to you.
6389. Is not the rate you put down the actual
rate 2–No.
6390. What does it mean, then 7–This rate is
for traffic one ton ten hundredweight which
would come under Class I. I handed those
figures to you as examples of the way I arrived
at the calculations that I have given. It refers
specially to a comparison under Class B. Class
C., and Class I., as proposed by our amendment.
6391. You have given for Castle Hedingham
a rate of 6 s. 10; d. 2–That is how I worked it
out, that is under Class I., under two tons.
6392. In another case the rate is 5 s. 7d., is
it?–It is quite likely, about 5 s. 73 d. ; that
comes into the next class, into Class C., between
two and four tons.
6393. What is the present rate to Castle
Hedingham in four-ton lots?--I cannot give it
YOU!.
6394. Is there any difference at present in the
ate quoted to you between three and four-ton
Mr. Bidder-— continued.
lots 2—No, no difference between three and four
tons. You asked me what was the rate.
6395. I asked whether the rate for a four-
ton lot at present is not the same as for a three-
ton lot 2– No, I beg your pardon, I think it is
not. I am under the impression that the rates
are for four tons and over and for two-two lots.
The quotation of the railway company is from
two tons to four tons.
6396. What is the quotation of that rate.
Have you got the rates in any case for four-ton
lots 2–Yes, I have here several cases.
6397. Let me see them 2–That is the Great
Eastern quotation of rates (handing the same to
the learned Counsel). They give us two-ton, four-
ton, and in some cases five-ton rates.
6398. Apparently in many cases they do not
give you a four-ton rate 2–Then they give
a five-ton rate where they do go give a four-ton
l'at C. -
6399. Take for instance the first of them,
Needham, I think it is; what is the Great Eastern
rate now by the five-ton lot 2—The rate for five-
ton lots is 2s, 1 d.
6400. If you had your way and put the things
down into Class B., what would be the rate to
the same place 2–Five tons for nine miles (after
making a calculation). That would be 2 s, 0; d.
I make it.
6401. How do you arrive at that 7–It is nine
miles, and it is at 1:40 d. per ton per mile.
6402. That is about 11 d ? — I beg your
pardon. I had added the wrong terminal.
6403. Another sixpence 2 — Sixpence for
terminal.
6404. What would the rate be 2 — About
1 s. 9d.
6405. So you cut down their actual rate from
2 s. 1 d. to a maximum of 1 s. 9d.—Yes.
Mr. Hunter.] What is the articles 2
Mr. Bidder.]
station.
Witness.] You have taken the five-ton rate
which is an exceptionally low quotation. I
think it is only fair to take the two-ton
rate.
6406. By all means, that will be a great deal
worse for you. What is the two-ton rate 2
—Two shillings and elevenpence.
Mr. Bidder.] That is 10 d, more.
Mr. Poyser.] Wait a moment. What does
the 2 s. 11 d. come to with the present charge P-
It will come to 1-80 d. per ton per mile, instead
of 1:40 d.
Packed manure, station to
Mr. Bidder.
6407. Take Colchester ; I want to get another
place ; what is the distance 2—Twenty-two miles
from Ipswich.
6408. What is the four-ton rate ' You know
I took the four or five-ton rate, because if it does
not come to four tons, it does not go down to
Class B. at all ?—At the four-ton rate, I think it
would be 3 s. 4 d. -
6409. What would it be if the Committee ac-
ceded to your application ?–I do not know ; I
do not know how many miles to take. It is just
12
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHA RGES PIROVISION AL ORDER BII, L.S.
7.59
5 June 1891.]
Mr. PICKARD, Jun.
[Continued.
Mr. J3idder—continued.
21 miles. I do not know whether it comes in
the 20 to 50 miles, or under the 20 miles.
6410. You would get the 20-mile rate ac-
cording to the Provisional Order 7–(After
making the calculation) That is 2; d., plus the
terminal.
6411. That would be 2 s. 10 d., against the
present rate of how much 7–Threepence three
farthings.
6412. Then, again, your proposal would make
the maximum power of the company less than
the actual rate at the present time.
6413. I suppose if I took other instances it
would come to the same result 2–I do not know.
6414. Am I right, that in many instances you
are asking the Committee to do something that
will cut down the powers of the Great Eastern
Company below their actual rates at the present
time 2—It is not so on the average of the trade,
because I have worked it out.
6315. I grant you that there may be cases
where it has not that effect, but in a large num-
ber of cases it would have that effect 2–If you
take the average of our proposal——
6416. I decline to take the average 2 –-I think
it is only fair to take the average,
6417, You may say that afterwards. As a
matter of fact, are there not a large number of
cases where you will cut down the actual rates ?
—It is possible.
6418. You know it is so 2–Undoubtedly it is
possible. On the other hand, if you put it into
Class C. it will add to the rates more than we
are entitled to pay.
6419. You have said that already. These
packed manures that you want to send in Class
B. are compounded manures, are they not 2–
They are manufactured articles.
6420. And the constituents of which they are
compounded are in Class C. 2–Certainly not.
6421. Surely 2—Certainly not.
6422. Is not guano one?—Yes.
6423. Nitrate of soda 2–Nitrate of soda enters
scarcly at all into the composition of the com-
pounded manures as supplied by manufacturers
to farmers.
6424. It is not for me to inquire into the
secrets of the trade. I thought it was so. Tell
me what is to prevent your availing yourselves
of the Class B, rate and sending them in bulk 2–
The railway companies refuse to carry super-
phosphate in bulk.
6425. But under this schedule we should have
no power to refuse. Are you content if you
have the power to send it in bulk —Certainly,
if we can sell it in that way.
6426. Then you have nothing to complain of ?
—Yes, we have. I said if we could sell it in
that way.
6427. You mean to say that consignees would
not take it in that way ?–As a rule they will
have it in bags.
Re-examined by Mr. Poyser.
6428. You say that, as a matter of fact, the
railway companies have absolutely refused to
take it in bulk — We send many thousand tons
in bulk at one time between Bramford and
Ipswich, and they stopped all the traffic because
they refused to take it in bulk.
Mr. Poyser--continued.
6429. You have been asked as to one or two
rates. You say that Class B. cuts one or two rates
a little ; but you have worked out the whole of the
traffic, and it gives a very considerable increase
whether you take one or two terminals over the
present rate -If you take two terminals it gives
a considerable increase. If you take one termi-
mal it comes out a shade under the present
charges.
6430. Then in addition to your old charging
powers, you say that they have got a siding
power to charge. Have they also got the
power to compel you either to give a minimum
load, or at all events, to charge you a minimum
load under Clause 10 °–So I understand.
6431. So that the powers of the company are
increased in all those different ways, beyond the
amount fixed in the old Acts of Parliament 2–
Yes, I am under that impression.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Poyser, I will hear what the other side
have to say, your Grace; aud then I will address
you aſterwards.
Chairman.] Are you going to call no further
witnesses 2
Mr. Poyser.] No, you Grace, I did not finish.
The Committee deliberate.
Mr. Poyser.] What I had to say before I
stopped in the middle and called my witness. I
am not going to add much to what I have already
said ; but there are one or two points. *
Mr. Bidder.] You had no right to add any.
thing unless I go on.
Mr. Poyser.] Your Grace stopped me.
Chairman.] No.
Mr. Poyser.] I understood that your Grace
asked me to put the witness in the box to dis-
tinguished between the manures, and I did there-
upon stop.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then you said that you.
would wait for the reply.
Mr. Poyser.] I do not wish to address you
twice; but there are one or two points that I
wish to call attention to. I would rather I said
it after the other side have addressed your Grace.
Mr. Hanbury.] You have only the right to
address us once; and you sat down because you
really did not know what “e.o.h.p.” meant.
Mr. Poyser.] With all respect, that is not
what I understood. His Grace said that instead
of my going on with my argument, it would be
better to know what “e.o.h.p.” applied to ; and
I thereupon sat down in order that the ex-
planation might be given. There is very little
that I want to add ; but I did want to finish my
argument.
Chairman.] But your reply would only come
after the other side.
Mr. Poyser.] My reply would only come after
the other side.
Chairman.] Then, supposing that we did no.
hear the other side.
Mr. Poyser.] That is just what I wanted to
point out, I stopped what I was saying in order
(81.)
5 C 4 that
760
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
that I might meet your Grace's view about
having the rest of the other articles put before
the Committee. I did not finish what I was
going to say; it is very little more ; but I did
want to finish the argument that I was urging.
If your Grace meant something further I mis-
understood it. I was going to point out to you
that these things are in Class S. of the Clearing
House Classification, and treated differently from
the other articles on this page here. Here are
some of these articles in Class S. put up into
Class C. and some into Class B. ; so that the
Clearing House Classification does not conclude
the matter at all. There are kainit coprolites
and basic material all in Class S. here, and all we
wanted was that the other article should be treated
in the same way as those particular ones. It is on
page 47, and that is what I was going to point out,
beyond that, I was simply going to say that we
withdrew the other articles, because we thought
it would save the time of the Committee,
and we wish to deal with the important different
articles that affected our trade.
Chairman.] You must not say that you con-
sidered the time of the Committee; you have
mentioned it more than once ; the Committee are
here to sit and hear all the evidence that is
brought before them.
Mr. Poyser.] I will put it, to save the time of
other traders.
Chairman.] Nothing that is done ought to be
done with a view to shortening the evidence.
We are here, and we are content to remain so
long as you like to bring any evidence. We do
not want to hear the railway companies; we do
not agree to the amendments.
Mr. Whitehead. The next amendment, your
Grace, is on page 20, column 2, after line 2,
insert “Marble in blocks rough for building
purposes.” This proposal is to raise from Class
C., marble in blocks rough for building pur-
poses, and place it in Class B, ; and I think I
ought to say to your Grace that at present
Chairman.] You wish to remove it from Class
C. to Class B.
Mr. Whitehead..] I say at once that, at the
present time, marble in the rough in the Clearing
House Classification is in a class corresponding
to Class C. ; but that, in fact, a large quantity
of marble which comes from Derbyshire and
MR. SIDNEY CRIPPS, is called in ;
pose the
Devonshire is carried as limestone ; and, there-
fºre, being treated as limestone, it goes into
Class B., which is the Celass into which we wish
all matter of this rough character to be inserted.
Lºrd Boughton.] It goes into Class A., does it
not '.
... Mr. Whitehead..] Under present circumstances
It is SO.
Earl of Belmore.] That is for the purpose of
being made into lime I suppose.
. Mr. Whitehead..] Limestone in any event goes
into Class A.
Chairman.] Limestone in bulk goes in Class
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, and marble in the rough
consists at the present time of partly rough mar-
ble which would go in Class C. or Class S. of the
Clearing House Classification, and partly of this
limestone marble which would go into Class A.
We propose that it should all go into Class B.
that being an intermediate Class, rising in the
one case and lowering in the other.
Chairman.] Do you propose to take limestone
out of Class A. and put it into Class B. 2
Mr. Whitehead..] No, there is limestone and
marble which at the present time is carried as
limestone ; it is so treated.
Chairman.] Treated by whom P
Mr. Whitehead..] As between the consignor and
the railway companies. A further distinction we
wish to draw is between statuary marble, which
is of course a comparatively valuable article, and
rough marble used for building purposes, which
is of very low value indeed. For that pur-
witness I shall call will com-
pare marble used for building purposes with
granite used for the same purposes. If your
Grace would refer to the Board of Trade Classi-
fication on page 18 of the London and North
Western schedule in the first column, on line 32,
you will see that granite in blocks, rough and
undressed, is placed in Class B., and the evi-
dence I propose to call will be to show that
marble in the rough is for all practical purposes
identical with granite ; it is used for the same
purposes; the handling is the same, and the
value is about the same, and that for all purposes.
<\,
of railway transit it should be treated as the
Säll]l 6.
and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6432. YoU are a member of the firm of
Gooddy, Cripps and Sons, Limited P-I am.
6433. Of 14, Graham-street, Wharf-road,
City-road, London?—Yes.
6434. Do you represent here the marble
trade of the City of London Chamber of Com-
merce?—Yes.
6434*. Does the greater portion of traffic in
marble consist of this rough marble for building
purposes?—Yes, it is the common white Carrara
marble we refer to.
6435. Comparing it for value with granite
blocks, which are now placed in Class B., what
would you say?—It is about the same value.
Lord Monkswell—continued.
6436. What value is that ?—About four
guineas a ton.
6437. It is very good loading; I suppose a
large weight goes into a small compass 2–Yes.
6438. And with regard to risk is there any
greater liability to damage in transit in the case
of rough marble than in the case of granite P—
There is no risk at all.
Chairman.] You say the value is the same.
Mr. Whitehead.] He says the value is the
S3LIY16.
Witness.] I have the price list of some granite
merchants
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION Al, ORD Elk BILLS.
761
5 June 1891.]
Mr. CRIPPs.
[Continued.
merchants in my hand, and they quote from
3 l. 12 s. up to 6 l. a ton.
Mr. Pember.] Would you mind letting me
have it 2
Mr. Whitehead.
6429. This is a quotation from the granite
merchants for prices for granite, the rough
granite for building purposes?–Yes.
6440. And their quotations range, you say, from
3 l. 10 s. ?–From 3 l. 12 s. up to 6 l. per ton in
London.
6441. And in
the case of marble 2–
About four guineas. -
Chairman.
6442. Four gmineas up to what?— Common
marble, 4 l. 4s. up to 5 l. 10 s.
Mr. Whitehead.
6443. So that it is less in value than more
valuable kinds of granite 7–Yes.
Chairmam.
6444. You are comparing marble, and saying
that marble is worth from four to five guineas
and granite from 3 l. to 6 l. 2–Yes, the granite
varies according to the size of the blocks.
6445, £.4 per what, per ton 2–Yes, it varies.
For instance, they quote for a square block con-
taining three feet cube so much a foot, 4 s. 6d.
a foot; and then they go up to 40 feet and quote
8 s. 3d., which is nearly double.
6446. What I wanted to know was, are you
comparing the same articles of the same size and
the same weight; because, if you are not, the
comparison is not a good one.
Mr. Whitehead,
6447. You are comparing granite used for
building purposes with marble used for building
purposes?–Yes, a small block of three feet
cube of marble we should not call a block at
all, that would be a piece. A block of marble
would not weigh less than a ton.
Earl of Belmore.
6448. Is a big block worth more pro rata than
a smaller one?–Not in marble, but in granite it
makes 50 per cent. difference,
Cross-examined by Mr. Pember.
6449. But surely, when you give us this as
the price of marble, you are not talking of fine
Italian marble 2–No, not statuary marble.
6450. Tell us now what the value of statuary
marble is 2—From 30 l. to 35 l. a ton.
6451. Does not that come over in blocks?—
It comes over in blocks.
Mr. Hambury.] But it is only for building
purposes that the amendment is proposed.
Mr. Pember.
6452. How are we to tell whether marble is
for building purposes? Supposing that a person
sent a block of what is really statuary marble,
worth 30 l. or 40 l. a ton, and said it was for
building purposes, how could we test it?—The
traffic in statuary marble is almost infinitesimal.
6453. How could we test it?–First of all a
statuary block would be regular in shape, it
would not be square.
(81.)
Mr. Pember—continued.
6454. Supposing it were, and you declared it
to be a block of marble for building purposes,
how could we test it 2–The men at the railway
would be able to tell very easily.
6455. How are we to tell ? [f you say it is
marble for building purposes we should be
bound to take it 2
Earl of Belmore.
6456. Would it be in the shape for building
purposes 2–It would be a square shape. Com-
mon Carrara marble would be in squared-up
blocks; the statuary marble would be regular in
shape. Statuary marble is nearly all used in
London for sculpture.
6457. Is it a shape that can be used in build-
ing or is it a long thing ;-It is long, like a sugar
cone, and irregular.
Mr. Pember.
6458. But a great deal of that marble might be
consumed in certain choice buildings like
churches Pi—There is none of it used at present.
6459. No fine marbles?—Not in rough blocks.
6460. No, not used in rough blocks; but I
suppose it might be sawn into shape afterwards.
Earl of Camperdown.] So might granite.
Lord Houghton.
6461. What class does statuary marble travel
in now 2–In Class S.
6462. The same as the other ?–Yes.
Mr. Pember.
6460. Let us follow it another way. Apart
from value, as a matter of fact sculpture marble
goes about the country in very small consignments,
does it not ?–Not the marble we are referring
to in blocks. These consignments would be four
tons.
6464. From London into the country 2–Yes.
6465. For what purposes?—For monuments.
6466. Then if you take it for monuments, that
is not building purposes. Do you count monu-
ments in building purposes 2–Monuments ought
to have been inserted ; it ought to have been
“for building and monumental purposes.”
6467. But it has not been inserted, you know.
Just let me ask you this as to that marble for
monumental purposes that you have mentioned.
In what class is that now carried invariably 2–
S. Class.
6468. Are there special rates for it 2–No,
nothing under S.
6469. It really does work out then that you
are proposing to reduce the one article which is
marble used for monumental purposes from one
class into another ?—Yes, quite right.
6470. Why should it be removed from one
class into another ?–Because granite is in Class
B., and it competes with granite.
6471. Is it not a fact that granite comes in
large quantities continuously from the great
quarries, and is not a sporadic trade like the trade
in marble?—The marble trade is about the same
every year. ,
6472. But the trade in granite is continuous
almost from day to day and week to week?—So is
marble every day.
ºbu not in anything like the
5
Sáliſle
quantities
762
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
5 June 1891.
Chairman—continued.
quantities, you do not mean to say as much as
granite is ?–Over 20,000 tons of it.
6474. I daresay. And how many tons of
granite 2–I do not know.
6475. A vast many more than that, are there
not ?—I do not know.
Mr. Hambury.] It is an existing distinction.
Mr. Pember] It is an existing distinction.
Witness.] At the present moment they are
carrying Devonshire and Derbyshire marble as
limestone which is in the M (B.) Class.
Chairman.] If it is limestone it will go in
Class A. -
Mr. Pember.
6476. What I am asked to do here is (I am
picking up this from moment to moment) to get
you to give me some proof that Devonshire
marble is carried as limestone 7—When we were
before the Board of Trade.
6477. No, I want some evidence of its being
done. Show me some invoices?—I have not any
about me, but we have had marble from Devon-
shire and I am told it has come, that it has come
at the limestone rate.
6478. I am told it has not ?—I see Mr. Wilk-
inson, one of the railway gentleman
6479. Never mind Mr. Wilkinson, I want
some proof that you have received marble from
Devonshire as limestone 2–One of the officials of
the railway company is here —
6480. That is not evidence, you know. I want
some distinct evidence 2–I am prepared to swear
that we have received it.
6481. I must have a little confirmation of that.
Show me an invoice 2–I have not got one here.
Earl of Iłelmore.
6482. Whatever your invoice is, was it called
limestone or marble 2–It would probably be
called limestone.
Earl of Belmore.] Then it would be called by
the wrong name.
Chairman.] Who christened it limestone *
Mr. Pember.] That would not go further than
to show this, that somebody sent them marble
and called it limestone.
Witness.] All marble is limestone.
Mr. Pember.] Yes, but all limestone is not
marble.
Chairman.
6482*. Then the marble you received in that
way, how came you to call it limestone 7–We
received it, we did not send it off ; it was sent
from Devonshire to London.
6483. But somebody must have declared it
wrongly 7–The railway companies have always
allowed it to be carried as limestone.
Mr. Pember.] I daresay.
Chairman.
6484. Then they have given you the same
rate as for limestone, but did it follow, therefore,
that it was treated as limestone 2–I suppose we
may send our marble in future as limestone.
Mr. Pember.] Subject to being found out. I
Chairman—continued.
see now how the gentleman justifies fraud on
some one in Devonshire. He says he was justi-
fied in calling it limestone because all marble is
limetone.
Mr. Whitehead. It is hardly fair to say that
it is a case of fraud.
Mr. Pember.] I did not say this gentleman.
Chairman.] If you send an article that is one
thing and call it another it is an incorrect descrip-
tion. º - - -
Mr. Whitehead..] Your Grace will see it is
before the Committee in evidence that marble is
limestone and that it is not an improper descrip-
tion in any event, and I protest against its being
called a case of fraud.
Chairman.] Well, we will not call it fraud.
Mr. Pember.] No, I do not want to call it
fraud. -
Mr. Hunter.] The existing Acts mention lime-
stone but they do not mention marble.
Mr. Whitehead.
6485. That is so. (To the Witness.) But in
any event whether it be fraud or not, that has
been the practice?—Yes. -
6486. To your knowledge 2–Yes.
Mr.
invoice.
Mr. Whitehead..] The witness has said that he
is unable to give the invoice.
Mr. Pember.] Exactly.
Mr. Whitehead.
6487. And he swears to it. (To the Witness.)
With regard to the difference between statuary
marble and building marble you say that it is a
difference, which is apparent upon the face of
the blocks.
º And that anyone can tell the difference #
— L G.S.
6489. Supposing on the other hand that there
were a false declaration made, the company
would be entitled to take then any proceedings
they thought fit? —Yes.
6490. And they have their remedy in that
way ?—Yes.
Pember.] Then I should like to see an
Mr. Pember.] That is what you are asking to
prevent.
Mr. Whitehead.
6491. So that that objection has no real value
at all ?—No.
6492. You do not know what the amount of
traffic in granite is because it is not your trade?
—No.
6493. But the trade you are interested in is
a large trade amounting to many tons per year 2
—Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
6494. Did you put that distinction before the
Board of Trade of marble for building purposes 2
– Yes, we did in a measure.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Have you any more witnesses 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Not upon this point, your
Grace.
Chairman.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
763
*****sº-> *; : it.…:
5 June 1891.
Chairman (to Lord Balfour of Burleigh).]
Have the Board of Trade anything to say in this
matter P
Balfour of Burleigh..] The matter was before
us, and the point seemed to us that if you put
in this expression “marble in rough,” it would
include those very high class marbles that comes
from abroad. The point before us when we had
the former inquiry was, whether it was possible
to devise any distinction which would differentiate
this marble which is produced out of the rocks in
the British Islands from the more expensive kinds
of marble. I asked both the representatives of
the railway companies, and I think this same
gentleman, or at any rate representative of the
same trade, whether he could devise any such
definition. Some time elapsed, and no definition
was forthcoming, and we were obliged to include
marble in the higher class because we thought it
obviously unfair that a material costing 30 l. or
40 l. a ton, should be classed in this class along
with granite. And unless some definition can be
devised, I do not see any reason for altering that
opinion.
Lord Houghton.] I suppose it would appear
too protective to say foreign marble in one case
and English in the other.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I do not know
that was suggested, but it would be rather
difficult to say whether it was foreign or not.
Earl of Camperdown.] I see that the railway
companies recognise this Devonshire marble. Mr.
Wilkinson says to Lord Balfour, “The Devon-
shire marble which has been spoken of, is called
limestone and is carried under limestone terms, so
that what was done was done with Mr. Wilkin-
son's knowledge.
Mr. Pember.] He had not found it out.
Mr. Moon.] Mr. Wilkinson says it was for
paving.
Lord Houghton.] Still it is marble.
Mr. Pimber.] I suppose it really comes to
this ; that there came a question at some point or
other, with limestone, whether you will dignify
it with the nobler name of marble. It must be
remembered besides, that when something of this
kind was being used, as Mr. Wilkinson said for
paving stones, it may have been that up to this
time they did not exert their utmost power of
charging, and allowed marble of a low type to be
used for other purposes, to be treated as lime-
stone. Because they allowed it, that ought not
to prejudice the classification.
Chairman.] We do not propose to alter the
classification of the Board of Trade.
Ordered, That this Committee be Adjourned to Tuesday next, Half-past Eleven o’clock.
5 in 2
( 764 )
( 765 )
Due Martis, 9° Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
His GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Bidder.] You R Grace, I think the next
amendment that comes up for consideration, if
it is pressed, is one on page 6 by the slate quarry
traders of Nantlle, and the amendment is on
page 20, column 2, after “slate slabs,” line 17, to
omit the words “in the rough.” I do not know
whether anybody is going to press that.
Chairman.] I do not see it.
Mr. Bidder.] It is not printed, but it is written
in manuscript.
Mr. Darlington.] I think your Grace will re-
member that I made an application with regard
to this.
Mr. Bidder.] I think it is an omission in the
printing; I do not think anything must be taken
to prejudice the coalowners.
Mr. Darlington.] I did mention the matter
before to your Grace, after the words “slate
slabs" to strike out the words “in the rough.”
That is my amendment, and the question is this :
we think the words “slate slabs in the rough"
have been inserted under a misapprehension as
to what the traffic really consists in. I do not
think I can help your Grace really by addressing
a speech to the Committee on the subject; it
seems to me to be purely a matter of evidence;
and I therefore propose to call my witness at
once, with your Grace's permission.
Chairman.] In what line is it 2
Earl of Camperdown.] Page 20, column 2, line
17, after “slate slabs' omit the words “in the
rough ;” do the railway company oppose that ?
Mr. Bidder.] We oppose it.
MR. WILLIAM ARTHUR DARBISHIRE, having been re-called; is further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Darlington.
6495. YoU gave evidence before this Com-
mittee, I think, on a former occasion ?—I did.
6496. You are managing director of the slate
quarry at Nantlle 2–I am, and I am the princi-
pal owner.
6497. And as such managing director you
have acquired considerable knowledge of the
articles that are sent by train in the slate trade 2
—I have.
6498. Have you examined the classification in
the Provisional Order ?—Yes, I have.
6499. And particularly Class B. of the classi-
fication ?—Yes.
6500. Do you find there “slate slabs in the
rough "in line 17 ?–Yes, I do.
6501. Do slate slabs other than in the rough
appear elsewhere in the classification ?—No.
6502. Will you tell the Committee, if you
please, what you understand by slate slabs in the
rough, and what would be understood in the
trade by that description ?–Slate slabs in the
rough is an article that is not sold, because it is
of no use to anybody except as a gift almost :
Mr. Darlington—continued.
slate slabs, without “in the rough,” are articles
that are squared and made convenient for build-
ing and for paving purposes and so on, but “ in
the rough ‘’I do not know what they mean.
6503. I think that most of the slate that is
used in England comes from Wales, does it mot?
—Yes.
6504. Can slate slabs in the rough be formed
into articles of commerce in England 2–I pre-
sume that slate slabs in the rough mean a lump
of slate rock ; that would be absolutely useless
to anybody in England without the proper
machinery to cut and square and dress it.
6505. Is it the fact that these slate slabs are
always planed and sawn at the quarries?—They
are either sawn and not planed, or sawn and
planed in order to make a square article of them.
6506. Have the English masons the facilities
for performing that work 2–I do not think an
Englishman can split the slate at all; I think it
is impossible, they never do ; or square them ;
and they have no machinery of course.
6507. Then are slate slabs in the rough, as
(81.)
5 D 3 you
766
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. DARBISHIRE.
[Confinued.
Mr. Darlington—continued.
you understand them, carried in any quantity ?
-—At present rough blocks of slate stone are not
a merchantable article. Slate slabs of various
kinds are carried and sold, but for certain
reasons, not to the extent that they might
be.
6508. Will you now describe to the Committee
what the trade in slabs consist of ; what sort of
article is it?—Slate slabs are square pieces of
slate rock which have been smoothed and shaped
to certain sizes or to promiscuous sizes; and of
|his stuff mantel pieces, and slate cisterns, and
thelves, and doorsteps, and other things of that
descriptions are made afterwards. -
6509. Are the slate slabs which are articles of
commerce the raw material for making such
things as you have just mentioned 2–Yes.
6510. And such slate slabs are not in any true
sense of the word a manufactured article 2–They
are what I should call a manufactured material,
not a manufactured article.
6511. They are the rough material out of
which the finer classes of slate slabs such as
mantel-pieces and other articles which are made
out of slate slabs are ultimately made 7–They
are material with a certain amount of preparation
given to it.
6512. With regard to this sawing, planing,
and squaring, is there any larger amount of
manufacture expended upon them in sawing and
planing 2—Not very much. The machinery is
brought to bear upon it, and I should think that
a ton of slab could, on the average, be made into
a merchantable form for something like 5 s. a ton
or up to 10 s.
6513. How does that compare with the cost of
making slates ?—The cost of making slates would
be from 25 s. to 30 s. per ton, or perhaps a little
more per ton.
6514. Are these other articles, into which slate
slabs are ultimately manufactured, mentioned in
the classification ?—I think they are in Class C.
Chairman.] But did I rightly understand the
Witness to say that slate slabs are not
mentioned ?
Mr. Darlington.] They are not mentioned
alone.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, they are in Class
C. At page 42 of the London and North
Western Railway Order, you will find them both
mentioned; you are under a misapprehension.
Mr. Darlington.] I am obliged to your Lord-
ship.
Earl of Camperdown.] But it is very impor-
tant.
Witness.] But that is in another class, is it
not º'
Chairman.] Yes.
Hitness.] I meant that they are not mentioned
in Class B.
Lord Belper.] You said that they were not
mentioned at all.
Witness.] I beg your Lordship's pardon.
Mr. Darlington.] They are mentioned in
Class C. but not in Class B.
Mr. Hanbury. That is the whole difference.
Mr. Darlington.
6515. Yes; it was a misapprehension on
my part, I am afraid. (To the Witness.)
I think I had better ask you a question upon
that. Would Class 3 be a fair piace in which
to put common slate slabs?—Oh, dear, no ; it is
absurd.
Chairman.] What do you call common slate
slabs, because we are dealing with slate slabs 2
Mr. Darlington.] Slate slabs not in the rough,
I mean.
Witness.] Slate slabs not in the rough, if put
in Class 3, are classed with other articles that
extinguish the trade simply, destroy the trade,
it is impossible to carry it on.
6516. Will you explain to the Committee the
difference between the manufactured and un-
manufactured slate slabs. Supposing, for in-
stance, that a man was putting up a lavatory and
wrote to you for the slate slabs to put up his
lavatory, you would send him articles more or
less manufactured, would you not ?—I am a
quary owner and I do not enter into a detail of
that kind. I should send him as many slabs as
I thought he could make the lavatory out of, or
I should get some small manufacturer who
bought the raw material from me to make it for
him.
6517. But the slate slabs as ultimately put up
would have a considerable amount of labour ex-
pended upon them, and the unmanufactured
slate slabs which you would send him would be
the raw material out of which he would ultimately
form his polished slate slabs 7–Certainly.
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] That is
rather more your evidence than the witness's 2
Earl of Camperdown.] And it is also incorrect;
they are at the present time in Class 3 of the
Clearing House Classification. I mean that you
should use the right words.
Mr. Darlington.] I do not quite follow your
Lordship there.
Mr. Hanbury.] Would it not simplify the
matter very much if you could speak of slate
slabs defined as they are in the Clearing House
Classification, “slate slabs not enamelled, not
packed. Common, in cases. Slate slabs in 4-ton
lots 2 ”
Mr. Darlington.] I think it would.
Witness.] But why “ common ; ” what does
“ common ‘’ mean º' We use all sorts without
any distinction whatever.
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] You see
what I want to turn your attention to is this :
that the witness has stated that if slate slabs are
retained in Class 3 it will annihilate the trade,
the trade will cease altogether; but according to
the present classification, the slate slabs in 4-ton
loads are Speciel Class S. That does not seem
to me to be a proper answer. -
Mr. Darlington.] It seems to me, so far as I
understand the witness's evidence ——
Chairman.] You need not explain it to me,
but extract from him whether in the present
Clearing House Classification they are much
lower than what they would be if they remained
in Class C.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
767
9 June 1891.]
Mr. DARBISHIRE.
[Continued.
Mr. Bidder.] Your Grace will observe that
under the Clearing House Classification no
slates go into Class B., except common slates.
Mr. Darlington.] Common slate slabs.
MWitness.] That is what I want to know ; what
do common slates mean P
Mr. Darlington.
6518. Will you look at page 66 of the Clear-
ing House Classification. You will there find
slate slabs common, in four-ton lots I think it
is ?—Yes ; “Slate slabs, not enamelled, not
packed ;” that is one class ; “Common, in
cases ;” that is another class. “Slate slabs in
four-ton lots ;” that is another class.
Mr. Hanbury.
6519. Are those what you are talking of 2–I
am talking of slate slabs in four-ton lots.
6520. Then is it not the fact that those at the
present moment are in a higher class under the
Clearing House Classification than they will be
under the Board of Trade Provisional Order ?— I
do not think so.
Mr. Darlington.] Do you say this: that slate
slabs in the rough are not known in commerce.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is not the question; the
question is this: are slate slabs in four-ton lots,
which is what the witness is talking about, in a
lower classification under the Provisional Order
than they are in the existing Clearing House
Classification ?
|Pitness.] Is Class 3, higher or lower
Mr. Darlington.
6520.* Higher ?—Then it is higher clearly.
Mr. Hanbury.
6521. Slate slabs in the rough are in Class S.
of the Clearing House Classification, which is
higher than Class B. of the Provisional Order.
As a matter of fact, they are put in Class B. of
the Provisional Order 2—They are slate slabs in
the rough, which is a thing that does not exist,
and does not correspond to slate slabs in four-ton
lots.
Mr. Darlington.
6522. Is it your opinion that under this classi-
fication, as proposed by the Provisional Order,
those slate slabs in four-ton lots, which, under
the Clearing House Classification, come into the
special class would now come under Class 32–
I think so:
6523. And those common slabs in four-ton
lots would not come under the words “Slate
slabs in the rough "?—There is no specification
of other slates in four-ton lots; and “Slate slabs
common in cases" is a thing I do not know, it is
not an article of traffic. The only specification
corresponding with what I understand by slate
slabs, without the words, “in the rough,” is that
class of slate slabs in four-ton lots in Class S.,
which, according to this Provisional Order, is in
Class 3, and ought to be in Class B.
6524. Is there any reason why these common
slate slabs should be put up into Class 3, so far
as regards their value 2–No, none whatever.
6525. Are they very damageable 2–No.
Mr. Darlington—continued.
6526. I am talking of common slate slabs?—
No. Slate slabs are damageable.
6527. Are they handled in exactly the same
way as slates are?—Only more conveniently.
6528. These common slate slabs are loaded by
the quarry owner, just in the way that slates are?
—Yes, similarly.
6529. I think you have an instance to give
me of the difficulty with regard to the present
classification of slates in the Clearing House
Classification ?—There is such extreme uncer-
tainty, that the following incident happened
about a month ago. A customer of mine bought
some articles consisting of slate slabs; one ton
and a quarter was the weight; and my shipper
and the railway agent consulted together, and
found that the charge, according to this classifi-
cation, would be very large, and of their own
accord
Mr. Bidder.] This may simply the matter. I
have just caught one possible blot in the Pro-
visional Order, and it may shorten the matter.
If you look at the Clearing House Classification,
page 66 (1 had not noticed it before), there are
no slate slabs put lower than Class S., which is
Class C. now ; but there is an item before that,
“Slate slabs common in cases * in Class 1 ; and
looking at our Class 1, I am bound to say that
I do not see anything corresponding to that. I
do not come to slate slabs again till I come to
Class C. There will be no objection, your Grace,
on the part of the railway companies, if it is
thought proper by the Committee, and if the
Board of Trade see no objection to it, to introduce
an entry “Slate slabs common in cases” in Class
1, so as to follow the Clearing House Classifica-
tion in that respect. I do not know whether my
learned friend follows me.
Mr. Darlington.] I quite follow you.
Mr. Bidder.] So as to keep it in accordance
with the Clearing House Classification, because
Mr. Darbishire seems to think that we are rele-
gating everything to Class C.
Chairman.] We must hear what the Board of
Trade have to say upon it.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Bidder).] What do
you mean by slate slabs in four-ton lots P Does
that correspond with slate slabs in the rough ;
that is the intention ?
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, excepting that they have
been put down a class.
Mr. Darlington.] But the whole of our point
is that slate slabs in the rough is not the same
thing as slate slabs common.
Mr. Bidder.] They are not, and I do not
propose to treat them as the same.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Darlington).] The point
is this: are your slate slabs in the rough the
same things as slate slabs in four-ton lots now
carried by the railway companies in Class S. 2
Mr. Darlington ] We think they ought to be,
but are not.
Witness...] They are not.
Mr. Bidder.] I think they are.
(81.)
5 D 4 Chairmant
768 MINUTES
OF EV IIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891. )
Mr. DARBISHIRE.
ſ Continued.
!-
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] Will you
finish your examination ?
Mr. Darlington.
6530. (To the Witness.) You were giving me
an example of difficulties that arise under the
Clearing House Classification ?—We sent off a
ton and a quarter of slates, which my agent and
the railway agent agreed would be charged very
highly to the customer ; and they, of their own
accord, charged them as 4 tons of common slate
slabs, instead of one ton and a quarter. My cus-
tomers remonstrated at being charged as if they
were 4 tons, and I was able to show him that he
saved 15 s. by it; which of course put an end
to anything like the regular trade in the article
which ought to go away by hundreds of tons,
because nobody knows what he is going to be
charged. -
Lord Belper.
6531. Did he object to being saved 15 s. ?–No,
not at all, when he found out what was the
reason, But how can we carry on a trade which
should be in hundreds and thousands of tons if
we never know what we are going to be charged.
Mr. Darlington.
6532. As I understand what you want is, that
common slate slabs should be put into Class B.
—I want slate slabs in 4-ton lots put in Class B.
without the words “in the rough,” or anything
else.
Mr. Darlington.] That slate slabs in 4-ton
lots should be in Class B.
Mr. Bidder.] In the present Clearing House
Classification ?
Mr. Darlington.] We think it ought to be so
in the classification.
Witnees.] I want to know what “ common ’’
means. I do not know.
6533. Would you understand the difference
between common and not common slate slabs to
be such slate slabs as were unpolished as distin-
guished from those which were polished or
otherwise treated 2–I do not know what the
meaning of “common ’’ is as applied to this class.
If it included all slabs not made into an article so
polished and finished that it would be injured as
an article by damage, I should think the word
“common slabs' might be admissible.
Mr. Bidder.
6534. You must take the whole description,
“ common in cases " ?— We never send slate
slabs common in cases.
Mr. Darlington.] Would you accept the words
“not polished ” instead of “in the rough **
Lord Belper.] “ Not enamelled ” are the words
in the Clearing House classification.
Mr. Darlington
6535. Would you accept the words “not
polished ” or “not enamelled ”?—“Not ena-
melled ” is the only word in the Clearing House
Classification.
6536. No, that is another thing ; but I think
I had better put if in this way, and leave it in
this way : that you think that the ordinary
unmanufactured slate slabs in 4-ton lots ought
Mr. Darlington—continued.
to be where slate slabs in the rough are now
described 7–I think so.
6537. Are slate slabs not enamelled and slate
slabs enamelled now in the same class in the
Clearing House Classification ?—They appear to
be so.
Lord Belper.
6538. But one in cases and the other not.
One not packed, and the other in cases or
bundles?—Yes; but they are both in the same
class.
6539. But one must be in cases or bundles
and the other not packed ?–Yes.
Mr. Darlington.
6540. But the articles that you want in
Class C. are not articles that are packed 2–Cer-
tainly not.
6541. They are common slate slabs?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
6542. The articles that you want to get into
Class B., as my learned friend Mr. Darlington
has just said, are rough, unfinished articles 2–
No, they are finished articles to a certain extent;
they are unfinished material, and must be finished,
So far as that goes.
6543. May I point out to you that if they are
finished articles, they are not the class of article
that is usually put into Class B. P—I meant to
say the finished material, not the finished article;
there is that distinction.
6544. But finished in what sense ; that they
are ready for use 2–That they are ready for
transport, and do not want much more than
handling to be useful in building.
6545. They are ready then for ultimate use in
building, for lavatory, or any other purpose ?—
One hundred yards, or 500 or 1,000 yards, may
be, just as a man may find couvenient in his
building.
6546. They are not polished, of course 2–No,
I do not think they are. Polished articles in
this classification are specified under various
names, such as chimney-pieces, billiard-beds,
and so on.
6547. These things are not polished 2–No.
6548. That is to my mind very much the same
as saying that they are in the rough 2–No, they
are not. Evidently you do not know anything
about it.
6549. As a matter of fact, without splitting
hairs about words, at the present time when you
send articles of that kind you are charged in
Class C. 2–We never know what we are going
to be charged.
6550. But do not the companies follow the
Clearing House Classification ?–No, they charge
us sometimes one thing and sometimes another.
6551. Does not that depend upon the load 2–
Not at all.
6552. For instance, you said just now that you
sent a 13-ton load 2–Yes.
6553. And they charged you for four tons?—
No, they would have charged my customer; it
would have been for four tons upon what they
chose to call them.
6554. Because, being a small load, it came
Into
ON RAII, WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
769
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Bidder—continued.
into a higher class 2—No, because the charge for
13 tons at one rate was more than for four tons
at another rate.
6555. Being small consignments?–No, it was
not so at all. If it had been five tons it would
have been still more enormous. It was that
14 ton at so much came to more than four tons
at another rate.
6556. I do not follow you.
load 2–Yes.
6557. And they charged you what?——
Chairman.] Could you get the exact sum ?
Mr. Bidder.
6558. What was the actual charge made 2–
I cannot remember the figures exactly, but it
would be something like this : four tons at 10 s.
would be 2 l., and 13 ton would be 35 s., or
2 l. 10 s. ; I cannot remember the figures.
6559. Then, in point of fact, it seems to have
the explanation on the face of it, that when you
send slate slabs in four-ton lots, according to the
Clearing House Classification, you get a lower
rate 2-—No, we do not at present, certainly
ºn Ot.
6560. Have you got the Clearing House
Classification before you ?–Yes; but that is not
the lower rate as ordinary slabs.
6561. Then if that is so, in point of fact the pre-
sent charges are higher than the Clearing House
Classification ?—Yes, I believe it is so.
6562. And if this Provisional Order Classifi-
cation is lower than the Clearing House Classifi-
cation à fortiori, it is better for you than what
you are being charged at present?—It is ; but it
You sent a 13-ton
is not good enough to make a trade ; I am talk-
ing in the interests of the railway companies as
well as ourselves.
6563. One other matter; this lot that you
illustrated, the 14 tons of slate, whatever the
phraseology of Class B. is, would not come
within it, because Class B. is for four-ton lots 2—
No, it would not ; but we should know what we
were going to pay.
6564. Of course you will know what you are
going to pay ?–But we do not get to know ; that
is just the very point.
6565. Will you kindly tell me, I confess I can
hardly understand it myself, what articles do you
wish to have carried at Class B. rates by striking
out the words “in the rough '' which you think
you would not get carried in Class B. as it stands
now 2—Slate slabs planed on both sides and
squared, promiscuous sizes, sawn on one side and
squared by sawing.
6566 All those that might be described as
common slabs?—I should think they might.
6567. Those are things which, according to the
present Clearing House Classification, you would
be charged for if not packed in Class 3 and if
packed in Class 13–I do not see anything for
not packed; 37, what is that?
6568. I suppose enamelled and not packed ?–
That is so I suppose.
6569. So that what you are asking is, that
things which at present if not packed are charged
in Class 3, and if packed in cases are charged in
Class 1, you should have the right to have
carried in Class B. That is what you are
asking 2–Yes, that is so.
Mr. DARBISHIRE.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are there any other
articles besides those squared slabs in Class B. 2
Mr. Bidder.
6570. Are there any other articles you have
in your mind besides squared slabs?—-Not
besides those. I have divided squared slabs,
such as you have described, into Class B., and
I should put all other articles manufactured, such
as slate beds of billiard tables, slate pencils, slate
ridges, slate slabs packed in cases and bundles
(which means slate slabs of a better quality) in
Class C.
Earl of Camperdown.
6571. Where
Class C.
would you put them 2–ſm
Lord Belper.
6572. That is to say you would put their
up three classes from where they are now 2–
They are not anywhere now.
Mr. Bidder.
6573. You will admit at once of course that
if that were done the rates which you would pay
on these articles would be very much less than
the actual rates which you pay at the present
time 2—On what articles?
6574. The articles you have in view 2––The
slate slabs do you mean?
6575. Yes?—I think it is quite possible ; and
it is very much to the interest of both parties
that it should be so.
Re-examined by Mr. Darlington.
6576. Have you ever been able to use the
Clearing House Classification against the rail-
way companies?–No.
6577. So that you have not made use of the
various classifications of slate slabs in the Clear-
ing House Classification up to the present time,
yourself?—No.
6578. Do you think that slate slabs, when
packed, ought to go into a higher class than
ordinary slabs loaded into a truck 2–Yes.
6579. And do you think that the articles that
ought to go into Class B. are the common slate
slabs as used when loaded into a truck and not
packed or manufactured 2–Yes. I object to the
word “ common ; ” I do not see what is the use
of it.
6580. “Slate slabs not manufactured and not
packed; ” would that suit you ?—Yes.
Chairmam.
6581. Then the witness tells us that one con-
dition of these slates is that they are a manufac-
tured material 7–Yes, certainly ; there is no
doubt about that.
Mr. Darlington.
6582. Can you explain what you mean by the
difference between manufactured material and a
manufactured article : — A manufactured material
I should look upon as something that is sold per
ton or per yard, and if half a yard out of a
hundred were spoilt, the other 95 would be
quite as good for the purchasers' purposes, and
so on; but a manufactured article would be
something of which, if one-tenth were broken,
(81.)
5 E - the
770
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. DARBISHIRE.
[Continued.
Mr. Darlington—continued.
the article itself would be of no value, and the
whole thing would be destroyed.
6583. Do you mean this, do I understand
rightly, that by a manufactured material you
mean something that forms a material out of
which a finished article is ultimately made?—
The manufactured material is something like
lime that has been burnt ; that is what I mean.
6584. The articles into which the slates are
ultimately manufactured, such as billiard tables
and mantle-pieces, do appear in different places
in the present classification of the Board of
Trade –They do.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Now we should like to hear
whether Mr. Courtenay Boyle has anything to
Say.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We believe that the
provisions in the classification, as we propose it,
are really a very great concession indeed to the
traders ; that is the intention of the Board of
Trade. Under the Clearing House Classifica-
tion “slate slabs, not enamelled, not packed,” are
in Class 3 at company’s risk; if they are ena-
melled, then, unless they are in cases or bundles,
they become the highest article; and we put all
slate slabs, whether they are enamelled or
whatever they are into Class 3, with one excep-
tion, an exception which at a late stage we were
asked to make ; that is to say, we put “slate
slabs in the rough '' into Class B. We were in-
formed that slate slabs were carried in large quan-
tities straight from the quarry, and we intended to
provide that those slabs carried straight from
the quarry in an unmanufactured state should be
carried at Class B. rates. It is very difficult to
find an accurative adjective which describes all
sorts of all the articles which we intended to in-
clude ; but we selected the words “in the
rough * to describe an article in a not manufac-
tured stage. Slate slabs go, first of all, direct
from the quarry, not manufactured at all. Then
also there are slate slabs that go from the quarry
squared and planed ; then there is another
stage, as we believe, when they become
polished; and a final stage when they become
enamelled. They are all slate slabs still. Now
if the amendment, which your Committee are
asked to adopt, were carried out, it would follow
that slate slabs would have to be eliminated
from Class 3, and the highest manufactured
article, enamelled slate slabs, would remain in
Class B. ; and that is not at all the intention of
the 13oard of Trade. The exact adjective “in
the rough "we do not attach very much import-
ance to ; but we want to describe the non-manu-
factured article from the quarry, and to give a
concession to the trader that he has not now,
that that manufactured rough article from the
quarry should be carried at the Class B. rate.
The Provisional Order we submit is a conces-
Sion to the trader as it stands; and
I confess I do not understand the traders, object-
ing to it. There is that point which has been
referred to by Mr. Bidder, that the article in
the Clearing House Classification, “slate slabs,
common,” whatever it means——
Earl of Camperdown.] What does it mean?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not know, and I
do not think anybody else does.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do you know what “slate
slabs in four-ton lots’ includes under the Clear-
ing House Classification ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. It includes the rough
slate slab. But we believe that the rough slate
slabs in the Clearing House Classification in
four-ton lots would include the amount of
squaring which has been referred to by Mr.
Darbishire.
Lord Belper..] What do you intend your “slate
slabs in the rough * to include 2 What I under-
stood was that it was meant to include your
second class of slate slabs; “slate slabs squared
and planed.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No.
Lord Belper, Only the first class P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Only the first class.
Mr. Hanbury.] IHitherto, so far as I under-
stand the Clearing House Classification, all slate
slabs, supposing they have been in four-ton lots,
have been carried in Class S., which is equivalent
to Class C. of our classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I should doubt it.
You ought to get that in order. I should doubt
it very much indeed.
Mr. Hanbury.] At present all I have before
me is “slate slabs in four-ton lots.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I do not think
enamelled slate slabs in four-ton lots would be
carried in Class S.
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] is that the
only witness you propose to call ?
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, your Grace. May I
state this: that I think we are practically at
one with Mr. Courtenay Boyle. All we want to
get is this (and if we can find appropriate
words I shall be glad) ; we want to get the
not manufactured slate slab into Class B., which
I understand is what Mr. Courtenay Boyle
intended.
Lord Belper.] But your witness specially
mentioned slate slabs squared and planed as
being what he wanted in Class B. I asked Mr.
Courtenay Boyle whether that is what the
Board of Trade intended, and he said no.
Earl of Camperdown.] Your proposal is to
omit the words “in the rough,” and that is
simply to leave slate slabs of all sorts in Class B.
in four-ton lots.
Mr. Darlington.] I think that was possibly
done by inadvertence.
Mr. Hanbury.] My difficulty is that I can
not make out what “slate slabs in four-ton lots’
meant.
Chairman. I think we had better have one
of the railway witnesses to tell us exactly what
has been the practice.
Mr. Bidder.] I will call Mr. Wilkinson, your
Grace.
Chairman.] Then we shall know exactly what
is the practice.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, your Grace.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
771
9 June 1891.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILIKINSON, having been re-called ; is further Examined, as
follows:
Mr. Bidder.
6585. IN the Clearing House Classification
there is the heading “slate slabs in four-ton
lots’’ which is put into Class S. 2–Yes.
6586. Taking the mere words, that would
seem to cover slate slabs of every kind of de-
scription. What is the explanation first of all of
the introduction of that heading, and what is
the practice under it 2–We have found in prac-
tice that the giving of a special class in four-ton
lots practically rather limited the traffic to rough
slate slabs. The course of trade is this, so far as
we know it, that the slate slabs are obtained from
the quarries and roughly shaped ; then they are
taken to inland places (and I speak of one I am
quite familiar with myself, Gloucester, where
there are large works), there the slabs are taken
and polished or enaumelled as the case may be ;
they then come out in small lots for chimney-
pieces or tombstones, or we purchase them our-
selves for urinal accommodation and so on, the
finished article.
6587. At Gloucester they are squared,
planed, polished, and finished 2–I will not say
about the squared, but all the other processes.
6588, Was the distinction “slate slabs in four-
ton lots” introduced by way of meeting the case
of the rough article 2–Clearly.
6589. And, in practice, is it the rough article
that has been carried under that description ?—
In practice, so far as I am aware, it has been
the rough article that has been carried under
that heading.
Mr. Hambury.
6590. So that, in practice, you would not
suffer if the words “in the rough * were struck
out ; because, practically, nothing but rough
materials are carried in four-ton lots P –You see
“four-ton lots' would not be complied with in
Class 3 at the present time,
6591. But we are dealing with Class B. At
the present moment in our classification they
are in . Class B., which is four-ton lots 2––
Yes.
Mr. Bidder.] But supposing that the words
“in the rough " were struck out you would very
soon have everything put into four-ton lots in
order to get the B. Class.
Mr. Hanbury.] But you might have every-
thing put into four-ton lots to get into Class S.
Mr. Bidder.
6592. Hitherto you will remember that the
railway companies have had the
making variations in the Clearing House Classi-
fication in order to meet the particular circum-
stances of any particular trade. Now, of course,
you are making a hard-and-fast classification, and
they will no longer have that power. (To the
Witness.) Practically, subject to the companies'
verdict, the only thing carried under that heading
was the rough article?—Yes. I may add to that
that the works generally for polishing and
enamelling, these things are at places accessible
power of
Mr. Bidder—continued.
by water, and we gave this low class in four-ton
lots in order to get the traffic to the rail, the
traffic of the rough article.
Lord Belper.
6593. Were slates planed and squared carried
under that classification in four-ton lots, not
polished, not enamelled, planed and squared 2–I
have no doubt that if at certain quarries it has
been the custom to so prepare the slate slabs, we
should have carried them in the past without
question knowing that if the thing were reaching
in any shape, what we should call an abuse, if
articles which were really finished and valuable
were being sent in that way, we had it in our
own hands to put up the class at once.
6594. Should you object to carrying the
squared and planed article in the same way under
Class B. P-I think it would not be quite reason-
able to expect us to carry planed slabs in that
way. We have looked upon the lowest class as
rough hewn.
Earl of Camperdown.
6595. Now the proposal of this classification is
to charge for all slate slabs not in the rough ; do
you follow me 2–Yes,
6596. Class 32—Yes.
6597. Is not that a very great rise on your
present practice P
Mr. Bidder.] Coupled
offered.
Earl of Camperdown.] But I could not quite
follow what your offer is; I will tell you why. I
could not understand what the word “common "
means, and Mr. Courtenay Boyle cannot either.
Do you know 2
with what I have
Mr. Bidder.] I have a general idea of what
“ common” means.
Earl of Camperdown.] But I should like a
particular idea.
Mr. Bidder.] If your Lordship will allow me
to answer, I should say that “counimon " means
whatever it has meant hitherto
Earl of Camperdown.] There again arises
another difficulty: which is, that this Railway
Clearing House Classification has hitherto been
interpreted by the railway companies solely. If
it had been otherwise, the present classification
of slate slabs is perfectly ridiculous, and would
have led to no end of litigation. But the reason
why it did not do so was because the railway com-
panies interpreted it, and, if the traders made
objection, the railway managers had it within
their power to alter the terms of the classifica-
tion. Of course, for the future they will not
have that power. That is why it is so necessary
that we should use very clear and distinct terms
now, and we propose to use the word “common ’’;
it is well that we should know what we are doing.
Mr. Bidder.] I see the point. If I may make
the suggestion (because practically the railway
(81.)
5 E 2 managers
772 MIN UTES OF EV IIDENCE
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
TAIKEN
9 June 1891.]
Mr. WILIGINSON.
_º
| Continued.
managers agree with me, and the Clearing House
Classification shows that it was so), the word
“common * was equivalent to “not polished or
enamelled.” Suppose that, instead of using the
word “common,” we use the words “slates not
polished or enamelled,” would that meet the
Case ;
Earl of Camperdown.] Then turning to page
66 of the Clearing House Classification, the
difference between “Slate slabs, not enamelled,
not packed,” and “Slate slabs common in cases,”
is simply the difference between being packed
and not in cases.
Mr. Bidder.] One difference is in not being
polished, and the other in not being packed.
Earl of Camperdown.] Not being even polished;
I thought you said not enamelled.
Mr. Bidder.] I said, “not polished or
enamelled.” What I would propose to say is,
“slate slabs not polished or enamelled in cases,”
and let them go in Class 1.
Chairman.
6598. (To the Witness.) With reference to
the words suggested by Mr. Bidder, do you think
that they would cover the articles you have been
carrying as you have described, as the rough
article 2–Yes, they would, with this limitation,
that hitherto the trader has declared his slate
slabs to be common, and therefore he would not
be able to make claims upon the companies after-
wards for valuable articles. We should say,
“You declared them common, and common would
not cover a very large risk.”
6599. You would say “common slate slabs not
polished or enamelled”?—Yes, that would really
be what would suit the railway companies.
Mr. Bidder.] “Slate slabs not polished or
enamelled.” I propose to strike out the word
“common.”
Chairman.] You need not strike it out, it is
not here.
Mr. Bidder.] I mean, to take it out in follow-
ing the Clearing House Classification, and to put
“Slate slabs not polished or enamelled,” and let
them go into Class 1.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] What
do you say to that
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think the
Board of Trade would have any objection to
that ; leaving “slate slabs in the rough '' in
Class B., and having an additional entry, such as
Mr. Bidder has montioned.
Earl of Camperdown.] The modification pro-
posed by Mr. Bidder is in this respect that it does
appear very high, primá facie, that all charges for
these slate slabs, other than slate slabs in the
rough, should go up into Class 3, and he says that
he is prepared so far to meet the contention,
that he is willing to drop “slate slabs not
polished or enamelled in cases” into Class 1.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think there
would be any objection on the part of the Board
of Trade to that ; it will be introducing an inter-
mediate stage between slate slabs in the rough
and slate slabs polished or enamelled.
}} itness.] I am quite prepared to accept that.
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] What do you
say to that ?
Mr. Darlington.] Well, your Grace, what I
want to do is to get these roughly planed slate
slabs as they come from the quarry into Class B.;
that is the only thing 1 want at present. I think
when they are planed and polished they ought
to go up into some higher class.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do you think that “slate
slabs in the rough * will include that ?
Mr. Darlington.] I do not think it does.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Bidder).]
What do you think of that? We have heard
from Mr. Wilkinson, for instance, that slate slabs
in the rough go to Gloucester, and he said “I do
not say they are not squared, but they are not
polished, and they are in no real sense of the
word manufactured.” Do you mean in your
“slate slabs in the rough " to include the word
“ Squared '' in that sense 2
Mr. Bidder.] If a slab has been squared so far
as it has been done, and is finished practically,
although it is going to be polished and is not
polished, I do not mean to include it; because
that is practically (I agree with Mr. Courtenay
Boyle) a finished article. I do not think you
can get words to express what is intended to be
and ought to be included in the classification in
Class B., better than the phrase which is used,
“slate slabs in the rough.” It means that it is in
the form of a slab, but it is in the rough, it is not
finished, whatever its ultimate object may
be.
Mr. Hambury.] Is that distinction known at
the present time either to the railway companies
or to the traders? I understand it is not.
Mr. Bidder.] You will find it in other cases;
you will find it in castings.
Mr. Hambury.] But in slates.
Mr. Darlington.] I understand it is not.
Earl of Camperdown.] The witness says that
at present the practice of the railway companies
is to carry these particular sorts of slates, which
have been roughly squared, as slates in the
rough.
Mr. Bidder.] And those he says they carry
to Gloucester, where they are finished.
Earl of Camperdown.
6600. (To the Hitness.) Do you say “and
planed "?—I said I was not certain about the
planing.
Mr. Darlington. I took down the words the
witness said, and I have them “squared and
roughly shaped.”
Pitness.] Yes.
Mr. Darlington.] So that they pack easiſy in
the truck.
Chairman.
6601. (To the Witness.) Js there any word
known to the railway companies and the traders
which would be synonomous with and equal to
“in the rough "any more that would mean “in
the rough.” It appears that at the present time
the words “in the rough " are not known to
either the companies or the traders. Is there
any
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
773
9 June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
any word or words that you could suggest that
would mean the same thing, and that would be
known, which would include roughly squared
and planed, according to the present practice,
before it was finished ?–I think, your Grace,
that there would not be any great objection on
the part of the railway companies to that.
6602. To what ? – To put the definition
of “roughly squared and planed,” I do not think
there could be any great objection, because what
we want to guard against really is the quarry
owner doing at the quarry what is now done at
Gloucester, as I explained, and sending out a
finished article.
Mr. Bidder] May I point out to the Committee
that that phrase “in the rough * is one which is
recognised over and over again all through the
schedule in respect of every kind of article, as
distinguishing an article which may have work
upon it, but which is not a finished article. For
instance, on the very next page, one caught my
eye ; I think it is chairs in the rough, “chair-
bottoms, wooden, in the rough *
Mr. Hanbury.] But in this particular trade it
is not known.
Mr. Bidder.] But the distinction which I
understood the Board of Trade to draw, and it is
certainly one that you want to draw, is this :
that it does not matter whether the slate slab is
squared or planed or not, but the test is, is it
finished as an article, or is it going to another
manufacturer to undergo some further process.
Mr. Darlington.] I quite agree with that.
Mr. Bidder.] For instance, you might say
“unfinished,” if you like.
Mr. Darlington.] Would the words “from the
quarry,” which Mr. Courtenay Boyle has sug-
gested, do?
Mr. Bidder.] I confess that I think “in the
rough '' is the proper phrase, it means that is not
finished as a manufactured article.
Earl of Camperdown.] If you were told to
carry slate slabs in the rough, would it not be a
very fertile source of litigation to decide what
was in the rough 2 We have heard from the
witness that they carry slate slabs, which, to a
certain extent at all events, are not in the rough,
Chairman.] Could you call them “slate slabs
rough or unfinished.”
Mr. Bidder.] I have no objection to that:
but I venture to point out to your Grace that all
through the schedule, on page after page of the
classification, “in the rough * is the phrase
adopted ; and it is better to keep the same
phrase I venture to think ; and I understand it
to mean an article which, whatever has been
done to it, wants something else done to it before
it is ready for sale. We do not object to “rough
or unfinished,” though I respectfully submit that
“in the rough * is better.
Mr. Hanbury.] “Slate slabs roughly squared
and planed.”
Witness.] I think we should be quite prepared
to accept that.
Chairman (to Mr. Darlington).] i)o you accept
that ?
Mr. Darlington.] I accept it.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] “ Not packed.”
Chairman.] It might be “not packed,” of
COUll'S62.
Mr. Darlington.] “ Not packed,” of course.
Mr. Bidder.] Will your Grace allow me to
point out that in what you are doing you are
excluding slate slabs that are not squared and
planed” I am sure you will get into a mess.
Then a slate slab that is not squared and planed
will not come in.
Mr. Hambury.] Then, any “slate slabs in the
rough, or roughly squared and planed, not
packed.” -
Mr. Bidder.] Yes, we have no objection to
that.
Mr. Darlington.] Yes, we accept that.
Mr. Bidder | Then that settles it. Of course
I do not want to draw back from my other pro-
posal. I think it is right.
Mr. Darlington.] That will come into Class I.
Mr. Bidder.] Yes.
Mr. Darlington.] Might we have the words
again *
Mr. Bidder.] When we come to Class 1 we will
insert the words in their proper alphabetical place,
“slate slabs not polished or enamelled in
cases.”
Mr. Darlington.] I am much obliged to my
learned friend.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] And in Class 3 you will
want the words e.o.h.p.
Mr. Bidder.] State slabs in Class 3 will have
the words e.o.h.p. after them. -
Mr. Darlington.] I quite agree to that.
Chairman.] “Soda and soda ash ’’ is out, is it
not, page 20, column 22
Mr. Bidder. Soda and soda ash is out.
Chairman.] Then now we get to “soot ”?
Mr. Whitehead.] I have an amendment before
that, your Grace, for the Mansion House Asso-
ciation, on page 20, to omit “in bulk,” and insert
“ packed.”
Chairman.] That is salt.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, you dealt with salt in
bulk the other day; this is salt packed; it is
another article ; it is dealt with differently in the
Clearing House Classification, as you will see ;
and that is the basis of the proposition that we
make.
Earl of Camperdown.] You have gone three
lines back.
Chairman.] I thought we had finished salt.
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace.
Earl of Camperdown.j This ought to have
been the first amendment.
(81.)
5 E 3 Mr.
774
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKEN BEFORE TEIE JOINT COMMITTEE
9: June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] It should have been.
Mr. Bidder.] Perhaps it is my fault. I was
told that the amendment had gone. I beg my
learned friend’s pardon.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace looks at the
Clearing House Classification you will see there,
on page 61, that salt in bulk or packed is placed
in Class M. (B.) subject to two conditions; first,
that there is a minimum charge per load as to
five tons, and secondly, that salt is carried in
owners' waggons; and salt packed when not sub-
ject to those conditions goes in Class S. And
the proposition we have to make is that salt
packed with this minimum charge per load as for .
five tons should go into Class B., which corre-
sponds with Class M. (B.) of the Clearing House
Classification. This is practically a crystallising,
as Mr. Lambert said, of the existing practice;
because the witness whom I shall call will show
that in fact salt packed is carried in owners’
waggons, and is carried in these truck loads. Of
course, your Grace, this is entirely a question of
evidence, and I will go at once to that.
Lord Belper.] It is now in Class C. of the
Provisional Order.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Mr. Hanbury.] And you argue that the reduc-
tion on salt in owners' waggons would not have
the effect of moving it up a class.
Mr. Whitehead..] It would not, as the schedule
stands, but we are anxious that when it is carried
under the same circumstances as provided for in
the Clearing House Classification, it should be
subject to the same variation in the new schedule
in its favour.
MR. JOHN MAJOR FELLS, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6603. YoU have already given evidence before
the Committee ?—I have.
6604. At the present time, how does salt
packed stand in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion ?– J t stands in the Clearing House Classi-
fication in the same class as salt in bulk, pro-
vided that the conditions as to truck-loads are
carried out, and as to owners' waggons.
6605. It is carried in owners' waggons, as
well as subject to that minimum of five-ton loads 2
—Yes.
iMr. Hanbury.
6606. Are you under the impression that you
will not be able to deduct for carrying it in your
own waggons 2—The point is that we are put up
a class. We have been carried under Class B.
Salt, packed, has been carried under the same
conditions heretofore as Salt in bulk ; but under
the proposed classification of the Board of Trade
it is proposed to put it up into Class 2. from
Class B., as regards salt packed.
Mr. Wh?/ehead.
6607. Now, you wish to be restored to Class B.,
in which you would naturally be placed by the
circumstances of the traffic in the Clearing House
Classification ?—Yes.
Mr. Hambury.] But the witness would not
understand to what I was referring, and you
would. The point is that salt is one of those
articles in Sub-section A. of Clause 2, for
which you cannot make a deduction when it is
carried in owners' waggons. Is that your
grievance 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand that that would
refer to salt in bulk. s
Mr. Hanbury.] Would that include packed
salt P
Mr. Whitehead..] No.
Lord Belper.] I see salt packed in the Clear-
ing House Classification is in Class S.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so ; but the witness
is just going to explain that to your Lordship.
Chairman.] Then we had better finish with
the witness.
Mr. Whitehend.
6608. (To the Witness.) In practice salt
packed is carried, is it not, in owners' waggons f
—That is so.
6609. And in full truck loads 2—And in full
truck loads.
6610. So that in practice it always gets the
benefit of this provision in the Clearing House
Classification, by which it goes into Class M (B.)?
—That is so. The railway companies make no
difference in the actual charge at present.
between salt packed and salt in bulk, under the
same conditions of tonnage.
Mr. Bidder.
6611. That is the 5-ton loads 2—Yes.
Mr. Whitehead.
6612. And you desire to retain that benefit,
which, as the schedule now stands, would be
taken away from you ?—That is so.
6613. On other grounds is there any reason
why a distinction should be drawn between
packed salt and salt in bulk?—The increase in
value of packed salt is on the average not more
than 2 S. per ton than that of Salt in bulk; and
the difference between the maximum rates under
Class B, and Class C. is very much greater than
that.
6614. What does that bring out the total
value per ton of salt packed ?––Salt packed
would be on the average about 12 s. a ton.
6615. "And that approximates much more
closely in value to the articles in Class B. than
to the articles in Class C. P-That is so. The
value of the article increases one-fifth, and the
railway rate increases from 30 to 50 per cent. on
certain figures that I have before me.
6616. And with regard to the risk, of course
the increased value of the article increases the
liabilities of the companies as carriers; but may
I put this point to you that, owing to the packing
of the article, in fact that liability is reduced 2–
That is so. -
6617. Salt in bulk is, of course, liable to be
damaged by wet, and in other ways 2–It may
be.
6618. But when it is packed that risk is re-
moved 2
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
775
9 June 1891.]
Mr. FELLs.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
moved ?—It is ; and it is also carried in covered
vans and not in open trucks.
6619. So that, under those circumstances, you
think it should go into Class B. of this classifica-
tion ?—That is so, as it has already been.
Mr. Hambury.
6620. But when it is carried in Class B. of the
Clearing House Classification it is carried in
owners' waggons 2–That is so. -
Mr. Hunter.
6621. Not when it is packed 2–Yes, when
packed it is carried in owners' waggons.
Mr. Hanbury.
6622. But in this new classification it is put into
Class C. and will be carried in companies' waggons 2
—That is so ; but we have already all the stock to
carry it. We have special waggons for carrying
packed salt provided under the specifications of
the railway companies; and the maximum in-
crease in the rate, that is to say, the increase of
Class C. over Class B. is very high. For in-
stance, for London the maximum rate for Class
B. would be 8 s. 10 d. per ton, that is the rate at
which packed salt would at present be carried.
Under the proposed Class C., it would be 14 s. 1 d.
per ton.
Mr. Hambury
6623. That goes back to what I asked at the
beginning : Is the difference between Class B.
and Class C. greater than the allowance that you
would get for carrying Class C. articles in your
own waggons?–Yes, very much greater.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think I made a mistake.
This witness does, in fact, carry always in
owners’ trucks; but, under the Railway Clearing
House Classification, if salt packed is sent in
loads of five tons, then it goes into the M. (B.)
Class, even, although it is carried in companies'
waggons, so that that makes the case even
stronger still; although this witness, so far as
he is concerned personally, always carries in
owners' waggons. -
Cross-examined by Mr. Bidder.
6624. I am not sure that I understand it my-
self; but, just at the present time, packed salt
as a rule falls into Class S., which is Class C.,
with the exception of the minimum five-ton
load 2–Which constitutes the majority of cases.
The minimum of five tons constitutes the
majority.
6625. Do you mean to say that it is the prac-
tice of the trade to send send it in five-ton loads?
—Yes, packed salt.
6626. Is it sent in owners' waggons 2–Yes.
6627. Paying the M.(B.) rate 7–Paying the
Same rate as salt in bulk.
6628. You do send packed salt at the present
time in owners' waggons —That is so.
6629. And you pay the M.(B.) rate 2–We
pay the M. (B.) rate.
6630. Now, then, what you are asking is to
send that in companies' waggons and to pay the
same rate, the M. (B.) rate 2–And pay the pre-
sent rate, to continue paying on the present
rate.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
6631. But to have the right to have it carried
in companies' waggons 2—Theoretically, yes.
6632. Actually 2–Actually, no; because we
have all the vans for carrying packed salt.
6633. Still you are asking for an alteration in
the classification which would give you the right
to have it carried in companies' waggons at the
M. (B.) rate, whereas you tell us that the prac-
tice now is to carry it in owners' waggons at the
M. (B.) rate 2–That is only in consequence of
the decision of Friday last, by which a rebate is
given to the owner of the waggon. All we
desire is that packed salt may be placed as it is
in the original Clearing House Classification.
Earl of Camperdown.
6634. But as it is in the existing Clearing
House Classification, when it is carried in com-
panies' waggons it is at Class S. rates ?—Yes, to
that we do not object.
Mr. Bidder.
6635. Then you propose a difference to this
extent; you propose what will in future be
equivalent to M. (B.) rates?—Only when it
is carried in five-ton trucks belonging to the
consignor and not the railway companies.
Earl of Camper down.] Where does that appear
on the amendment 2
Mr. Whitehead..] It does not appear on the
amendment.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then let us know
exactly what it is that you propose.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think the witness would be
willing to accept that modification of the amend-
ment, inserting the words as they stand in the
Railway Clearing House Classification, “mini
mum charge per load as for five tons’’
Witness.] Certainly.
Earl of Camperdown.] And carried in owners'
waggons Ž
Witness.] I am quite willing to accept that.
Mr. Whitehead..] That would, of course, be a
modification of the Clearing House Classification
in favour of the companies.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, it is just exactly
the contrary.
Mr. Whitehead..] The addition of that con-
dition, that it must be in owners' Waggons, would
be a modification of the Clearing House Classifi-
cation in favour of the railway companies. So I
understand the Clearing House Classification as
it stands. But the witness is willing to accept
both those conditions. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Just let us be certain
upon that point. Let me put it to you that the
Clearing House Classification, as it at present
stands, is this: that when salt is carried in com-
panies' waggons it is in Class S. *
|Mr. Whitehead..] Packed salt in companies’
waggons in less loads than five tons is in Class S.,
but packed salt in lots of as much as five toms
to the load is in M. (B.), so that the suggestion
which the witness is willing to accept will be on
the one side in favour of the railway companies,
and on the other side in favour of ourselves.
(81.)
5 E 4 Mr.
776
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.
Mr. Hunter.] You must remember that we
have already decided that salt in bulk is to be
carried in companies waggons, and in bulk.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Mr. Bidder.] But there is to be a rebate.
Mr. Hunter.] That is the same thing.
Mr. Bidder.] As I understand the witness's
point is this, I admit that on the construction of
the words in the Clearing House Classification,
my learned friend may say that packed salt
would be carried in companies' waggons at the
M.(B.) rate; but the witness says that the prac-
tice is not so at the present time; that packed salt
is carried in owners' waggons and pays the M.(B.)
rate, Now what he is asking is that it should
be carried in companies waggons, and pay the
M.(B.) rate on, if it is carried in owners' waggons,
that he should have the rebate. So that in
point of fact he is asking, as compared with the
actual practice, to have a deduction equivalent
to the waggon rate in one form or another.
Lord Belper.] But I understood that the
witness offered to accept the condition of its
being carried in owners' waggons at the M.(B.)
rate.
Witness.] That is so.
Mr. Bidder.] I should like just to ask one
other question.
Earl of Camperdown.] I did not hear the
witness ask for a rebate.
Mr. Whitehead..] No, he never said a word
about a rebate at all.
Mr. Bidder.] I want to know where his traffic
was, between what points.
Witness.] All over England, from Cheshire of
course, and from Worcestershire and from
Middlesbrough and Staffordshire, and in Ireland;
in the north of Ireland.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6636–7. You practically represent the great bulk
of the trade of the country in salt P−We repre-
sent 80 per cent of the whole salt trade of the
country.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead.j That is all the evidence I
propose to call.
Chairman.] ſave the Board of Trade any-
thing to say on this subject 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, we hove nothing
to say. We intended to follow the Clearing
House Classification as simply as we could. If
the Committee are of opinion that salt packed in
five-ton loads and in owners' waggons should be
added to Class B. the Board of Trade would not
object to that in principle.
Mr. Hunter.] But it is in companies' waggons
according to the Clearing House Classification ?
Lord Belper.] But the witness offers to accept
its being carried in owners' waggons. -
Mr. Bidder.] But that is not the amendment.
The amendment is to omit “in bulk º' and insert
“packed.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We object to that.
Mr. Bidder.] The result of that would be that
salt packed in four-ton loads would be carried at
the M.(B.) rate either in companies' waggons, or
if in owners' waggons, with a rebate.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] But Mr. Whitehead
said that he would modify the amendment.
Mr J3idder.] Then I should like to know what
the exact annendment is.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Will you let
us know what the exact amendment is that you
would propose.
Mr. Whitehead..] I want to insert in Class B.
salt packed with a minimum charge per load as
for five tons when carried in owners' waggons.
Mr. Hunter.] Then you are making a dis-
tinction between salt in bulk which is to go in
companies' waggons, and salt packed which is to
go in owners' waggons 2
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Mr. Hunter.] It must go either in companies’
waggons or owners' waggons.
Mr. Bidder.] Then I do object to that amend-
ment. It seems to me to introduce complexity
in a very unreasonable manner. In the first
place, this five-ton minimum, although it is quite
true that it appears in the Clearing House
Classification, is not in accordance with the
scheme of classification.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] You propoes
to strike out the words “in bulk.” -
Mr. Whitehead..] That is withdrawn; we give
up the original amendment in favour of this
Substituted one.
Chairman.] But we may not take this either,
Then your first amendment is withdrawn 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Hunter.] What is your present amend-
ment 2
Mr. Whitehead..] To insert “salt packed with
a minimum charge per load as for five tons when
carried in owners' waggons.”
Mr. Bidder.] Then I object to that, your
Grace, because it is introducing an intermediate
classification exceptionally for this article, which
is entirely against this scheme of classification.
Your Grace notices that if he carries in owners’
waggons he gets a rebate.
Mr. Hambury.] And in all cases above two tons?
Mr. Fells.] They are never carried in two-ton
loads ; they are always carried in truck-loads.
Chairman.] We cannot accept the amendment.
Mr. Whitehead.] Then “soot ” is withdrawn?
Chairman.] Sulphate of alumina and tin ore.
Mr. Bidder.] Those are gone, and the railway
companies' amendments are gone. I think the
last one (I do not know whether anybody is going
to press it) is by the chemical manure manufac-
turers, on page 20, to omit line 34 and insert in
lieu thereof the following note: “When mer-
chandise specified in Class B. is consigned in
quantities of less than two tons the company
may charge for such consignment the conveyance
rates applicable to Class C.”
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
777
9 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] My learned friend Mr. Poyser,
who represents the chemical manure manufac-
turers, is not in the room ; but I represent the
Mansion House Association, and we understood
that he was going to bring it forward, and there-
fore we did not put it down in our name, thinking
that he was going to put it forward, and we would
support him.
Chairman.] But the chemical manure manu-
facturers have retired ?
Mr. Whitehead.] We are put in this position :
we understood that they were going to propose
it, and therefore we did not put it down in our
Ila,I\l 62.
Chairman.] And you wish to propose it now as
an amendment of the Mansion House Associa-
tion ?
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so. Your Grace will
remember that when we were discussing Class A.
the Committee conceded this principle with regard
to consignments in that class 2
Earl of Camperdown.] No, that is just what we
did not do.
Mr. Whitehead..] That it should be “less than
four tons,” owing to the change in the heading to
the class. And the principle is quite shortly this:
that the increased cost to the company of having
to carry the small consignments only relates to
the conveyance rate and not to the terminal
accommodation; that the terminal accommoda-
tion for two tons remains the same, whatever
distance the traffic may be carried; and not only
the terminal accommodation at each end, but also
the terminal services remain exactly the same,
whatever distance the quantity may be
carried ; and it is only when a small consignment
imposes a relatively greater burden on the con-
veyance that there should be this distinction
drawn as between consignments of one weight
and another. And the proposition is, that in
raising the class, when a small consignment goes
of articles in Class B., that raising of a class
should only apply to the conveyance rate and
not to the terminal accommodation. I would
submit to the Committee that having accepted
the principle with regard to articles that are
specified in Class A., it follows almost as a con-
sequential amendment that the same principle
should be adopted with regard to articles in
Class B.
Mr. Bidder.] I may point out that the Com-
mittee carefully guarded themselves against any
such inference; if your Grace will look at the
minutes.
Chairman'] That will be for you when you
address us.
Earl of Belmore (to Mr. Whitehead).] I do not
Quite see how your words are an amendment to
what you want to strike out.
Mr. Whitehead..] Since that amendment was
put down there has been a change in the classifi-
cation.
Mr. Hanbury.] You want, in fact, to have the
terminals of Class B., and the conveyance rate of
Class C.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so, in the same way
as when an article is put up from Class A. to
Class B. in the conveyance rate, it retains the
terminals of Class A.
Chairman.] Are
evidence 2
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace.
Mr. Bidder.] I propose, your Grace, to call
Some evidence ; but in the meantime I should
wish to point out that of course my learned friend
is quite mistaken in thinking that you laid down
a principle.
Mr. Whitehead..] I did not sugg
moment. I am quite aware of what happened.
I only suggest this now the Committee having
adopted the principle in regard to Class A
you going to call any
gest that for a
Chairman.] You assume that we ought to be
consistent, and that to be consistent we ought to
do what we did the other day.
Mr. Whitehead..] Exactly.
Mr. Hunter.] Your amendment, as it stands,
requires alteration ; it must be “in quantities of
less than four tons.” -
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so, owing to the
change in the classification which has been already
made.
Mr. Bidder.] I have sent for Sir Henry
Oakley, if your Grace will allow me a minute.
In the meantime I will point out that our view
is that in these higher classes, if not in Class A.,
unquestionably the same principle applies; that
the small lots give much more trouble at the
terminus in handling ; they require the same
services and attention, and so on ; and, therefore,
relatively to the weight, the terminal charges for
small loads are more expensive than for heavy
loads.
Earl of Camperdown.] And that is what Sir
Henry Oakley would prove.
Mr. Bidder.] I think so.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then, I think, it is
really more a question of argument.
Mr. Bidder.] I will ask Mr. Harrison just to
explain it shortly.
MR. FREDERICK HARRISON, is recalled ; and further Examined, as follows :
Mr. Bidder.
6638. WILL you explain to the Committee upon
this point, first of all, what is the present practice
under the Clearing House Classification ?—
When there is a less quantity than the minimum
attached to Class B., the articles are raised into
the next higher class, both as regards conveyance
rate and terminals, as to the entire charges.
Mr. Bidder—continued.
6639. That has always been the practice?—
That has always been the practice.
6640. Now as regards the reason ; in point of
fact, an article of smailer tonnage costs you the
same amount of trouble, and therefore, relatively
to its tonnage, much more trouble than a heavier
article 2–Yes. There is practically no appreci-
(81.) -
5 F able
778
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Bidder—continued.
able difference in the cost of the station accom-
modation provided for a truck containing two tons
from what there is for a truck containing three
tons, either in the ground it occupies, or in the
movement of it about the yard, and the people
who have to attend to it.
6641. And you consider that, therefore, in
justice you are entitled to a higher terminal rate
per ton in the case of small consignments?--I
think so. I think the terminals should follow the
class; and if the article is moved into a higher
class it should be with respect to the terminal as
well as the conveyance charges.
Mr. Hunter.
6642. This clause applies only to quantities
under four tons and exceeding two tons?–Yes,
so it is printed two tons here; but I understand
that that is altered in consequence of the altera-
tion of minimum. -
Mr. Hunter.] If it is in two-tons, you would
get, not the Class C. rate, but the Class 1
rate.
Mr. Bidder.] That is so; that is what is con-
templated.
Witness.] I think we should.
Mr. Hunter.] I think that follows.
Witness.] I think we should get first-class
rates, both terminals and conveyance.
Mr. Hunter.] That follows if you put a similar
clause in Class C.
Witness.] Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6643. You said that when you raised an
article from one class to another on account of
smallness of consignment, you raised the entire
charge under the Clearing House Classification ?
— Yes.
6644. Did you in the Clearing House Classifi-
cation draw any distinction between terminals
and conveyance rate 2–No ; they raise the entire
charge.
6645. Do you, apart from this question alto-
gether, make any distinction ?–No.
6646. Therefore if you raise anything at all,
you would necessarily raise the entire rate 2–
Yes, I suppose so.
6647. So that it was not in consideration of
this principle at all, but merely for generally
convenience that you adopted that plan 2–No ;
it was in consideration of our being entitled, as we
consider, to the entire charge, whether it is com-
posed of terminals or not. We have regard to
the terminal service and the conveyance in the
rate; and, as 1 said before, the cost is not appre-
ciable different whether the consignment is two
tons or four tons, not different pro rató, at all
eVentS.
6648. Take the question of loading, would
there not be an increased cost of loading four
tons over what the cost would be for loading one
or two tons 7–I do not understand that this
amendment deals with loading at all.
6649. Surely it would consequentially, because
if a consigment of less than two tons of articles
in Class 13. is dealt with, it goes down into Class
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
-*
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
1, and consigments of between two and four tons
would go into Class C., in respect of which there
would be charges for loading and unloading 2—
Then I think the companies would be entitled to
he paid for the loading and unloading and for the
different accommodation that would be used.
Mr. Bidder.] Pardon me, you are under a
misapprehension. Service terminals are only
paid when services are performed. That only
affects station terminals.
Mr. Whitehead.
6650. With regard to station accommodation,
you say it requires exactly the same accommo-
dation in the station ?—I say that there is no
appreciable difference in the accommodation
required for a truck, whether that truck has two
tons in it or four tons in it; there is no ap-
preciable difference in the services, not the
labour of loading and unloading; but the services
in the station yard rendered with the truck
whether it has two tons or four tons in it. You
could not measure it exactly by a different rate
per ton. -
Lord Belper.
6651. I quite understand that if both these
quantities were in one truck, but supposing it
were a light article, of which four tons would fill
more than one truck, then, surely, to give station
terminals for two trucks would cost you more
than to give station terminals for one truck 2–I
quite agree with that.
6652. Therefore, in the case of some of the
articles, a less load than four tons would require
less station terminals than a load of more than
four tons 2–No.
6653. Clearly, if it is a light article it would
require two trucks to go in if the load is more
than four tons, and you would have to get station
terminals for two trucks. Therefore your evi-
dence as to the general rule to that extent would
have to be modified ?--That is to say, assenting
to your Lordship's proposition that two trucks
were used for an article instead of one, it would
take more expensive station accommodation. I
was only dealing with that proposition. There
are very few articles in this Class B. of which
you would not be able to get two or four tons
into a truck.
6654. I did not mean to say that there were a
great many, but at all events there are certain
light articles in which that would make the
difference between one truck and two trucks?—
Then we should be at a disadvantage with regard
to those article.
6655. In regard to those articles it would not
be quite fair to charge as much station terminals
for one truck as you would have done for two 2
—You charge for a ton, not for a truck.
6656. I am aware of that, but I understood
that you said that you were entitled to the
station terminals in Class C., because the amount
of accommodation would be always the same
whether it was a small consignment or a larger
consignment?–I only meant to go to this extent :
that if the consignment was three tons ten
hundredweight we will say, and therefore the
article was moved into a higher class, there could
be
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
779
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Lord Belper—continued.
be no appreciable difference in the cost per ton
of the terminal service to us.
6657. I quite understand when one is just
below and the other just above the quantity, but
at all events you would modify that answer to
that extent that in certain cases it would be
more ?—Yes, in certain cases, no doubt.
Mr. Bidder.] I think those cases would none
of them come in Class B. If you look at Class
B., I think you will find that there is no light
article ; the lightest I find is mangold-wurtzel.
Lord Belper.] Mangold-wurtzel is not a light
article. -
Chairman.] No, you surely cannot call man-
gold-wurtzel a light article.
Mr. Bidder.] I said the lightest; I do not
think your Grace would find a lighter.
Earl of Belmore.] Litter would be a lighter
article.
Lord Belper.] I should think litter would be a
quarter of the weight of mangold-wurtzel.
Mr. Bidder.] I do not think pressed litter
would.
Lord Belper.] Peat is another, not pressed or
anything. -
Chairman.] Have you anything further to ask
Mr. Harrison 2 -
A. r. Bidder.] No.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] I should like to call Mr.
Lambert on one other point before I make an
observation.
MR. HENRY L.AM BERT, is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows :
Mr. Bidder.
6658. YoU have given this question your con-
sideration ?--Yes.
6659. Mr. Harrison has already said that the
present practice is that the terminal follows the
conveyance rate with these small consignments'
—Yes.
6660. In your judgment would you think it
satisfactory or fair to the companies to introduce
the distinction now proposed, viz., to leave the
terminal in Class B. when the conveyance rate
goes up to Class C. on account of the smallness
of the consignment 2–1 tried to explain my
views in reference to the proposal when it was
made in respect of Class A. ; and I feel sure the
more consideration I give to it, that it will only
introduce an element of confusion if a different
terminal is to be charged from the conveyance
rate. I think the only way really to solve the
problem is to let the terminal follow the class.
Mr. Hanbury.] But it is station terminal and
service terminal; because you were wrong, Mr.
Bidder, in saying that it does not affect the ser-
vice terminal. Supposing that the work is per-
formed, the service terminal would vary with the
different classes.
Mr. Bidder.] But there is no service terminal
in Class B. If it is an article in Class B., it is an
article for which no service is performed.
Mr. Hanbury.] If that is clearly understood.
Earl of Camperdown.] If it is an article on
which no service is performed.
Mr. Hanbury.] Do you say that if that article
is moved up into Class C. there will be no ser-
vice terminal. -
Mr. Bidder.] If you follow me.
Chairman.] Had you not better let us have
it after you have done with Mr. Lambert 2
Mr. Bidder.] The question was put to me,
your Grace.
Chairman.] I know.
Mr. Bidder.
6661. (To the Witness.) You say that in your
judgment it would cause a great deal of confu-
sion ?—I do. I am speaking, of course, of the
station terminal, not of the service terminal.
666.2. But now let me understand as to the
service terminal. A service terminal of course
is not chargeable unless the services are per-
formed 2–Quite so.
6663. There are no fixed service terminals
opposite the rates in Class B., because as a rule
there are no services performed to an article in
Class B. 2–The rule is for the trader to load and
unload the traffic himself.
6664. That would equally obtain, whether
consignments were under or over four tons?—
No doubt the practice of the sender loading or
the consignee unloading would apply to this
class of heavy articles.
6665. And as a matter of fact, where the con-
signment, is small the occupation of the station is
practically the same, is it not, as with a larger
consignment 2–As Mr. Harrison said, the truck,
if there is only two tons, occupies just as much
accommodation as if it contained four tons.
Mr. Humter.
6666. But if a truck contains only two tons
of one article, there is nothing to hinder its con-
taining two or more tons of another article?—
But I think that I have pointed out before that
these articles are sent separately. It does not
always follow that you get two articles in the
same class going from the same station to the
same station at the other end.
6667. Then are we to understand that practi.
cally in your railway practice, a consignment large
or small means a truck load 2–For this class of
traffic.
Lord Belper.
6668. But are we to understand that. I do
not understand it?—To a large extent in this
particular class.
6669. You mean that, in practice, a consign-
ment generally is not more than a truck load, but
(81.)
5 F 2 you
780 MINUTES
OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEE
Mr. LAMBERT.
| Continued.
9 June 1891.]
Lord Belper—continued.
you do not mean that a consignment means a
truck, it really means any number of trucks P--
What I intended to convey was, that if gypsum,
for instance, is brought to a station, you do not
find that another consignment in the same class
is brought to the same station to go to the same
station at the other end. It is a very rare
occurrence that it would be so.
6670. But may I not ask you, as you have
taked gypsum, whether a consignment of gypsum
would not very often take, not two trucks but
three trucks 7–Yes.
6671. Clearly, therefore, if it takes three
trucks, there is a good deal more station terminal
required than if it filled a smaller number of
trucks 2
Earl of Camperdown.] But that is not the
point. The witness' answer was, that any con-
signment practically means the occupation of one
truck ; you cannot send more than one consign-
ment, except in vary rare cases in that truck ;
and you must send at least a truck to convey it.
Witness.] Yes, that is what I intended to con-
vey.
Mr. Whitehead..] I have no question to ask
Mr. Lambert.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Bidder.] I have nothing practically to
add. Obviously, your Grace, whether a truck
contains four tons or two tons, it occupies the
same room in the station, and therefore I
think it would be unreasonable, besides the con-
fusion that would be introduced, if you were to
accede to this amendment.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade anything
to say ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think I said all we
have to say last time. We do not see that there
is much difference between the classes, and I
should have thought that this was consequential
upon the other amendment, if the Committee
have adopted the principle with regard to Class A.
Chairman.] That is what we did not do. We
did not adopt the principle, but applied it to that
class.
Mr. Hunter.] I see that in five classes your
station terminal is uniformly 1 s. 6d.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] In what is called the
class-rate P
Mr. Hunter.] Yes; and in the Class B. rate it
is 6 d.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes, and the Class A.
rate it is 3 d.
Mr. Hunter.] In Class C. it is intermediate 2
Mr.
Mr. Hunter.] I am right in supposing that the
distinction between the Class B. rate and the five
classes is simply the distinction between shed
goods and yard goods.
Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Between Class A. and
Class B. on the one hand, and between Class C.
and the five clauses on the other hand, you may
say broadly that that is the distinction.
Mr. Hunter.] And Class C. you consider, I
suppose might sometimes be in one category and
Sometimes in the other.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think that
should be pressed too much, but, broadly speak-
ing, that is the distinction as you put it.
Mr. Hunter.] And therefore the terminal
element would depend upon the character of the
goods, not upon the quantity.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think so.
Mr. Hunter.] And the station terminal.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
The Committee retire to consult, and after
Some time resume.
Chairman.] The Committee will accept the
amendment: “Where merchandise specified in
Class B. is consigned in quantities of less than
four tons, and not less than two tons, the company
may charge for such consignment the conveyance
rates applicable to Class C., and if in less than
two tons the conveyance rates applicabie to Class
1 °; and they will make the same amendment at
the end of Class C. That ends Class B., I think.
Now I want to call the attention of the parties
to the enormous number of amendments appar-
ently, which are on the paper now, and also to call
their attention to this fact, that this is the 9th
day of June. It is not on the part of the Com-
mittee, because we are prepared to sit here until
we ‘have done the task that is put before us;
but I would ask whether, if these amendments
are to be brought up and argued seriatim, one
after the other, there is the smallest chance of
these Bills passing this Sessibn ; because we are
told, we see in the newspapers, that the House
of Commons is likely to be up by the end of
July, and if we are to go on at the rate we
have been going on now with this classification,
taking into consideration that we have the rates
to consider afterwards and the various 13ills to
be taken by themselves, there is any possibility
of the Bills coming through both Houses this
Session. I should be very glad if those who
have amendments would strike out all those that
are not absolutely essential in their view, in order
that we may see really if we can pass the Bills.
I do not know whether Mr. Pope has anything
to say upon this P
Mr. Pope.]. So far as the railway companies
are concerned, we have disposed of ours, and I
think if your Grace will look at the amendments,
or call upon my learned friends to say which are
struck out, you will find that a very great
number of them have been disposed of, and will
no longer trouble the Committee. For instance,
Class C. (I have been just looking while your
Grace was speaking) is disposed of practically
by the last decision you gave. I do not see any
other amendment.
Mr. Whitehead.] We have already felt the
difficulty that your Grace has mentioned, and
have been endeavouring with regard to the
higher classes to strike out amendments in ac-
cordance with your suggestion. I think we have
almost forestalled what you have said. But
there are one or two amendments that we pro-
pose to go on with in Class C. I am not in-
Structed
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
78.1
9 June 1891.
structed at the present moment, but I can tell
your Grace immediately.
Chairman.] It is not that we wish to get rid
of the duties imposed upon us, but really, in the
interest of everyone, that the measure should
pass into law during this Session of Parlia-
ment.
Mr. Pope.] It is very desirable, of course, that
the matter should come to an end.
Mr. Whitehead.] With regard to the next
page, page 7, I understand that there is no
amendment upon that page, except one which, I
believe, has been accepted by the railway com-
panies.
Mr. Pope.] Which is that?
Mr. Whitehead..] It is not marked upon that
list, but it has been accepted, I understand, on
behalf of the railway companies. If your Grace
would look at the Board of Trade schedule,
page 21, on the 6th line in the first column, you
will see “bark for tanning, chopped, packed in
bags.” I understand it has heen agreed that to
that shall be added these three words “ or hy-
draulic packed.”
Mr. Pope.] I do not know.
of it.
Mr. Whitehead..] I am instructed that an
agreement has been come to in that sense.
Mr. Mason.] I have not heard of it yet.
Chairman.j At all events, let us go through
them ; we will leave bark for a moment. May
I strike my pencil through page 7.
Mr. Whitehead..] Subject to bark.
Mr. Pope.] So far as that bark question is
concerned, Mr. Harrison tells me that there is no
objection ; you can use the words “hydraulic
packed.” I should have thought “packed by
hydraulic machinery" was just as good.
Mr. Whitehead.] I understand that this is an
agreement that has been come to between Sir
Henry Oakley, on behalf of the railway com-
panies, and Mr. Hughes of Sheffield, who repre-
sents the traders.
Chairman.] May I surike through page 7 ?
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, the whole of page 7.
Chairman.] Now then, page 8.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Mr. Pope, what is the
amendment ; not “hydraulic packed.”
Mr. Pope.] “Hydraulic pressed,” I am told
the word is. I suppose that bark, like moss
litter, is sometimes carried in packages pressed in
hydraulic presses, and bound round with iron
hoops, without having any external packing.
Chairman.] What is the next 2
Mr. Whitehead.] “Drain pipes, glazed,” on
page 8; after “ drain pipes, glazed,” omit
“e.o.h.p.”
I have heard
Chairman.] Do the first two lines come out?
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] And before we take that up, what
other part of page 8 may go out.
Mr. Whitehead..] The rest of page 8 may go
Out.
Chairman.] Except drain pipes.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] Then take page 9, we will come
back you know to drain pipes.
Mr. Whitehead..] All page 9 may go out, your
Grace, except manganese, which you will find at
the bottom line but four ; with that exception
the whole of page 9 goes out.
Chairman.] Then “manganese, bronze, and
brass castings, and ingots.”
Mr. Pope.] I have got that struck out; I do
not know why.
Mr. Whitehead.] We proceed with that
amendment.
Mr. Pope.] Very well, I suppose that is my
mistake.
Chairman.] Then page 10.
Mr. Whitehead..] On page 10 we have three
amendments; “Sanitary tubes.”
Chairman | Then the first three lines come out.
Mr. Whitehead.j The first three lines come
out ; “Sanitary tubes" stands, and the next
comes in on timber.
Chairman.] Tell me what you omit.
Mr. Whitehead.] We omit the first three on
page 10, the 4th and 5th stand; 6th, 7th, 8th,
9th, and 10th go out.
Chairman.| Down to timber 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes. Timber we press.
Mr. Pope.] I thought that had been disposed
of.
Chairman.] We dealt with timber ages ago.
Mr. Whitehead.] That was upon an amend-
ment of the railway companies to raise it in a
higher class still. This is an amendment to bring
it into a lower class owing to the change made in
the conditions of carriage of timber in the
General Conditions. Then the next one comes
out, “Paving.” Then “wooden boxes” stands;
and then the remainder may be struck out. That
has been decided already by the Committee.
Mr. Pope.] So we have got drain pipes, man-
ganese castings, and timber.
Chairman.] Then Class 1.
Mr. Whitehead.] Will your Grace take those
that have been already settled now, so that the
gentlemen who instruct me may go through the
list and save time.
Chairman.] Just so.
Mr. Whitehead..] Then we come back to
“Drain pipes glazed,” on page 8. By way of
introduction, I may quire shortly state that this
is a proposition to retain the present Clearing
House Classification, and to make it statutory
and not to accept the Board of Trade schedule,
which would raise these articles into a higher
class.
(81.)
5 F 3
782
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.
MR. BENJAMIN SCOTT JONES is called in, and, having been sworn, is Examined, as
follows: -
Mr. Whitehead.
6672. YoU represent Messrs. Doulton and
Company, of Lambeth 2–I do.
6673. And several other large manufacturers
in different parts of the country –Quite so.
6674. In what class should have “drain pipes
glazed" been carried in the Clearing House
Classification ?—In Class S., which is equivalent
to the present Class C.
6675. And your proposal is that they should
now be placed in Class C. 2–It is.
Chairman.] They are now classed in Class S.
Mr. Whitehead.
6676. They are now classed in Class S.
(To the Witness.) And in the schedule
of the Board of Trade a distinction has been
drawn between these drain pipes of different
diameters?—That is so.
6677. But at the present time, in the Clearing
House Classification, there is no such distinction ?
—There is no such distinction, and there has
been no such distinction ever since such pipes
were made, for nearly 30 years.
6678. And, whatever may be the diameter,
they all go into Class C. 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6679. You know, do you not, that the Irish
classification distinguishes between small and
large drain pipes 2–I do ; but I should like to
point out, with respect to the Irish classification,
that the towns in which drain pipes are used in
Ireland are mainly the coast towns, which are
supplied by various manufacturers in England;
and there are no drain-pipe manufacturers in
Ireland at all that I am aware of
6680. That may be I do not know how that
is; but it is the fact that the Irish classification
distinguishes between large and small drain
pipes 2–That is the fact, but there are very few
pipes carried across railways in Ireland.
6681. The Board of Trade distinguishes
between pipes of a diameter greater than 18 in.,
and the small drain pipes which are otherwise
loaded ?–They do; but I would like to point
out also that small drain pipes and large drain
pipes are constantly sent in the same truck.
6682. Well ?–And further that, with respect
to weight, drain pipes of over 18 inches in
diameter vary very little, if at all, from drain
pipes under 18 inches in diameter ; and, further,
are less risky to carry. If there is any less risk at
all they are really less risky to carry than the
small pipes.
6683. Do you really mean to tell me that a
drain pipe of 25 inches diameter does not, in
proportion to its weight, occupy a larger space
than a drain pipe of 12 inches 2–Very little
difference at all; because the larger the diameter
of the pipe the thicker is the pipe itself in sub-
stance; as we increase the diameter so is the
thickness of the pipe increased.
6684. Assuming for a moment, you know, that
the Committee were satisfied that there is that
difference; that the larger diameter drain pipe
Mr. Pope—continued.
is not carried under the same conditions of
weight and conditions of space, and so on, as a
small one ; would you then think it fair that they
should be in a different class?—No, most
decidedly unfair; and in the interests of the
railway companies themselves it would be unfair,
because I would like to point this out to you, as
representing the railway companies, that when
these large pipes are used they are used in place
of brick sewers ; that is to say, if large pipes are
not used, brick sewers are generally constructed,
which afford the company very little carriage,
because the sewers as a rule are constructed of
bricks of local manufacture.
6685. I am not asking you whether it would
pay the company better to carry brick for sewers
or drain pipes, but I am asking you whether,
supposing the conditions of carriage to be such as
I suggested, you do not think it fair that it should
be in a different class?—I think it would be
most decidedly unfair,
6686. Why, to carry drain pipes under different
conditions in the same class 2–I would like to
point out that up to the present time there has
been no such difference.
6687. I am perfectly aware; but you do not
answer my question ; assume the fact is as I
intimated to you?—What fact?
6688. That drain pipes of large diameter
otcupy more space in proportion to weight than
drain pipes of small diameter 2—I contend that
they do not.
6689. Try to assume the fact, if you can.
Try, if you can, to assume that something may
be proved against you. Supposing that to be
the fact, is it not fair that they should be in a
different class 2–But I have evidence from my
own personal knowledge, and also the various
other manufacturers whom I represent, that that
is not the fact, and never will be the fact,
6690. That may be the fact, and you may
have evidence about it; but supposing this to be
the fact, is it fair that they should be in a dif-
ferent class. You do not do yourself justice if
you do not answer my hypothetical question ?—
Supposing it is a fact, which it is not, and cannot
be, in such an impossible event it might be fair
to class them differently.
6691. I will not pursue you further because
it is difficult to get an admission from you, even
to that extent?—Might I point out one thing
which will prove that such a thing will be im-
possible.
Chairman.] You had better answer the ques-
tion that Mr. Pope puts.
Mr. Pope,
6692. Just tell me this further, Are a great
many of these large diameter pipes sanitary
pipes with junctions upon them 2–No, very few,
6693, Ought sanitary pipes with junctions
upon them to be in a different class 2—No, for
this reason : that sanitary pipes with junctions
upon them are always placed and fixed on the
very
ON RAI LWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
783
9 June 1891.]
Mr. JONES.
| Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
very top of the pile of the pipes in the truck
itself, in such a position that no other pipes
could come into contact with the junction piece
to cause any damage.
6694. Then they are not to be classed in a
higher class because you are always so careful to
load them so that they shall not require it 2–
We have searched through our books, and have
had no case of damage whatever upon these
large pipes for some years past,
Mr. Pope.] Wery well. Now we will see
what the railway managers say about it, and
what the Board of Trade say was their reason
for altering it.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead,
6695. My learned friend, Mr. Pope, put to
you a question about Irish traffic. Is there any
large traffic in these articles in Ireland 2–Very
little traffic at all.
6696. Substantially all the traffic is carried on
in England 2–Substantially all the traffic is
carried on in England. What is carried on in
Ireland would be the nearest minimum.
6697. Therefore in your opinion the circum-
stances of English traffic should determine the
class into which the article should be placed 7–
Unquestionably.
6698. My learned friend Mr. Pope also put to
you the comparison between one kind of drain
pipe and another. Is there not also another
comparison to be made, the comparison between
drain pipes glazed and the other articles in Class
C. P-Yes. -
6699. Comparing drain pipes glazed with
other articles in Class C. with which you wish to
place it.
Mr. Pope.] But drain pipes are in Class C,
you know, excepting over 18 inches in diameter.
It all depends upon that question whether there
should be an exception.
Mr. Whitehead.
6700. Is there any additional risk in the car-
riage of these larger drain pipes 2–If there is
any difference in risk at all, the greater risk is in
the smaller pipes and not in the larger pipes.
6701. And therefore, in your opinion, there
should be no distinction drawn between them?—
There should be no distinction whatever drawn
between them as there has not been for 30 years.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead..] I have no further evidenc
to call.
Mr. Pope.] Perhaps your Grace would ask
Mr. Courtenay Boyle why the Board of Trade
altered the Clearing House Classification in this
respect
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] In regard to this
particular article in the Clearing House Classi-
fication, the Board of Trade were obliged to act
upon such information as they could obtain for
themselves; because, when the Classification
was being considered at No. 8, Richmond-terrace,
there was no appearance entered upon this
article. Consequently we had not the advan-
tage of the information, such as it is, which the
Committee have heard to-day. By the enquiries
which we made we were clearly convinced that
the high diameter articles do occupy more space
in proportion to their weight than the low
diameter articles. Very high diameter, very
expansive draining pipes, or sanitary tubes as
they are called in another entry, we do believe
are in themselves a higher-classed article than
the narrow diameter pipes, and, as far as our
enquiries went, it is not universally the case that
the thickness of the clay varies at all directly
with the diameter of the tube. And another
point which we ascertained is that there is a
certain amount of traffic in this article in Ireland,
and that the conditions of the Irish Clearing
House Classification are, and ought to be recog-
nised in forming a new classification.
Earl of Belmore.] Do you think that there is
no difference between a pipe of 18 inches
diameter; I assume only sanitary pipes are meant
and not agricultural pipes, and a pipe of nine
inches diameter as regards class?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes; but it is im-
possible in a classification, the number of entries
in which must be to a certain extent limited, to
deal with all those small differences. We made
a difference between 18 inches and other; we
thought that a simple and broad enough dis-
tinction to make. There is a distinction of
course between 18 inches and 24 inches, and
18 inches and 9 inches, and 9 inches and some-
thing smaller still.
Mr. Hunter.] Did the Witness tell us what
was the value of an 18-inch pipe and a 9-inch
pipe P
Mr. Whitehead] No, he did not tell us this.
Mr. Hunter.] Then perhaps he could tell us.
MR. BENJAMIN SCOTT JONES, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Chairman.
6702 THE point is the value of 18 inch
diameter drain pipes and 9-inch diameter drain
pipes; what do you say upon that matter?—The
value of these large pipes, your Grace, is from
about 50 s. to 60 s. a ton at the works.
Mr. Pope.
6703. And the price of the small pipes?—And
the price of the small pipes would vary from
about 20 S. to 30s. per ton; but I would point
out that the difference in cost is caused by the
Mr. Pope—continued.
very expensive machinery we have to put up in
order to turn out the large pipes. The profit
upon these articles is next to nothing, and a dif-
ference sometimes of I s. 8d, or 2 s, in carriage
makes all the difference between getting an
order for them or not.
Earl of Belmore.
6704. Is it not the case, that at the present
time, you send consignments not by weight, but
by the foot *—As a matter of fact, these pipes
(81.)
5 F 4 are
784
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Joint COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. JONES.
[Continued.
Earl of Belmore—continued.
are generally supplied not to merchants to sell
again, but to contractors to lay down in sewers.
In the matter of large pipes we have practically
no trade with merchants at all.
6705. But if I bought pipes, for instance, I
should be charged practically not by weight, but
by the foot, should I not ?—Yes, you would be
charged by the foot.
Earl of Belmore—continued.
6706. It would come to the same thing 2—
Yes.
Mr. Whitehead.] With regard to what Mr.
Courtenay Boyle said, may I make this explana-
tion, that this evidence was not given to the
Board of Trade, because the witness who could
have given it was ill at the time, and could not
give the evidence.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is re-called; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
6707, Is there, as regards facility of loading,
any difference between a large pipe and a small
one 2–Yes, clearly. First of all, I Ought to say
that in depositing their classification, the railway
companics thought that six inches would be a
fair limit to make between the lowest class and
the higher class, the Board of Trade thought
differently, and made it 18 inches in order to
bring into the lower class all other drain pipes, as
we understood, leaving the large pipes to be the
sanitary tubes, I have had some of these sanitary
tubes measured, and I find that they are only
119 cubic feet to the ton weight. In dealing
with them in conveying them, we have to be
be very careful and, it is the custom in loading
them in trucks to always put either fern or gorse
or some other packing between the large pipes,
in order to prevent breakage. I have heard what
the last witness has said about junctions, but
there must be a regular quantity of large pipes
at such junctions, and those pipes with junctions
occupy a very large space because the interstices
have to be filled up.
Mr. Humter.
6708. Can you tell us the difference between
the 18-inch pipes, and say the six-inch pipes,
with reference to how many tons of each would
go into a 10-ton truck 2–I have stated with
regard to the large pipes, that they occupy 119
cubic feet, that would mean four tons to a 10-ton
truck.
6709. Have you made a corresponding measure-
ment of the six-inch pipe 2–No, I have not made
a corresponding measurement of that pipe,
because we raise no question upon it, and I have
no measurement with me.
6710. But you would get four tons of 18-inch
pipes into a truck 2–Yes, of the large ones.
6711. Into a 10-ton truck 2–Yes.
Earl of Belmore.
6712. I understood the first witness, the wit-
ness who was called for the other side, to be
giving his evidence entirely with regard to
glazed sanitary pipes, because, as a matter of fact,
I dare say you are aware that agricultural pipes
are manufactured in Ireland 2–I have no evi-
dence upon that, my Lord.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is quite clear that
they are.
Witness.] Almost every agricultural centre is
a place where they make iron pipes, small
O]] 63S,
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6713. You laid these facts before the Board of
Trade, I suppose, at the hearing of the classifica-
tion ?–I do not know, really; I have not referred.
Mr. Pope.] There was no objection taken, so
that no evidence was given at the Board of
Trade inquiry either upon one side or upon the
other.
Mr. Whitehead.
67.14, No. (To the Witness.) Then in the
Clearing House Classification for this year, where
have you placed these kind of drain pipes with a
diameter of 18 inches and upwards 2—In the
English classification there is no difference ; in
the Irish Classification there is a difference.
6715. But even up to this present moment in
the Clearing House Classification you have con-
tinued to carry them in Class S., have you not?
—In the English Classification, yes.
Chairman.] And that corresponds to Class C.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, the class into which we
desire that they should be placed. .
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Pope.] Your Grace, the only observation
I would make upon this is, that that inquiry my
learned friend has referred to, is perfectly true.
The present Clearing House Classification makes
no distinction as far as England is concerned ;
the Irish Classification does make a distinction.
When it came before the Board of Trade, we
originally suggested that Class 1 should contain
all drain pipes glazed, over six inches in dia-
meter. The Board of Trade thought that was
too small a width to raise it a class, and there-
fore they have put the limit at 18 inches, and
the simple question is, whether the circum-
stances, the difference between a large drain
pipe over 18 inches and one below that size, are
such as, in the opinion of the Committee, would
justify the Board of Trade in having raised it a
class; that is the whole matter. It is under-
stood that the 18-inch pipes are raised a class
over the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Hambury.] And, therefore, in the opinion
of the railway companies, there ought to be that
difference.
Mr. Pope. J That has been their practice, at
all events. They did think that there ought to
be a difference over six inches when they de-
posited their classification, but really I do not
think it is a matter of such vital moment that I
should
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BII, LS.
785
9 June 1891.
*-*msº
should consume a great amount of time in dis-
cussing it.
The Committee confer.
Chairman.] The Committee decide to omit
the words “e.o.h.p.” Now, with regard to
manganese.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Exactly as Lord
Balfour said on Friday last, when the Committee
decided upon a consequential amendment, now
strike out iron pipes glazed in Class 1.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Whitehead..] It is on page 11, your
Grace.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] And I think sanitary
tubes also.
Lord Belper.] They are another name for
drain pipes glazed, are they not ? •
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think there is
much difference, my Lord.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think the same arguments
would apply to sanitary tubes.
Mr. Pope.] Very well, if the railway companies
acquiesce in that I do not feel disposed to sug-
gest any difference. -
Chairman.] In what class are sanitary tubes?
Mr. Whitehead..] In Class 1, your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] Sanitary tubes over 18 inches in
diameter, and omit the e.o.h.p. in Class C.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is at page 23, your
Grace.
Chairman.] Now ‘we come to manganese.
Mr. Whitehead..] This, your Grace, has been
placed next amongst the amendments at this
point owing to a mistake. It should have come
into Class 2., not Class C.; and, if I may post-
pone that amendment until we come to the
amendments in Class 2., that will be the proper
order in which to take it. The proposition was
MR. JAMES HARRISON, is called in ;
Mr. Whitehead.
6716. YoU are a foreign timber merchant in
Liverpool, I believe P- An importer and mer-
chant dealing in foreign timber.
6717. Up to the present time, in what class
has foreign timber been carried ?—It has always
been Class C.
6718. And timber, I suppose, is a yard traffic 2
—Timber is always landed from the ships, con-
veyed to the stores, loaded on the railway
trucks, and all the operations, storing, and so on,
done in the yards in the open air ; we have no
sheds for discharging, and we have no river for
conveyance. I would point out that I represent
the trade in foreign timber only. There is this
important difference between the British timber
and the foreign timber, that the British timber,
as you know, is trees cut down in the rough
state with the boughs lopped off them ; foreign
timber is always squared, so that one piece of
timber will lie upon another without any diffi-
culty, and you can pile it up as high as you like,
* when you come to the deals they are always
to lower it from Class 3. to Class 2., and, as
it stands, the proposition is to raise it from
Class 3., to Class C., which is entirely a mis-
take, and, if your Grace will allow me, I will
postpone that.
Chairman.] Then in point of fact it is an
amendment, not upon Class C., but upon
Class 2.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then it will not come in there.
Now with regard to sinks.
Mr. Whitehead.] Sinks are now withdrawn,
your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] And soot is withdrawn.
Chairman.] The next is the timber, on page 24,
column 1.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think I had better go at
once to the evidence with regard to timber, your
Grace,
Chairman.] If you please.
Mr. Pope.] If I follow the position of the
matter rightly, we propose to raise timber by
measurement weight, which the Committee
decided in the clause that the Board of Trade
have put in.
Lord Belper.] We decided not to accept your
proposition.
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend proposed, my
Lord, that there should be no distinction, and
the Committee decided to maintain the distinc-
tion.
Mr. Whitehead..] No, no ; the Committee did
not decide to insist upon the distinction but only
to reject your amendment, which would have
made the distinction still more marked.
Mr. Pope.] I do not say for a moment that you
are not entitled to ask the Committee to recon-
sider it.
and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
both squared on the side and squared on the
edge, so that they are always in squares, they
are not like English timber at all in that re-
spect; you can pile thern up, one on the other,
and they stand without any difficulty ; you can
pile them up higher than this room a great deal
if you like.
Chairman.
6719. Is no English timber squared ?–No, it
is always in trees until it is sawn to pieces.
Mr. Whitehead,
6720. And with regard to railway transit, it
is very good for loading in consequence of its
shape, is it not?—There is no difficulty about it ;
it costs very little ; it only costs us 3d. to 4 d. a
ton, and it costs the railway companies less.
6721. To load 2–Yes.
6722. And it costs the railway companies, you
say, less 2–Yes.
6723. Will you refer to the service terminal
for loading and unloading in the classification?
81.)
5 G. I think
786
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
I think you will see there that in respect of
Class C., the terminal is 3 d. 7—That is so.
6724. And you say that at the present time
it cost the railway companies even less than that ?
—It will not cost them more.
6725. Whereas a higher terminal is fixed in
relation to Class I, Goods, but in respect of
Class C., which is the class into which we pro-
pose this timber should be carried, there is that
terminal which represents the actual cost 2–
Yes.
6726. Now, a distinction is drawn in the sche-
dule as between timber carried at actual machine
weight and carried at measurement weight?---
Yes.
6727. And when carried at measurement
weight it goes into this higher class, Class 1,
does it not?—Yes, it has always been in Class C.
hitherto, and we can conceive no reason why it
is put into a higher class, excepting that the
railway companies might imagine that foreign
timber is more than 20 cwt. to the ton when
they carry it by measurement; that is not so.
Foreign timber being squared, and being in the
condition in which I tell you it is, the classifi-
cation is 50 feet and 40 feet for the logs, and
2 tons 10 cwt. for the standard, which is in
favour of the railway companies, because that
2 tons 10 cwt. has been for 30 years treated in that
way. At that time it represented, I dare say, the
actual weight, but since that time the foreign
merchants when they have sent to us have dried
the goods and sent them here in a better condi-
tion, and two tons ten hundred weight now is
beyond the actual weight ; and there is also a
change in the trade we get now. Nearly 70 per
cent. of the goods that are coming are of two
tons ten hundred weight, which is an increasing
quantity every year. Besides that, the railway
companies have the power, if they choose, accord-
ing to statute, to charge us three tons six hun-
dred weight for that two tons ten hundred
weight.
6728. Will you just explain that a little more
carefully. At the present time under the Clear-
ing House Classification you send two-and-a-half
tons measurement weight per standard, do you
not ? —That is so.
6729. A standard represents,
cubic feet?–165 cubic feet.
6730. Now, as the Schedule has been altered,
165 cubic feet when measured will be treated as
three tons six hundred weight, because 50 feet
will go to the ton : is not that so 2–They have
always had power to charge three tons six hun-
dred weight, because the statute had only two
definitions, 50 feet for fir and 40 feet for pine ; but
they could never put it in force, because it was
so much beyond the actual weight. -
6731. So that the actual practice is this, that
whereas formerly in practice three tons six hun-
dred weight would have gone to the standard,
now only two tons ten hundred weight go to the
standard 2–They never charge three tons six
hundred weight.
I think, 166
Chairman.
6732. It is not a question of what they
charge ; it is a question of what they have power
Chairman—continued.
to charge –They have power to charge 3 tons
6 cwt. *
Mr. Whitehead.
6733. But I wish to draw a distinction.
Under the present Act you have 165 cubic feet
treated as 23 tons, have you not ? — That
is so.
6734. And now you have 165 square feet
treated as three times 6 2–They have the power
to charge that.
6735. And therefore, if that power is enforced,
there will be a heavy increase in the rate, will
there not ?—Certainly.
6736. Now, you say that this distinction
between actual weight and measurement weight
is founded upon the principle that when timber is
measured you get a larger quantity of it carried
than when it is weighed by actual machine 2–I
say that that is the railway idea, but it is not
fhe fact.
6737. The principle mpon which the distinction
is founded is not represented by the fact?—Not
for foreign timber.
6738. Now, what weight of timber does the
standard represent at the present time in fact ;
165 cubic feet 2—The practice has been to charge
2 tons 10 cwt. ; it is, in fact, about 5 per cent.
less.
6739. In fact, the standard of 165 cubic feet
represents in the foreign timber trade about
5 per cent, less than 2 tons iO cwt. 2–Yes.
6740. And therefore, if the railway companies
are entitled to charge you as for 3 tons 6 cwt.,
they will be entitled to charge you for something
they do not carry 7–Yes.
6741. So that, quite apart from any question
of rate, the schedule, as it now stands, would
give to the railway companies a power of
charging for a service which they have never
rendered 2–Yes, of course that would be so ; but
although they have that power they bave never
put it into practice, it was so extreme. I would
also like to say that there is no such thing as
water damage ; we have never any claim for
water damage ; being a trade conducted in the
open air there is never any claim for water
damage upon the railway, although it stands very
ºnly upon the railway for two or three
WG 62 KS.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6742. I think I understood you to say, if I
heard you rightly, that what yon would ask
would be that there should be a different classi-
fication in regerd to foreign timber to that which
would prevail as regards British timber ?—I do
not ask that. I say that we have always heen
in Class C. with regard to foreign timber, and
that there is no reason why it should be raised
one class.
6743. Excuse me, you can only have been in
Class C. where you have sent your foreign timber
by actual, weight?–We have never sent it by
actual weight. All foreign measurement timber
has always been carried by measurement weight
by Act of Parliament. They had no right to
charge actual weight until power is given them
In OW.
6744. Then
ON RAILWTAY RATES AND CHARGES
BROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 787
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Pope—continued.
6744. Then all I can say is I am looking at the
Railway Classification, and I do not find any
provision in the special class which represents
Class C. for anything but actual machine weight.
—Look at page 100 of the classification, and you
will find there that there are only two classifica-
tions ; 50 feet for fir timber and 40 feet for hard
wood.
6745. I look at the classification on page 99,
and I see the classification of timber?— Then I can-
not understand that page.
6746. I own it is not easy to understand it. I
do not profess to have entirely mastered it myself?
—The other is the practice that has been
followed on page 100.
6747. Your argument is this, that it is fair
enough to make a difference in the case of British
timber between measurement weight and actual
weight because the timber is not squared and
there is a greater difference between the two
trades 2 – I am not wishing to say anything
against British timber except that there is a great
difference between the two trades.
6748. But that is the reason which you think
justifies the difference in the case of British
timber 2—I think that is the reason why the
Board of Trade wishes to raise the classification.
6749. You say that it ought not to apply to
foreign timber because foreign timber is squared P
—Yes. .
6750. And therefore the measurement weight
more nearly approaches the actual weight, does
it not?—They are the same, I believe.
6751. Is not that making a different classi-
fication for foreign timber than for British timber ;
you say that British timber should be carried at
measurement weight in a different class to actual
weight, but foreign timber, no 2–I say that
foreign timber represents the actual weight, and
an average of 20 cwt. to the ton.
6752. But if so, why cannot you consign at
machine weight?—The general average will vary
as much as from two-tons to two-tons 15 cwt.,
and when we import timber, and we are to have
it by actual weight, we could never sell or so
conduct our business, although the railway com-
panies’ only carry 20 cwt. to the ton on the
average.
6753. Why should the average be more con-
wenient to the railway company than it is to the
trader?—I should mention that wood at one time
of the year is heavier than wood at another time
of the year.
6754. But why should you send it at the same
rate *—Because on the average we cannot tell
exactly what it is, but on the average the rail-
way companies are not at all damaged. If we
were sending a whole quantity and paying carri-
age for the whole, we should be right, but that
would mean throwing the burden of paying the
carriage upon us. -
6755. You admit that even in the case of
foreign timber, under certain circumstances there
might be a difference, but you say that on the
average it would not turn out to be a great
injury —I say it is not an injury at all.
6756. But the railway companies would prefer
to be assured of that ?—I have got a witness and
we will put him before you. We could not
carry on our business by actual weight. When
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
—º
Mr. Pope—continued.
we have cargoes coming we cannot tell, and the
railway companies have always in the past been
in Class C., and therefore it is an innovation to
put us into a higher class.
6757. How do you propose to carry out your
amendment in favour of foreign timber.
Mr. Whitehead..] I do not understand this
witness to draw any distinction between English
and foreign timber; he comes here to speak with
regard to the trade of which he has personal
Cognizance.
Chairman.] Pardon me, the witness drew a
distinction between English and foreign timber,
because he said that all English timber was sent
in a rough condition to what foreign timber was,
and that the foreign timber was squared, and
that therefore the foreign timber took up much
less room in a truck than English timber.
Mr. Pope..] But what I understood Mr.
Harrison to admit was that English timber being
sent round and rough, the difference between
actual weight and measurement was so great
that it might be, I do not say that he said
it was, because he did not make any
admission at all, but that it might be fair
because he has put them in a different class
according to measurement of actual weight, but
he said, I claim for foreign timber that that
should not be so, because actual weight and
measurement weight in foreign timber upon the
average comes out very nearly alike, that is the
argument.
Witness.] That is so.
Mr. Whitehead..] Mr. Harrison still reserves
the question of English timber.
Mr. Pope.] That being your argument, that
whatever is true of English timber, however
true it may be that measurement and actual
do not coincide, how do you propose to amend
this classification in favour of foreign timber
where it does coincide.
Mr. Whitehead..] I do not think that that is
our amendment as it stands.
Mr. Pope.] I do not think it is. Your amend-
ment as it stands goes beyond the evidence, that
is all.
Chairman.] Probably the witness could tell
us how he proposes to make this amendment
agree.
Witness.] I appear, your Grace, simply for
foreign timber, and I do not profess to know
very much about English timber, but it would
be easily met if you put the actual and measure-
ment weight for foreign timber in the classi-
fication.
Mr. Pope.] I do not see how the railway
company can do that.
Lord Belper.
6758. Did I understand you to say that all
foreign timber was squared —Yes, with a very
slight exception.
6759. Are the Norway pines that come for pit
props always squared; are there not *ś many
Norway pines that are not square 2–Only in the
same category as pit props.
(81.)
5 G 2 6760. You
788
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead.
6760. You had an amendment before the
Committee, by which you sought, did you not, to
obtain a statutory ratification of the St. Peters-
burg standard?—Yes.
6761. And that was refused by the Com-
mittee ?—Yes.
6762. And it is in consequence of their de-
cision upon that point that this question of the
class into which timber when carried by measure-
ment weight should go becomes so important?—
Yes.
Mr. Pope.] Would you kindly follow me. If
you look at page 28, line 21, there you will find
“ timber measurement weight.” That, of course,
applies to all timber, whether English or foreign.
Now, Mr. Harrison's evidence would be that
that should read “ timber, execpt foreign, by
measurement weight.”
Mr. Whitehead..] No, I think not. There is a
double trade, the foreign and English trade, and
we are bringing evidence upon both these points.
This is the evidence with regard to foreign
timber, but we have still a witness who will give
evidence with regard to English timber, and then
the two will be complete, so that your suggestion
of a further amendment of course would not
apply.
Mr. Pope.] Then I will wait till I hear what
the witness says about the timber between
measurement weight and actual weight.
Chairman.] The amendment is, “Insert
‘measurement weight after timber,’” and it
would read “ timber measurement weight, or
actual machine weight.”
22
Witness, I would wish to point out this, that
if they raise us from the class we have always
been in, Class C., and put us into Class 1, they
are putting us apparently into a class with flour
and grain and such things as that. Now timber
is never damaged by water; it wants no sheds,
and it is always sent away in full trucks, as much
as ever a truck can carry ; and it really seems to
us that we have been looking for relief from
these railway rates which are very high upon
timber ; and if they raise our rates and put us
with flour and grain, that seems to us to be a
very strange proceeding.
Chairman.
6763. But there are a great number of
articles in Class C. which are not damaged by
water 2—Flour and grain, your Grace, are
damageable, but timber lies down at the railway
for weeks together.
6764. But what do you say about clog irons,
chairs, and so on ?–-Clog iron is, perhaps, not
easily damageable, but I do not know.
Mr. Whitehead..] There may be other considera-
tions which would place those properly in Class C.
Chairman.] There are a great number of
articles in Class 1 which would come in the
same category as timber, with regard to damage 2
Mr. Whitehead.] With regard to that point,
your Grace, yes; but in most respects timber
stands by itself; you cannot say it is like iron or
tea. It is almost unique, so that the question of
value, and indirectly the question of rate, be-
comes so much more important.
Chairman.] Then you had better call your
other witness.
MR. WILLIAM STENNING, is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6765. YOU are Chairman of the Joint Com-
mittee of the Midland Counties and Sonth of
England Timber Trade Association ?–Yes,
6766. Where do you live 2–At East Grin-
stead.
6767. And you are yourself in trade, are
you not, as an English timber merchant 2–
Yes.
6768. You have heard what Mr. Harrison has
said with reference to the foreign timber. Will
you now give the reasons applicable to the
Tºnglish timber which would justify its removal
into Class C. when carried at measurement
weight 2–Because we think it more mearly
approximate to the present maximum powers of
the railway companies.
6769. The rates which are proposed in the
schedule with reference to Class C., more nearly
approximate to the statutory powers of the
companies at the present time 2—Yes; that is
with the addition of the proposed terminals.
6770. Have you got any other reasons that
you would like to mention ? — And another
reason why I think we ought to be put in
Class C., is that the Committee have already
reduced the measurement weight from 50 feet to
40 feet in several classes. They have aiready
made a material reduction as against our
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
timber business in favour of the railway com-
panies.
6771. That is with regard to elm and ash 2–
Yes. -
6772. Those timbers are now carried at 40 feet
to the ton, are they not ?—They are now carried
at 50 feet to the ton, and the Committee have de-
cided that in future they are to be carried at 40
feet to the ton; that increases the cost of the
carriage of those 25 per cent.
6773. And is it solely upon that question of a
rate of comparison of the actual rate with the
proposed rate, do you think, that the timber
should go into Class C. when carried at measure-
ment weight?—Partly so; but the railway com-
panies put two important wooden articles into
Class B. ; one of them is a manufactured article,
one of them is telegraph poles, which is practi-
cally round timber. They themselves put them
in Class B. We do not ask for Class B. for
similar articles, but we ask that measurement
weight and actual weight should be put into
Class C.
6774. In actual practice I suppose you will
always carry that measurement weight 2–I do
not know how it will work. We have the option,
as I understand, and in some cases it may be to
our advantage to take advantage of that option.
6775. Will
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
789
9 June 1891.]
Mr. STENNING.
[Continued.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope,
6775. Will you kindly tell me this. You are
now dealing, I suppose, with round timber 2–
Timber of all descriptions. We ask for timber
of every description.
6776. But round timber is, at the present
moment, carried at first-class rates, is it not, if
carried by measurement 2—I only know what the
legal charge is.
6777. But we are not talking of what the
legal charge is, we are talking with regard to
the claasification. You see what you would do,
would be that you would put your timber,
whether carried by actual weight or carried by
measurement, in the same class?—Yes.
6778. Is there any difference in your round
timber between actual weight and measurement
weight 2–There may be a difference, but that
has already been dealt with by the Committee.
They have reduced timber very materially, from
50 feet to 40 feet.
6779. That is a different question ?—It makes
a difference of 25 per cent. to us. It says 250
feet, and other light timber, and there are many
other terms that would come into the 40 feet
class besides elm and oak.
Chairman.] The witness seems to be under
a misapprehension, or else I am, because the
timber was so placed by agreement, with the
exception of elm ; and with reference to elm, we
heard evidence and speeches, and we then re-
tired and gave our decision ; but it is not correct
to say that the Committee have put all the others
in, because that was with the consent of both
parties. d
Witness.] It only says in the Class 50 feet
larch, fir, and other light timber.
Mr. Pope.] No, it does not say that.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think the witness is refer-
ring to the old statutory classification.
Witness.] It says 50 feet of poplar, larch, fir,
and other light timber.
Chairman.] But I want to keep clear what
the Committee have done. The witness said
that the Committee had put all these articles
there, but it is throughout with the consent of
all parties, with the exception of elm.
Witness.] Not with our consent, your Grace.
Lord Belper.] They were in the schedule
before it came before this Committee, and you
moved no amendment upon that part, and there-
fore it was by consent of both parties.
Witness.] No, we asked to remain where we
were, and it was decided against us.
Chairman.] No, no.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think the Witness is
under a misapprehension, your Grace, upon that
point.
Mr. Pope.
6780. At the present moment your round
timber is carried under Class 1, is it not ? Under
the Clearing House Classification is it not carried
under Class 1 *—I do not know ; I do not admit
that railway classification at all.
6781. I do not ask you to admit anything ; I
want fo know what your knowledge of it is ;
Mr. Pope—continued.
what extent of business do you do?—I, and my
firm, have been in business 99 years.
6782. But I am asking for your personal
knowledge ; now, do you not know perfectly
well that your round timber is carried in Class 1
in the Clearing House Classification ?—I do not
admit that. -
6783. I asked you ; do you know it 2–May
I mention the Brighton Company ?
6784. Do you know it; I ask you ?–No, I
do not.
6785. How much business do you do?—A
considerable amount.
6786. And do you mean to say that you do
not know under what class of the Clearing
House Classification your timber goes 2–If I
may cite the Brighton case, I know their rate is
2 d. a ton a mile; and, so long as I know, they
do not overcharge me; I pay it.
6787. Do you not know what class it is carried
in ; do you not know that your round timber is
classed in the Clearing House Classification as
first-class 2–There are several things.
Chairman.] Perhaps the misapprehension is
that the London, Brighton, and South Coast Com-
pany do not come under the Clearing House.
This gentleman lives in Sussex, and deals with
the Brighton Company direct.
Mr. Pope.
6788. (To the Witness.) But I am told that
you are the Chairman of the Midland Association
of Timber Merchants, and have been engaged in
the discussion of this timber question for 18
months or two years?—Yes.
6789. Do not you know perfectly well that the
round timber that you now propose to carry in
Class C. is carried by the railway companies’
under the Clearing House Classification as
Class 1 2–It may be so stated.
6790. Do not you know it?—I do not know all
that book by heart.
6791. Then, Mr. Stenning, I do not think you
do yourself justice. Do you not know, as Presi-
dent of the Midland Association of Timber
Merchants, having discussed this matter before
the Board of Trade for a year-and-a-half, that
the round timber you are seeking to reduce at
present stands in Class 1. of the Clearing House
Classification ?—That may be so.
6792. Do you not know it? — If it is so in that
book, no doubt it is so.
6793. Do you not know it as a fact 7–I say,
if the statutory powers of the companies ——
6794. I will have a clear answer. Do not you
know that it is, as I say, in Class 1 of the Clear-
ing House Classification ?–No.
6795. Do you mean seriously to tell me that ?
—I have tried to answer the question in several
ways. You say you want a plain answer, and I
say. No.
Chairman.] I understood him to say that it
might be so.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think the witness is under
a misapprehension.
Chairman.
6796. (To the Witness.) Either you do know
(81.)
5 G 3 it,
790
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. STENNING.
—w
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
it, or you do not know it?–May I state what we
do know.
6797. That is not an answer to the question.
What Mr. Pope has asked you is, whether you
know that at the present moment the round
timber is carried under the Clearing House
system under a particular class, Class 1 –I said
just now, your Grace, it may be so ; but that it
did not bind us in any way.
6798. But what Mr. Pope wants to know is,
whether you know it of your own knowledge?—
I cannot say at the present moment that I do.
If I were to read the book it would refresh my
memory, but we disclaim that book altogether.
Mr. Pope.] Now do you know that before the
Board of Trade all the timber merchants of the
West of England, more especially at Cardiff,
differed from your view, and would have had the
whole of the timber carried by machine weight 2
—I only heard one say so.
6799. Did you hear him say that he repre-
ented the opinion of the merchants, which was
unanimous in favour of the view he was repre-
senting 2–No.
6800. Let me read it and see whether you
thought it: “You say that the opinion of the
merchants is unanimous in favour of the machine
weight? (A.) Yes.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. | That is not the case.
I assure you that the opinion of the merchants is
not unanimous upon that point at all. The
Board of Trade, after that statement was made,
had many representations in the opposite di-
rection.
Mr. Pope,
6801. That may be ; that I do not know.
(To the Witness.) Do you agree with this :
“Can you give any estimate of the difference
Mr. Pope—continued.
between the actual weight and the measurement
weight to show what the loss would be to the
carrying company? (A.) Yes; under the Clear-
ing House Regulations they carry 165 cubic feet
of deals at 2 tons 10 cwt. The real weight, or
the actual weight of that standard of deals would
be 3 tons 6 cwts.” Do you agree that there is
that difference between measurement weight and
actual weight 7–No, I do not; because often a
standard of deals, though I do not appear here
to give evidence about foreign timber, will not
weigh more than 2 tons 8 cwts.
6802. You do admit that the difference be-
tween actual and measurement weight is con-
siderable 2–I say that has been already dealt
with by reducing the quantity of timber carried
per ton from 50 to 40 feet.
6803. Has that made it even 2–It makes it
25 per cent, worse for us in the cost.
6804. Has that made it even; has that made
the actual weight and measurement weight coin-
cide –It has made it more nearly approximate.
6805. But does it approximate 2–That ques-
tion was very fully gone into about the question
of dry timber or green timber. I do not know
whether the Committee wish that question to be
gone into. We want timber put into Class C.
Mr. Pope.
6806. Whether it is sent by actual or by mea-
surement weight?—Yes.
6807. You want no difference between mea-
surement and actual?—No.
6808. Although you admit that even what the
Committee has done has not made the conditions
of the two actual and the same 2–No; they fix
the amount of the two as always actually
earned.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. CHARLES HOPTON, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6809. YoU are a member, I believe, of the firm
of Messrs Hopton and Sons, of No. 67, George-
street, Euston-square, London; and Market
Harborough 2–Yes; and I also appear for the
London Chamber of Commerce on the timber
question.
6810. And you are engaged in both the
English and foreign timber trades, are you not?
—Yes.
6811. Is it the fact that at the present time
timber at measurement weight goes into Class
! ?—No, that is not the fact,
6812. Into what class does it go 2–With re-
gard to timber in Class I, I think the previous
witness was asked whether he knew that it was
the practice to carry round timber in Class 1 or
not. I have proofs that round timber for short
distances is carried at a lower class than Class 1,
It is actually carried in a lower class than the
special class.
Chairman,
5813. Short distances 7–Yes, your Grace,
Mr. Whitehead.
6814. For short distances it is carried at a
lower class than the special class, which corres-
ponds to Class C. 2–Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.] What class is that ?
Mr. Whitehead..] The witness is comparing
the actual weight with the measurement weight
that is charged.
Earl of Camperdown.] But he says it is car-
ried in a lower class than the special class, what
class is that ?
Witness.] I will explain it, my Lord. It is
this: The railway companies have charged a
higher rate for timber and deals than they were
actually entitled to charge by their Acts of
Parliament. We are paying them upon what
they consider they are entitled to charge by
their Acts of Parliament. The London and
North Western Company is my instance. We
pay them two-and-a-half per ton for all timber
(I am speaking now of round timber)
for distances up to 50 miles, and 2 d. for dis-
tances
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
79;
9 June 1891.]
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
tances beyond 50 miles. I have here a rate-
book from Market Harborough to many places
around there for round timber, and the rates in
nearly every instance for short distances are far
below the special class rates that we are paying
to the London and North Western Company
now. I have a few instances here of actual
rates.
6815. But that is by special agreement, is it
not ?—No, my Lord, it is not by special agree-
ment. It is actually the powers they possess
at present ; 23 d. per ton per mile ; I have their
accounts showing that the accounts are rendered
by them, and paid by us, and I have accounts
extending for about five years with me, and I
can show the Committee the instances if they
like.
Mr. Whitehead.] May I explain it in this way :
The Clearing House Classification does not ne-
cessarily represent
Mr. Pope J Excuse me, the witness had better
explain it himself.
Lord Belper.] What railways is this upon 2
Witness.] Upon the London and North
Western, from Market Harborough to distances
around.
Earl of Camperdown.
6816. I asked you what class is that, and you
did not say that there was such a class, or that
there was not such a class, but it is a lower class
upon the whole 2–Yes. ,
Mr. Pope.] My learned friend need not refer
to private special rates, which are given in some
particular cases.
Mr. Whitehead..] It comes back to a question
not so much of class as of rate.
Earl of Camperdown.] That was the object of
my question in order to bring that out. Am I
correct in this, that it is not that he was charged
in a class that was lower than the special class,
but he was charged at a rate which was lower
than the rates in the special class.
Witness.] There is no class provided for round
timber for those distances not compared with the
Clearing House Classification.
6817. Then, in other words, am I correct in
putting it in the way I did ; that, when you said
Mr. HOPTON.
| Continued.
~sº
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
it is carried in a class which is lower than the
special class, it was a mistake in point of fact,
and that what you intended to say was that it
was carried at rates which are lower than the
rates provided for the special class —That
IS SO. -
Mr. Whitehead.
6818. That is what I wanted to bring out, my
Lord. (To the Witness.) Now, in order to show
that point quite clearly you have prepared a
table which you can put before the Committee,
have you not ?—Yes, I have two tables. One is
a table of rates from London and the other is a
table of rates from Market Harborough.
6819. Take the Market Harborough rates
first P
Mr. Pope..] I will not trouble you with the
special rates, which in many cases are agreed.
Mr. Whitehead..] It is not that, but to show
how the operations of the class would effeet the
different merchants with regard to rates.
Earl of Camperdown.] As compared with
what. Do you mean as compared with the rates
which are chargeable to them under Class 1.,
where those things are at present under the
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Whitehead..] No, the actual rates, the
actual practice, a comparison. Mr. Lambert
said that the desire at all events if the railway
companies was to stereotype the existing practice
and crystallise it, I think he said, and in order to
show what the existing practice is, this witness is
anxious to put in this comparison between the
actual practice and the proposed schedules.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then that is simply
what are the actual rates charged to you at this
moment between this place and that place.
Mr. Whitehead.
6820. It comes back to that, my Lord ; it
ultimately goes back to the question of rates.
(To the Witness.) You have taken consignments
of timber from Market Harborough to various
stations upon different lines?—I have timber by
measurement, weight according to the Clearing
House Classification, some timber being carried
at 50 feet, and others at 40 feet to the ton. I
will hand in these tables. They are compared
with the actual rates in Class C. in the Board of
Trade Classification and Class 1.
[The Witness delivers in the Following Table : ]
(81.)
792 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
9 June 1891.] Mr. HOPTON. [Continued.
CoMPARISON of ACTUAL RATES CHARGED on TIMBER and DEALs, i.e., SPECIAL CLASS
CLEARING Hous E CLASSIFICATION and CLASSES C., and 1, as in PROVISIONAL RATES
AND CHARGES BILL.

Class C., with Class 1, with ſ
LONDON TO Rail. Miles. Actual Rate. Average. Station Station ameºs
Terminals, 2 s. | Terminals, 3 s.
S. d. S. d. S. d. S. d.
Aylsham * tº ºt - G. E. R. - * 132 || 11 8 1'06 15 9 20 1 Four-ton lots, 10 –
Bungay - * - gº - G. E. R. - º Ilê | 11 8 1:23 13 10 17 8 Four-ton lots, 10 –
Birkenhead - -> - | N. W. & G. W. R. 194 | 18 4 1.13 18 2 24 1
Brighton * , * † - L. B. & S. C. R. 50} | 6 1 1°43 8 2 11 1
Carlisle - * > - || N. W. R. $º 291 || 28 4 I-17 26 3 34 7
DOver - e- tº - | S.E. & C. & D.R. 74 3 4 1:35 11 — 14 9
Cardiff - dº tº- - || G. W. R. *- 170 || 14 2 1:00 16 2 21 5 Four-ton lots, 12 6
Grimsby - sº tºº - G. N. R. - tº 155 | 15 — 1.16 14 1 19 10 Five-ton lots, 13 4
Hastings - gº º, - | S. E. R. - tºº 60 8 4 1-66 9 3 12 6
Hull . . . . . G. N. R. - - || 174} | 15 — 1-02 16 7 22 – Five-ton lots, 13 4
Norwich - * - gº - || G. E. R. - tº 1133 11 8 1.28 13 11 17 S Four-ton lots, 10 –
Newport, Mon. - G. W. R. - - 159 || 13 4 1.00 15 3 20 3
Northampton - - || N. w. R. * tºº 64 8 4 1.56 9 9 12 S
Newcastle-on-Tyne - G. N. R. - gº 272 | 10 8 4 tons|| 0-73 24 8 34 3
Stockton gº tºº - || G. N. R. - tº 236 20 - 1.01 2I 8 28 7
Total - - 2,258, 206 ll º gº 234 6 311 5
Average - || - * I gº - s 1°10 | 24 I-65
Schedule 16, page 5, as altered increases rate 25 per cent, in certain woods, previously carried 50 feet 10 ton.
TIMBER.
COMPARISON of ACTUAL and PROPOSED RATEs, CLASSES C. and 1, STATION TERMINALs
included.
Class C. Class 1.
MARKET HARBOROUGH TO Mileage. Actual Rate. Station Station
Terminals, 2 s. | Terminals, 3 s.
2- —º- TN -—-g
S. d. S. d. s. d.
Brixworth - - - - * * * I 2 2 10 3 10 5 3
Long Buckley - +º º º *- * > 24 § 6 5 5 7 2
Pitsford - º sº -: * = º sº l 4 3 5 4 2 5 7
ſuffenham - * * > {-} wº wº *º 18 3 4 4 9 6 4.
Wolverton - tºº * * º tº- * = * 34 5 10 6 10 S 1 ()
Lamport - s º º gº tº tº 8 2 2 3 3 4 6
East Norton * tº tº- gº gº wº 10 2 4 3 6 4 10
Seaton tº * ſº tºº * ę wº 14 3 5 4 2 5 7
Welford - º º * gº 4- $º 9 2 2 3 5 4 8
Daventry - gº * * *E* gº º * 34 7 7 6 10 8 L ()
Blisworth - º {-> * tº a * * * 23 5 3 5 4 7 —
Northampton - gº gºe tº tº- sº 20 4 6 5 — 6 8
Althorp - - - - - - - 21 4 II 5 — 6 8
Tilton tº {-º tº *- º * * * 14 3 5 4 2 5 7
Hallaton - gº gº tº wº <--> * 7 2 — 3 I 4 4
Yelvertoſt - * = tº- wº º * I 3 3 — 4 — 5 5
Total - - * * $275 6 l '8 72.9 97.3
Average - - - - || - tº-> 2’69 3' 17 4°20

ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
793
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
6821. Without going all the way through
that table, it contains in the first column a
statement of the mileage 2–Yes.
Chairman.
6822. What you are doing is this ; you are
comparing the actual rate which you now pay or
have been paying with the proposed maximum
rate under the Provisional Order 2–That is so,
our Grace. --
6823. Then is that comparison worth anything?
—Only in this respect. If the Committee decide
to place timber in Class 1, it shows the very
great difference that there would be chargeable
upon timber in placing it in Class 1, from what
it would be if placed in Class C., which we ask
the Committee to place all timber in.
6824. How can you compare what is actually
charged with that which is the maximum of the
Provisional Order ?
Mr. Whitehead..] As I understand it, the
suggestion is that you should take the actual
rates and impose upon that margin in order to
obtain your maximum; and this will show that
the proposed rates for Class C. will give a large
margin over the actual rates; that is the proposed
rates for Class 1 would give an excessive margin.
Chairman.] It would give an excessive possible
charge.
Mr. Whitehead.] Quite so, your Grace, not
an actual charge. .
Witness." The instances given to the Com.
mittee are taken upon 2; d. a ton per mile for
the different distances, but the terminal has been
added by the railway company ; that is, the
maximum powers they at present possess.
6825. Without going in detail through all
those distances and taking merely the totals, I
find at the bottom you have taken a fair selection
of stations?—Yes.
Lord Belper.
6826. All short distances?—-Under 35 miles
this table is. º
Mr. Whitehead.
6827. Whilst for the long distances you have
another table which shows the same sort of
result 2–Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
6828. Will you show us the other table 2–
Certainly.
Chairman.] Under 35 miles I understand it
1S. -
Mr. Whitehead.] That is the short distance
table, and there is a long distance table showing
the same result.
Mr. Hunter.
6828.* Are these picked stations, or are
they all the stations to which you consign 2–
No. I have a list of all stations we consign
from to Market Harborough, and the mileage
rate is exactly the same.
6829. I mean taking distances under the 35
miles, are these picked and selected stations, or
are they the whole of the stations under the 35
miles? —They are not the whole of the stations
Mr. HOPTON.
-ms
[Continued.
Mr. Hunter—continued.
under the 35 miles, but assuming the distance is
20 miles or 24 miles from any station to Market
Harborough, the rate would be the same.
6830. Are these the stations to which traffic of
this kind is actually carried ?– Yes, I have
the accounts with me extending over five
years. -
Lord Belper.
6831. They are very small roadside stations,
are they not ?—The traffic is carried on at road-
side stations. -
6832. And it is from those stations to Market
Harborough 2–Yes, they are mostly roadside
stations. I think the timber trade is mostly
carried on at roadside stations.
6833. In Northamptonshire 2–Yes.
Mr. Whitehead.
6833* Therefore these stations which you have
taken are quite typical of the traffic 2–Yes.
6834. Now, first of all with regard to the
short distance table, you have there a total actual
rate upon those consignments of 61 s. 8 d. 2–
Yes, 61 s. 8 d. for 275 miles.
6835. Then the maximum which would be
allowed, were your suggestion accepted, would
be 72 s. 9 d. 2–In Class C. that would be the
maximum.
6836. That would give a reasonable margin 2
—It would be an increase of something like 18
per cent. upon the actual rate.
6837. Whereas if it were left in Class l, what
would be the margin 2–The increase on the pre-
sent rates would be 50 per cent.
6838. And do you consider that 18 per cent.
is quite a reasonable margin in order to meet
possible contingencies?—I consider it a very fair
- margin.
6839. Now, passing to long distance traffic,
there you have made a similar comparison, have
you not?—Yes, I have.
Mr. Hunter.
6840. Are those machine weights or measure-
ment weights?--They are measurement weights
in every instance, as stated in the classification.
At page 100 of the Clearing House Classification
I think it states that certain woods shall be
carried at 50 feet to the ton and others at 40
feet to the ton. Those actual rates are based
upon those measurement weights.
Mr. Whitehead.
6841. So that it is a comparison, measurement
with measurement?—Yes.
6842. Now passing to the long distance table,
there the actual rates totals up to 206 s. 11 d. 1–
Yes.
Mr. Hunter.
6843. Just allow me to finish that point; you
have taken the 40 feet or the 50 feet to the ton
as the basis of your calculation ?–Taking the
40 feet or the 50 feet to the ton according to the
Railway Clearing House Classification of the
woods named therein.
\ Mr. Whitehead.
6844. With regard to the long distance traffic,
(81.)
5 H you
794
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
you there get a total of 206 s. 11 d. 2–206 s. 11 d.
for a distance amounting to 258% miles.
6845. Those individual distances ranging from
50% miles up to 291 miles 2–Yes. e
6846. And those are typical instances and typi-
cal stations?—Yes, they are, and in most of these
instances, it is specially carried to large towns.
Earl of Camperdown.
6847. But I observe in these stations
you have taken they are all large
stations into which there is keen competition ; is
that so?--No, I think not, my Lord. In the
case of Aylsham, I do not think there is any
competition there ; and in the case of Bungay
and Brighton, I do not think there is any com-
petition there ; or in the case of Carlisle I do
not think there is much competition there.
Chairman.
6848. They have several lines?—Yes, they
have, but the northern companies, I think,
arrange their rates together.
Lord Belper.
6849. That is competition, is it not ?—I think
the companies arrange their rates.
Chairman. -
6.850. That is competition ?—I should hardly
take it to be competition ; if one tradesman under-
sells another, he does not generally go to him
and say, what shall we sell at.
6851. If there are three or four railway com-
panies, do not they agree what the charge to their
customers shall be 2––They agree amongst them-
selves.
6852. Would not that rate be likely to be
lower than if they had no such agreement 2
Virtually we have found in practice that, belore
railway companies combined, the rates were lower
in many instances, and that was through competi-
tion. One railway company would come and
say we will give you a rate of so-and-so if you
will give us your traffic.
Mr. Whitehead.
6853. But when they agree the rates go up 2
— Quite so.
6854. In this case, what is the percentage of
margin which Class C, would give over the actual
rates?—The percentage of margin would be an
increase on the present rates of 134 per cent.
6855. And if the timber at measurement
weight were left in Class 1, what would be the
margin –The increase would be the same as on
the short table, an increase of 50 per cent.
Therefore the timber trade generally consider
that Class C. would be more acceptable for
timber than Class 1, more especially, your Grace,
when we find that valuable products of timber
are placed in Class C., such as sole bars manufac-
tured from oak and used for the framing of rail-
way carriages, which is far more valuable than
the raw article itself; chair-bottoms, paving-
blocks, dyewood, pitwood, bobbin, break blocks,
clog-soles, heads and staves of casks, trenails,
fibre turnings, railway keys, and pea and bean
sticks. We consider that the raw article itself
Mr. Whitehead—coutinued.
should be treated the same as coal and sand; it
requires no greater accommodation, it is essen-
tially a yard traffic, and to place us in Class 1
with terminals of 3 s. would be giving the railway
companies very much higher powers than
they possess at present. Timber is usually
sent in large consignments; it is sent in bulk and
in full truck loads; it requires no watching; there
is no risk; it is undamageable, and is dealt with
principally at roadside stations. I mean the
English timber.
6856. And under all those circumstances you
think when carried at measurement weight it
should go into Class C. 2–We do.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6857. Will you kindly take this first table you
have put in, the Market Harborough Table. Have
you got the Railway Clearing House Classifica-
tion before you?—Yes.
6858. If you turn to page 100, and look at
paragraph 6, you will see it says there : “The
companies are to employ a competent person to
measure round timber, which must be loaded by
their own servants or under their direction and
control, and the charge for such services, exclu-
Siye of use of crane and of haulage to the crane
when the timber has been previously deposited at
a distance therefrom, is to be 1 s. 6d. per ton.”
That I s. 6d. is not included in any one of these
rates, is it?—That is a service terminal which is
entirely distinct from station terminal.
6859. Is that I s. 6 d. included in this rate 2–
In neither of them. -
6860. Do not you know that the Class C.
service terminal would be 3 d., as compared with
the 1 s. 6 d. where it appears in the Clearing
House Classification, and that therefore every
one of these rates should have 1 s. 3 d. added to
it to compare like with like?—That I believe is
a question of service terminals which I have not
gone into. There is an addition to the 3d, you
name; there is covering and uncovering I think
to be charged, and we consider that I s. 3 d. or
! s. 6 d. a ton, as the case may be, for loading
an excessive charge.
686]. I am not now dealing with the question
of the amount of charge, but with your propriety
in bringing actual rates as the basis for classifica-
tion ?—Those are actual rates.
6862. If I follow these tables, what you sug-
gest by these tables is that you ought to take the
lowest possible rates as a basis for fixing the
maximum class rate, is not that so 2–The lowest
special rate for fixing the class.
6863. You have taken, I say, instances of a
low, I will not say the lowest, because you may
stop me by saying you do not know that it is the
lowest, but a low special rate, which you say is
to form the basis of a maximum class rate 2–That
is not a low special rate.
6864. I thought you would be trying to run
away upon some side issue. These are actual
rates specially agreed for the conveyance of
traffic, are they not P –They are not actual rates
specially agreed ; they are rates that the con-
pany have power to charge according to their
present maximum power.
6865. Then
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
795
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
–7
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
6865. Then what do you mean by calling
them actual rates ?—They are actual rates; and
as I said before, I can produce any amount of
account from the London and North Western
Railway Company where those rates are charged.
The instances I will give you. .
6866. Then these are not actual rates, they
are the actual powers?— They are the actual
rates charged. The question was this, as I
understood it, whether it was a special class,
whether it was a first-class rate.
6867. I did not say special class, I said a
special rate. Are they agreed rates between the
the trader and the company ?—No. I do not
think it, because, originally, before the Board of
Trade Inquiry, the notices with regard to tolls
which were being up in the stations of the
London and North Western Company, and
other railway companies, far exceeded their
maximum powers. The attention of the
traders was then called to the maximum
amount of tolls, and as a matter of fact,
we had been paying far higher rates for
the conveyance of our timber, but we were
informed by the railway company that they could
not charge us those higher rates in future ; that
they could only charge us rates that did not
exceed their statutory powers, and our rates
were therefore reduced. -
6868. I want to know what this represents in
order to ascertain the value of the comparison.
Take the very first item, Market Harborough to
Brixworth, 12 miles, actual rate, 2 s. 10 d. 2–
Yes.
6869. Do you mean that is the actual rate, or
do you mean the statutory powers of the com-
pany 2–i mean the actual rate charged, and also
the statutory powers of the company.
6870. Do you mean that they charge their full
maximum ?—Yes. -
6871. In all these cases 2—Yes.
6872. Just find me what their statutory power
is between Market Harborough and Brixworth 2
—The Act of 1846 fixes timber and deals at 2; d.
a ton per mile.
6873. You multiply that by 12 2–Yes, that
is 2 s. 6 d.
6874. What is the 2 s. 10 d. 7—The 4 d. added
was for the use of cranes.
6875. No other terminal? — No other ter-
minal.
6876. No service terminal ; no, 1 s. 6 d. 2–
The companies would not allow the timber mer-
chants to load timber at any road side stations,
and they impose, as a sort of penalty, a charge
of 1 s. 6 d. per ton for loading timber.
6877. At all events, did they charge that ?—
They charged that.
6878. Then the actual rate charged must be
this rate, plus 1 s. 6 d?—That is the service ter-
minal, if you take it that way ; that is the addi-
tion to the rate.
6879, Plus 1 s. 6 d. P—Plus l s. 6 d.
6880. Would you then kindly add the 1s. 6d.
to the 2 s. 10 d. for me ; that appears to me to
make 4 s. 4 d. 2–Yes'
6881. Then the actual rate compared with the
rate of Class C., even with the terminal of 2 s.,
compares 3 s. 10 d Class C. against 4 s. 4d.
Mr. Pope—continued.
actual rate. I think it would be fair I should
add 3 d. for service terminal in Class C.
Mr. Hanbury.
6882. I do not understand it. Does not that
! s. 6d. include the charge for measuring it?—
Yes.
. Mr. Hanbury.] Will that charge for measur-
ing be an additional charge in future? I think
it will. It is not covered by service terminals.
Mr. Pope.] I think not; but I do not answer
the question positively without looking to see.
Mr. Mason.] I can tell that it does not.
Witness.] The companies are to provide a
competent measuring staff.
Mr. Hanbury. -
6862. Under the Clearing House Classifica-
tion ?-Under the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Hanbury.] That is included in the 1.s. 6d.
I want to know how that measurement can be
charged in future under the Provisional Order.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] There will be no power
to charge it.
Mr. Pope.] Section 5, which provides for
these services only, of course, makes them
chargeable when they are down for a trader at
his request; but unless it comes under Section 3,
“weighing merchandise,” I do not see how
measurement is provided for.
Earl of Camperdown..] But let me ask you a
general question. With regard to services
which are not comprised in any of the clauses of
this Provisional Order which relates to service
terminals, do you read it that the company are
to have no power of making a charge at all for
any of such services.
Mr. Pope..] I know of none. My construction
is, of course, that if measurement would come
within the definition “weighing merchandise;”
then if it is done at the request of the trader the
provision of that section would apply, and a
reasonable sum might be charged ; but unless it
does come within “weighing merchandise,” and
unless it is provided for in Section 5 of the Pro-
visional Order.
Earl of Camperdown.] Of course, if it comes
under any head which is specifically provided in
the schedule there is an end of it; but, if it
does not come within any of the services which
are specified in the schedule, is the result that
the companies have no power to charge at all?
Mr. Pope.] There is a provision at the end of
the exceptional clause for any accommodation,
“For any accommodation or services provided or
rendered by the company within the scope of
their undertaking by the desire of a trader, and
in respect of which no provision was made by
this schedule.”
Chairman.] What has Mr. Courtenay Boyle
to say upon this 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] With regard to that
point, your Grace, it gave us a great deal of
difficulty, but we were advised at an early stage
of the enquiry that it was necessary to put in
provisions for collection and delivery, because, if
(81.)
5 H 2 they
796
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
F Continued.
they were not put in, the company would not
have power to charge them ; the companies
would be limited, as regards their powers of
charge, to what was within the four corners of
the schedule.
Chairman.] As to measuring 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] As regards measure-
ment, it is doubtful whether that would come
under weighing, it is very doubtful indeed. I
should be very sorry to give a legal opinion.
Mr. Pope.] But whether weighing or measuring,
the Company would have to it, and if that had
to be done at its own cost, unless it were done
at the request of the trader.
Mr. Hambury.j Supposing that it was done at
the request of the trader, how would you charge
it then 7
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. I do not think there is
power to charge. I do not think we intended
* For any accommodation or services provided
or rendered by the company within the scope of
their undertaking by the desire of a trader, and
in respect of which no provisions are made by
this schedule” to cover that sort of thing.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is that clause you
were just 1eading 7
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is at the end of the
exceptional class.
Earl of Camperdown.] At what page 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] On page 14 of the
London and North Western schedule.
Chairman.] Did not you intend to provide for
measuring :
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, we did not.
Chairman. Had it escaped your attention ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I think it was a casus
omissus, it looks very like it.
Earl of Camperdown.] I dare say I am wrong,
but I cannot help thinking that earlier in this
enquiry it was stated by some one on one side or
the other, that in cases which are not provided
for by the Provisional Order, the same rights
will remain to the companies which they have
hitherto had, namely, that of charging what they
choose. *
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No.
Barl of Camperdown.] Yes, it was said by
somebody.
Chai, man (to Mr. Pope).] Will you turn to
page 14 of the Provisional Order of the London
and North Western Company, the exceptional
class, Part IV. 2
Mr. Pope.] Yes, that is what I was referring
t().
Chairman.] “ For any accommodation or ser-
vices provided or rendered by the company
within the scope of their mndertaking by the
desire of a trader, and, in respect of which no
provisions are made by this schedule.” Does
that include measurement 7
Earl of Camperdown.] I see I have a scratch
made under that very thing with reference to
what was said.
Mr. Pope.
6883. That would include measuring, I think,
if done at the request of the trader; but I
understand Mr. Courtenay Boyle to say that
that was not the intention of the Board of Trade;
that is the only doubt introduced into my mind;
it seems to me that the words are wide enough
to cover any service within the duty of the com-
pany, or within the powers of the company to
perform, which is done at the request of the
trader ; but, if for the purpose of making our
own charge for checking weight, or anything
else, we measure, that is done at our own cost. It
all turns upon the request of the trader, it seems
to me as to whether there is any power to charge
at all. (To the Witness.) The same observation
applies, does it not, exactly to the other table of
rates; all these which you speak of in the second
table that you put in of larger towns; that is
exactly the same thing, is it not ?–Oh. dear, no.
There is no charge made there for loading
at all.
6884. How do you mean that there is no
charge made there for loading at all ?—That is
an inclusive rate, and no charge is made. It is
headed there “Comparison of Actual Rates
charged on Timber and Deals, i.e., special class
Clearing House Classification, and Classes C.
and 1.” That rate really includes the loading
charge. As a matter of fact, the companies
make no charge for loading. There is no addi-
tional charge in any of those instances.
6885. You mean that those are special rates
which are charged by the company ?—Those are
the actual rates charged by the company, which
include loading.
6886. Then, in that particular case you are
putting forward this paper, in order to say that
special rates should be the basis of a class-rate 2
—I understood
6887. Is that the purpose of the paper ?—I
understood that the special——
6888. Will you kindly answer the question ?
Is that the purpose of the paper ?—I could not
quite follow the question.
6889. Then I would not attempt to answer
it until I understood it if I were you ?—I will
try to answer it if I can.
6890. I will put it again. Is the purpose
of this paper to base the suggestion that the
actual rates charged should be the basis of a
special class 2—The paper was put in by me to
show the difference between Class C. as proposed
in the Provisional Order and Class 1, as com-
pared with the actual rates charged by the
companies at the present time.
6891. Is not that exactly what I say: that the
actual rates, which are special rates, are to form
the basis of a maximum class rate 2–. It seems to
me that the only real way to form a basis is by
taking the present charges as compared with the
proposed charges.
6892. The basis of classification, not the basis
of rates we are talking of 2–The basis of
classification. *
6893. Then you would classify upon the basis
of a comparison of actual special rates for the
commodity, with the maximum class rate which
is to be agreed 2–I think so, more especially
when I turn to the Railway Clearing House
Classification, I find on the very first page that
the
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
797
*
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
[Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
the special class rate is a station-to-station rate ;
that timber is essentially a station-to-station
traffic, is sent as per Clause 2 of the Railway
Clearing House Classification in quantities of
not less than two tons, and that if sent as two
tons should be charged a special class rate. And
it goes further on so say that two tons minimum
weight applies to all goods, excluding goods of
mineral class classification.
6894. I have not the least idea what you have
been reading, and therefore I cannot ask about
it?—I have been reading from the first page of
the Clearing House Classification. -
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6895. With regard to this special charge of
1 s. 6 d. for loading, is there any fixed charge laid
down in these statutes ?—No charge whatever is
laid down in any statute that I know of which
gives the company power to charge for loading.
6896. And the companies, as I understand,
insert in their Clearing House Classification a
charge of 1 s. 6 d. 2–They do.
6897. That is not a charge that is laid down by
Statute or against which you can appeal 2–That
is not a charge laid down so far as I am aware
by any statute.
6898. Then with regard to their total charges,
pou say your actual rate is the maximum rate of
that it comes out in this evidence.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
the company ?—The actual rate is the maximum
rate of the company so far as the first table I put
in is concerned.
6899. And it is because they are charging now
in practice up to their maximum, that this
question is so important to you?—That is so, and
it is a most important question. When in the
first table you compare the powers they ask for it
gives them a total of 4:20 per ton per mile.
Mr. Hanbury. *
6900. I want to know this point. I do not know
Suppose a
trader takes his timber to the railway station and
says it is going to be sent by measurement, does
that amount to a request to the railway company
to measure it 2—I think not, but it appears to me
that the railway companies for their own sake
measure in case any dishonest trader might under-
declare his weight.
6901. But a good deal hangs on that, every-
thing hangs on it; the right of the company to
charge for measurement turns upon that ques-
tion ?—Quite so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is all the evidence I
propose to call, your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] Then I will call Mr. Harrison.
MR. FREDERICR HARRISON, having been re-called; is further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Pope.
6902. Do you understand this proposition
about timber?—Yes.
6903. It would reduce all timber to Class C. P. "
—That is as I understand it.
6904. Whether carried
measurement 2–Yes.
6905. As the Board of Trade's Classification
stands, timber by measurement goes into Class 1 °
—Into Class 1 by measurement.
6906. Will you now give us your reasons for
objecting on behalf of the railway companies to
its all being reduced, whether measurement or
weight into Class C. 2–We think that Class 1
for timber at measurement weight is a fair classi-
fication, looking at the practice of the companies’
to-day, and the Clearing House Classification.
6907. What is the practice of the companies
to-day ?–The practice is to charge all round
timber at first class rates, and several other de-
scriptions which are set out.
6908. Just wait for one moment. I own I
may be a little stupid, but when you speak of
round timber, do you mean that timber which
goes as a rule by measurement?—Yes, certainly.
6909. So I thought; and that, according to
your practice, and according to the classification ;
goes in the first class?—That goes in the first
class at measurement, and such things as posts
and rails, and other things.
6910. I observe that your present rates are
station to station ?—Station to station, and exclu-
sive of loading.
6911. The effect therefore of this amendment
would be, I have not been able quite to follow all
by weight or by
Mr. Pope—continued.
the evidence, but so far as I can understand it,
the effect of the amendment would be to reduce
all timber to a class below that which it is at
present carried and below which the Board of
Trade have placed it in their classification.
Earl of Camperdown.] It is not all timber; it is
all timber not now carried by actual weight.
Witness.] It would be a reduction of all timber
that is now carried at first-class rate ; that is all
measurement timber.
Mr. Pope.
6912. Quite so. I used the word “reduce.”
It would equalise all in one class; it would only
reduce timber carried by measurement 2—That
is so.
6913. What do you say as to the fairness of
putting timber carried by measurement in the
same class as timber carried by actual weight 2–
I do not think such a proposition is fair at all,
and I do not think any trader would come here
and say, looking at the difference really in what
has to be carried when it is taken by measurement
weight, and what has to be taken by actual
weight, that it would be right to put the two in
the same class.
6914. That is what they are asking 2—Well,
they will ask to be put in the lowest class of all,
no doubt. As the witness said, the London and
North Western powers are 23 d. to day, and he
says, “I propose, as a fair thing to do, to reduce
it to 1-80 d.”
(81.)
5 H 3 6915. What
798
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TEE JOINT COMMITTEE
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Pope—continued.
6915. What is you reason in detail for saying that
the two ought not to be carried in the same class 2
—Because, ascertaing the weight by measurement
is such a difficult matter that it can hardly be
done with accuracy, but the companies by
experience know that they carry a great deal
more than the actual weight whenever it is
carried at measurement weight.
6916. What is the difficulty of ascertaining 2
—There are so many different modes of arriving
at it by measurement; some by taking it by a
string, some by tape, others by calipers; they all
vary, and not any of them are accurate ; they do
not represent the actual weight.
Mr. Hambury.
6917. Then, as a matter of fact you say that
the trader really, for a given amount of timber,
pays less by the measurement system than he
does by the weighing system 2–I should say so,
decidedly, -
6918. Therefore, you say it is absurd to put
the two things into the same class?—Yes.
6919. It really means two different rates?
—It would mean two different rates. It has
been brought back to my mind that not only
is there a measuring by string and tape, but
there is a measuring by wet strings and dry
string, which is a very different thing ; and the
timber people very often like us to measure by
wet string which will stretch considerably, and
therefore diminish the weight.
Mr. Pope.
6920. Supposing them to be put into the same
class, would that remove all inducement to the
trader to have his timber carried by actual
weight?—I think so, decidedly. -
6921. In fact, if it were reduced to one class,
their timber would be at measurement weight,
notwithstanding that the actual weight is in
excess of measurement weight P – Yes.
6922. I should just like to ask you this : you
heard Mr. Harrison say that there was a differ-
ence between round timber, the British timber,
and the foreign timber. Would it be practicable
to deal with those two separately 2—I think
there is no difficulty at all in ascertaining the
actual weight ºf foreign timber, that is sawn
timber, which is either in long baulks or sawn,
although it is the practice in the trade that Mr.
Harrison is concerned in to carry even that not
at the measurement weight, but the computed
weight, because they find it gives them a benefit,
there is no doubt in the railway carriage.
Mr. Hanbury.
6923. But taking foreign timber as a rule out-
side Mr. Harrison's trade, is foreign timber
generally carried by measurement or by weight?
—I should say by the computed weight of 24
tons to a standard, or whatever it may be. The
difficulty in getting the correct weight is not so
much on the computation as it is in the measure-
ment of round timber.
Mr. Pope.
6924. You use the phrase “computation ”; do
you mean computed upon the scale which is in
the Clearing House Classification ?—Yes.
Mr. HARRISON.
ſ Continued.
Mr. Pope—continued.
6925. And not upon the actual measurement
on the spot?–Quite so; it is supposed to be a
fair compulation of the actual weight.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6926. You said you thought that Class 1 was
fair for timber when carried at measurement
weight 2–Yes.
6927. I think when we were before the Board
of Trade, you proposed Class 2. Before this
Committee I should have said, you came before
this Committee and asked for Class 22—I am
In Ot Sull'e.
6928. But you now say, after having made
that proposition, that Class 1 is fair 7–I mean
Class 1 is fair in relation to Class C. I would
Sooner have Class 2 than Class 1 for the actual
weight.
6929. Passing from that, you said that it would
be unfair to lower it into Class C. 2–Decidedly.
6930. Under your present statutory powers
you are entitled to charge 2 d. per ton per mile
when the timber goes at measurement weight?—
I think it is 2; d.
6931. Two pence half-penny under 50 miles
and 2 d. over ?–And certain descriptions of tim-
ber at measurement weight.
6932. The proposed rates in the schedule do
not involve a reduction of those statutory powers,
the proposed rates in respect to Class C.? They
would decidedly; Class C. would involve a reduc-
tion from 23 d. to 1-88 d. to commence with, and
reduce it still lower when you got beyond the
first 20 miles. If you will let me put if this way
I believe that our powers to-day are 2, d. for the
first, 30 miles and 2 d. after ; and your proposal
would involve a reduction between 1-80 d' and
170 d. for the first 50 miles, and between 1:45 d.
and 1 d, for distances beyond. That is to say, at
a distance beyond 50 miles our powers would be
just half of what they are to-day.
6933. Then you do not accept, I suppose, Mr.
Hopton's table, which would show you that there
is a margin over actual rates?—Certainly not.
I do not look upon the tables which Mr. Hopton
put in as representing actual rates at all. He
left out 70 or 80 per cent. of the charge in some
cases, and 1 s. 6 d. that was charged for loading.
Lord Belper.
6934. You mean that you do not look at it as
representing your powers?—I do not look upon
it as representing actual rates.
Lord Belper..] I understood that the witness
said that that was the actual rate charged him
for that place.
Mr. Pope.] No.
Mr. Whitehead..] Oh, yes.
Lord Belper.] He did say so.
Witness.], I have not had an opportunity of
examining the charges that were made to Mr.
Hopton on the traffic from Market Harborough
to Brixworth, and other stations, since he put the
table in ; but I should say that in addition to
these rates that were put down as actual rates, in
Yery many cases, if not all, there was a charge
for loading probably of 1 s. 6 d. a ton.
6935. But
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BII, LS.
799
9 June 1891.]
Mr. Hanbury.
6935. But that charge for loading includes
measurement also, as I understand 2–No, the
note in the Clearing House Classification, al-
though it says that a competent person shall be
employed to measure round timber, which must
be loaded by the companies’ own servants, really
means that they will measure for their own pur-
poses, and the person who does the measuring is
the person who does the loading.
Earl of Camperdown.] But if you just take
the table, Market Harborough to Brixworth,
and so on, you will find that the comparison is
between the actual charge and the proposed rate
containing conveyance rate and station terminal.
In that second case there is nothing said about
service terminal at all ; now loading and un-
loading would, of course, come under the head of
service, and is omitted in both cases.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so, my Lord.
Mr Pope.] The one is 3 d, and the other
1 s. 6 d.
Earl of Camperdown.] But I am not going
into that. I am merely making this statement
with regard to the answer which the witness
gave. The witness said that this comparison
struck him at once as an unfair comparison,
because he saw, at least he believed, on looking
at the figures, that the person who made up this
table omitted to put in the charge of 1 s. 6 d. for
loading and unloading ; and the answer to that
is, that that is a service terminal which is not
comprised in the comparison, which is Class C.
conveyance rate with the station terminal and
station terminal only. -
Mr. Whitehead.] That is the answer.
Mr. Hunter.
6936. (To the Witness.) I should like to ask
you one questiºn upon this point ; your point is,
as I understand, that a given ton of measure-
ment weight is more than a ton of actual weight;
that is your point 2–A ton of measurement
weight ascertained in the way it generally is
ascertained at the 40 or 50 feet to the ton, does
not represent the actual weight.
6937. You mean to say that it is less than the
actual weight?—I do not know how you put it.
Whether you put it less or more, it does not re-
present actual weight.
6938. It is very material with regard to the
question of classification ?—I put it in this way:
that the cubical contents of a ton of timber as-
certained by measurement are greater than the
cubical contents ascertained, or the weight ascer-
tained by actual weight.
6939. What I mean is this. Supposing that
you measure a quantity of timber and find that
it is a ton, would it be less than a ton weighed
on a machine, or more than a ton P-More than a
ton if weighed on a machine.
6940. That is what exactly I was asking.
What I want to know is this : can you say how
much more; can you specify the extent to which
the actual exceeds the measurement weight 2—I
should not like to do so. I was going to put it
this way: that it varies so very much that I
should not like to say.
6941. Would three tons, for example, of mea-
surement weight represent four tons of actual
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
\; r. Humber—continued.
weight; would that be the proportion ?—I think
the difference would be greater than that.
6942. Because, if that is so, that difference
would correspond with the difference between
the special class and Class 1 ?—There are many
cases, at all events, where the difference would
be more than that.
Mr. Whitehead.
6943. Do I understand you to challenge the
accuracy of those figures given on this table and
headed “Actual Rates” 7–No. I say I have not
had an opportunity of examining the figures
said to be actual rates since they were put in ;
but looking at them, it does strike me that
there would be an additional charge probably of
ls, 6 d, a ton for the loading,
6944, That is outside the present question
altogether,
Earl of Camperdown.] We understand how
that is, that is a service terminal not included in
the computation at all.
Mr. Whitehead.
6945. But subject to that the witness has
stated already that these are the actual rates,
and I do not understand that you challenge them *
—Subject to that of course.
6946. You said that there were different modes
of measuring, and you instanced measuring by
string, by tape, and by other ways, and you said
that that created a difficulty. Is it not the fact
that the Courts of Law have decided that
measurements by string is the proper mode of
measurement. I put it to you in the case of Low
v. The Great Western Railway Company ?—I
have heard that there was a case of Low v. The
Great Western Railway Company, but what the
merits of it were, or the decision was, I really
could not say.
6947. Will you turn for one moment to page
99 of the Railway House Classification. Under
the first column there to be charged at special
rates you will see No. 8, “Any of the following
sawn into deals or planks, or sawn or hewn, into
logs,” that is under the special class 2–Yes.
6948. And under those circumstanees timber
is carried at the class corresponding to Class C. P
—Those descriptions of timber and sawn into
deals or planks or logs.
6949. Even when carried at measurement
weight 2–No, I do not undeastand that.
6950. Is not that the meaning of the classifica-
tion ?—Yes, there is the provision for carrying
those at the measurement weight. -
6951. Therefore at the present time ali those
articles which are under the heading of 8 on page
99, are carried at Class C. rates when they go
at measurement weight ! That is so 2–Yes,
those descriptions of timber, but not round timber.
Re-examined by Mr. Pope.
6952. You did I think make some experiments,
did you not, as to the actual weight of measure-
ment weight 2–Yes.
6953. Do you recollect, just look whether you
can tell me what they were, because that will
deal with part of your answer to the honourable
Member for Aberdeen.
(81.)
5 H 4 Mr.
800
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
A.
9 June 1891.]
Mr. HARRISON.
[Continued.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] My learned friend did
not cross-examine as to this ; it is new matter.
Witness.] We made some experiments in 1887
with some elm, and the measurement by tape
over the bark gave 1 ton 13 cwt. and 2 qrs., and
under the bark which is another way, that we
are supposed to measure timber by the traders,
it gave 1 ton 8 cwt. and 3 grs. ; by string it gave
over the bark 1 ton 9 cwt. and 2 grs., and under the
bark 1 ton 5 cwts. and 1 qus.; whereas the actual
weight of the timber over the machine was
—2 tons 18 cwt. and 1 q1s., so that practi-
cally there is a difference of something over 100
per cent.
Mr. Pope.
6954 By the way you should tell me,
that is calculated at what number of feet. I
suppose it will be calculated at 50 feet to the ton
because it will be before the alteration to 40 feet?
—Yes, it was earlier, and therefore it was
calculated at 50 feet to the ton.
Mr. Whitehead.
6955. Does that table refer to round timber or
foreign timber?—Round.
6956. It is not a comparison as between foreign
timber and these different instances 2–No.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
6957. I did not catch your machine weight;
will you kindly give it me?—Two tons, 18 cwt.,
1 quarter.
6958. To compare that with the present
schedule, you would have to take off one-fith,
as one-fiftieth to one-fortieth?—As to elm that
is so. -
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle). Under
page 14 of the schedule as to the exceptional clause
you have already referred to, “For any accom-
modation or services provided or rendered by the
company within the scope of their undertaking,
by the desire of a trader, and in respect of which
no provisions are made by this schedule,” would
those words be supposed to include the request
of the trader to have it carried by measurement
weight.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] It is very doubtful.
Having consulted Lord Balfour of Burleigh, we
are inclined to think that it possibly would ; but
if the Committee are of opinion it ought to be
included, the better place to put it in will be in
Clause 5, Sub-clause 3: “weighing merchandise
or measuring timber.”
Chairman.] It has occurred to the Committee
that traders bringing timber to the railway and
desiring to have it carried by measurement
weight, the company might insist upon measur-
ing it themselves and charge for so doing.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is clearly not our
intention. A trader would send his timber, and
say, “I have measured this timber, and accord.
ing to my calculation it measures so much, and
therefore it weighs so much.” Unless the trader
said “I am not quite sure I am accurate; will
you weigh it for me?” and therefore brought
himself within the words “by the desire of the
trader,” the company would not be entitled to
charge.
Chairman.] But the trader would not be likely
to ask the company to do that; but would the
Company be expected in all cases to take the
Word of the trader 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No ; for their own
safeguard they would probably measure. Very
often they do actually weigh.
Chairman.] Would they be entitled to charge
for that ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, because it is not
done by the desire of the trade. The fact that
the timber is consigned at measurement does not
amount to a request upon the part of the trader
to measure. If the railway company for their
own convenience, and to prevent being over
charged, say “we prefer to measure,” that is done
for their own benefit, but is not done at the
desire of the trade 2
Chairman.] But would they not be entitled on
all occasions to measure themselves in order to
See they were carrying what they were supposed
to carry?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly ; but not to
charge the trader for it.
Chairman.] But if they are carrying at measure-
ment weight at the request of the trader on that
system P -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That does not amount
to a request from the trader to measure. The
trader says, “I consign at so much ; I have
measured it myself, and it is so much.” Under
their Acts they are obliged to carry on that sysem
In OW.
Earl of Camperdown.] Suppose that a trader
simply came and said, “Here is some timber that
is to be carried at measurement weight,” and said
nothing more, then the company would be obliged
to measure if they wanted to ascertain what charge
to make 2 -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think so.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] For the power to
charge 2
Earl of Camperdown.] You think that would
not give them any right to charge?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly not.
think it would.
Chairman.] Then do I understand you to hold
that the trader brings the timber and intends to
send it at measurement weight, and does not take
the trouble himself to do it and leaves it to the
company?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes; because that is the
only means the company have of ascertaining how
much the amount of their charge is to be.
Chairman.] Then they are doing what the
trader bought to have done before he took it
there:
Mr. Courienay Boyle.] No, because the trader
leaves it to them to make any charge they think
fit. If the trader measures the timber himself,
he says, “Your charge ought to be so much.”
Then the railway company doubt it, and say,
“No, so much.” But if the trader taking the
timber to the station does not make any estimate -
at all as to the amount of timber consigned, he ºf
ought not to be charged for weighing or measur-
ing done by the company. •
I do not
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
801
9 June 1891.
Mr. Hanbury. Still it will count as a service
terminal, and you propose that it should be put
into Clause 5.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No ; not the service
terminal. Section 5 is not the service terminal,
it is a special service. If the Committee decide
that measuring timber, when done at the request
of the trader, should be a special charge, the
best place for putting that in is in Clause 5,
Sub-section (iii).
Mr. Pope.] I shall have other witnesses, your
Grace. . -
Chairman.] Unless you want to call a great
number of witnesses.
Mr. Pope.] I am as anxious to come to an
end as your Grace can be.
Chairman.] Then we do not accept the
amendment.
Then to-morrow morning we
“Wooden boxes.”
Mr. Balfour Browne..] Does that decision
extend to foreign timber as well as English.
begin with
Chairman. It extends to the amendment
before us.
Earl of Camperdown.] And to the conse-
quential amendments later on.
Mr. Balfour Browne.] Of course it does.
Then it does extend to foreign timber. -
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, Half-past Eleven o’clock.
(81.)
5 I
( 802 )
( 803 )
Die Mercurii, 10 Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE. .
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER. *
Sir JOSEPH BAILEY.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER.
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Woodfall.] You R Grace, before the busi-
ness begins that was left off last night, would it
be possible for your Grace to give any indication
as to the order in which the remaining parts of
the Bills are to be taken. The position is this :
that on rates it will be necessary for several of
the traders, certainly for those whom I represent,
to have witnesses who will have to come up from
Wales; and it would give us some indication as
to the time at which they must attend, if we
could know in what order the Bills are going to
be taken ; that is to say, if the Committee now,
after finishing classification, are going to proceed
to the consideration of rates or the postponed
clauses, or the Preamble, or what.
Chairman.] Not the Preamble. There are
certain special cases that would come naturally
after classification and before rates ; milk, and
things of that kind.
Mr. Woodfall.] That is so, your Grace; and
perishables and smalls. -
Chairman.]. I suppose we shall take Parts IV.,
V., and VI. after classification, and then rates.
Mr. Woodfall.] I am much obliged to your
Grace for the information.
Chairman.] That, I think, is the order, but
that is subject to any alteration we may find it
necessary to make as we go on.
Mr. Woodfall.] Of course.
Mr. Whitehead..] Now, “wooden boxes” stands
next on the list. The next amendment on the
list is, on page 24, column 2, after line 15, to
insert “wooden boxes, empty, for packing tin
plates.” Substantially, the point with regard to
this amendment is that we wish to retain the
Clearing House Classification. At the present
time, in the Clearing House Classification, these
articles are in Class S., which corresponds to
Class C., and we desire them to be restored to
that class, subject to a slight verbal amendment,
which would make the nature of the article, as
we think, a little more clear.
Chairman.] And it is in the schedule in
Class 1.
(81.)
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Pope.] You want it to be in Class C.
Mr. Whitehead.] We want it to be in Class C.
I think I may say at once, with regard to most
of our amendments that stand in the paper, that
that is the principle upon which we go; we
desire to retain the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, and there have been negotiations with the
other side prior to the meeting in this room, with
a view to retaining the Clearing House Classifi-
cation, Up to the present time we have not
been met, and, therefore, we are obliged to
discuss the matter before the Committee.
Chairman. We will deal with wooden boxes,
and then we will get you to tell us what others
we may strike out.
Mr. Whitehead. Certainly, your Grace.
Mr. Pope.] I do not know, your Grace,
whether it might not be convenient if Mr.
Courtenay Boyle would kindly tell us what in-
fluenced the Board of Trade in arranging the
classification in this respect.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Perhaps
you will kindly give us that information.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We have had very
little evidence indeed about tin plate boxes.
The matter was brought before us by the late
Mr. Basil Jayne, and the entry did not exist in
the Schedule as deposited by the railway com-
panies. The article was put in and we under-
stood that there was an agreemeut between cer-
tain sections of the traders and the railway
companies, that tin plate boxes empty should go
into Class 1, which unquestionably is a higher
class than the Clearing House Classification. It
was argued before us that in the Clearing House
Classification, the railway companies had made
an undue concession to the traders, and that
really the difficulty of carrying tin plate boxes
empty was such, that as unmanufactured articles,
they should be put into Class 1 rather than into
Class C. We were told by Mr. Wilkinson, who
is in the room at the present moment, that the
lºg was something under two tons, and that
5 I 2 in
804
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
in 19 cases out of 20, the traffic was brought from
agricultural towns and loaded into trucks at the
back, and that most of the traffic had to be
sheeted; and consequently it was fair that the
article should be put in Class 1 rather than in
Class C. This is not a very important item in
the classification ; the balance of evidence was in
favour of the railway companies, but not very
much in favour of the railway companies; and on
the whole we gave them the benefit of the doubt
which existed in our mind.
Mr. Pope.] I think your Grace will find that
practically these wooden boxes are treated like
other light wooden articles when empty (hurdles,
for intance, which are rough wood, put together for
the same purpose), go in Class 1 ; and these, I pre-
sume, are articles somewhat of the same character
and manufacture as rough boxes packed together
and carried empty. *
Mr. Hanbury.] Why do they not come under
the head of ordinary empties?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] An empty is a returned
empty. These are new articles going for use.
Mr. Pope.] They are boxes carried for the
purpose of having tin plates carried in them
afterwards.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We should have thought
that this was a case in which an appeal might be
made to the railway companies.
Mr. Pope.] I intend to leave it entirely to the
Committee to say whether it is fair or otherwise.
Mr. Whitehead. If I examine my witness that
will put the facts clearly before the Committee.
&
MR. FREDERICK ROBINS LANE, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as
follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6959. You are a member of the firm of Messrs.
Robbins, Lane, and Pinniger, of Marlborough, and
Avonmouth Docks, Bristol 7–Yes.
6960. And you are engaged in this trade of
making tin-plate boxes 2–I am.
696). The question of the quantity of the load
was mentioned by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, who said
that the load was about two tons; is that your
experience?—No, it is not my experience.
6962. What is the load at the present time 2–
I may say that in nearly the whole of the cases
we carry at least four tons to the truck.
6963. With regard to the value of the article,
it is of very low value, I suppose 2–The value of
the article is worth about 4 /. a ton delivered
about 150 miles.
6964. And all the services in connection with
the traffic are performed by the trader ?—They
'El G.
Mr. Pope.
6965. Are they all of the same size, or can
they be packed inside one another ?—They are
all of the same size.
6966. So that one case cannot hold more than
itself?—It would be impossible.
Mr. PPhitehead.
6967. But they are very small boxes, I sup-
pose 2–Yes.
Chairman.
6968. What is the size of them 2–Fourteen
inches by 20 and 13 inches deep.
Mr. Whitehead.
6969. They are very flat boxes, so that in con-
sequence you can get a very large number of
them in a single truck, and a truck load averages
about four tons 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Pope.
6970. I think that is when they are carried in
cattle trucks that you can get four tons into a
truck; you cannot get an ordinary truck load of
four tons?—With an ordinary open truck we
Call.
6971. Well, you say so ; I cannot contradict
you, because I do not know ——
Chairman.
6972. An ordinary railway truck 2–An ordi-
nary railway truck. I have a proof here which
shows that in one month out of 12 loads that I
sent, 10 were over four tons in the truck.
Mr. Pope.
6973 The question is whether that is an ordi-
nary truck or whether, in your case, in order to
get a good load, they do not send a cattle truck
and pile the boxes up high 2—These are ordinary
trucks.
Chairman.
6974. Not cattle trucks?— No.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
6975. That is the average load in your expe-
rience 2–Yes; four tons.
6976. That is the average load, and not an
exceptional load?—No ; we get up to 4 tons
10 cwt., and ever, higher than that.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We were told two tons.
Witness.] There was no representative of the
trade before the Board of Trade.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Pope).] But if
you support the removal of these from Class S.,
that is to say, from the corresponding Class C.,
what is your reason 2
Mr. Pope.] There are two reasons. One is
that they are, of course, of the nature of light
articles, which, notwithstanding the evidence, we
do not find in experience can be loaded to that
extent ; they are empty boxes all of a size, and
cannot be packed one inside the other. And the
other reason is, that the Board of Trade have
been good enough to give it to us. But, I de'
clare, it is of so small importance that I should
spend more money than it is worth in discuss-
ing it.
Chairman.] Then, I think, we will reduce it
to Class C.
Mr. Whitehead..] May I draw your Grace's
attention to a verbal alteration in the amendment
with regard to the definition ? You accept the
amendment as put down on the paper ?
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES, PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
805
10 June 1891.
Chairman.] “Wooden boxes, for
packing tin plates.”
empty,
Earl of Camperdown.] Hitherto the classi-
fication has been, of course, interpreted by the
managers of the railway companies; but when
you get to a Court the thing will be different.
How will the word “empty" be interpreted 2
It may be held to be a returned empty. -
Mr. Pope.] Oh, no.
Chairman.] But if you put “wooden boxes
for packing tin plates,” they clearly must be
empty, or you could not get the tin plates
in P -
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] Then we will insert “wooden
boxes for packing tin plates’?
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] I thought we might now strike
out all those amendments that are not pressed
on Class 1. - -
Mr. Whitehead..] Your Grace, the second
amendment to Class 1 is on page 25, column 1,
line 42, to insert “castings (iron or steel) light,
in boxes, crates, cases, casks or hampers.” We
propose to proceed with that amendment.
Chairman.] Where is that ?
Mr. Whitehead..] Or, page 11. The first one
goes, that is by Sir Alfred Hickman; that is
struck out. The second one by the Mansion
House Association we proceed with. “Caustic
potasb" may be struck out.
Mr. Beale.] I think everything else is struck
out 2
Mr. Whitehead.] Everything else down to
“fruit pulp in casks.”
Chairman.] Including that ?
Mr. Whitehead..] No, excluding that ; we in-
tend to press that. Then the remainder are
struck out on the rest of that page. On page 12,
your Grace, the only one that stands is a con-
sequential amendment with regard to tin plate,
boxes, empty, which, of course, has been already
dealt with.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is everything else out 2
Mr. Whitehead.] Everything else on that page
is out.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are you speaking for
yourself, or for everyone P
Mr. Whitehead..] My Lord, if you look you
will see that, down to that point, they have been
entirely Mansion House amendments, except
those which have already been struck out.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are you for the chemi-
cal manure manufacturers ?
Mr. Whitehead..] They are no longer before
the Committee.
Chairman.] Then the whole of page 12 goes
Out.
Mr. Whitehead..] The whole of page 12 goes
Out.
Mr. Pope.] Then that leaves only two to be
discussed in Class 1 ; the first is “castings.”
Chairma”.] I want to get out as many as I
can. Now Class 2.
Mr. Pope.] We have received notice; it may
be that I can assist you somewhat in this, and
according to the notice we have received with
regard to Class 2, the first five items go Out,
down to “boards, parquet flooring,” inclusive.
Then the next four, for the Mansion House,
apparently stand.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Mr. Pope.]. “China grass” goes out, “ coal
2 e
scuttles” stands; and the remainder of the page
goes out.
Chairman.] Then page 14.
Mr. Pope.] On page 14 everything goes out,
down to “buckles for saddlery,” inclusive.
Mr. Whitehead..] “Fruit pulp in casks "
stands; that is a consequential amendment.
Mr. Pope.] Wehad better leave it in, but it will
be decided by the discussion on the previous
amendment. Then comes page 32, column 2,
line 4. After “castings, brass,” insert “German
silver or nickel’’; that stands, and then the
whole of the rest of the page goes out.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] You are con-
curring in this 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, your Grace, I am fol-
lowing it.
Mr. Pope.] The first four amendments on
page 15 go out, leaving “hides, green or market,
in three-ton lots,” and the next three go out.
Mr. Whitehead..] One moment there, your Grace.
“Hollow are * is struck out. Then will come in
an amendment which is postponed from Class C.,
by your Grace's decision; that is with regard to
manganese, which was to be brought forward in
Class 2, so that it would properly come at that
point.
Mr. Pope.] I see.
Chairman.] Then that remains.
Mr. Pope.] Yes.
ganese * in the print.
Mr. Whitehead.] It is postponed from Class C.:
“Manganese, bronze, and brass castings and
ingots.”
Chairman.] Then
follows 2
Mr. Pope.] “Palmetto leaf” goes out.
We have not got “man-
after “holloware * what
Mr. Whitehead..] The next three stand: “plated
goods, appertaining to harness or saddlery”;
“ saddlery or harness (in waterproof case or
casks)” and “ saddler's ironmongery (as defined
in Class 3) if packed in cases or casks.” Straw
has been already dealt with. Tanks and “ cis-
terms ” stands ; and the remainder goes out.
Page 16 is entirely struck out. On page 17, the
first one is already dealt with, in the hardware
list.
Chairman.] That goes out.
Mr. Whitehead.] That goes out. The second
one stands; page 40, Clause 2, line 45, omit “in
tin-lined cases or casks,” and insert “e.o.h.p,”
and the next five go out.
Mr. Pope.] “Hops” is postponed.
Earl of Comperdown.] It is a particular amend-
ment with regard to the southern companies.
(81.)
5 I 3 Mr.
S06
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN - BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so, of course, and
“ palmetto leaf” also is crossed out.
Chairman.] Then they all go out down to
“palmetto leaf.”
Mr. Whitehead..] They all go out down to
“palmetto leaf,” including “palmetto leaf.” Then
the next one stands : Page 42, column 1, after
line 42, insert: “Saddlers' ironmongery (e.o.h.p.)
Packages (not being wholly hardware), con-
taining any articles usually sold by saddlers’
ironmongers, set out in any class herein before
mentioned, or in this class, and any of the
following articles, viz.: Belts for men and
horses; chain burnishers; cleaning preparations
for stable use ; cocoa matting ; corn measures,
sieves, and servers; dung baskets; embrocation
for horses; halters, hemp and jute ; nosebags,
leather and matting ; purses and pocket-books;
singeing lamps; sporting articles, such as shot,
flasks, gan,e bags, dog starters, and gun cases;
web, woollen, cotton, or jute ; whips, thongs and
lashes; whip sockets ; wood clamps for saddlers;
braces for wearing apparel (not silk); brooms
and brushes; footballs; harness; horseclothing ;
leggings; saddlery; sponges, for horses (not
est“s & tº
exceeding 3 lb. in any one consignment.
Chairman.] Now page 18.
Mr. Whitehead..] On page 18, the first amend-
ment is a consequential one which will be dealt
with shortly, when we reach that point. Then
the next amendment stands: Page 42, column 2,
after line 35, add “Small arm cartridges, safety,
i.e., cartridges not intended to be consumed in
the chamber of the gun on firing, and not con-
taining their own means of ignition ; also
cartridges not intended to be consumed in the
chamber of the gun on firing, but containing
their own means of ignition. Packed in wooden
boxes, three-quarters of an inch in thickness
throughout ’’; and the remainder is struck out.
Chairman.] Then with regard to page 19.
Mr. PPhitehead..] All that is struck out down
to page 45, column l ; after line 11,insert “firs.”
Mr. Pope..] “Alizarine” goes, does it?
Mr. Beale.] It is consequential only ; and
“ coal scuttles, e.o.p.h.” will go out.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is a consequential one :
so that it is practically struck out.
Chairman.] Do you strike out to the end of
the class 2
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace, after “firs,”
the next amendment stands : Page 45, column 1,
line 15, after “in '' insert “show,” and after “ or,”
insert “show.” Excluding that, the rest of the
page is struck out; and all the next page is
struck out.
Chairman | Page 20 °
Mr. Whitehead..] That goes out entirely.
Mr. Pope.] Except that two or three of them
are consequential.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Chairman.] They will follow upon what pre-
cedes.
Mr. Pope.] That is so.
Chairman.] Then that is the lot.
first thing is “castings.”
Now the
Mr. Whitehead..] Page 45, column 1, line 42,
insert “castings (iron or steel) light, in boxes,
crates, cases, casks, or hampers.”
Mr. Pope.] I do not think I need trouble my
learned friend about that.
Čhairman.] On what page is that ?
... Mr. Pope. On page J 1 of the amendments.
We are willing to concede my learned friends
amendment upon that point.
Chairman.] Very well. Then that amend-
ment is agreed to “castings (iron or steel), light,
in boxes, crates, cases, casks, or hampers.”
Earl of Camperdown.] It is a return to the old
classification. -
Mr. Whitehead. | That is so, my Lord.
Chairman.] That is done.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is done.
Chairman.] Page 26, column 1, after line 35,
insert “fruit pulp in casks.”
Mr. Whitehead.] With regard to “fruit pulp *
the point is this: that it is not an article that
requires particular care ; it is practically a raw
material which can he consigned in large quanti-
ties, and in casks and tubs, without any particular
care being taken of it; and it in no sense repre-
sents fruit which has of course to be consigned
with more care than ordinary hard products.
Upon that point, it is merely a question of fact,
I can call evidence at once.
Earl of Camperdown." Is this now in Class
C, 2
Mr. Pope.] It is a new article altogether ; it
has never appeared in Class 2. The traders
asked that it should be classiffed ; we asked
Class 3; the Board of Trade made it Class 2 ;
and the traders want it Class 1.
Mr. Iſhitehead..] I understand my Lord Cam-
perdown to ask whether it was in the Clearing
House Classification.
Mr. Pope.] No, it is not in the Clearing House
Classification, it is a new article altogether.
Earl of Camperdown.] How is it carried now,
in what category P
Mr. Whitehead..] I should like to take that
from a witness.
Mr. Pope.] We do not know anything about
it, we do not know that we ever carried it all.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
807
10 June 1891.
MR. WALTER WHEELER BERRY, is recalled; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
6977. I believe you have already given evi-
dence before this Committee 2–Yes.
6978. What is the nature of fruit pulp ?–Fruit
pulp is the commoner variety of fruit put down
hastily in the season and kept over in casks for
future manufacture into jam. It is a process of
scalding the fruit up to a certain temperature,
filling up the casks, bringing the cask down when
the cask is full of steam up to the bung hole; it
is not quite full of fruit, but so that the steam
condenses after the bringing down of the cask ;
that keeps it air-tight, and it will keep for any
time. It is scalded with water, and a
considerable proportion of water is necessarily left
with the fruit. The wateris purposely added, which
much reduces the value of the fruit-pulp, be-
cause, when it is re-boiled, that water should
evaporate, and not the natural juices of the fruit
be wasted. That reduces the value of the fruit-
pulp from 8 l. in the lowest value to 20 l in the
highest value in the ordinary way.
6979. And, comparing fruit-pulp with fruit
itself, ‘ I suppose it is of very low value 2–I
cannot say that. Fruit-pulp is of more value as
a rule than fruit, because we can sell it in a
season when fresh fruit does not exist, having
put it down in that way. Owing to the way in
which it is packed in strong iron-bound casks
exactly like casks of ale and porter, and being of
no more value than the generality of articles in
the lower class, we thought it should go with ale
and porter. My association, after the very long
exhaustive inquiry at the Board of Trade, with-
drew all other points but this one. We felt that
the Board of Trade have not known sufficient of
it, and the railway companies declared that they
knew nothing of it. As a matter of fact, it has
not been classified before ; fruit-pulp has had to
be carried under other heads. I myself have
consigned a large quantity from Kent to Ire-
land, and it has been accepted, not as fruit-pulp,
but as lemon juice, which it was not. That has
led, through the neglect of putting these things
into the classification, to serious trouble ; inas-
much, as I had a cask of black currant pulp
explode, doing very serious damage to a valuable
cargo in the steamer ; and I had made a false
declaration, it was not so really ; railway com-
panies had put it under lemon juice, because
they had not fruit pulp in the classification.
Mr. Hambury.
6980. Lemon juice in casks or cases is in
Class 2 P-Yes, that is in bottles when it is in
cask or cases.
6981. Bottles, when it is in hampers, which
takes it in Class 32—I only speak of my own
knowledge. That would be in casks or
Ca,SeS.
Earl of Camperdown.
6982. Do you know what rates the railway
companies charge you when they carry this fruit
pulp as lemon juice do they carry it at Class 3
or Class 2 rates ?—I think it was Class 2, but I
am not ſuite sure.
Lord Belper.] Lemon juice in casks is in
Class 2 in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion.
Mr. Whitehead.
6981. But this particular article is not classi-
fied eo nomine. (To the Witness.) Comparing
it with articles already placed in Class 1 by the
Board of Trade, such articles as “molasses" and
“syrup, in casks,” would the same kind of rail-
way transit and accommodation be required 2–
Exactly. It is not so valuable as syrup. The
syrup is the juice of the fruit with sugar; this is
nothing but fruit, the skin and stones of plums,
for instance, remain in ; but it is hardly of the
‘value of pure syrup.
6984. I suppose, owing to packing in these
strong casks it does not require any special care,
and is practically undamageable in transit 2–
Practically.
Chairmau.
6985. Then what was the cause of this ex-
plosion you spoke of 2–It was said to be an
explosion, but we proved that the cask was
slipped from the crane and and it fell into the
hold of the vessel.
Lord Belper.
6986. And it burst 2–Yes; it was an acci-
dent.
- Chairman.
6987. Why did the railway companies carry it
as lemon juice, when it was not lemon juice 2–
Because they did not know what else to call it,
and it more nearly approached lemon juice or
syrup than anything else ; so, not having it in
their classification, they called it the nearest like
article to it.
Mr. Hambury.
6988. What is the relative value of this pulp
and lemon juice; which is the cheaper article?
—The fruit pulp is very much the cheaper.
6989. What is the relative value 2–I cannot
give just now the actual value of lemon juice;
but the syrup, which is the same thing of the
fruit as lemon juice is of the lemon, is three
times the value.
Earl of Camperdown.
6990. And in casks, syrup is carried in Class 12
—Yes; and we thought that pulp, being of less
value, should go into Class 1.
Mr. Whitehead.
6991. Lemon and orange peel would bear the
same relation to lemon juice that fruit pulp bears
to syrup, would it not ?–From a classification
point of view, I should say so.
6992. Are you sure that your fruit pulp was
not carried in Class 1 as leinon or orange peel in
cases?—Yes.
6993. But that is in the Clearing House
Classification in Class 1 2–Yes; and we thought
that when cider and perry in bottles, cases, and
casks, were in Class 1, Surely the whole fruit,
(81.)
5 I 4 apple
808
THE JOINT COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE
10 June 1890.]
Mr. BERRY.
| Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
apple and plum mixed for instance, and plum and
gooseberry, which are only from 8 l. to 20 l. a
ton in value, should go in the same class.
Mr. Boyle.] May I mention, your Grace, that
this affects the southern companies, particularly
the South Eastern, and we understood that this
question of fruit was going to stand over
generally. We are not at present prepared to
put a Witness in the box on this case; because
we understood that the question of fruit was
going to stand over.
Earl of Camperdown.
6994. Is there any trade to speak of in fruit
pulp on other companies besides the southern
companies?—Yes; I buy it from the north.
6995. You say that you send quantities to
Ireland 2–Yes; and again I have bought 40
tons at a time out of Cambridgeshire. When
Cambridge has a crop of plums and Kent has
not, we get pulp from Cambridgeshire, and when
the crops are the other way about the traffic is
heavy. I admit that it is a somewhat new
article; some 12 or 13 new factories have been
put up in Kent during the last four or five years;
it has always been an article in fruit and is
becoming a very important article in trade.
Chairman (to Mr. Boyle).] Do you cross-
examine P
Mr. Boyle.] I only want to ask that the
question of this fruit pulp as regards the South
Eastern Railway Company should be left over
with the rest of fruit.
Chairman.] No ; this applies to the whole
country ; to all the railways, not to the southern
railways entirely.
Mr. Boyle.] I am instructed that the greater
part belongs to the southern companies.
Chairman.] That may be ; but some part be-
longs to others.
Mr. Boyle.] Then with regard to the southern
railway companies, my application is that this
question may be left over.
Chairman.] No ; we cannot treat the two
parts of the country differently in this question.
You have heard the witness say that a great deal
of it comes from Cambridgeshire.
Mr. Boyle..] We shall be dealing with this
difficulty, your grace. We shall be dealing with
part of fruit now and part afterwards.
Chai, man.] That is a difficulty that will affect
us as well as you?
ilord Belper.] It was only the fresh fruit that
was left over, not preserved fruit.
Chairman (to Mr. Boyle.)] I think you had
better go on with this witness.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
6996. What is this fruit pulp used for ?—It is
used for future manufacture into jam.
6997. Are you aware that strawberries and
raspberries for preserving are now carried in
casks 2–In tubs.
6998. Tubs, yes, or casks, carried now in Class
3?–It is not quite the same thing. Raspberries
and strawberries are in casks without a head,
Mr. Whitehead-–continued.
just flat casks with a few inches deep of fruit, I
am speaking of casks just like apple and pear
casks, filled to the bung.
6999. But you know there is a difference in
class between raspberries and strawberries for
preserving, and your fruit pulp ?–Yes, that is
so ; but, as a matter of fact, raspberries and
strawberries are never made into pulp.
7000. I daresay they may not be ; but rasp-
berries and strawberries are carried for preserv-
ing, and your fruit pulp is used, you say, for
preserving?—Yes.
7001. Your fruit pulp as it stands in the Pro-
visional Order, is a class below raspberries and
strawberries used for preserving 2–No, it is in
the same class. We say that it should go a class
lower, inasmuch as it is about one-third or nearly
one-third, water, 30 per cent. water ; and rasp-
berries and strawberries being the highest value
of fruits used for jam, are never made into
pulp.
7002. Never ?–Very seldom. If they are
made into pulp it is because, through a train being
delayed, the strawberries have lost their colour,
and then they might be made into pulp so as to be
done something with. But raspberries and straw-
berries are almost valueless for making jam if
they have once been made into pulp, because
they cannot be boiled a second time and retain
their colour. -
7003. As it stands in the Clearing House
Classification, if your fruit pulp is consigned as
preserved fruit it would be carried in Class 22–
But preserved fruit is worth 100 l. a ton; our
article is only worth from 8 1. to 20 l. a ton.
7004, You say that this fruit pulp is never
consigned as preserved fruit P –I have never
known it to be; we never wish to consign it as
such.
Chairmam.
7005. When you say that strawberries and
raspberries are carried without a head, what do
you mean?—I mean that when strawberries and
raspberries are carried as fresh fruit to jam
factories, they are carried in what are called
tubs; they are upright tubs without a head; and
they stand one on the other, so that there are
a few inches of raspberries or strawberries in
each tub; and they are kept upright and loaded
one on the other. Class 2 may be a fair place
for that we thought Class 1 would be a fair
place for it, but we are not contending for that,
if we are not satisfied we rest content. But as
regards our fruit pulp, inasmuch as we fill the
casks up and they are treated the same as ale
and porter casks when full, we thought we had a
good case to go into Class 1, and that is the only
case I am sent to represent.
Mr. Hambury.
7006. What fruits are sent in pulp ?—Chiefly
black and red currants, gooseberries, apples,
plums, and damsons.
7007. There is a good deal of damsons sent for
dyeing purposes, perhaps you do not know that ?
—That is sent chiefly from Worcestershire, it is
sent as the extract, I think, the juice would be
sent ; and the fresh fruit would be used for other
purposes.
7008. I am
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
809
10 June 1891.]
Mr. BERRY.
6)
[Continued.
Mr. Moon.
7008. I am told you said that the fruit pulp
was more valuable than the strawberries and
raspberries carried for preserving 2—No ; more
valuable than the raw fruit, it is more valuable
than the raw fruit of the same nature because
we pulp it to enable us to be able to market it at
a future time of the year when the green fruit
does not exist.
7009. I understood you to say that it was more
valuable than the strawberries and raspberries
carried for preserving 2–I did not say that.
7010, More valuable than raw fruit of the
same kind, you mean 2–Yes; the fruit pulp is
worth more per ton than the fruit out of which
the pulp is made ; that I admitted.
7011. I suppose, for instance, that damsons are
not worth as much as strawberries and rasp-
berries 2–As a rule very much less.
7012. Are none of the fruits that pulp is
made of as valuable as raspberries and straw-
berries?—Excepting in seasons when the crop is
a partial failure. In the ordinary way they are
not of so much value as raspberries and straw-
berries. Raspberries and strawberries, as a rule,
would be from 16 l. to 20 l. per ton for whole-
sale purposes. The fruit pulp that I speak of
goes as low as 8 l. a ton.
Chairman.
7013. Up to 20 l. you said 2–Up to 20 l.
Mr. Moon.
7014. Has a large trade sprung up under the
present system and the present charges 2---I can-
not say that. Three years ago was the first year
when any quantity of pulp was made; the last
two seasons have unfortunately been short fruit
seasons, and we have not had a fair opportunity
of showing the railway companies what we can
do.
7015. But before the short fruit seasons, the
trade was an improving trade ; an increasing
trade under the present system and present
charges 2–We have only had one heavy year's
trial ; but we are all of one mind as manu-
facturers of fruit pulp, that the class in the
classification is not a fair one as compared with
other articles.
7016. But may I not infer from what you said
that that year was a prosperous year, because you
wished to extend your trade 2—It was a pros-
perous year; but we declare that we were
charged more than we thought we ought to be
for the carriage of fruit.
7017. Still you were able to make good profits?
—We did not make a loss, I think.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7018. Whilst the value of fruit pulp differs
from the value of the new fruit that corresponds
to fruit pulp of the same kind, for all other
purposes of transit it is a much better article
from a railway point of view and less liable to
damage 2–Yes; the railway companies cannot
damage it unless they have an accident and
smash the truck. If it is a week on the journey
instead of a day, it is only the delay, it cannot
go bad ; it will keep for a year, while fresh fruit,
of course, has to be delivered on the same day,
Chairman.] What class does syrup in casks go
in now !—In Class 1.
Chairman.] Then we will put fruit pulp into
Class 1.
Witness.] I thank your Grace.
The witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Moon.] There is a Witness for the southern
companies who was very anxious to be heard
before the Committee came to a decision.
Chairman.] Did he want to keep it in
Class 2 P
Mr. Moon..] Yes.
Mr. Whitehead..] I thought the Committee
came to a decision on the point, your Grace.
Chairman.] Why do the southern companies
want to keep it up 2
Mr. Moon.] The northern companies want to
to keep it up, too.
Chairman.] Then we must hear you.
Mr. Boyle.] After your decision it will not be
much use, perhaps.
Chairman.] On the contrary, we are quite
open to conviction.
Mr. Boyle..] Perhaps you will allow it to be
reconsidered when the question of fruit comes up
as regards the southern companies alone *
Chairman.] No ; both the northern companies
and yourselves are agreed upon this point. I
was a little hasty, perhaps, in giving our decision,
but it did not seem to me to be an important
matter. However, we will hear what you have
to say, and if you can convince us we will recon-
sider our decision, and give it in your favour if
W63 C2,0.
Mr. Boyle..] It is an important matter, your
Grace, as regards the southern companies.
MR. JABEZ LIGHT, is re-called ; and further Examined, as follows:
Mr. Boyle.
7020. What effect would this alteration have
upon your receipts 2—It would have the effect
of reducing our present charges for the carriage
of this fruit pulp, and as the fruit pulp is of larger
value according to Mr. Berry's evidence than the
actual fruit itself, it would be the means also of
reducing every class of fruit that we have.
Chairman.
7021. Why so. I do not see that ?–At the
present time we are charging for apples and
pears in the second class. Mr. Berry's sugges-
tion is that jam should be reduced to the first
class.
7022. Not jam 7–Well, I believe that is what
it is called technically ; jam, not pulp.
(81.)
5 K 7023. No
810
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE

10 June 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
7023. No. I think jam is a very good thing,
but I do not think I should like to eat pulp from
the barrel ?—I think that in the immediate
neighbourhood they talk of pulp as jam, in the
same way as brewers talk of water as liquor ;
but be that as it may, I refer to the pulp. Mr.
Berry's statement is that the pulp is worth more
than the fruit itself, and I believe that is the
case ; therefore the suggestion to bring down the
pulp to Class 1 must necessarily, logically, bring
down the apples and pears.
7024. But we must give up logic and speak of
pulp alone 7–Then I suggest that as pulp is
more valuable than the fruit itself, and as we are
charging at the present time apples and pears in
the second class and raspberries at a higher
class——
Earl of Camperdown.
7025. When you say apples and pears, do you
mean apples and pears in a state of pulp ?—
No.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Boyle.)] The
question is pulp ; it is not what he carries apples
and pears at, but the question is what he carries
these fruits at when carried in the garb of pulp.
Mr. Boyle..] What the witness means is, I
think, that the raw material is carried in Class 2,
and this pulp, which is of greater value, is now
suggested to be carried in Class 1.
Mr. Hanbury.
7026. (To the Witness). Is it not the fact,
therefore, that your company carries it in a class
higher than the Clearing House Classification ?
—We do not follow the Clearing House Classi-
fication. The Clearing House Classification
charges apples, gooseberries, and pears in the
first class, subject, in the case of gooseberries, to
a minimum of 20 cwt. In our case, we have no
such minimum, but we charge the apples, goose-
berries, and pears as second class.
Chairman.
7027. Then, in that respect, you differ from
the Clearing House Classification ?–Yes.
7028. And you put it a class higher than it is
in the Clearing House Classification ?—We put
it in the same class as the Clearing House
Classification as regards gooseberries under
20 CW t.
Earl of Camperdown.
7029. And, if those apples and pears were
travelling as pulp, what should you charge then?
—At the present time we should charge the
second class; they are not classified either in the
Clearing House Classification or in the South
Eastern Classification.
Mr. Boyle.
7030. If this alteration is made, it will result
in a loss upon your present receipts 2-—It
will.
7031. Under your present charges, has a large
trade in this pulp grown up, a considerable
trade 7–There is no doubt that the business
itself is a very large and increasing one. There
is to be a new factory now built immediately
alongside our Maidstone station, which will no
Mr. Boyle—continued,
doubt take a very large quantity of fruit
there.
7032. Mushroom pulp, I think, is in Class 22
—Yes.
7033. The same as the Board of Trade pro-
pose for the fruit pulp ?–Yes.
7034. I think it is the same in the Clearing
House Classification also 2–That is the Clearing
House Classification also ; of course it is an
article of less value than fruit pulp.
7035. I need not ask you this, fruit, of course,
you carry in very large quantities on the southern
lines 7–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7036. You said that this change would involve
a loss in your present receipts; how do you
make out that loss?—The loss would arise now
in having to charge in the first class instead of,
as at present, in the second class.
7037. Have you made any calculations; can
you state what your present receipts from this
traffic are 2–No, not for this particular traffic.
7038. Then how do you arrive at your com-
parison 2–Knowing that I am charging in the
second class now and that I should have to charge
in the first class, it would necessarily involve a
decrease.
7039. Is that so necessarily 2–Yes.
7040. Surely that depends upon the rates, that
is a question of rates ?—I am quite aware of
that.
7041. It is not a question of classification at
all?—I am quite aware of that; but the figures
proposed by the Board of Trade for the first
class would not give us our present receipts.
7042. Have you had any claim for damage in
regard to this article?—I do not remember any.
I was not aware that it was so dangerous to
carry as Mr. Berry explained, subject to explo-
S1Oll,
7043. He did not put it in that way ; he never
said it was liable to explosion. You cannot say
that you have had any claim for damage 2–I
cannot say that we have had any claims for
damage; I cannot bear in mind. -
7044. You are the goods manager of the com-
pany ?—I am.
7045. Does not this article in respect of car-
riage represent syrup 2–I do not know; syrup I
think would be the closer and I should think the
heavier of the two.
7046. But in respect of value it is about the
same, is it not ?—I do not know. I do not know
the value of syrup; I believe it varies con-
siderably.
7047. What class do you carry syrup in 2–In
the second class in casks.
7048. But in the Clearing House Classi-
fication it is in Class 12–ſ cannot tell you. We
charge on our local system second class in casks,
that is the same class that the Board of Trade
have put this fruit, pulp into.
Earl of Camperdown.
7049. You instanced mushroom pulp. I see
that mushrooms are carried two classes higher
than mushroom pulp ?—Mushroom pulp is the
term in the second class.
7050. And
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
8, 11
10 June 1891.]
Mr. LIGHT.
[Continued.
Earl of Camperdown—continued.
7050. And mushrooms in Class 42–Yes, tha'
would be, I suppose, fresh mushrooms.
Re-examined by Mr. Boyle.
7051. Mushrooms are of course perishable 2–
Mushrooms themselves are of course.
7052. You were under the impression that
this matter was going to be deferred, and that is
why you have not got out a calculation ?—I was
under the impression that the whole matter had
been deferred until the South Eastern Bill was
taken, and the result is that I have no papers
here. -
7053. That is the reason why you have not
made a calculation of what the actual loss would
be 2–I should have had very much more infor-
mation before me if I had known that this matter
was coming on.
Lord Belper.
7054. All fresh things, fruit and mushrooms,
are much more damageable and perishable than
things which are, to a certain extent, preserved P
—They are more damageable and perishable,
certainly. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr. Boyle).] Have you any
other witnesses to call P
Mr. Boyle.] No, your Grace. But I venture
to submit that this proposal would mean an
actual loss in our revenue, which is the chief
point of our objection.
Mr. Hunter.] That would depend upon rates,
I think your objection is really a question of
rates for the South Eastern Company.
Mr. Boyle..] I think not, Sir.
of the traders is acceded to it will mean a loss
from our present actual return for these goods,
and we, the southern companies, the South
Eastern Railway Company in particular, carry
a very considerable quantity of course of fruit,
more in proportion to our length of line than any
line in the kingdom, and very considerably
IY) OI’é.
Chairman.] Raw fruit do you mean 2
Mr. Boyle.] All sorts of fruit.
Chairman.] I think we must adhere to our
decision.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Will your Grace
scratch it out of Class 2 as a consequential
amendment?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Whitehead.]. It comes on page 14, your
Grace, in the second line.
Chairman.| Yes.
amendment
Now then, what is the next
Mr. Whitehead..] The next one is on page 13
of the amendments ; on page 30, column 1, after
line 10, to add “bowls, iron.” I do not know
whether my learned friend will be able to meet
me on this point.
Mr. Moon.] I think, perhaps, your Grace, I
may. The railway companies are prepared
to accept , the amendment in principle,
though not in form. If my learned friend
If the request
will consent to add after the words “bowls'
iron,” which is the amendment he pro-
poses after line 10, the words “nested or
packed,” we shall be prepared to allow those
articles, that is to say, “Bowls, iron, nested or
packed,” to remain in Class 2, to be put into
Class 2, that is to say, to remain as proposed by
him in Class 2.
Chairman.] On what page is that ?
Mr. Moon.] On page 30 of the Provisional
Order, at line 9, your Grace will see, “Bowls,
water, except iron or earthenware,” and what we
propose to substitute for that is, “Bowls, iron,
nested or packed.”
Mr. Whitehead..] I think my learned friend is
under a misapprehension. There are two
amendments on the list of amendments. The
first is to omit those words, “iron or.”
Mr. Moon. But I omit the whole. It will
run, “Bowls, water, iron, nested or packed,”
the result of that will be exactly what you
propose.
Chairman.] The words that are now in the
Provisional Order are “Bowls, water, except iron
or earthenware "?
Mr. Moon.] Yes.
Chairman.] Then your proposed concession, if
it is one, would make it run, how 2
Mr. Moon.] “Bowls, water, iron, nested or
packed.”. The effect will be, your Grace, that
whereas bowls, iron, are excepted from Class 2
and appear in Class 3 (because the only bowls
in Class 2 are bowls, except iron), if what I pro-
pose is acceptable to the Committee and to my
learned friend, bowls which are iron will be in
Class 2 if they are nested or packed ; if they
are not nested or packed, but sent loose, which
is a very different thing, then they will be in
Class 3. -
Sir Joseph Bailey.] “Bowls, water, except
iron "; if you put “bowls, iron’’ that excludes
other bowls not iron.
Mr. Moon..] Yes, I think it would. Other
bowls are elsewhere; wooden bowls, for instance,
are in Class C.
Mr. Whitehead..] I am quite content to accept
that amendment.
Chairman.]. Then if the two parties are agreed
we might settle it.
Mr. Hunter.] Then in which class would
“bowls, earthenware,” come in 2 -
Mr. Whitehead..] I think that would involve a
consequential amendment.
Mr. Moon.] I think not. You will find that
bowls are mentioned generally,
Mr. Whitehead..] On page 38, you will see in
Class 3 “Bowls, iron or wood” that would have
to be changed to “bowls, e.o.h.p.” I think that
that would be a consequential amendment.
Earl of Camperdown.] And that would take in
earthenware.
Mr. Whitehead..] That would take in earthen-
Wal’e.
Mr. Moon.] I do not think that bowls, earthen-
ware appear anywhere.,
(81.)
5 K 2 My"
812 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN
BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Mr. Hambury | The bowls that are in at the
present moment are bowls other than iron and
earthenware ; what are you going to do with
them 2 You are raising the charge on those.
Earl of Camperdown.] At the present time all
water bowls, except iron and earthenware, ap-
pear here, but by charging iron water bowls, if
nested or packed, and bowls e.o.h.p., that raises
the charge on all the other bowls.
Mr. Moon.] The only other bowls are wooden
and earthenware bowls, and wooden bowls are
specially provided for in Class 3.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then it will cover
nothing.
Mr. Whitehead..] I am not instructed as to what
it covers at all, but apparently earthenware bowls
are entirely omitted.
Earl of Camperdown.] You must mind what
you are doing, that is all; if there are any such
bowls the charge is raised.
Mr. Whitehead..] If there are any other bowls.
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes, if therefore any
other bowls.
Lord Belper.] A simple way of getting over the
difficulty would be to place in the other class,
“Bowls, earthenware, and bowls, iron, except
when nested or packed,” and in this class, “bowls,
e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Whitehead..] In Class 3 that will be,
Lord Belper.] In Class 2 this will be.
Earl of Camperdown.] Put “ Bowls, e.o.h.p."
into this class.
Mr. Whitehead..] Into Class 2 °
Lord Belper.] Yes; and put in the other class
“ Bowls, earthenware,” or “ Bowls, iron, except
when nested or packed.”
Mr. Moon.] “Bowls nested or packed ” is to
go into this class which we are now considering,
and other bowls into Class 3.
Lord Belper.] But if you reverse it by putting
“Bowls, e.o.h.p.” in this class, and in the other
class “bowls, earthenware,” and “bowls, iron,
except when nested or packed,” you cover the
whole.
Mr. Whitehead..] I am quite content to accept
it in that form.
Mr. Moon.] What I should have to say is this :
that that would put glass bowls, for instance,
into Class 2, and I am sure that glass bowls
ought not to go into Class 2.
Lord Belper.] But you have just said that
there are no other bowls except earthenware and
iron bowls.
Mr. Moon..] I believe at present there are none
except glass bowls, that go as glass, But if you
put a clause in the Provisional Order specifying
all bowls to go in Class 2, e.o.h.p., instead of
consigning glass bowls as glass the trader will
consign them as bowls and get the second-class
rate.
Lord Belper.] I was assuming your answer.
Mr. Moon..] I was overlooking the fact that
there are glass bowls, because they are not con-
signed as bowls but as glass; the only bowls not
provided for in the Provisional Order are bowls
either of iron or wood.
Mr. Hanbury.] But as the Provisional Order
stands now these very glass bowls you are
speaking of would go under Class 2.
Mr. Moon..] Not at all, Sir.
Mr. Hambury (to Mr. Whitehead).] As I read
the Provisional Order, all bowls except iron and
earthenware are in Class 2. You want to bring
in iron bowls, and the company meet you half-
way.
Mr. Whitehead..] Exactly.
Mr. Moon.] The only thing is that if bowls go
under earthenware, and bowls, glass, are not
mentioned anywhere else, as you suggest Sir, and
I think it is possibly the true construction, the
trader might send glass bowls as “bowls, water,”
under Class 2 as it at present stands, and I do
not think they ought to do so, because, of course,
glass is a damageable article and a very valuable
article.
Earl of Camperdown.] I see that in two classes
the word “water” appears in connection with
bowls, and in the third case it does not appear.
Is the word “water ’’ wanted, or is it not?
Mr. Whitehead..] I am instructed not.
Mr. Moom. I am instructed not also.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then, will you agree
on both sides to strike it out in those two
classes.
Mr. Pºhitehead.] Certainly.
Mr. Moon.] Yes. Then, your Grace, may I
suggest what I think will really meet the difficulty?
Supposing that your Grace inserts after the
word “bowls" what I originally suggested,
“iron, nested or packed,” iron bowls, water, nested
or packed, will go into Class 2, that is what my
learned friend wants; then, if you put into
Class 3, “Bowls, e.o.h.p.,” it seems to me that
will provide for all other sorts of bowls, the only
bowls provided for being in Class 3 now.
Mr. Whitehead. On that point I feel bound to
point out that there may be some people inter-
ested in earthenware bowls, and other bowls,
who are satisfied with this classification, and have
not brought forward amendments, because they
will be in Class 2.
Lord Belper.] Not earthenware.
Mr. Whitehead.] Not earthenware, but some
other kind of bowl, and this would lower them a
class without their appearing before the Com-
mittee. It seems to me that Lord Belper's form
of words would be most agreeable.
Mr. Hunter.] May I suggest putting in Class 3,
“Bowls, wood or iron, e.o.h.p.,” making the
“e.o.h.p.” apply to iron. That will get over the
difficulty.
Mr. Moon..] It will get over the difficulty
suggested by the honourable Member, that
“bowls,” as it stood, would have included glass
bowls.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] I think if you
and Mr. Moon would put your heads together
you could arrange this in a moment.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
813
10 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think we can arrange it,
your Grace.
The learned Counsel consult together.
Mr. Moon.] Your Grace, my learned friend
and I are agreed that the words after “bowls,”
in line 9, page 30, should be struck out, and that
the words “iron nested, or packed,” should be
inserted after the word “bowls.”
Mr. Hanbury.] But what authority has Mr.
Whitehead to deal with the earthenware case at
all ?
Mr. Moon.] You see, earthenware is especially
excepted from it. *
Lord Belper.] You leave out “water " ?
Mr. Moon.] Yes.
Chairman.] Will you read it again, please.
Mr. Moon.] It will run thus: “ Bowls, iron-
nested or packed.” Then, adopting the honour-
able Member's suggestion, when you come to
Class 3, Class 3 must be altered so as to run,
“ Bowls, wood or iron, e.o.h.p.” As it stands it
is “ Bowls, iron or wood.” We have otherwise
provided for certain classes of iron bowls, and
therefore we must transpose the words, and say
“ Bowls, wood or iron, e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Hunter.] Then there is the hardware class;
how do you deal with that ?
Earl of Camperdown.] On page 32, “Bowls,
water, except iron or earthenware "; what are you
going to do with them P
Mr. Beale.] That is part of the hardware list.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The Board of Trade
have undertaken to go into all the hardware
articles and put them in proper order in accord-
ance with the decision of the Committee. I think
you may leave it to the Board of Trade. Lord
Balfour is engaged upon it at the present time.
Earl of Camperdown.] There is one further
question; how are earthenware bowls classed ?
Mr. Beale.] As earthenware.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then will a bowl appear
as earthenware in a cask or crate 2 Having
described bowls very carefully up to this point,
when you get to earthenware bowls you give up
all descriptions and treat it as in crate.
Mr. Whitehead..] Or earthenware in hampers
Mr. Moon.] I suppose earthenware is packed
because it is damageable.
Mr. Whitehead.] I suppose earthenware bowls
will go in either of those classes; either in Class
2, when carried in a crate, or in Class 3, when
carried in hampers. But I may say this at once,
that I am not interested in the earthenware ques-
tion ; 1 only appear for iron, and my witness was
only to deal with the question of iron.
Chairman.] Then that deals
buckets, and pails.
with bowls,
Mr. Moon.] We are prepared to meet my
learned friend in the same way, in respect to
“buckets and pails, iron.”
Mr. Whitehead..] Do I understand my learned
friend to accept the amendment as it appears on
the list of amendments?
—----------&
Mr. Moon.] With the addition of “nested or
packed.” r
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, I am prepared to accept
that.
Mr. Moon.] Then that will involve a conse-
quential amendment in Class 3, on page 38 ; you
will have to put “e.o.h.p." after “buckets and
pails " in Class 3.
Mr. Whitehead.] Then the next amendment,
your Grace, is consequential as to castings, iron
or steel ; we have already dealt with that, the
decision of the Commitee this morning deals with
that ; it is to omit “castings (iron or steel),
light, in boxes, cases, crates, casks, or hampers.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is right. The
Committee accepted the other amendment; that
is purely consequential.
Chairman.] Then the next amendment is on
page 20, column 2, after line 27, to add “Coal
Scuttles, common, iron, or galvanized.”
Mr. Whitehead..] I do not know whether my
learned friend will meet me in the same way.
Mr. Moon..] Yes, your Grace, “Coal scuttles,
common, iron, or galvanized, if nested or packed”;
we are prepared to agree to that.
Chairman.] How can you nest coal scuttles 2
Mr. Moon.] That is the question I asked, but
I am told that they are nested.
Chairman.] Then, by all means, I do not
object.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I have not followed
that. Where does it come 2
Chairman.] After line 27, in column 2, page
30, add “Coal scuttles,common, iron, or galvanized,
if nested or packed.”
Mr. Moon..] Then, your Grace, there is a con-
sequential amendment in Class 4, on page 44,
line 43, in the left hand column, “ coal scuttles”
that must run “e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Now, I think there is
something in the point raised by the honorable
Member. This does affect the hardware decision
very decidedly, because all these articles are
hardware, or may be consigned as hardware.
Mr. Moon.] I do not think coal scuttles will
come in the hardware list. They are in Class 4.
Mr. Whitehead..] I think Mr. Courtenay Boyle
is correct as regards some coal scuttles. “Coal
Scuttles, metallic, packed in cases or boxes,” were
included in the hardware list by agreement.
Mr. Moon.] But the answer to my learned
friend would be that that is effected by the words
“e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Whitehead..] It does not make any differ-
C]]CC.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I think we shall be
able to carry that out. The decision of the
Committee was that hardware was to go up into
Class 3. I understand that that decision is
modified to this extent: that these articles, so
far as they are hardware, are still to remain in
Class 2. We shall have to be careful about it,
but I think you may trust the Board of Trade
to do it.
(81.)
5 K 3 Mr.
814
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Mr. Moon.] Yes; when nested or packed,
they are still to be in Class 2.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] But whether nested or
packed or not they are still hardware, and there-
fore the decision of the Committee as regards
hardware will have to be modified pro tanto.
Mr. Moon.] Being provided for in the hard-
ware list, e.o.h.p.
Chairman.] Then, in point of fact, it would
be that these articles, being hardware, go up to
Class 3, but if they are nested or packed they
do not go up to Class 3, but they are in Class 2.
Mr. Moon.] Yes, your Grace, I think that is
the effect of it,
Mr. Whitehead..] It is a cutting down of the
former decision of the Committee, because, by
that decision, “Coal scuttles, metallic, packed in
cases or boxes,” went into Class 3; but that is
a question of arrangement that I understand Mr.
Courtenay Boyle will undertake.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It will require a little
care, your Grace, but we will pay great attention
to it.
Chairman.] “Buckets and pails, iron, if nested
or packed,” is that so *
Mr. Moon.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] They come in again on page 30.
After “ Bronze (phosphor) castings and ingots,
rough * it will read, “Buckets or pails, iron, if
nested or packed.”
Mr. Moon..] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] And then in the same page, line
27, after “ coach wrenches' we are to add “coal
scuttles, common, iron, or galvanised, if nested or
packed.”
Mr. Moon.] Yes, your Grace.
Chairman.] Now we get to castings on page
14 of the amendments.
Mr. Whitehead..] On page 32, column 2, line
4, after “castings, brass,” to insert the words
“German silver or nickel.” Your Grace, the
point of this amendment is as follows: that prac-
tically there is no distinction for the purposes of
railway transit, or in the trade itself, between
“castings, brass,” and “castings, German silver
or nickel “; the only difference being that Ger-
man silver or nickel castings are a less expensive
article, and should therefore go into a lower class
rather than a higher. The amendment is that
they should be placed in the same class as “cast-
ings, brass,” in Class 2.
Chairman.] Where are they now, according to
the schedule P
Mr. Whitehead..] According to the schedule
they are in Class 3.
Mr. Moon.] I think there is nothing between
my learned friend and myself in regard to these
articles; they are included in the hardware list;
the hardware list has been bodily raised from
Class 2 to Class 3, and we are quite agreeable
that “ castings, German silver or nickel ” shall
go with “castings, brass,” in Class 3, that is to
say amongst the hardware list.
Farl of Camperdown.] Then you had better
call it “castings.”
Mr. Moon.] There might be iron castings.
Lord Belper.] Why do “castings, brass"
appear twice.
Mr. Beale.] They appear once by themselves
and once in the hardware list.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Every article in the
hardware list appears twice, because the hard-
ware list deals with packages and the hardware
articles may be either in small packages or in-
dividually, -
Lord Belper.] Then this amendment will have
to refer to page 30.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Every single hardware
entry will have to be most carefully considered ;
and that is what is being done now. If the Com-
mittee decide the principle we will carry it out.
Mr. Whitehead] They should go together
clearly. I am content.
Earl of Camperdown.] If there were “castings,
iron,” they would equally be hardware, would
they not ?
Mr. Beale.] They are dealt with separately.
Earl of Camperdown.] Why are they not hard-
ware as much as castings, brass 2
Mr. Moon..] I do not think they are mentioned
in the hardware list. “Castings (iron or steel),
light in boxes, cases, crates, casks or hampers ”
are on the top of page 30, in the right hand
column.
Mr. Beale.] And castings appear in Class I
also.
Earl of Camperdown.] Those are scratched
Out.
Mr. Moon.] We have dealt with them to-day ;
they have gone to Class 1 to-day by agree-
ment.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Whitehead).] Your
amendment was to put these castings of nickel
into Class 2.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so.
Chairman.] Inasmuch as hardware has gone
up to Class 3, you are content 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I am bound to accept the
decision as affecting this, because the article is of
a similar nature.
Earl of Camperdown.] The railway companies
accept your amendment, and it goes up with the
rest of the hardware.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] Then after “castings, brass,” in-
sert “German silver or nickel ” is agreed to, and
it goes with the other articles in the hardware
list in Class 3.
Mr. PWhitehead..] That is so. Then the next
amendment is on page 34, column 1, after line 15,
to insert “Hides, green or market, in three-ton
lots.” At the present time, if your Grace will
refer to the Clearing House Classification, you
will see on page 34 that “Hides, green or
market,” are in Class 3 Y, that is to say, with a
reduction in case of their consignment at owner's
risk. This is a proposal that when they are
carried
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
8] 5
10 June 1891.
carried in large quantities, that is to say, in
three-ton lots and over, they should go into a
lower class, that is to say, that they should be
treated upon the same principle that has already
been accepted by the Committee in many other
cases, viz., that a heavy consignment is entitled
to a slightly lower rate. I propose to call a
witness in support of the amendment.
MR. HENRY L.A.FONE (a Member of the House of Commons), is recalled; and further
Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
7055. YoU have already given evidence before
the Committee ?—Yes.
7056. In the Board of Trade schedule at the
present time where do “hides, green or market,”
stand 7–Im. Class 3.
7057. On page 41, your Grace will see,
“hides, e.o.h.p.,” that would include those
“hides, green or market,” (to the Witness).
That is so P—That is so.
7058. In what class are
placed 7–In Class 1.
7059. Is the difference in their transit between
market hides and salted hides so great as to
be represented in the two classes in the classi-
fication ?—We think certainly not.
7060. And in your opinion “hides, green or
market,” should go into Class 2 2–Yes.
706 1. That would bear a more proper relation
to salted hides than Class 32—Yes.
7062. Salted hides, I suppose, are chiefly
foreign 2–Yes, they are chiefly foreign.
7063. Whereas fresh hides, green or market
hides, are English 2–They are English slaugh-
tered.
7064. So that in effect the Board of Trade
Classification would be giving a preference to
for sign produce 2–It would.
“ hides salted ”
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
7065. With regard to the loading of trucks,
can a truck be loaded full of these green hides 2
—Yes. -
7066. So that a very heavy weight will go
into a single truck?—From Manchester to Lon-
don a truck load would earn 6 l, ; that is 189
miles. - -
7067. Do you mean that that would be the
actual rate Pi—That would be the actual owners'
risk rate.
Earl of Camperdown.
7068. How much a ton 2–30s. per ton.
Chairman.
7069. And what is the amount of the weight
that the truck would carry which you are now
describing 2—Four tons would amount to 6 l. ;
and I may say that in delivering in London a
railway van with two horses frequently delivers
four tons into the tanners’ yards.
Mr. Whitehead.
7070. Is four tons an average truck load 2–
Frequently they are more than that.
7071. So that they are very good loading 2–
Yes. -
The Witness hands in the following table.
EXAMIPLES OF RATES : MANCHESTER, LONDON.--MARKET HIDES.
t
PRESENT RATE BOARD OF TRADE IBOARD OF TRADE 13OARD OF T1? AL) E BOARD OF TRADE
COLLECTED AND PIRESENT PRO b OSAI, Ib' PRISSEN'T PROPOSAI, II" PERESl. N'T PROPOSAL Il" PlölöSlº. N'll l’ B.O l’OSA L. FOIR,
| -
DELIVE RED. . AP PLIED TO CLASS C. Al’ PLIED TO CLASS 1. AP PLIED TO CLASS 2. 'I' [IIS Alt'TICLE.
:6. S. d £. s. d #. S. d £. S. d
189 miles at 1 d. - - tº- - – 15 0 || At 1:30 d. per mile 1 0 6 || At 1:60 d. per mile 1 5 3 || At 1.95 d. per mile 1 10 9
Station Terminal, Manchester - – 1 – 3 * 33 — 1 6 y? 3 * — 1 6 33 37 — 1 6
Owners’ risk,
30 S. per ton. Ditto London - - – 1 – 9 • 33 — 1 6 * } 3 * — 1 6 35 33 — 1 6
Loading and Unloading * — — — 6 3 * 3 * — — 10 33 3 * — 1 4 § 3 35 – 2 -
& Company's risk, R
Iondon Cartage - sº sº - – 3 4 33 y3 – 3 9 35 33 – 4 2 5 § 33 - i) -
135 S. per tom.
Manchester (litto - - e - – l 4 3 * 33 — 1 4 33 5 * — 1 6 } y. 3 * — 1 9
:0. 1 2 11 £. 1 9 5 #. 1 15 3 C. 2 2 6
Cartage Estimates taken from London and North Western Railway Statement of LOSscs.
Board of Trade propose to class Hides in Class 3.
Traders ask for Class 2.
*
Hides thoroughly salted, classed by Board of Traile, Class 1.
(81.)
5 K 4
816.
MINUTEs OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.]
zº—
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
7072. What is this comparison in this table.
In the first column you have “present rate
collected and delivered " ?-- Yes, contracted with
the Board of Trade's present proposal if applied
to Class C. and so on. On the left-hand side
you will find that the present owners’ risk rate is
30 s. per ton ; that is the actual amount charged.
We estimate the company’s risk added on would
be 35 s. The Board of Trade's present proposal,
if applied to Class C., would amount to 1 l.2s. 11 d.,
if applied to Class 1, it would amount to
1 l. 9s. 5 d. ; if applied to Class 2, it would
amount to 1 l. 15 s. 3 d. ; and if applied to Class
3, which they at present propose, it would amount
to no less than 2 l. 2 s. 6 d. If you would cast
your eye upon the difference in cartage in the
bottom line but one, the London cartage I mean,
it is 3 s. 4d. in Class C., 3 s. 9 d. in Class 1,
4 s. 2 d. in Class 2, and no less than 5 S. in
Class 3. And that is the way in which the
higher rate is increased ; because as you raise
the rate, so these terminal charges and cartage
charges increase. The difference between hides
carted in Class C. and hides carted in Class 3 is
absolutely nothing; the cartage is absolutely the
same ; but there is a difference in these proposals
of no less than 1 s. 8 d. a ton ; and that goes to
increase the rate. Then if you compare the two,
the owners’ risk against the company’s risk, there
is nearly 40 per cent. difference between the
present rate at which they are carried at owners’
risk, and the proposed rate in Class 3 at com-
pany's risk; there is about 46 per cent, for the
company’s risk and I should be very glad to take
it at 6 per cent.
Chairman.
7073. What does the cartage cover ; cartage
and only cartage in all the cases 2–The same
cartage exactly in all cases.
7074. And only cartage 2–Yes; and only
cartage, that is London cartage here, 3 s. 4 d.
7075. But you say that the London cartage
in Class C. is 3 s. 4 d?—That is what the com-
pany calculate.
7076. And then in the next class it is 3 s. 9d. ?
—Yes.
7,077.
Yes.
7078. The next is 5 s. 7–Yes; for the same
service exactly.
7079. But, is that for cartage, and cartage
only 7–That is for cartage only.
Mr. Whitehead.
7080. Would you state to the Committee
where you got those figures from ?—I obtained
them by estimates taken from the London and
North Western statement of losses.
7081. Which they put before the Board of
Trade at the previous inquiry 2—Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
7082. Assuming that they are right, as I
understand, a given quantity of these hides at
the present rate is carried at company’s risk at
35 S. per ton 2–That is what we estimate,
and the actual rate at owners’ risk is 30s. per
toll.
And then the next is 4 s. 2 d. 2–
7083. I want to compare like with like; if
Mr. LAFONE.
[Continued.
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
they are carried in Class 3, they will be carried
at company’s risk?—Yes.
7084. So that you have to compare the pre-
sent 35 s. actual charge with the 2 l. 2 s. 6d.,
which will be the maximum under the Provisional
Order ?—That is so.
Lord Belper.
7085. Can you tell me why this calculation of
London cartage varies in every case according to
the class, but the Manchester cartage appears in
the first two classes you mention to keep at the
same figure?—Because that is the actual amount
that is charged there.
7086. If that is the amount that is charged
now, how can you put it as what they will
charge under Class C. or Class 1 2–You see the
same thing goes up from 1s. 4d. to 1 s. 9.d.; it
is 5 d. increase. *
Mr. Whitehead..] In the schedule, there is no
provision made for cartage, no rates fixed for
future cartage ; and in order to obtain a proper
comparison, you are obliged to put in an estimate
of cartage, and the witness has taken as his
estimate thc actual charge made at the present
time, which seems to be fair.
Lord Belper.] I do not understand why the
cartage is to vary in each class. I thought it
varied because the service terminals varied under
the schedule of the Board of Trade. That does
not appear to be the case, because in one
instance, the cartage does not vary according to
the class.
Mr. Whitehead..] The cartage is not dealt with
in the schedule at all ; it is not included in
service terminals. But the witness has taken
these rates for cartage from the estimate put in
by the London and North Western Company
before the Board of Trade.
Mr. Moon.] I confess, that I do not see what
the cartage has to do with it.
Chairman (to Mr. Moon).] We will hear you
presently. (To Mr. Whitehead.) But I should
like you to get cleared up what Lord Belper asks;
why in each of these cases the cartage is to
vary, and why it is to be 5 s. if under the present
proposal. If under the present proposal, as ap-
plied to Class C., there are two tons of hides
carted, or whatever the quantity may be, for
3 s. 4 d., if the article is in Class 3, I do not
why it is to be charged 5 s, for cartage under
another head.
Mr. Whitehead.
7087. That is the traders’ difficulty ; I do not
see why it should be ; but that was put in by
the London and North Western Company, as
representing their actual charge. (To the
Witness.) But the present actual rate is cartage
and delivery rate –Yes.
7088. Therefore cartage is included in that ?
—Yes.
7089. Therefore, to compare that present
actual rate, which includes cartage, with the
proposed rates which do not include cartage, you
have to make an addition to the proposed rates ?
—Yes.
7090. The addition which you have placed in
each
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLL.
817
10 Jnne 1891.] Mr. LAFONE, M.P. [Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued. against owners’ risk; that makes all the
difference.
each class is the charge that the London and
North Western Company are making at the
present moment in respect of each class in those
towns, London and Manchester 2–Yes.
Chairman.] Mr. Moon will, no doubt, clear it
up.
Mr. Moon...] It is entirely illusory.
Chairman.] What I understand Mr. Lafone to
state is that he is dealing with cartage, and cart-
age only, not with anything else.
Mr. Whitehead..] Oh, no, your Grace. I will
take it from the Witness. (To the Witness.) In
order to get a fair comparison between the total
you are now being charged, and the total which
you are likely to be charged for the same ser-
vices, you are obliged to add the question of
cartage.
Chairman.] Pardon me, not likely to be
charged, but may be charged.
Mr. Whitehead.
7091. Which you may be charged ?—It is
SO.
7092. Therefore you have added to the pro-
posed maximum in respect of conveyance and
station terminal and loading and unloading, the
actual charge in respect of cartage 2–Yes.
7093. In London and at Manchester?—Yes.
7094. Those actual charges for cartage vary at
the present time with the different classes 2-Yes,
according to the classes in the classification ; they
range higher according as you get a higher classi-
fication by these returns that are given to us.
7095, And at the present time, although the
actual cost for carting anything consigned in
Class 3 is not greater than the actual cost of
carting a ton in Class 1, yet they do make an in-
creased charge in respect of this higher class of
articles 3–Yes, but I might say that there is a
great deal of difficulty in extracting information
as to the way in which they make up these
charges. We applied to them for examples.
These was the Cambridge rate, and when we
camo to look at their own figure, it was actually
in excess of the amount that they are legally
allowed to charge. We have these from their
own figures. We asked them for the rate of car-
tage and where it was to ; but we could not
get any information. We have only got their
own figures, which showed that they were
actually charging an excess. What we want is
to have the classification fixed, and then the rates
will follow as a natural consequence. But at
present the broad fact remains that we are
getting these hides from Manchester at 30 s., at
owners’ risk. We do not want them on any
other terms; we are perfectly content with
owners’ risk, and if we add 5 s. for company’s
risk, they now want to charge us 2 l. 2 s. 6 d.
We hope to be put into Class 2, which is one
class above the class in which salted hides are
now carried.
7096. And the rates of which would corre-
spond somewhat to the actual rates ?—They
would.
Mr. Hambury.] But at company's risk as
Mr. Whitehead..] In the last column you will
see there is added 5 s. ; that is an estimate of
COSt.
Earl of Camper down.
7097. You must take his figures as a whole;
the whole thing is his estimate *
Mr. Whitehead..] Exactly. (To the Witness.)
There is one other means of comparison, and
that is with the existing statutory classification ?
—Yes.
7098. With what articles are hides at the
present time classed in the statutory classifica-
tion ; are they classed with grain and flour and
potatoes, and articles of that kind 2–Yes.
7099. And those articles in the present classifi-
cation have been placed in Class C. P.--Yes.
7100. That is a very low class 2—That is so.
Green hides are now taken out and put into
Class 3. We want them in Class 2, which is one
class above the salted hides. I may say what a
very important thing this is to the trade gene-
rally of the country when we estimafe that cattle
are slaughtered representing 120,000 tons of
green hides, and that of those 600,000 beasts are
foreign beasts brought here and slaughtered, and
almost without exception those go by rail, and
about 3,000,000 of our own.
Mr. Hanbury.
7101. My difficulty is that, in this classification,
we are dealing with articles purely at company's
risk *—Yes.
7102. Those articles under the Provisional
Order at company’s risk are put in Class 32–
Yes.
7103. Which corresponds with the position in
which they are in in the Clearing House Classi-
fication at the present moment 2–But, at the
same time, they give you permission to carry at
owners’ risk.
7104. That is another matter; we are not
dealing with owners’ risk now 7–But they have
put down salted hides into Class 1, and with the
exception of their not being quite so clean
handling, green or market hides are just as good
loading as salted hides are.
Mr. Pl'hātehead.
7105. At the present time you are only con-
cerned with the statutory classifications —Yes.
7106. But the Clearing House Classification
you have had no part in ; it is an arrangement
amongst the railway companies, and you were
not consulted at the time that hides were placed
in Class 3 in that Clearing House Classification
--No.
Mr. Hanbury.
7107. But the effect of their being carried at
owners' risk is practically to bring them down to
£lass 2 –That does so. By their own calcula-
tion in this Clearing House Classification, the
rate per ton not exceeding 35 s., they reduce
down for owners’ risk to 29 s. 7 d.
7108. Which brings it into Class 2 practi.
cally 2–Yes, they actually carry it at 30 s.
7109. Is that a fairly satisfactory arrangement
—Yes.
(81.)
5 L 7110. Then
818 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.]
Mr. LAFONE, M.P.
| Continued.
Mr. Hambury—continued
7110. Then, if you are put down to Class 2 in
the Board of Trade Classification, you will be
put down into Class 2, at Company’s risk, which
will make you much better off than you are at
present under the Clearing House Classification ?
—Pardon me, it is exactly the same ; 3 d. perton
more it would be. But we contend that they
would get a great advantage, because out of
some 400 tons, that one of our correspondents
receives every year there has never been a claim;
and it is a most exceptional thing, unless by the
neglect of the Company, that there is any claim
on market hides. There is no risk.
Mr. Whitehead.
7111. Whilst salt hides are placed in
Class 1, green hides, you think, should go
into Class 2 because the difference in risk is so
very small ?—Yes.
7112. Apart from the question of risk, there
is no difference in the mode of transit 2–No,
none ; they are a little more difficult to handle.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7113. These green hides are not very pleasant
things to deal with, are they 2–It is a matter of
opinion.
7114. Dripping with blood, and wet and un-
pleasant 2–Yes.
7115. If packed in large quantities together,
that leads to their sweating, does it not, and de-
composition ?—If there is neglect in delivery :
not otherwise.
Chairman.] The Committee will not trouble
Mr. Moon to cross-examine. They reject the
amendment.
Mr. Whitehead..] The next amendment is to in-
sert “Manganese bronze and brass castings and
ingots.” It is not down upon the list. I do not
know whether my learned friend will meet me
upon that ; precisely the same argument applies.
Mr. Moon..] I do not know exactly what my
learned friend's amendment is.
The learned Counsel consult together.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Grace, I think I
can shorten this discussion very materially.
The reason that we did not put this entry in is
that we believe that manganese bronze is valueless.
A gentleman interested in manganese bronze
was very anxious to have his particular article
specified. We thought it was not necessary;
we thought there was no difference in origin
between manganese bronze and bronze, between
manganese bronze ingots and bronze ignots; and
we thought it pure surplusage to make the entry.
But if the Committee are otherwise of opinion
they will do no harm by making the entry.
Mr. Moon.] I am quite agreeable that the
entry should be made, if your Grace thinks it
necessary. I will not express any opinion
whether it is necessary or not.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We believe it is pure
surplusage to make the entry, but if the gentle-
man wishes it, and the Committee think it desir-
able, we are of opinion that it will do no harm.
Mr. Whitehead.] We would prefer to have the
word inserted in order to remove any difficulty
that might arise.
Earl of Camperdown.] What difficulty could
arise P I am not certain that any difficulty could
arise.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Lordship refers to
page 30 of the classification, you will see there,
at line 20 “Bronze (phosphor) castings and ingots,
rough,” clearly drawing a distinction between
that kind of bronze and some other ; and we
desire that manganese bronze should be treated
in the same way.
Earl of Camperdown.] Would it not be better
to strike out “ phosphor ‘’?
Mr. Whitehead..] I think it would.
Mr. Moon.] I certainly think so.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).]
What have you to say to that ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We believe that man-
ganese bronze ingots are bronze phosphor ingots;
but if the Committee think it will make it abso-
lutely certain by omitting the word “phosphor”
that bronze ingots are included, there is no reason
why that should not be done.
Earl of Camperdown.] What was the reason
for putting “ phosphor” in P
Lord Belper.] Are there any other bronze
ingots in another class 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I think not. We
wanted to make it all bronze ingots in Class 2,
and if the Committee leave out the word
“ phosphor’’ that will make it quite certain.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Will it suit
you to strike out “ phosphor,” and leave the
words “bronze casting and ingots, rough * *
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman (to Mr. Moon).] What do you say ?
Mr. Moon.] I agree to that.
Chairman.] Then we will strike out “ phos-
phor.”
Earl of Camperdown. | And you want the word
“rough " ?
Mr. Whitehead.] Certainly.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No ; I think that
might go.
Mr. Whitehead..] I assented to that rather too
soon. I understand that the word “rough *
should not remain ; that the word “rough *
should be struck out.
Mr. Moon..] Oh, no.
Chairman.] “Bronze castings and ingots,
rough.” (To Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) Have you
any objection to the word “rough * remain-
ingº
Mr. Moon.] I do not think that my learned
friend’s amendment covers this.
Mr. Whitehead..] I am under this difficulty, it
is a technical point, and the gentleman who would
instruct me upon the point is not in the room, and
I cannot find out the distinction beeween “rough *
and other castings and ingots.
Chairman.] Will you kindly repeat what your
amendment is, and then we shall see whether it
proposes to leave out “rough.”
Mr. Whitehead..] The amendment is to insert
“manganese bronze and brass castings and
ingots,” leaving out the word “rough.” In
deference
ON RAILWAY 1 ATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORL ER BILLS.
819
10 June 1891.
deference to my learned friend I did not press
for brass castings, but only for bronze, and I
understand that, subject to that change, our
amendment would be accepted.
Earl of Camperdown.] Where will bronze
castings and ingots, not rough, go as the classifi-
cation stands 2
Mr.
Courtenay Boyle..] Into Class 3, as un-
named.
Mr. Whitehead..] They are unnamed, and there-
fore fall naturally into Class 3, in accordance with
the general definition to that effect.
Earl of Camperdown.] How does that compare
with where they stand now Ż
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] They are all in Class
2; therefore, subject to anything which Mr. Moon
may say, I think the word “rough * should go.
Lord Belper.] I suppose if they say “rough "
it would cover the whole ; then the others would
go in Class 5.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace will refer to
the Clearing House Classification on page 13, you
will see that bronze (phosphor) casting and ingots,
rough, go into Class 2, and bronze (manganese)
castings and ingots go into Class 2 also, without
that addition of the word “rough,” so that in
that respect there is a distinction drawn in the
Clearing House Classification.
Earl of Camperdown.] That is a distinction
drawn between manganese and phosphor.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes; in favour of manganese,
in whatever condition they are, even when they
go into Class 2.
Earl of Camperdown.] All bronze manganese
castings go into Class 2; only rough phosphor
castings go into Class 2.
Mr. Moon.] It may be so in the Clearing
House Classification. I certainly submit it ought
not to be put into a Parliamentary Classification ;
because these castings in the rough can be
carried of course in Class 2, but if they should
have work executed upon them they may be
very valuable things, and therefore ought no
longer to go into Class 2. It is only the castings
straight from the mould that ought to go into
Class 2. And your Grace will remember that
if manganese castings travel on a railway in any
quantities, when work has been expended upon
them, under the present system the railway com-
panies could say, “We will raise the present
classification and have manganese castings not in
the rough carried in another class.” But if your
Grace puts in the Parliamentary Classification
that power of the railway companies would not
exist any longer.
Earl of Camperdown.] But by the amendment
which you have just agreed, bronze manganese
castings will go up a class if not rough. That is
not what Mr. Whitehead meant. Mr. White-
head's amendment was as it stood to keep bronze
manganese castings in exactly the same position
that they are in at the present moment.
Mr. Whitehead..] That was so, my Lord.
Earl of Camperdown.] If you assent to his
amendment simply to leave out the word
“ phosphor,” you will be prejudiced in so far as
all manganese castings are concerned that are not
rough,
Mr. Whitehead.] That is so ; and I assented
rather prematurely to my learned friend's propo-
sition, and subsequently I withdrew it when I
was instructed further.
Earl of Camperdown. | You think “phosphor”
had better stand P
Mr. Whitehead.] Yes.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Moon).] That
you agree to ?
Mr. Moon.] No. Unless my learned friend
will accept the word “rough * at the end of his
amendment, I cannot agree.
Lord Belper..] Where are your small castings
mentioned at the present moment, not rough.
Mr. Moon.] I understood Mr. Courtnay Boyle
to say that they were in Clause 2, I do not find
them.
Lord Belper.] If they are all in Class 2, I do
not see what the contest is about.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Bronze (phosphor)
castings and ingots are in Class 2 in the Railway
Clearing House Classification.
Lord Belper.] In the schedule, where are
they 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] All articles not men-
tioned are in Class 3.
Mr. Moon.] That is where we say they ought
to be ; I do not know whether my learned friend
is going to call evidence on that point.
Mr. Whitehead..] I was going to call evidence
but unfortunately the witness is not in the room,
and I am scarcely prepared to go on. Perhaps
your Grace will allow it to be postponed and take
another amendment.
Mr. Moon.] I should say on the face of it, that
it is clear that manganese castings and ingots
ought not to be treated dffferently from bronze
castings and ingots, and inasmuch as “bronze
phosphor castings and ingots, rough '' are the
only bronze castings which are at present in
Class 2, and that bronze castings which are
Smoothed are sent by railway and go into Class
3, in the unnamed articles in the Provisional
Order, manganese castings ought to follow suit.
Earl of Camperdown.] The reverse argument
would apply just as well.
Mr. Whitehead. J. The Clearing House Classi-
fication is a test of many years, and it would
naturally guide the Committee in the absence of
any evidence upon the point.
Chairman.] But those two articles are now in
Class 2.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] With the word “rough " at the
end ?
Mr. Whitehead." Not in the case of manganese
bronze, that is just the distinction.
Mr. Moon..] I should propose to call evidence
against it.
Mr. Whitehead.] I am bound, my Lord, to
leave it there; my witness is not present.
(81.)
5 L 2 Chairman.]
820
MINUTEs of EvilDENCE TAKEN BEFoRE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Chairman.] Is he in the lobby ?
Mr. Whitehead.] He is in the building, I be-
lieve, but not in the room.
Mr. Moon.] I do not know if my learned
friend has not got any evidence to support his
amendment, but what am I to do
Chairman.] We had better take the next
amendment. , ºxº
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace will allow it
to stand over for a short time.
Chairman.] Yes. What is the next amend-
ment P
Mr. Whitehead..] The next amendment is on
page 35, column 2, after line 13, to insert,
“Plated goods appertaining to harness or sadd-
MR. MATTHEW HARVEY, is called in :
Mr. Whitehead.
71.16. YoU represent here the Walsall trade
in saddlery and sadlers’ ornaments and harness?
—Yes.
7117. With regard to plated goods appertain-
ing to harness or saddlery, as the schedule now
stands, they are placed in Class 42—Yes.
7118. What is the mode in which they are
consigned at the present time 2-—Both in cases,
in hampers, and sometimes in small parcels.
7119. They are consigned in heavy lots?—Yes.
7 120. Of about what weight 2–In cases up to
14 cwt.
7121. Are they easy handling 2—Yes. -
7122. And good loading 2–Good loading.
71.23. You can get a large number of them, a
heavy weight of them, into a single truck?—Yes.
7124. If the articles were left in Class 4, what
would be the effect upon the trade 2–It would
be serious injury to the trade.
7125. Are you subject to any great dis-
advantage at the present time owing to foreign
competition ?–Always.
7126. You are competing keenly with foreign
countries 2–Yes, for all export work. -
7127. And you consign a large number of
these to the colonies and Jndia?—To India,
South America, Australia, and the Continent
as well.
7128. And in all that branch of your trade you
ºpeling with foreign countries very keenly 2
— Y. 62.S.
7129. Therefore any raising of the class would
seriously affect both the trade of individuals and
the whole prosperity of the town of Wallsall?--
That is what we expect.
7130. Comparing these articles generally in
the matter of railway transit with articles in
Class 2, does it seem to you they would properly
be placed in that class?– I think so. Our goods
lie very close and pack well, and weigh heavy.
7131. So that, in regard to bulk, you get a
very heavy weight in a small compass?—Ex-
actly.
7132. And, therefore, they are very conveni-
ent for the railway companies for the purpose of
conveyance 2–Quite so.
7133. With regard to these plated articles,
lery,” on page 15 of the amendments. If your
Grace will refer to page 61 of the Cearing
House Classification, you will see there “ Sadd:
lery, ornaments, for (brass, iron, steel, or plated)”
are in Class 3; but under the schedule as it at
present stands, they would now go into Class 4,
as plated goods, being placed in one higher Class;
and the amendment is to place them into Class 2,
on the ground that practically they correspond
to the articles which are in that class, both in
value and in other respects; and upon that point
I will call a witness.
Earl of Belmore.] You want to put them down
two classes.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes, my Lord, in the
schedule.
and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead—-continued.
they are, I believe, of less value than brass fit-
tings 7–No, there are some of the plated articles
far cheaper and of less value than the steel, that
are now in Class 2, of the same bulk and the
same pattern.
7134. And for all purposes of railway transit
they are exactly the same except in regard to
value, and, in regard to value, the plated articles
are of less importance than the steel articles, and
so save the railway companies certain liability ?
—That is so.
7135. Under those circumstances you think
your plated articles should go into Class 22—
Yes, with the others.
Mr. Hanbury.
7136. Are they not more damageable than the
steel?—No ; the steel would rust much sooner
than the plated article. ^ =
Mr. Whitehead.
7137. The plated article is not liable to rust
so soon 7–No.
Chairman.
7138. Do you mean in use or in the packing 2
In the carriage.
Mr. Hanbury.
7139. But the plating might get rubbed off?
—That wonld be simply through careless pack-
ing.
Mr. Whitehead.
7140. At the present time they are carefully
packed in cases and covered with paper?—Yes.
7141. Practically there is no likelihood of the
plating being rubbed off on a single journey 2–
No.
Chairman.
7142. Then why do you wrap them 2–We
protect them. The better quality of article we
protect more with paper in the packing.
Mr. Whitehead.
7143. As I understand you, it is the steel
article that requires the greater protection ?—
No, we do not put so much protection around
- them,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
821
10 June 1891.
Mr. HARVEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
them ; but they are more damageable, because
damp would not affect the plated article as it
would the steel; not the plated article, because
it is coated with the plate
7144. Substantially they are the same for the
purposes of transit, except in regard to value,
and in regard to value the plated article is cheaper
than the pure steel article, and therefore the
railway companies are saved a certain amount of
liability ?---Yes, for this steel (producing a
stirrup) the wholesale price is 7 s. 9 d. a pair :
this one (producing another) is 11 d. electro-
plated, nickle-plated ; and this is 7 s. 9 d. forged
steel (producing another). Where we send one
pair of these, we should send 100 or 200 pair
of those.
7145. And the difference in value is so great
that it seems to you that it would represent the
difference of lowering these articles one class 3–
Yes, it means a tremendous difference. Here is
one silver-plated article only 1 s. 10 d. (pro-
ducing the same).
7146. In which of these articles are you
mostly interested ?–That affects the plated and
nickel-plated.
71.47. Rather than the steel ?—Yes, this is
only one illustration ; the whole question
throughout the whole of the goods we make is
affected more or less in every item.
7148. About what number of different articles
do you make P—Some thousands.
7149. And these are mainly types of the
different articles 2–Yes, we have a pattern-book
with about 8,000 numbers in it, and then we are
only one manufacturer.
7 150. Here you have another illustration of a
buckle (producing the same); the tongue of this
buckle is plated 2–Yes.
7151. And is a cheaper article?—The cheapest
article that is made.
7152. And should therefore, you think, go
into a lower class 2–Yes ; that is to say, if we
have a package with only a few of those buckles
in it at 3 s. a gross, I take it, by the Pro-
visional Order, we shall have to be rated at
Class 4.
7153. Because it is a plated article 2–Yes.
7154. And the rate applicable to Class 4 seems
to you to be excessive for so cheap an article as
that ?—Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
7155. In the Clearing House Classification
they are in what class, Class 3 2–Plated articles
are in Class 3, I think.
Mr. Whitehead.
7156. Under the schedule as it stands at the
present moment, those steel articles are in
Class 32–Class 2, steel stirrups.
7157. And that being so because the value of
these plated articles is much smaller than the
value of steel articles, you think that the plated
articles should go into Class 22–Quite so.
7158. Comparing value for value 2 – Quite
SO.
7159. And every package which you send out
from your works includes a consignment of some
of those plated articles 2–Yes.
7160. Therefore this question is one which
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
very seriously affects you?—Practically it would
affect all we send away ; there is not more than
one package out of a hundred but would have
some part or other plated.
Chairman.
7161. Where would you put steel stirrups.
In what class are they 2–In the Provisional
Order they are in Class 2.
M. Beale.] They go with the hardware.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand that they go
with the hardware; but comparing value for
value, the witness thinks that these plated
articles should go into a lower class than the
others.
Witness.] That is for shipment, for export.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7162. I gather from you that the cheaper
plated articles you have been exhibiting to us
go for use by your foreign customers, and are not
used at home 2—Some are used at home, but
very few.
7163. Mainly that trade is a trade for the
Continent 2–More for Australia and South
America.
7164. But when you send stirrups which are
plated stirrups, for instance a consignment of
plated stirrups in this country, you use a better
article than that ?–Yes.
7165. What is the value of your best plated
stirrup used in this country. I do not know that
they are much used ?–I could not recall a case
plated ; it would be nickel or steel, but the best
of them would come to about 8s. 3d.
7166. The plated goods which appertain to
harness or saddlery, so far as they are used in
this country, are goods of very much more value
than those you have been exhibiting to us?—
Some of them, and some are cheaper.
7167. Of course, if you have in the classification
a description which includes all plated goods,
then the dear plated goods as well as the cheaper
will go under that P---Quite so; you could not
help it. And I may say that where there is one
set of best, what we should term super-silver
work, we should send 10 or 12 of the cheaper
kinds for this country.
7168. But not such cheap things as you showed
us just now 2–We have some even cheaper than
these.
7169. Then you propose to reduce these
articles from Class 3 in which they are at present
in the Clearing House Classification, and Class
4 in the Provisional Order, to Class 22–
Exactly ; that is for shipment, in cases or casks.
7170. Then you would confine your amend-
ment to plated goods appertaining to harness or
saddlery for shipment?– Yes, ... *
7171. It is rather difficult to teli, is it not,
whether goods are going for shipment or not ?—
No, goods for shipment are invarably packed in
CaSeS. -
7172. Then you would not ask to have
plated goods appertaining to harness or saddlery”
reduced to Class 2 without the addition of “for
shipment” 2–Exactly, and to Class 3 for the
home trade.
(81.)
5 L 3 Re-examined
822
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT committee
10 June 1891.]
Mr. HARVEY.
[Continued.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7173. When these articles go for shipment they
are differently packed, I understand?—Yes, in
CàS6S.
7174. And there is no difficulty in distinguish-
ing them 7–No.
7175. And you bave a large number of these
cheap plated artscles consigned to saddlers and
other people in England itself?—Yes.
7176. Although the bulk of your trade is with
foreign countries?—Yes, but we are only like
one firm of manufacturers in the whole town.
7177. But at all events, so far as the home
trade is concerned, you would contend that these
articles should be in Class 3; but owing to
foreign competition you are anxious that
they should be placed in Class 2 when they are
for export 2—Exactly.
Chairman.
7178. What is the difference in the packing of
these articles for home consumption and for
foreign export?—For home they are generally
packed in hampers for convenience, and in
smaller bulk than for shipment. For shipment
they are generally in strong cases lined with
waterproof paper or paper.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Your amend-
ment, by-the-bye, says nothing about shipment.
Mr. Whitehead.] That is a new point; I was
not prepared for it at all.
Chairman.] Your amendment does not cover
what your witness wishes.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so, undoubtedly ; he
would like to add the words “for shipment” to
the amendment as it now stands, his reason being
the question of foreign competition, which clearly
draws a distinction between rates that he thinks
should be charged.
Chairman.] I do not quite see how you are to
distinguish between for shipment and home con-
sumption, because, although he says that they
are not put in such strong boxes, they might
be.
Mr. Whilehead..] That is so. I understood
him to say that there was a very clear distinction :
that for home consumption they go in hampers,
and for shipment they go in boxes carefully pro-
tected.
Chairman.] But there is no reason why they
should not be sent throughout this country in
these boxes.
Mr. Whitehead..] There is no real danger of
the trader doing so; that would increase the ex-
pense of the conveyance because it wouldincrease
the weight of the consignment.
Earl of Belmore.] If you put “for shipment’
would not that include for Edinburgh or Scot-
land 2
Mr. Whitehead..] That would not affect the
railway companies.
Earl of Belmore.] But it might come on the
railway afterwards. If they were going to Ire-
land that would distinctly affect it.
Chairman.] If you were to put “for ship-
ment * if they sent these goods (I do not know
whether they do) from this country to Ireland it
would apply to that or to the north of Scotland.
Mr. Whitehead.
7179. (To the Witness).] Would that be so?
—It would affect the question of the Irish trade;
that has not occurred to me.
Chairman.] And trade to the north of Scot-
land.
Mr. Whitehead.
7180. Is there any trade to the north of Scot-
land 7–Yes, but it is mostly by rail.
Chairman.] There is no reason why it should
not go by steamer.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so undoubtedly.
Witness.] It would cost as much to send the
packages from Walsall to the port to be re-
shipped to Scotland as it would to send it direct
by rail.
Earl of Belmore.
7181. What is your méarest port to Walsall,
Liverpool 2–Liverpool. -
Mr. Whitehead.] Would your Grace allow me
to suggest another form of words which I think
gets over the difficulty P Whenever these
articles are consigned for shipment they go in a
particular kind of waterproof case, and if you
were to accept the words “when packed in
waterproof case "that would meet the difficulty,
because it would be really identifiable.
Chairman.] But I do not see how you are to
tell whether a case is a waterproof one or not;
the waterproof is inside the case, and not out-
side. (To Mr. Whitehead.) Have you another
witness to call?
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then we cannot accept it. Your
amendment does not cover the case which your
witness wants to make out. -
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead.] Here is an actual case to
present before your Grace (producing the same).
It is clearly a strong case, quite different from
the mode of consignment for home traffic.
Chairman.] But it is not necessarily water-
proof, though I daresay it is.
Mr. Whitehead.] I do not know I am sure.
It is a technical point.
Chairman.] Then I think we cannot accept
the amendment.
Mr. Hambury.] We do not move it from
Class 4 to Class 2.
Mr. Whitehead..] Then, your Grace, will you
give me leave to move it again in Class 37 It
does not stand in Class 3 at the present time, of
course 7
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] What
we understand is, that this is moved from Class 3
up to Class 4.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, your Grace, I think
not ; saddlery is in Class 3, in tin-lined cases or
casks, in the Provisional Order; saddlery in the
Clearing House Classification is in Class 4; and
in consequence of representations which were
made to us (I cannot say that they were similar
to those which have been made to you, because,
unfortunately,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
823
10 June 1891.
unfortunately, I have been absent for a time) as
regards the packing of certain classes of saddlery
we put from Class 4 into Class 3, saddlery or
harness in tin-lined cases or casks; so that,
when carefully and elaborately packed, as would
be an article for export, they come into Class 3
of the Provisional Order, instead of being, as
they are in the Clearing House Classification, in
Class 4. We also conceived that that entry
would cover the entry of yrnaments for saddlery,
and we thought that all saddlery or harness, if so
packed in tin-lined cases or casks, might reason-
ably be put into Class 3. We were much
pressed to put it into Class 2, but we did not see
our way to go so far as that. As regards the
entry “for shipment,” we have up to the present
time distinctly declined to make any limitation
of our classification.
Mr. Hanbury.] In fact, the use of plated
goods for harness and saddlery is not the same
as “ saddlery, ornaments for,” in Class 3 of the
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] We think ornaments
for saddlery would be covered by harness or
saddlery in tin-lined cases or casks.
Chairman.] Then we cannot accept the amend-
ment.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace pleases.
Chairman.] Then what is the next amend-
ment P
Mr. Whitehead..] The next amendment is to
insert “ saddlery or harness in waterproof cases
or casks,” that would be the replacing of the
articles from Class 3 to Class 2 ; and if my
learned friend would meet me in this way I should
be prepared to withdraw that amendment. If
your Grace will turn to Class 3 in the Board of
Trade Provisional Order Classification at page 42,
in the first column, the last line but three, you
will see “Saddlery or harness in tin-lined cases
or casks.” As I understand, the object of insert-
ing those words, “in tin-lined cases or casks,”
was that the articles should be properly protected
with waterproof, and if my learned friend would
insert, instead of the words “tin-lined,” in “water-
proof cases,” that would meet our objection, and
we would withdraw the amendment as it now
stands.
Mr. Moon..] I could not accept that, because
if they put it in a waterproof bag, that would
meet the case, and everybody would do it.
Earl of Belmore.] What is the objection to tin-
lined cases or casks?
Mr. Whitehead..] I understand that when the
question was before the Board of Trade evidence
was given that these articles, when for shipment,
go in tin-lined cases; but in fact the custom of
the trade at the present moment is changing ; that
whereas until recently they have gone always in
tin-limed cases, they are now going in waterproof
cases, which are equally effectual as a protection
against water, and cheaper for the trader. . It
would practically meet the same point as I under-
stand, if you insert there waterproof cases
irrespective of the nature of the waterproofing
provided they are waterproof.
Chairman.] How would that meet the case of
a waterproof bag P
Mr. Whitehead..] I should not have taken the
case to mean the bag. I think if I were to caiſ a
witness to explain the present practice, that
would be the shortest way.
Earl of Belmore.] A bag might get a hole in
lt.
Chairman.] Do you wish to press this amend-
ment? -
Mr. Whitehead..] I think we might bring it up
in Class 3.
Chairman.] But your amendment is to insert
“saddlery or harness in waterproof cases or
casks,” on page 36, column 1, after line 5; we
must deal with that now, and either reject it or
accept it.
Mr. Whitehead.] Then we withdraw it.
Chairmam...] Then “saddlers' ironmongery (as
defined in Class 3) if packed in cases or casks”:
is that the same 2
Mr. Whitehead..] No, that raises a fresh point.
This is really a consequential upon a later
amendment, because it refers to saddlery as de-
fined in Class 3, and we are proposing a defini-
tion of saddlery when we reached Class 3.
Chairman.] I had reached
Class 3.
Mr. Whitehead..] On page 17 of the amend-
ments you will see in Class 3 a definition of
saddlers' ironmongery. You will see there a long
amendment, setting out in order certain specific
articles which should be included in the generic
term. Then if you turn to this amendment, you
will see that it is consequential upon that one,
because the suggestion is that when this class of
article, saddlers' ironmongery, is consigned in a
particular way it should go into Class 2 instead
of Class 3. . I think it would be simpler to post-
pone it until the question of Class 3 has been
settled.
Chairman.] Then we will deal with page 36,
column 1, after line 5, to insert, “ saddlers’ iron-
mongery as defined in Class 3,” when we get to
that clause in Class 3. Then, now, “ tanks and
cisterns.”
Mr. Whitehead..] The amendment is on
page 36, column 2, after line 35, to add, “tanks
and cisterns, iron, such as can be carried in an
ordinary waggon.” I do not know whether my
learned friend would meet me upon this point,
which I understand is really the same kind of
point as we have already dealt with, that is to
say, a reservation of the existing practice, keep-
ing them in the same class as they are in in the
present Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Moon.] No, your Grace. I am very
willing to meet my learned friend in every way,
but I cannot accept that, because the words,
“such as can be carried in an ordinary waggon,”
are not words of limitation which ought to be
inserted in an Act of Parliament ; they are as
vague as words can be. What is an ordinary
waggon? What is a cistern that can be carried
in an ordinary waggon # It raises endless ques-
tions. There is a frame of words in the Clearing
House Classification which can be altered, if
required.
thought we
Mr. Whitehead..] I am perfectly willing to
(81.)
5 L 4 resign
824
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE 'ſ AKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
resign those words ; they are inserted in order
to comply with the regulations of the existing
Clearing [Iouse Classification; but if substan-
tially the amendment is accepted, I do not insist
upon those words. “Tanks and cisterns, iron,”
would, of course, meet my view.
Chairman.] I think you must prove to our
satisfaction, if you can, that those words ought
to be added.
Mr. Whitehead..] Then I will at once go to the
evidence, your Grace.
Earl of Belmore.] Do you mean by an ordi-
nary waggon a railway waggon or a road
1(y 2
Waggon
Chairman. That is just the question.
MR. EDWARD BARTON, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
7182. YoU are manager for Messrs. Ludlow
Brothers, makers of galvanized hollow-ware of
Palmer-street, Birmingham 7–Yes.
7183. And you also give evidence on behalf of
the galvanized hollow ware trade?–Yes.
7 184. At the present time, where are tanks
and cisterns, iron, such as can be carried in an
ordinary waggon, placed in the Clearing House
Classification ?—In Class 2.
7185. What is the meaning of that phrase
“carried in an ordinary waggon?”—Well, that
I never understood ; I do not now understand
the phrase “carried in an ordinary waggon.”
Chairman.
7 186. But that is the amendment you are here
to support 2—Exactly. That amendment has
been adopted to carry out the idea at present in
the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Whitehead.
7 187. In the absence of any such provision
being inserted in the schedule, into what Class
will these tanks and cisterns go 2–According to
the Board of Trade's Provisional Order they go
in Class 4.
Chairman.] What page is that ?
Mr. Whitehead.
7188. At page 46 of the London and North
Western schedule, in the second column, line 8
“ tanks.” Then if your Grace will refer back to
page 44, you will see cisterns are included in the
same class. (To the Witness). Does Class 4
seem to you to be the proper class for iron tanks
and cisterns 2–No.
7 189. Is the value of these articles in any way
corresponding to the value of the articles in Class
4 *--I should say not, because none of our
articles are in Class 4 besides these.
7190. They are comparatively a new article
—Yes.
7191. A heavy article 2-—Yes heavy traffic.
Earl of Camperdown.
71.92. They are very bulky —They are rather
bulky and made of strong material?
7 193. Not “rather ”; should you not say
“very "?—Some of them, of course, are of very
heavy material.
7.194. Bulky, not rather bulky, but vey
bulky —Not the majority of them, because
sometimes they make a nest one in the other.
Mr. Whitehead.
7195. In order to meet that difficulty, when
they are extremely bulky you propose to insert a
proviso that these tanks, when carried in Class
2, shall be only tanks, or by-the-bye they may be
cisterns such as can be carried in an ordinary
waggon 2–Yes.
Chairman.] But the witness tells us he does
not know what it means.
Mr. Whitehead.
7 196. Are the cisterns too large to go into an
ordinary railway waggon 2–Sometimes, but very
seldom ; I do not think we have ever made any.
71.97. You would not desire that this provision
which you propose to insert should apply to that
kind of tank 2–No.
7.198. But to tanks that can go into an
ordinary railway waggon, which you think should
go into Class 2 when made of iron 2–Yes.
Lord Belper.] But there is a special class, is
there not, with regard to that.
Mr. Whitehead.] There is in Part IV.
Chairman.
7 199. What is the largest sized cistern
or tank that could go into an ordinary railway
waggon?—The size of the waggon is about 12 to
14 feet long, I understand, from what I have
measured of them, and the width is about 6 feet.
We have never made any tanks so large as that
to be carried in one piece.
Mr. Whitehead.
7.200. Could you state precisely what the size
of these tanks is, generally speaking; what do
they range from ?—They average about three
feet cube.
Lord Belper.
7.201. The largest ?–No, the average.
Mr. Moon.
7202. May I intervene for a moment 2–I do
not know whether you are prepared to accept
this, “tanks and cisterns not fitted, galva-
nized, or common iron, if nested ? — Not “if
nested.”
Mr. Whitehead..] The tanks you are concerned
in are not nested 2–No.
7203. They are sent unprotected ?–Yes.
7204. Being articles of low value and very
strong 2—Yes.
Chairman.
7205. But the witness said the tank was three
feet.
O N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 825
Mr. BARTON.
10 June 1891.] | Continued.
Chairman—continued Mr. Moon—continued.
feet. What does he mean ; three feet a waggon 2 Should I be wrong in putting it
square 2 from 10 to 18 cwt. 2–You would be wrong alto-
Mr. Whitehead.] He said three feet cube was
the average size.
Earl of Belmore.] There are surely a great
many bigger than that?—Yes, they are bigger
than that.
Chairman.
7206. What does a three feet cube tank hold
how many gallons of water 2–About 160 gallons
of water.
Mr. Whitehead.
7207. What are they used for 2 – Holding
Water.
7208. Just water tanks 2 —Yes.
Mr. Hambu ry.
7209. Is it possible to nest them in any case ?
So far as I know there is a bar across the middle 2
—Only in the very large ones, exceeding, say,
400 gallons capacity, there would be a bar.
7210. What size would that be, what cube 2
—Four feet cube.
Mr. Whitehead.
7211. I suppose you also send smaller tanks
than that? — Very much ; the majority are
smaller. -
7212. Even than three feet cube 2–Yes, even
than three feet cube.
Earl of Belmore.
7213. But there are bigger tanks used; there
are iron tanks that are sent as tanks —Yes.
7214. Of six feet square, I will not say six
feet cube : four feet by six feet, say?—Yes, there
are larger tanks used, certainly.
Mr. Whitehead.
7215. But not to any considerable quantity ?
—No.
7216. And when these articles are so large
that they cannot go into a single waggon, of
course special provision would be made as is
made in the schedule under Part IV., the
exceptional class?—Yes.
7217. And you do not propose to deal with
that ?—Yes.
7218. It is only the average tank, compara-
tively a small tank of three feet cube and less,
that you wish to deal with under this amend-
ment 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7219. These tanks are of course of different
shapes as well as different sizes 2–Yes.
7220. Sometimes circular 2–Sometimes round
and sometimes square.
7221. They take up sometimes a great deal of
room, I mean as compared with their weight 7–
I do not know what you would call as compared
with their weight.
7222. I mean their bulk compared with their
weight; the space they occupy in the truck when
compared with their weight will be very great?
—Not necessarily.
1223. As compared with bricks 2–As com-
pared with bricks, of course it would.
1224. What is the average weight of tanks in
gether. -
1225. It depends upon the size very much of
the tanks, I suppose 2–The tanks we send for
shipment, four feet cube, would weigh 12 cwt.
each. You could get half-a-dozen into a truck.
Chairman.
1226. For shipment, you say?—Yes.
Mr. Moon.
1227. Supposing you got a tank which fills a
truck up, one tank, you know, what would be
the weight of that?--It would be a big tank,
consequently it would have to be made of very
strong material, and I should say that a tank that
would fill a truck up would weigh from two to
three tons.
7228. You never sent one, I suppose, as big as
that ?—No, we have not.
7229. I think you told us that you have not
made them 2–Yes.
7230. Are these tanks fitted sometimes with
taps and gauges?–Not with gauges; they are
fitted with taps sometimes.
7231. With pumps ?--No, not pumps.
7232. For the purpose of carriage of chemicals,
acids, and creosote, and these things, are they
not fitted with pumps ?—Not that I am aware of.
I do not know what they use for chemicals.
7233. You said that you manufactured nothing
but water cisterns 2–Yes.
7234. But, of course, a tank or cistern may be
used for any purpose, not only for water ?—I
suppose it could ; I do not know of any other.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7235. The average consignment when the
truck is full, I understand to be something far
greater than my learned friend put of 18 cwt. 2
—Yes, more than double I should say.
7236. When a large number of small tanks go
what would be about the average weight of a
truck load 2–About two tons, I should say.
7237. And even where a large tank goes, there
again you think the weight would be about two
tons to the truck 2–I say it would be more, be-
cause it is a heavy material, you see.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] Have you any other witness 2
Mr. Whitehead..] That is all the evidence,
your Grace.
Chairman.] The Committee cannot accept the
annendment.
Now we go to page 17 of the amendments, and
come to the amendment as regards “tin-lined
cases or casks.” Has that been dealt with ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It is a consequential
amendment on the saddlery amendment, and
postponed till you come to saddlers' ironmon-
gery.
Mr. Whitehead..] This question of the tin-lined
cases will come in properly now, if it is agreeable
to your Grace to take it now.
Chairman.] Is it connected with this one 2
(81.)
5 M Mr.
826
MINUTES OF EVIDEN CE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Chairman.] "Can we
together ?
Mr. Whitehead..] It would be simpler to keep
them separate.
deal with the two
Mr. Moon.] I thought it was arranged that
the amendment postponed should be taken with
the amendment on the bottom of page 17.
Earl of Belmore.] So it was; but this is another
mendment which is consequential also. The
Mansion House first amendment was also conse-
quential upon the last Mansion House amend-
ment.
Mr. Moon.] The amendment goes upon the
assumption that the other amendment has been
conceded by the Committee.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so. This is in the
form of a consequential amendment, but I under-
stood your Grace to allow us to withdraw it at
that point and to let us bring it forward here.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Whitehead...] Therefore, if your Grace
approves, it would come in here.
Mr. Moon.] I thought that the amendment,
with the amendment postponed, was to be taken
after the discussion on what was contained in
saddlers' irommongery.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] Was not that
so Why cannot you deal with saddlers' iron-
.uongery P
Mr. Whitehead..] It is a different question
entirely. It is immaterial when we take it, but
it will have to be kept distinct in the evidence
and in the argument.
Chairman.] You would prefer, I understand,
to take the one that is postponed ? We will
reserve our decision upon both until we have
heard them both.
Mr. Whitehead.] We are not at one even yet,
I fear. Your Grace is referring to the post-
poned amendment with regard to saddlers' iron-
mongery as defined in Class 3.
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Whitehead..] I was referring to that other
question of saddlery or harness in waterproof
cases, or casks, which precedes that.
10 June 1891.
casks, to be put into Class 2.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Perhaps I might inter-
vene for a moment as amicus curiae. There was
an amendment proposed by Mr. Whitehead as
to saddlery or harness in waterproof cases or
Mr. Moon was
asked whether he would assent to the omission
of the words “in tin-lined cases” in Class 3, and
the substitution of the words instead of “tin-
lined cases,” “waterproof cases.” Mr. Moon.
very wisely observed that that would cover
bags or cases, not wooden cases at all; it
would cover bags or anything approaching
to the nature of bags. Consequently the
Committee postponed their decision upon that
amendment until evidence was put in as re-
gards the omission of tin-lined cases in Class 3,
and the substitution of waterproof cases there-
for. That is a slightly different amendment
fron, the amendment dealing with saddlers' iron-
mongery. It stands by itself, and therefore the
Committee perhaps would save time by hearing
it now. *
Charman.] Very well.
Mr. Moon.] I thought the amendment was
either withdrawn or rejected.
Chairman.] We had better hear it. (To Mr.
Whitehead.) We will hear you now on the
amendment as to tin-lined cases or casks.
Mr. Whitehead..] The amendment as it now
stands is this : to substitute for “tin-lined cases.
or casks,” the words “in waterproof-lined cases
or casks.”
2
Chairman.] And “e.o.h.p ’
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace; that is
withdrawn; or rather it was modified and
amended when we were dealing with Class 2, as
I think Mr. Courtenay Boyle explained a
moment ago.
Earl of Belmore.] Is the second amendment
on page 17 withdrawn 2 -
Mr. Whitehead..] It is modified; we are
bringing it forward in a modified form; we are
substituting the word “waterproof” for “tin *;
so that it will read now “in waterproof-lined
cases or casks.” That is our proposition,
just to substitute the one word “waterproof.”
for “tin '' in the schedule as it stands.
MR. JOHN LECKIE, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
* 238. You are a wholesale saddler at Walsallº
-- That is so.
7239. You represent here the town council of
Walsall, and the chamber of commerce 2–I do.
7240. What is the practice at the present time
with regard to the packing of saddlers' ironmon-
gery – As regards harness and saddlery the
practice is various. Some old-fashioned houses
continue the old-fashioned way, and order us to
pack our goods in tin-lined cases if they go to
India, and zinc-lined cases if they go to the
Colonies ; but now, with new people come into
the trade, they cut everything down, and if they
find that they can manage to get the goods taken
as safely in cases lined in that form (producing a
sample), as lined in this way with tin (producing
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
another sample), then they will do so. So I be-
lieve the majority of the business, in fact the
greater proportion of business, now is gradually
declining into waterproof oilcloth cases, instead
of tin-lined or zinc-lined cases.
Mr. Hanbury.
7241. Does this “ tin-lined ’’ include “zinc-
lined 7”—Yes, it may.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] That is so.
Mr. Whitehead.
7242. (To the Witness.) At the present time
can you tell at all from the outside of the box
whether it is tin-lined or not ?—No.
7243. And
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
827
10 June 1891.]
Mr. LECKIE.
| Continued.
Mr. White/head–-continued.
7243. And you would not be able to tell, I
presume, in the future whether it is waterproof
lined or not ?—No. is
7244. The difficulty of detecting whether it is
lined in the way specified in the schedule would
be the same, whether you inserted the words
“waterproof,” or the words “tin-lined " ?—
Yes. e
7245. There would be no greater difficulty in
the case of the words being “waterproof” than
in the case of the words being “ tin-lined P’ =
No. The only reason we have for desiring this
change is for the sake of the honesty and truth-
fulness of our establishments, so that in sending
a shipping note to the railway company they
shall not be telling a lie, and be calling a thing
“ tin-lined ” when it is lined with waterproof.
It is manifestly wrong to tempt young people in
the establishments to do that.
7246. At the present time which way do you
yourself consign goods?—As a rule now I find
that oil cloth is coming more and more into use ;
but speaking for myself I would say that half of
my goods, or more are packed in cases lined
with zinc or tin, but other manufacturers seem
to be doing hardly anything in tin-lined or zinc-
lined cases.
7247. I believe it was you who gave evidence
before the Board of Trade with regard to the tin
lining 7–Yes.
7248. And it was in consequence of your evi-
dence that the word “ tin * was inserted in the
schedule 2—It is so.
7249. I believe that you were before the
Board of Trade, and that you made the state-
ment which went further than you intended it to
go, and you think that possibly it was because of
your statement that the word “tin’” was inserted
in the schedule?—l believe that was how they have
been misled. All along in my argument for two
pages in my evidence I had dealt with the
strength of the cases; but at the end, in answer
to Mr. Harrison, I said in my evidence, and this
is the point as to which the Board of Trade have
evidently been misled: “The fact is this, that
our cases are practically undamageable. We
have them lined with tin and with zinc, so as to
be waterproof, and they are made so very strong,
and bound so well, that there can be no better
traffic, no safer traffic, no more profitahle traffic
for the railways than that particular trade.” The
Board of Trade had evidently caught hold of that
statement of mine, and they put in the words
“ tin-lined,” thinking that all the cases were in
that way. One can see how that has happened,
I think. I spoke quite sincerely, and the fact is,
the great proportion of our business is in that
form ; but other manufacturers find fault with
the expression, and desire me to come up and
express that feeling to your Lordships.
7250. The only object of lining the cases with
tin is to make them waterproof, is it not ?—
Yes.
7251. And that object is effected equally as
well when you have waterproofing 2––Yes.
Lord Belper.] Is it effected equally well where
you have waterproofing?
Mr. Whitehead.
7252. I understand the witness to say so, my
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
Lord. (To the Witness.) And the fact that it is
effected equally well where you have waterproof.
ing is shown, is it not, by the fact that cases
lined in the same way as that which his Grace is
now looking at are coming more and more into
fashion in the trade 2–Yes.
7.253. It is equally effectual?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7254. It is not only for the purpose of water-
proofing that the cases are lined with tin, is it 2–
I know of no other purpose, and I never heard of
it, and l have been in the business 40 years.
7255. Do you say that if a case is lined with
oil-cloth or something of that kind, instead of
with tin, it is equally well preserved 2–I have
no experience of the condition of the case when
it reaches its destination ; but the peºple abroad
who receive the goods seem to think that they
can receive them in as good a condition, and,
therefore, as they are cheaper in that form, they
are ordering more and more goods to be packed
in that form instead of ordering them to be lined
with tin, or with zinc. If water-proof lined cases
do not turn out well when they reach the other
side, I presume people would not order them
because their goods would come out damaged
and soiled, and in indifferent condition. There-
fore the fact that these water-proofed cases are
coming more increasingly into use shows that
they are satisfying the wants which they are
intended to serve.
7256. The traffic you speak of is traffic for
shipment, is it not ?—Entirely.
7257. Will you tell me how a railway com-
pany could tell whether a case was waterproofed
or not ?—I think if the railway company saw the
mark on the top of these cases here, addressed to
A. B. C., Calcutta, or Sydney, or Honduras, or
Japan, or China, they would know perfectly
well when they took it to Liverpool, or to
Southampton, or to London, where it would be
put on board the ship where it was going to, and
it would be self evident.
7258. But supposing the consignment were to
Leamington, or to Bletchley P-There would not
be such a thing ; it is practically impossible ;
nobody ever knew of such a thing. It never
entered the brain of man to conceive to send
goods packed like this to Leamington.
7259. But, supposing goods were sent in a
box to Leamington, or to Rugby, or to
Bletchley ; I suppose saddlery goods are some-
times sent in a box to those places, are they not?
—But this case here is a lined case or cask; it is
quite a different thing.
7260. What is the difference legally between
a “box” and a “case "?—Those gentlemen here
round me know that there is all the difference
between these things. The one is what they
call “country packing,” which is a well recog-
nised thing. There are boxes which are used
week after week. and month after month, till
they are of no use. On the other hand, good;
for shipment are packed in freshly-made boxes to
suit the goods packed in them. Country pack-
ing and shipping packing are quite different
things.
7261. I do not dispute that ; but, supposing
(81.)
5 M 2 goods
828
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.]
Mr. LECKIE.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
goods were sent inland in ordinary boxes, and
were declared to be in a waterproof box, how
would the railway company know whether it was
waterproofed or not ?—The railway companies
are very sharp. If you fancy that they cannot
detect
Chairman.
7262. It is not a question of whether the
railway companies are sharp or not; we will
assume for the moment that they are sharp ; the
question is : How is it to be detected P Sup-
posing, for instance, my saddler sends me a
saddle from London down into the country, and
he sends it in a strong box, how are the railway
company who convey it to know whether it is a
waterproofed box or not ?—If a man gets an imi-
tation of this box which I have before me, and
sends it to Leamington, and says that it is water-
proofed, the first question that would arise when
it got into the railway company’s hands would
be, What is the use of this man packing this case
in waterproof in order to go to a place like
Leamington P
7263. My saddle would not, of course, come
with an iron band round it like that ; but I am
supposing it to come in a strong box; and the
question which I understood the learned counsel
to put to you is in that case how would the railway
company know whether that box is waterproofed
inside or not?—They could not see from the out-
side, but they could easily say, That is not in a
waterproof-lined case.
7264. How would they know that ? — They
would see that it was no use having a waterproof
case going to a place in the Midlands or to Scot-
land.
7265. If it was exposed to the weather, and
my saddle got damaged, it would signify a great
deal, would it not ?—There was never such a
thing known. I have been in the business 40
years, and I never heard tell of anybody wishing
their goods to be packed in lined cases in order to
prevent rain getting in, and I never expect to
find such a thing occurring.
Chairman.] That is hardly the point.
Mr. Moom.
7266. Now I want to ask another question. If
you consigned saddlery to Leamington in an ordi-
nary case it would go in Class 4, would it not?—
At present, yes.
7267. Aud under the l’rovisional Order it is
proposed that it shall go in Class 4, is it not ?—
Yes.
7268. Supposing you put that saddlery iuto a
waterproof bag, would that be a waterproof case
or not ?–No ; you use language that has an in-
terpretation. A “case” means this (holding up
a case), and a “box * means a home-packed thing,
which is totally different; and we as manufac-
turers, and the railway companies and everybody
else in the trade know the difference, and if you
do not understand the thing we cannot help you
if you are ignorant.
Mr. Moon.] I will leave it there them.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7269. If any dispute arose between the railway
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
company and a trader as to whether a bag meant
a case, that would be a question of fact, would it
not, to be determined by a court of justice 7–
Quite so.
Chairman.] You said whether a bag means a
case; surely, you mean whether a case means a
bag.
Mr. Whitehead..] It is immaterial I think.
Chairman.] But of course we want to shut
out the conrt of justice, with all respect, as far
as possible.
Mr. Whitehead.] Quite so, your Grace; but
the small point of interpretation which has been
raised by my learned friend would be a question,
I submit, to go to a jury. It is not a proper
question to put to this witness, because it is not
a question that he can answer, whether a “case ’’
is a “bag” or not, is entirely a question of
interpretation.
Witness.] You might make it “wooden case.”
Mr. Whitehead..] I would submit there is no
possibility of dispute. The witness says that
in his opinion as a practical man no such dispute
can arise, but if it does arise, as my learned
friend suggests, I say it is a question to be settled
by a jury, and not a question for this witness.
Mr. Hanbury.] It is not a question as between
an ordinary case and an ordinary box, but
between a box and a tin-lined case.
Mr. Whitehead.
7270. Quite so. (To the Witness.) Now to
take the case which his Grace has put of a
saddle sent in an ordinary box; assuming that
there is a declaration made when it is consigned
that the box contains a saddle, I would ask you
how are the railway company to know that it
contains a saddle?—They take the word of the
trader.
7271. Of course they do. As the schedule
stands at the present time these goods, if they
are consigned in tin-lined cases, are in Class 3 f
—Yes.
7272. How are the railway company to tell
whether it it a tin-lined case or not?—In the
first place
7273. Perhaps you do not catch my question ;
do they not have to rely upon the word of the
trader 2–They do rely on the word of the trader;
but the fact is, their carters and the people who
collect the goods, are in our place all hours of the
day seeing if we have goods ready, and they are
constantly seeing in our packing room dozens of
cases all in the course of being packed, and they
See our lining, and see all about them, and, in
fact, are as familiar with the nature of the goods
as we are ourselves almost, and more so than of
the principals in the trade would be.
7274. If you substitute the word “Water-
proof” for “Tin * in the schedule, the difficulty
of identifyinging the inside of the package would
be in no way altered, would it?—In no way.
7275. Supposing that a trader makes a false
declaration; that is to say supposing he were to
state that a case was waterproofed when it is not,
then that would be a false declaration, and a
fraud upon the railway companies, and they
would
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 829
m -
10 June 1891.]
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
would have their remedy in a Court of Law,
would they not ?—Yes, Quite so. Business
could not be carried on without mutual confidence
and trust. The railway companies are sharp
enough to look after themselves, and we find they
look after themselves.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is all the evidence, your
Grace, which I propose to cali upon this point.
Mr. Moon.] The result, your Grace, of ac-
cepting this amendment would practically be to
put all saddlery from Class IV. into Class III. ;
because, if your Grace accepts the amendment as
it is worded, it will obviously be worth a
trader's while for the purpose of the re-
duction which a person consigning saddlery
could obtain in the rate, to line the box in which
he sends it with oilcloth, which would cost him
about sixpence, and then consign his saddlery as
saddlery in a waterproof case. That, my Lord is
really the whole case: Is saddlery to go into
Class III. or Class IV. P. As to saddlery going
abroad packed in tin-lined cases, such as Mr.
Leckie has spoken about, I daresay it is right
enough that that should go into Class III. That
is put in Class III., according to the Provisional
Order which the Board of Trade have approved
of, and which we do not dispute ; but that all
saddlery should go into Class III. we do very
much object to, and we say that if you put in a
vague definition like this, that all saddlery in
waterproof cases should be carried in Class III.,
all saddlery will go into Class III., because it
will be worth a trader’s while to line his case
with oilcloth in order to get it carried in
Class III,
Lord Belper.] How would it be if you added
the words “for shipment” 2
Mr. Moon.] That, my Lord, introduces a
principle into the classification which might be
applied to every article. That might be left, as
it has been left hitherto, to the railway com-
panies, who, no doubt, do give lower rates for
goods for shipment than for other goods, where
it is necessary to do so.
Chairman.] We do not accept the amendment.
(To Mr. Whitehead.) Now, what is your next
amendment 7
Mr. Whitehead..] The next amendment is as
to saddiers' ironmongery, page 42, column 1,
after line, 42, insert “Saddlers' ironmongery
(e.o.h.p.)," and then these words are followed by
the definition of what saddlers' ironmongery shall
include: “Packages (not being wholly hard-
ware), containing any articles usually sold by
saddlers' ironmongers, set out in any class herein-
before mentioned, or in this class, and any of the
following articles, viz.: Belts for men and horses;
chain burnishers; cleaning preparations for stable
use ; cocoa matting ; corn measures, sieves, and
servers ; dung baskets; embrocations for horses;
halters, hemp and jute; nosebags, leather and
matting; purses and pocket books; singeing
lamps; sporting articles, such as shot flasks,
game bags, dog starters, and gun cases; web,
woollen, cotton, or jute; whips, thongs, and
lashes; whip sockets, wood clamps for saddlers ;
(81.)
Mr. LECKIE.
—-
L Uontinued.
—T
braces, for wearing apparel (not silk); brooms
and brushes; footballs; harness; horse clothing;
leggings; saddlery ; sponges for horses (not ex-
ceeding 3 lbs. in any one consignment).” The
principle of the amendment is this : saddlers'
ironmongers are interested in a very large num-
ber of different articles, which, owing to the
custom of the trade, are all consigned in one
package to provincial and other saddlers in a small
way, and also to Colonial saddlers, and it is de-
sirable that these consignments, which include a
variety of articles, should be treated in the same
way. The principle, as the Committee will see,
has been already accepted with regard to hard-
ware; and if you refer to the Board of Trade
schedule, though the matter is no longer in dis-
pute, you will see that the principle has been
already accepted with regard to mixed groceries
and also with regard to mixed drapery ; and this
is a trade of a similar character, where you have
a large number of articles which have been de-
scribed in a different way in the Clearing House
Classification, but which are practically all one
for the purposes of railway transit, and which it
would be a great convenience both to the trade
and the railway companies to treat in a single
class in a single group. The articles in the
schedule as it now stands are chiefly in Classes II.
and III. There are some articles which would
come into this grouped class of saddlers' iron-
mongery, which are in Classes B. and I. ; they
form a small number. On the other hand, there
are a few articles, I think numbering eight
altogether, which are in Classes IV. and W., as
the list I have handed in will show. Those
which are in classes IV. and V. are articles of
small value and seldom sent. But the great
bulk of the articles come into Classes III. and
IV. (the intermediate classes); and our Sugges-
tion is that all these articles when consigned in a
single package, whatever their nominal class in
the classification, when they are consigned
in a single mixed packet, should be treated as
Class III. So that I think I may say substan-
tially that in most cases this would involve a
slight raising of the class; because as regards the
bulk of the individual articles, a large number
are in Class II., and the rest, which form the
greater proportion, are in Class III., and would
stand where they are. This amendment there-
fore, if accepted, would involve no hardship, I
may say, upon the railway companies, but would
be a very great convenience and advantage to
the trade.
Chairman.] It is an odd mixture.
Mr. Whitehead..] It is really for the conveni-
ence of the trade. If you look at the Clearing
House Classification you will there see a large
number of hardware articles, all grouped to-
gether. In the same way you have a lot of
different articles of grocery all grouped into a
single mixed class because the custom of the
trade is such that they are sent from the large
wholesale dealers to the retail dealers in a single
package.
Chairman.] “Singeing lamps” and “purses
and pocket books" have not much in common.
Mr. Phitehead.j No.; but the point is that all
5 M 3 these
830 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
these articles are dealt with by the same people
in the retail trade.
Chairman.] That is true.
Mr. Whitehead..] A small country saddler sells
all these articles enumerated in the list of
saddlers' ironmongery. We say the wholesale
dealer deals in these same articles, and therefore
it would be for the convenience of the trade to
have them grouped together.
Mr. Hambury.] So much would depend upon
the way in which they are mixed. You might,
for instance, put a hundred of the things that are
in Class 5 and only one of which are in Class 3,
and take them all at Class 3 rates.
Mr. Whitehead..] The evidence will show
Chairman.] I see such things as “dung
baskets" and “gun cases.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Take the article “foot-
balls,” for instance—
Witness.] We have dropped footballs; we have
dropped several of those on the list.
Earl of Camperdown.
7276. (To the Witness.) I see here “Cleaning
preparations for stable use ’’; what does that
mean?— For cleaning brown saddles, or any of
those things which coachmen use for polishing
Ai}).
Chairman.
7277. Do you mean dubbin 2–Yes, a kind of
dubbin; but there are chemicals besides that.
Earl of Camperdown.
7278. What is there about a dung basket, that
it ought to be carried differently from another
basket 2—A man orders half-a-dozen dung
baskets and the thing is worth about 5 s. 6 d. ;
but he orders five or six pounds' worth of other
things, and they all go together ; there is no
possible way of separating them.
Mr. Whitehead..] In answer to Mr. Hanbury's
question, I may say there is only one article in
this list in Class 5, namely, sponges for horses;
and, with regard to that, a special provision is
made that they are “not to exceed 3 lb. in any
one consignment.” We therefore get over the
difficulty which the honourable Member raises.
There are some few articles in Class 4, but the
bulk of the articles are in Classes 2 and 3. All
those will be raised in Class 2; the articles in
Class 3 would stand as they are, and the actual
reduction of articles would, therefore, be very
few indeed. -
Earl of Belmore.] How are you going to check
the weight of the sponges, for instance, because
they would be packed 2
Mr. Whitehead..] That is a difficulty which
arises with regard to all articles consigned in
cases or covers. The word of the trader has to
be accepted by the railway companies, subject,
in case of dispute, to the question being tested
and tried.
Earl of Belmore.] The railway company can
weigh the case if they know it contains only that
article.
Ms. Whitehead..] The railway company are
never aware of what is inside the case if it is
nailed up ; they have to accept the word of the
trader, the trader being liable to an action for
fraud in the event of his making a false declara-
tion. That is the fact with regard to all articles
and would not apply particularly with regard to
this proposed classification.
Chairman.] Will you go on with the examina-
tion of your witness 2
Mr. Whitehead.] May I hand in to the Com-
mittee a list of the articles usually sold by sad.
dlers' ironmongers, which will show where they
are at present classed.
The same is handed in, and is as follows : —
“ LIST ().F ARTICLES
usually sold by Saddlers Ironmongers, and on that account known as Saddler's Ironmongery—
showing how they are respectively classed in the Provisional Order.
N.B.-It is desired that mixed parcels of these goods may be carried under the generic name of
Saddler's Ironmongery, in Class 3, or if packed in cases or casks, then in Class 2.
In practice it is
only goods intended for shipment that are so packed.
CLAss B. IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Rivets.
Nails and Spikes.
CLAss C. IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
tron and steel rings.
Washers.
CLASS 1 IN PROVISIONAL ORDER,
Horse shoes,
Soap,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PRO VISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 83%
10 June 1891.
CLASS 2 IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Blacking.
Chains and traces (packed).
Dubbing (for harness).
Felt (for horse clothing).
Flocks. -
Hardware, viz.:-
Bells (small, for harness).
Bits.
Buckles.
Buttons.
Carpet-bag frames.
Chains, curb.
Collars, dog.
Curry combs.
Eyelets (for straps).
Ferules (for whips).
Grindery.
Lanterns (stable).
Military ornaments.
Nails, rivets (brass or copper).
Ornaments for saddlery.
Pliers.
Powder flasks.
Saddletrees.
Screws, brass.
Shears, sheep.
Spanners.
Spurs.
Stirrups.
Tacks,
Terrets.
Washers, brass or copper.
Wire, brass or copper.
Hames.
Hemp (for stitching).
Hessians, jute.
Molliscorum.
Polishing paste.
Ropes (for halters),
Twine (for sewing).
Tarpauling.
Washers, leather.
CLASS 3 IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
American or leather cloth (for harness
fronts).
Awl blades.
Blankets (for horses).
Buckets and pails.
Clasps (for belts).
Clothing, waterproof.
Collars, rush.
Combs (for manes).
Cotton and linen thread.
Cotton wool (for padding).
Cutlery (horse scissors and leather cutting
knives).
Elastic webbing (for braces).
Flax (for stitching).
Gloves (for labourers).
Hair (for stuffing saddles),
India rubber goods (for horses and
vehicles).
Laces, leather (for harness).
Leather, e.o. h.p.
Locks and keys (for leather bags).
Mops (for stables).
Netting cotton and twine (for horses).
Oils (for harness).
Sheepskins, e.o.h.p.
Shot belts.
Stable fittings and mangers (enamelled
iron).
Turnery ware (manger logs, whip reels, and
tool handles).
Varnish.
Wash leather.
Wool, dyed or carded.
Woollen cloth.
CLASS 4 IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Braces (for wearing apparel).
Brooms and brushes.
Clothing, for horses.
Footballs.
Harness.
Leggings.
Saddlery.
CLASS 5 IN PROVISIONAL ORDER.
Sponges (for horses). Not to exceed 3 lbs. in any one consignment.
Belts, for men and horses.
Cleaning preparations for stable use.
Chain burnishers, for polishing bits, &c.
Clamps, wood, for saddlers.
Cocoa matting.
Corn measures, sieves, and sifters.
Dung baskets.
Embrocation, for horses.
Halters, hemp and jute.
Harness fittings, viz., buckles, hooks,
terrets, swivels, spring-hooks, rosettes,
front-chains, &c.
AT PRESENT UNCLASSED IN PROVISIONAL ORDER, AND As such INCLUDED IN CLAss 3.
Horse clippers.
Nose-bags, leather a, nd cocoa matting.
Purses and pocket books.
Singeing lamps.
Sporting articles, shot belts, game bags, gun
cases, dog-starters, &c.
Sweat scrapers.
Web, woollen, cotton, jute.
Whips, thongs, lashes, and whip sockets.
(81.)
5 M 4
832
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.]
Mr. LECKIE.
| Continued.
Earl of Camperdown.] Take braces, for in-
stance, what has that got to do with saddlers’
ironmongery 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I should, perhaps, have ex-
plained that the saddlers' ironmonger is not a
person who makes ironmongery, but a wholesale
dealer who deals in all these saddlers' articles.
If your Grace will refer to the list, you
will see that two or three are in Class B.,
two are in Class C., and two in Class 1.
Then there is a long list of articles in Class 2,
some of which have gone up to Class 3 in
the hardware list, but leaving some dozen or
more in Class 2. Then as to the bulk of the
articles; if you would include all those articles
in the hardware list which come into Class 3, you
will see that some fifty or more at least would
appear in Class 3. Class 3 is the dominant char-
acteristic of these articles. Then there are seven
articles in Class 4, and one in Class 5, which we
propose to deal separately with, and make a
special provision to meet the objection which has
been raised by the honourable Member.
Lord Belper. Are baskets or wicker-work at
present in Class 32—I am not speaking of your
list.
Mr. Whitehead..] I do not know.
Lord Belper..] You put down dung baskets
here as unclassed. I take it they would go in
with “baskets” wherever that is classed. How-
ever, if you cannot tell me, it does not matter.
Mr. Whitehead.] I cannot find it, my Lord, at
present.
Chairman.] Will you go on with the examina-
tion of your witness.
Mr. M'hitehead.
7279. (To the Witness). You are chiefly en-
gaged in the shipping trade, are you not ?–Yes.
We do this saddlers’ and ironmongery business
as well, but principally for shipping.
7280. For shipping purposes you send out
mixed consignments containing articles from each
of these groups of Saddlers' ironmongery 2–Yes.
You see we get our orders from practical people
who require all the thousand articles that we
make, and we collect it wholesale for distribution.
We cannot say to a man, you must only order
certain things. A man orders what he wants
and we are very glad to get his order. We
find those orders vary according to
the season of the year. Sometimes one
article or class of article will be in demand at
one time, and another class of article of a different
kind at another ; but in the aggregate, taking
the average of the year's trade, a man has to
order from us and we have to send him every
item to which you have referred in this list, and
a great many more.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] You are speak-
ing now of goods for shipment?
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
deal with the home trade.
Mr. Hambury.
7381. (To the Witness.) Has this mixed class
existed hitherto in this trade 2—No. We have
had a working arrangement whereby up to now
we have managed to get on pretty fairly with
Another witness will
Mr. Hanbury—continued.
the railway companies; but we have taken the
opportunity at this time when things are being
re-arranged, to make an assertion of the arrange-
ments suited and fitted for the trade of our town.
It is a large working population. We have
73,000 people there engaged in the saddlery
business.
Chairman.
7282. As you have gone on well in the past,
why do you not imagine you will go on in the
same way in the future ?—Because we took ad-
vantage of the term “Hardware * to cover a
great many things, and we found that we got on
very well so long as no claims arose. But the
country tradespeople, whenever they put into
their package, which was classed as hardware, a
gig's saddle, say, or a neck collar, end any
damage took place to that parcel, they would not
pay any loss, because they said that “ Hardware *
did not cover leather goods.
Chairman.] Quite rightly, 1 should said.
Mr. Whitehead.
7283. (To the Witness.) Do I understand that
it was by arrangement with the railway coin
panies that you were allowed to consign those
articles of saddlery as hardware ?—Yes; we
could not get on without having an understand-
ing for a mixed rate.
7284. Up to the present time you have had
an understanding by which you consign those
articles of saddlery as hardware in Class 32–
Quite so.
7285. The class corresponding to the class
you are now asking for 2–Yes. But there is a
difficulty in connection with it, and now is the
time to get rid of any difficulty, and we want
the Committee to give us what they have given
to the grocery people, and given to the drapery
people, and given to the hardware people. Our
business is quite different from that of the hard-
ware people, and we want to get a separate thing
which we might call “Saddlers’ Ironmongery,” to
adopt our term ; and we understand, your Grace,
that this is the place, and now is the time for us
to let you understand how necessary it is that
we should be provided with a working arrange-
ment which will meet the requirements of our
trade.
7286. At the present time you have a work-
ing arrangement with the railway companies by
which it goes as hardware 2–Yes.
7287. You are anxious, now that all the ques-
tions which have given rise to dispute are being
settled before this Committee, that this arrange-
ment should be put on a statutory footing —
Hear, hear; that is the point.
7288. Just as the grocery trade and the
drapers’ trade and the hardware trade have been
treated, so you ask to be treated, and get this
mixed class 2–0uite se.
Chairman.] The arrangement is one about
which there never has been any dispute, I
gather.
Mr. Whitehead..] I understood the witness to
say that cases of dispute have arisen, and it is in
order
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
833
10 June 1891.
--------- - º
order to prevent any future friction that the
traders desire that this should be inserted
Il OW .
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] You may call
your other witness. I do not think you have
made out a case for the shipping trade ; but I
understand you have another witness.
MR. J. W. CHESTERTON, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows :
Mr. Whitehead.
7289. YoU are a saddlers' ironmonger, carry-
ing on trade in Walsall ?—Yes.
7290. You also represent the Walsall Town
Council and the Walsall Chamber of Commerce?
—That is. So.
7291. It is the custom of your trade, is it not,
for saddlers' ironmongers to sell a large assort-
ment of goods?—Yes, always.
7293. In fact, you consign in single packages
articles from all the various classes of saddlers’
ironmongery 2–Certainly.
7293, You send items which, in the classifi-
cation as it stands at present, are included in
the different classes ranging from Class B. to
Class W. 2–Yes, according to the list we have
given in.
7294. You come to speak with regard to the
home trade 2–Yes.
7295. The home trade is a very large trade, is
it not ?—Certainly. I have computed that there
are some 20 drays used in Walsall for the collec-
tion and delivery of these goods; that 8 tons would
be the average per week for each of those drays;
and, multiplying that, I have computed that out
of 160 tons, 120 tons consisted of these saddlers’
ironmongery goods.
7296. You compute that about 120 tons of
traffic of this kind is consigned in these mixed
parcels from Walsall every week —That is so.
7297. Therefore it is a very important traffic,
and a very important thing in the interests of the
inhabitants of Walsall?—Certainly ; and in ad-
dition there is a large traffic in the same goods
sent by passenger trains.
7298. Sent at higher rates ?—Yes, I mention
that as showing the magnitude of the trade.
Chairman.] I do not think that is disputed.
No doubt it is a very large trade, we are aware of
that.
Mr. Whitehead.
7299. Yes, your Grace. (To the Witness).
How are these articles packed 2–They are
packed in hampers, boxes, bales, or bundles,
according to the requirements of nature, and
mixed parce's of goods, as has been already
stated by the former witness, invariably con-
taining a few chains, a few bottles, a few iron or
steel goods, some brass and metal goods, and per-
haps a few leather goods, the lighter goods in-
variably weighing considerably less than half the
weight of the packet or hamper sent away. Con-
sequently, as has been already stated, we are
very anxious to get a definite generic term for
the class “ saddlers' ironmongery,” as we suggest,
to cover these mixed packages. We must pack
them in these mixed packages; we cannot divide
a half-hundred weight of goods into five or six
little classes, and send each in little driblets.
7300. The gist of the whole matter is this, is
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
it not : that if you have to send to a single con-
signee, say, one powder flask, some gloves, a mop,
a little harness, a little saddlery, some sponges,
rivets, nails, and spikes, all those articles would go
into separate classes at the present time; and it
would be necessary for you, in order to get the
benefit of the low rate upon these lower classed
articles, to pack them separately and consign them
separately in separate packages 3–It would not
do at all. -
Earl of Camperdown.
7301. How would a conglomeration of that
sort go at the present time 2—If we had
a considerable package of light goods, and
of heavy goods, we should divide them to
the best of our ability into two parcels, and con-
sign the one as harness under Class No. IV., and
the other as hardware, under Class No. II. ;
therefore we are asking for a medium, No. III.
Class, in which these assorted lots may be packed
together.
7302. I want to know how these articles you
propose to divide into small parcels go now, and
have been going up to now 2–In that same way
that is, divided into two lots, a lighter and a
heavier lot, the heavier going as hardware in
No. II., and the lighter goods going as saddlery
in No. IV.
Earl of Belmore.] There must be a minimum
as to the weight of the parcel.
Mr. Whitehead.
7303. Yes, my Lord ; if it came down below
the minimum, a different scale would apply alto-
gether. (To the Witness.). It would press even
more heavily upon you still, would it not, if you
were obliged to divide your total consignment to
one consignee into different packages, each of
which packages might be reduced to such an
extent as to go into the higher scale, and be sub-
jected again to higher rates?—You would want
two or three packages to carry it out.
7304. There is not only the increase of pack-
ing, but the possibility of a very large increase
in the rate 2–-Certainly.
7305. Practically, this would not, in your
opinion, affect the convenience of the railway
companies, while it would be a great inconveni-
ence to the trade, and would correspond to the
actual practice?—Certainly. We have a pre-
cedent for this generic term, as has been stated
already, in the case of mixed groceries and
draperies, and there is a parallel also in
the case of mixed goods in the case
of the grindery classification, which contains
come of the goods that actually saddlers' iron-
mongers are selling at the present time, pieces of
leather, braces and garters, as well as the heavy
ironwork that the grindery trade supplies. Then,
again we have a very good contrast, as we think,
(81.)
5 N when
834
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAREN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
when we contrast it with boots and shoes in casks
in Class 3, or “otherwise packed ” in Class 4. If
these boots and shoes are allowed in Classes 3
and 4, which are all leather, we do contend that
we have a righteous claim in asking for goods
which are partly leather and partly iron and
metal to be in Classes 2 and 3, according to their
packages.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Whitehead..] That is all the evidence I
propose to call.
Chairman.] I think the Committee cannot
insert this. What is your next amendment P
Do you take this one about tin-lined cases?
Mr. Whitehead..] I said, your Grace, that there
was a consequential amendment on an earlier
page. Of course that consequential amendment
will be struck out, that follows as a matter of
COUll'Sé.
Chairman.] What is your next amendment
Mr. Whitehead..] The next amendment is at
page 42, column 2, after line 35, add “small-arm
cartridges, safety, i.e., cartridges not intended to
be consumed in the chamber of the gun on
firing, and not containing their own means of
ignition; also cartridges not intended to be con-
sumed in the chamber of the gun on firing, but
containing their own means of ignition. Packed
in wooden boxes three-quarters of an inch in
thickness throughout.” Now, your Grace, the
point practically of this amendment is as follows:
As the schedule at present stands these goods
would be treated as dangerous goods, and there-
fore be liable to a very high rate.
Earl of Camperdown.] How would they come
in at present?
Mr. Whitehead." They would come under
Part IV. in the exceptional class. They are not
already provided for in the schedule. The defi-
nition which we propose to insert in the schedule
would be “small-arm cartridges, safety,” that is
the definition which is already inserted in the
Railway Clearing House Classification, and I
think if your Grace turns to page 118 of the
Clearing House Classification you will see there
the words “ small-arm cartridges,” “safety
breech-loading cartridges, viz., cartridges not
intended to be consumed in the chamber of the
gun on firing,” and so on, which are exactly the
words of the present amendment.
Chairman.] Is that so?
Mr. Hºhitehead..] Perhaps your Grace will let
me read the terms of the amendment while you
follow the words of the Clearing House Classifi-
cation.
Chairman.] Let me point out to you that on
page 18 of the amendment, it says, “ small-arm
cartridges,” that is the heading.
Mr. Whitehead.] That is so.
Chairman.] Your amendment says “Small
arm cartridges, safety,” and then you describe
what “safety " means by saying that they are
not to be consumed in the chamber of the gun.
Mr. Whitehead..] The only difference here, so
far as I understand, is that in the Clearin
House Classification the word “breech-loading”
is inserted. It runs : “Safety breech-loading
cartridges.” We have omitted that because I
believe practically the point is in fact covered.
Chairman.] We will hear what you have to
say for your amendment.
Mr. Whitehead..] If your Grace will turn to
page 123 of the Railway Clearing House Classi-
fication, you will see No. 6 small-arm cartridges,
safety, as described in that regulation to which
I have already referred your Grace, are to be
carried in Class 3, and delivered with a minimum
charge of 2s. 6d. The point of our amendment
is that we desire to get inserted in the schedule
some provision by which these safety cartridges
shall not be liable to an exceptional charge, but
shall be treated in the same way as they are
treated in the Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.j May I say, your Grace,
that we have a strong preliminary objection in
limine to this amendment. This is practically a
classification of explosives, and we have not
classified explosives at all, and it is most im-
portant not to begin to attempt the classification
of explosives.
Chairman.] How are explosives going to be
carried ? -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] As dangerous goods in
Class 4, as an exceptional class. There is no
attempt to classify them, and there is no possi-
bility of classifying them.
Mr. Moon.] May I also point out that the
railway companies are under no obligation to
carry them at the present time; for Section 105
of the Railways Clauses Act, 1845, provides that
“it shall be lawful for the company to refuse to
take any parcel that they may suspect to con-
tain goods of a dangerous nature.” That is a
provision of general legislation, and under that
legislation the railway companies are not bound
to carry these things.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).] How do you
get over that ; because, according to the passage
which Mr. Moon has read, there is no obligation
on the part of the railway companies to carry
these articles 2
Mr. Whitehead..] No, your Grace.
Chairman.]. Then, if this amendment is put
into the schedule in the Bill and it becomes an
Act of Parliament, it would override, would it
not, this clause in the general Act 2
Mr. Whitehead.] Whilst accepting my learned
friend's proposition of law up to a certain point,
I, dissent from him on the matter as a question
of fact, contending that they are not dangerous
goods, and are not comprised in the section which
he has read to your Grace.
Chairman.] That is hardly the
is it 7
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you contend that
powder is not dangerous 2
Mr. Whitehead.] Under these circumstances,
I would say, as a matter of fact, there is no
danger.
Earl of Camperdown.] I ask if powder is not
dangerous 2
Mr.
question,
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
835
10 June 1891.
º
-
Mr. Whitehead..] Powder in the abstract, if
one may so treat it, is dangerous.
Chairman.] If these goods which you are now
proposing to deal with are not dangerous goods,
why do you propose to carry them in
“wooden boxes, three quarters of an inch in
thickness throughout " ? -
Mr. Whitehead..] That is the existing practice,
and we do not desire to go beyond it.
Chairman.] Why is it the existing practice?
Mr. Whitehead..] I would prefer to call a
witness upon the point, your Grace.
Chairman.] Is is not because they are dan-
gerous goods?
Mr. Whitehead..] It is because that is the regu-
lation which the railway companies impose upon
the traders.
Chairman.] Because they are not compelled
under the Act of Parliament to which Mr. Moon
has referred us, to carry these goods because they
are dangerous goods. But the railway companies,
as I understand, say, If we do carry them it is
becaase we are willing to do so, not because we
are compelled to ; but as they are dangerous
goods they must be packed in boxes three-quarters
of an inch in thickness throughout.
Mr. Whitehead..] Of course that may be so,
your Grace.
Chairman.] That is how I understand it. ... Of
course, I do not know ; I am not a railway
director, I am happy to say.
Mr. Whitehead..] The Railway Clearing House
Classification is a mystery to the trader ; he does
not know how it is arrived at.
Chairman.]. I think you are out of court alto-
gether.
Mr. Whitehead..] Of course, if your Grace rules
it in that way I must bow to the decision.
Chairman.] I think so. If you admit anything
(and of course you are not bound to admit any-
thing), putting that into the schedule of the Pro-
visional Order would make it that the companies
were bound to carry the goods, would it not?
Mr. Whitehead.] Clearly.
Chairman.] And the Act which has been re-
ferred to says that they are not so bound.
Mr. Whitehead..] Of course, as I have said, I
differ from my learned friend on the question of
fact as to whether they are dangerous goods as
carried in this mode.
Mr. Moon. The question is not whether it is
dangerous or not, but whether it is, in the opinion
of the railway companies, dangerous. Those are
the words of the section.
Chairman.] I do not think we can entertain
that amendment.
Earl of Belmore.] Then we come to Class 4, I
think, and the next amendment is as to show
C2S62.S.
Mr. Whitehead.] Yes. On page 45, colunm 1,
line 15, after the word “we” insert “show ’’;
and after “ or ’’ insert “show.” Turning to
page 45 of the London and North Western Sche-
dule, you will see at line lá in the first column
“glass, in boxes or cases.” At the present time
and by the necessities of the traffic, all glass
whenever it is carried is carried in boxes or
cases. That is the fact as I am instructed.
Earl of Belmore.] And sometimes in open
crates, I suppose 2
Mr. Whitehead..] Sometimes in open crates.
What we desire to get clearly brought out here
is, that it only applies to glass when sent in show
boxes or in show cases; that is to say, the more
valuable kinds of glass, and not to rough or com-
mon glass which it might otherwise apply to.
Chairman.] You must, first of all, explain
what a show box is; what do you call a “show
box ** 2
Mr. Whitehead..] I am not instructed at the
moment what it is,
Earl of Camperdown.] How would glass not in
show cases be carried ?
Mr. Whitehead..] You will see at page 40
various kinds of glass are mentioned. At the
bottom of the first column “glass, crown, rolled
and sheet ; glass flint e.o.h.p. ; glass plate,
rough ; glass plate mot silvered.” Then when
you reach Class IV., you have this further defi.
nition of glass : “ glass in boxes or cases.”
Clearly the distinction drawn in the schedule is
between the rougher and the cheaper kinds of
glass, the stronger kinds of glass which are not
so liable to damage, and the more expensive
kinds which are liable to damage and are more
carefully packed. . Clearly that is the proper
distinction to be drawn ; and all we desire
is, that when the rougher kinds, the
common kinds of glass, are carried in
this mode, in boxes or cases, for any reason of
trade or otherwise, this higher rate, or higher
class, should not apply. As the schedule stands
they would come up from Class III., merely
owing to a change in the packing, with Class
IV. ; whereas, by inserting the words, “In show
boxes or show cases,” you would limit that
higher rate in respect of glass entirely to these
more expensive kinds of glass which are for show
purposes, and which are more fragile.
Chairman.] I do not know what a show box
is ; you must really explain that to my, perhaps,
obtuse intellect, because you ask the Committee
to insert the words, “ glass in show boxes,” and
before they can do that they must know what a
show box is.
Mr. Whitehead..] I may say, your Grace, that
that suggestion was made on the evidence of a
gentleman with technical knowledge of the sub-
ject, and, unfortunately, he is not here at present;
but i think it would meet the object he had in
view if I put it in this way : to insert in lieu of
“show boxes or cases,” “glass, e.o.h p.” That I
think my learned friend will assent to, because it
would exclude these kinds of glass referred to in
Class III.
Earl of Belmore.] How would that help you;
because all that is excluded; that is, in Class
III.
Mr. Whitehead..] Our fear, my Lord, is this :
though mentioned specially in Class III., we fear
when it is carried in a case or box, if for any
necesstty of the trade it should be so carried, it
w ill go into this high class.
(81.)
5 N 2 Earl
836 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAIKIEN
BE FORE TIHE JOINT COMMITTEF,
10 June 1891.
Earl of Belmore.] I do not see how putting in
“except otherwise herein provided ” would help
you. The words are there already.
Mr. Whitehead..] Any kind of glass whatever
when carried in boxes would go into Class IV.
If that amendment is accepted, “e.o.h.p,” then
all these other kinds of glass, the rougher kinds,
would necessarily remain in Class III., whatever
might be the mode of packing.
Lord Belper.] I suppose the mere fact of
putting it in a box shows that the people who
sent it put some special value on it.
Mr. Whitehead..] There might be some reason
apart from its damageability, or its value, I
submit for putting it in a box; but in any event,
whether it were of more value or not, that
definition, “e.o.h.p.,” would cover the difficulty.
Mr. Moon.] One of the difficulties which
suggests itself to my mind, your Grace, is that
at all events in the case of glass-flint you have
on page 40 a description of it as being e.o.h.p., so
that you have a description of flint-glass, e.o.h.p.,
on page 40; and you have another description of
glass in boxes or cases, e.o.h.p.
Earl of Camperdown.] Not in boxes or cases,
as I understand. Mr. Whitehead proposes to
omit the words, “in boxes or cases,” does he
not ?
Mr. Whitehead.] No, I understand not, my
Lord.
Mr. Moon.] The suggestion was, as I under-
stood, that “e.o.h.p.” was to follow the words,
“boxes or cases.” It is rather hard to follow
it at the moment, and I should not like to say
what would be the effect of it at a moment’s
notice.
Earl of Camperdown.] You mention, for
instance, glass-flint, e.o.h.p. If you have got
in the next schedule glass, e.o.h.p., the “e.o. h.p.”
in the first class would be surplusage, would it
not º'
Mr. Moon.] Then there is another description
of glass in another part of the classification, so
that it would be necessary to put it in.
Earl of Camperdown.] If e.o.h.p. stands good
as regards glass-flint, glass-flint would not be
22
hurt at all by putting “ glass, e.o.h.p.,” on
page 45.
Mr. Moon..] I am not certain about that, my
Lord.
Chairman (to Mr. Whitehead).) Will you state
what your amendment is ; because we do not
appear to be quite certain about it.
Mr. Whitehead..] My amendment would be to
insert at line 15, “ Glass in boxes or cases,
e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Moon..] I should think we might agree to
that.
Earl of Camperdewn.] I think you may find
yourself in a difficulty then ; but that is your
affair.
Mr. Moon..] If I may answer the question
which your Lordship put to me: In point of fact
glass-flint would come under the description of
“glass in boxes or cases” occasionally. “ Glass
flint, e.o.h.p.,” refers, as well as to other glass, to
glass flint in boxes or cases, because I assume
there are articles made of flint glass which are
packed always in boxes or cases, and therefore go
into the higher class.
Earl of Camperdown.] Are you not liable to
this, that if you have got “glass in boxes or
cases, e.g. h.p.,” and “glass flint, e.o.h.p.,” glass
flint would not come under “glass in boxes or
cases * *
Mr. Moon.] Yes, my Lord, I think it might,
Earl of Camperdown.] It might, or it might
not.
Mr. Moon.] I think it is a little doubtful.
Earl of Camperdown.] You must remember
you are dealing with judges, whom you ought
to have respect for.
Mr. Moon..] Yes, and very acute judges.
Earl of Camperdown.] I do not mean this Com-
mittee ; I mean real judges. *
Mr. Moon..] I mean this Committee, my Lord.
Chairman.] Now we will hear the exact
amendment which you propose, Mr. Whitehead.
You offered to put in the word “show,” and then
on my asking what a show box was, you said you
were not prepared to explain at the moment, and
now I understand you have altered the amend-
ment. Will you say what your amendment is 2
Mr. Whitehead. My amendment is to add
to the words “glass in boxes or cases,” “e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Moon.] That I agree to.
Chairman.] Very well; then that finishes all
the amendments, does it not ?
Mr. Whitehead.] There is that question of
manganese bronze, my Lord, which you allowed
me to postpone because the witness was not then
present, but perhaps I might bring it up now.
Chairman.] Certainly.
Mr. Whitehead.] I will call Mr. Parsons on
it.
MR. CI1 ARLES PARSONS, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Whitehead.
7.306. YoU are here as representing the
Manganese Bronze and Brass Company, Limited,
of St. George's Wharf, Deptford *—I am.
7307. At the present time manganese bronze
is not specifically mentioned in the schedule of
the Board of Trade 2–It is not.
7308. It does represent, does it not, a very
Mr. Whitehead—continued.
large traffic at the present time 2—About 1,000
to 1,500 tons a year.
7309. Therefore, you think that it is an article
of sufficientimportance to require specific mention
in the schedule 2–1 do.
Chairman.] What part of the schedule do
you propose to put it in 2
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND C FIARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
837
10 June 1891.]
ams---
*
Mr. Whitehead..] It is proposed to place it in
Class II.
Chairman.] Will you give me the words.
Mr. Whitehead.
7310. The words of the amendment are
“manganese bronze and brass castings and
ingots.” Your Grace will find it at page 9 of
the amendment as first printed ; it is there set
out; it was inserted in the wrong class. (To
the Witness.) At the present time where is it
classified in the Railway Clearing House Classi-
fication ?—It is only put in the later edition, the
1890 edition, of the Railway Clearing House
Classification ; it was not in the Clearing House
Classification at the time we filed our amend-
ment. -
7311. But it is now inserted 2–It is now
inserted in Class II. of the 1890 edition of the
Railway Clearing House Classification.
7312. There it is placed in Class II. 2–Yes.
7313. Without any restriction, or without the
addition of any such words as “in the rough”?—
I believe so.
7314. And in whatever mode it may be carried,
manganese bronze castings and ingots are always
carried in Class II. at present 2–At present.
73.15. It has been only recently inserted in
the Railway Clearing House Classification, be-
cause I believe it is an article of recent pro-
duction ?—Of recent production.
73.16. Comparing it with other articles in
Class II., do you find any similarity between it.
and any articles there?—I do; I find that another
article in Class II. is phosphor bronze. Phosphor
bronze is an alloy of copper and tin, an expensive
alloy; manganese bronze is an alloy of copper
and zinc, which is a far less valuable alloy; con-
sequently there is a discrepancy between the
tWO.
7317. You say that manganese bronze is made
out of copper and zinc, zinc being a cheaper pro-
duction than tin, and therefore the value of this
article with which you are now dealing is much
smaller than phosphor bronze, which is already
placed in Class II. of the classification ?--Yes.
7318. Is there any risk in the carriage of this
article?— No more than in other articles, such as
zinc, or anything else mentioned in much higher
classes.
7319. Is it carried in heavy loads?—It varies
from one ton. Of course, there are small quantities
of five hundredweight, but our larger quantities
run up to 20 tons.
7320. How much would they load into a truck?
—As much as 10 tons would go into a truck.
7321. And, therefore, it is a very good article
for the purpose of railway transit 7–Yes.
7322. That is to say, that the conveyance rate
should be correspondingly low 2–Yes, for quan-
tities over two tons.
Lord Belper.
7323. Would not manganese bronze come
under the heading “bronze ‘’’—There is no
heading for bronze.
7324. But supposing there were a heading for
bronze, would it not come under that ?—I should
think it would.
Chairman.] There is a heading of “bronze,”
is there not; it is bronze phosphor.
Mr. PARSONs.
[Continued.
Mr. Whitehead.
7325. I have missed one point that I ought to
have put to the witness, that is with regard to
brass castings. (To the Witness.) Up to the
present moment you have dealt with manganese
bronze 2–Quite so.
7326. Will you now explain to the Committee
the reason why you desire the amendment to go
further than what my Lord suggested; that is,
to include brass castings, as well as manganese ?
—I should mention that the brass castings men-
tioned in our amendment is not the ordinary brass
mentioned in the Clearing House Classification.
It is a patent metal also, like the manganese
bronze, differing from brass in its constituent
parts; and therefore for that reason we think it
should be carried in the same class as the man-
ganese bronze ; but our turn-out of brass being
much smaller than this bronze, we are content
that it should travel in the same class.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7327. I understand you to say that your cast-
ings you want to put down are similar to the
brass castings which are in a higher class?—No,
they are not similar.
7328. How are the railway companies to tell
the difference; are they brass castings 2—No ;
its proper name is white brass, and not brass at
all ; it is a patent.
7329. Your proposition is to put “brass cast-
ing,” and not “white brass " ? — It is admitted
that it should have been “white brass.”
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Whitehead).] You
would accept that?
Mr. Whitehead..] I would accept that, of course.
Mr. Moom.
7330. (To the Witness.) Is white brass a phrase
well known in the trade, or is this quite a new
article 2–It is a new article in the last 10 years.
It is well known to all the large railway com-
panies and ship builders. -
7331. Is your production large 2–Our produc-
tion is about 400 to 500 tons a year.
7332. Are you the only producers ?—We are
the sole producers.
7333. I may take it that it is quite a new
article?—It is a new article.
7334. Do you suppose people will manufacture
brass or other articles so as to resemble white
brass?—Not to call it by the same name, because
we are patentees and have trade marks for the
protection of it.
7335. Can you tell by the look of it whether
it is white brass 2–It has a brand or name
stamped upon it.
7336. Could I, a layman, tell by looking at it?
—Yes.
7337. Apart from the brand, could I tell by
the look of the metal what it is ? –It is certainly
a white colour, and not yellow like brass, so that
you could tell.
7338. Is it quite a different colour 2–Quite a
different colour.
7339. I understand you to say that manganese
bronze ought to be in the same class as phosphor
bronze —No ; we say it should be a class above,
if anything; we say it is less valuable.
7340. You mean that phosphor bronze should
(81.)
5 N 3 be
838
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.]
Mr. PARSONs.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
be in a class above, but your amendment asks
for manganese to be placed in the same class as
phosphor bronze —Yes.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] “A class above" is
ambiguous, I think; the witness means something
different from the learned counsel's meaning.
Chairman.
7341. What class do you propose to put man-
gamese bronze into according to the schedule?—
Our amendment in the first case said Class C.
7341. Never mind what it said in the first
place; I am asking what the amendment pro-
poses now 2–Class 2 now.
7343. What class do you think phosphor bronze
ought to go into ?–Phosphor bronze should go
into the class below, it anything. It is at present
in Class 2, but as our material is less valuable
than phosphor bronze it should be carried in the
higher class.
7344. You say the article you produce is less
valuable than phosphor bronze, and, therefore, it
ought to go into a class higher than phosphor
bronze 3–Yes; I say there is a discrepancy be-
tween the two metals.
7345. The less valuable article should go into
a higher class than the more valuable article, you
say ?—Yes.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Let us clear that up.
The phrase “class above * is quite ambiguous.
Mr. Moon.
7346. (To the Witness.) You mean to say that
your article ought to go into the class in which
it would be carried cheaper than phosphor
bronze?—Yes.
7347. You call that a class higher ?–Yes. I
should have said a class lower.
7348. You spoke about 10 tons going in a
truck; is your production of manganese large P
—It varies from 1,200 to 1,500 tons per annum.
7349. You would not often send a full truck-
load, would you ?—I should think we should
very often send a full truck-load.
7.350. Do you mainly send in 10-ton truck
loads?—Not mainly.
7351. What is the average consignment 2–It
varies so much it is difficult to say.
7352. It is not an article that is used in large
quantities, is it?–It is used in very large
quantities by some people.
7353. By whom ; for what purposes —For
ships’ propellers, for instance.
7354. Can yon give me what you think would
be the average consignment that you send out?
—I should think the average consignment would
be from 25 cwt. to two tons.
7355. Do you send your traffic out in rough
castings 2–Rough castings and ingots.
7356. But all in the rough 2–Lverything in
the rough ; we finish nothing whatever.
7357. Would it satisfy you to have your man-
gamese bronze in the rough in Class 22—I
think so.
Mr. Moon.] That is really the only point. We
are quite satisfied that the manganese bronze
should go into the same class as phosphor bronze,
but there is the condition attached to phosphor
bronze that it should be in the rough, and with
that this gentleman is satisfied ; that it should
be in the rough with regard to manganese.
Witness.] Yes; all our traffic is in the rough.
Earl of Camperdown.
7351. Are you quite sure you mean that you
would be satisfied with that ?—Yes.
7359. You say you are the sole manufacturers
of this particular article?—Yes.
7360. You are the persons who have put for-
ward this amendment and no one else, I believe 2
—Yes; it is unclassified at present.
Chairman.] Then we are all agreed, are we
not ?
Mr. Whitehead..] I think we are all agreed,
your Grace. Your Grace will understand that
owing to the absence of the witness, I did not
understand what the facts were, precisely.
Earl of Camperdown.] In that case, the amend-
ment that you propose would be, to leave out the
word “phosphor,” and to keep in the word
“rough.” -
Mr. Whitehead..] Our amendment includes also
the question of brass, and that, as I understand,
my learned friend does not consent to admit upon
the same terms as manganese bronze.
Mr. Moon.] I have not dealt with white brass
yet.
Mr.
agreed. -
Mr. Moon..] Yes.
Chairman.] Let me understand what it is you
are agreed upon, before we go to white brasss
Mr. Whitehead..] To strike out the word
“ phosphor,” your Grace.
Mr. Moon.] Both these articles, bronze phos-
phor, and bronze manganese, are articles men-
tioned in the Railway Clearing House Classifi-
cation, and perhaps it would be better we should
adhere to those words in the Provisional Order,
if your Grace thinks fit. Then it would run
“bronze phosphor or manganese castings and
ingots rough.”
Whitehead..] Up to that point we are
Chairman. Yes; that would be safer, I think.
Earl of Camperdown.] This will be interpreted
in the first instance, I suppose, by the railway
managers, and after that it will get to the
judges 7
Mr. Moon..] Yes, your Grace.
never get to the judges.
I hope it will
Chairman.] You are all agreed upon that ?
Mr. Moon.] Yes. Now there is the question
of the white brass ; and it is a question whether
the Committee will specifically name an article
which is only manufactured in the country to
the extent of 500 tons. It is a special patent of
this gentleman's firm, and obviously it can only
be used in very small quantities, and can only
go, I should say, in very small consignments,
inasmuch as the whole production in the year is
only 500 tons all over the country.
Earl of Camperdown.] How would this gentle-
man's white brass go, supposing we do not adopt
the amendment 7 -
Mr. Moon.] His brass is in the Hardware List
in
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
839
*—
10 June 1891.]
*—
w
2
n Class 3; “brass castings " is put under the
Hardware List in Class 3.
Chairman.] That is to say, in a class higher
than he wants 2
Mr. Moon.] Yes, your Grace; we submit that
is the proper class for him. Although they may
be articles which are, perhaps, cheaper than
brass, they are of the same nature as brass, and
they go, and obviously must go, in very small
quantities ; whereas “brass castings” are dealt
with largely and may go in large quantities.
Earl of Camperdown.] I observe in Class 2
the word “brass”; will not that include brass
castings 2 I think I should argue that it would.
Chairman.] How is that ? -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I should doubt it. I
do not think “brass” includes brass castings;
but the whole of this hardware we shall have to
look at very carefully; it is full of difficulties of
all sorts and kinds.
Mr. Moon.] Once brass castings are specifi.
cally named, that I should think under the
ordinary rules of construction would take them
out of the general description of “brass.” That
is all I have to say about white brass.
Mr. Whitehead..] May I say a word with re-
gard to white brass? I had not finished what I
had to say upon that point. So far as my
learned friend says, this is a trade confined at
present to one firm, that is so, because they
have got a patent; but, as the witness had told
the Committee, it is a growing trade; the patent
will in the course of time expire; it is a new
article which should therefore be placed in the
classification now. It was not formally placed
in the classification because the article was un-
known ; but now that the article is known, it
should certainly be specifically named in the
classification. The fact that at present it is
confined to a single firm only comes back to
the point that it was an invention of con-
siderable importance, and therefore patented.
That patent will expire eventually, and then
it will become a general trade. As the witness
has shown you, it is an article of small value
clearly distinguishable from any other kind of
brass, so that no conflict of fact can arise as to
whether it comes within “castings, brass,” which
are already in Class 3.
Mr. Hanbury.] I did not hear the evidence.
Is it carried in large quantities?
Mr. Whitehead..] At present, being a new trade,
the total consignment from this firm is about 500
tons per annum; but, as the witness explained,
it is a growing trade, and is likely, when the
patent expires, to become still more important.
Chairman.] You want to insert it where 7
Mr. Whitehead..] In Class 2 your Grace, in
accordance with your amendments.
Lord Belper.
7361. (To the Witness.) What is the differ-
ence in price between white brass and ordinary
brass?—It has a higher price because of the
patent attached to it, but its intrisic value is below
that of ordinary brass.
7362. How much below 2–About 25 per cent.
below that of ordinary brass.
Mr. PARSONS.
*º
[Continued.
Chairman.
7363. But you get a higher price 2–Yes ;
because of the patent connected with it.
Earl of Camperdown.
7364. How does it compare with bronze 2–It
is less in price than bronze.
7365. How much less?—It is 10 to 15 per
cent. less in value than bronze.
Mr. Whitehead.
7366. You say it is less valuable than the
manganese bronze which has been placed in
Class 2; how does it compare with phospher
bronze 3–It is 30 per cent. cheaper than phos-
pher bronze.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Moon).] Then
what is your argument for putting it in a higher
class than bronze P
Mr. Moon..] Not in a higher class than in the
rough. We propose to put it with brass, but not
with bronze manganese. My argument is that,
there being only 500 tons of this traffic annually
in the whole kingdom, it goes in very small
quantities; whereas brass, bronze, manganese,
and phosphor go in very large quantities, and are
very large castings.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman.] We will not insert “white brass.”
Then we have now dealt with all these amend-
mentS. -
Mr. Whitehead..] That, your Grace, completes
our list of amendments.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] My Lord Duke, before
you leave classification, I am afraid it will be
necessary for me to trouble the Committee upon
a matter of agreement, the nature of which I
must explain in the briefest possible way. One
of the most difficult sets of articles we had to
classify were the articles relating to the flax trade
in Ireland, and we had some valuable evidence
given before us at Richmond-terrace, which to
some extent was qualified by information given
to us afterwards. I need not trouble the Com-
mittee with the whole of the pros and cons. ; but
I may briefly state this ; , that in coesequence
of the representations wbich reached the Board
of Trade too late for consideration before the
Provisional Order was prepared, from gentle-
men who, not having put in an amendment, are
debarred from appearing before the Committee,
the Board of Trade have been in communication
with the gentlemen representing the railway
companies, with the result that the Board of
Trade are prepared to recommend to the Com-
mittee certain amendments in the flax articles as
to which we believe that no opposition will be
offered from the railway companies. I will
briefly read out what they are. On page 26 of
the London and North Western schedule, after
the entry “Flax in bales’’ omit “hydraulic or
steam press-packed ” and insert the words “mini-
mum, 60 cwt. per waggon.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Is this agreed to.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] These amendments are
agreed to. Either Mr. Moon or somebody else
on that side will correct me if I am giving them
wrongly.
(81.)
5 N 4 Mr.
840
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN IBEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Mr. Moon.] I am informed that Mr. Beale
knows about these articles, and we do not know
much about them here. We have sent for
Mr. Beale, and he will be here in a few
minutes.
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] In the
meantime we will hear what you have to
Say.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] If necessary I will read
them again when Mr. Beale comes back. The
reason for that amendment is that it is repre-
sented to us very strongly that “hydraulic or
steam press packed, is not a phrase which applies
to flax in bales; we were told in the first instance
it was. That evidence has since been qualified
with the result of an agreement to omit those
words, and to insert “minimum, 60 cwt. per
waggon.”
and go to page 28, a similar amendment applies
to “tow,” omit the words “hydraulic or steam
press packed e.o.h.p. * and insert “in bales,
minimum, 60 cwt. per waggon.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you leave in the
words “e.o.h.p.”
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No, the amendment is
omit “hydraulic or steam press packed e.o.h.p.”
and insert “in bales, minimum, 60 cwt. per wag-
gon.” Then the next amendment is, at page 34,
line 16 of the second column, erase after the
words “linen yarn" the following words: “and
grey linen, steam or hydraulic,” so that the entry
will read, “ linen yarn press packed in bunches
or bales”; and after line 18 insert, as a new
entry, “limens grey unbleached.” Lastly, on
page 44, after the words “cloth linen’’ insert
“bleached ” leaving the entry otherwise exactly
as it is. Those are the amendments which were
agreed to after an interview at which a section
of the traders was represented, and at which the
representatives of the railway companies, Mr.
Beale, Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Shaw, were
present; and on the responsibility of the Board
of Trade, we ask the Committee to accept those
alterations.
Chairman.] Have the railway companies any-
thing to say against them P
Mr. Beale.] I have not heard the amendments
read, for I was engaged, your Grace, in another
room. I acted for the railway companies in this
matter and we made an agreement on this ques-
tion with Lord Balfour. I have not heard the
amendments read, but I have no doubt they
were accurately stated.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Shall I run over it
very shortly again
Chairman.] I think if it will not be giving you
too much trouble, it would be well for you, Mr.
Courtenay Boyle, to read over what you have told
us, and then Mr. Beale will be able to check
it.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Certainly, your Grace;
it will not take long, and I should like to get it
accurate. On page 26, line 18, after the words,
“flax in bales,” omit “hydraulic or steam press
packed,” and insert “minimum, 60 cwt. per
* **** ?? . . •; or
waggon *; is that right 2
Mr. Beale.] That is right.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] On page 28, the same
thing for “tow ’’ precisely.
If your Grace will turn over the leaf
Mr. Beale.] That is right.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] On page 34, in the
second column, line 16, omit “and grey linen,
steam or hydraulic,” so that the entry shall read
“ linen yarn press packed in bunches or bales,”
and insert, as a new entry, “linens, grey un-
bleached.”
Mr. Beale.] That is right.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Then on page 44, after
“ cloth linen,” insert “ bleached.”
Mr. Beale.] That is right.
Mr. Moon.] Your Grace, there is one matter
which has stood over. I daresay your Grace
will remember that we had a long discussion
about straw, and that straw under certain con-
ditions was removed by your Grace from Class
2, where it was intended to be by the Board of
Trade, to Class 3, but only under certain con-
ditions, and that Algerian fibre and other matters
also followed straw. Straw, Algerian fibre, and
all those other articles when they did not satisfy
those conditions, namely a minimum load of
20 cwt., were put by the Board of Trade in
Class 3, a higher class than that provided for
them if they were in minimum consignments of
20 cwt. ; and, your Grace, having moved up the
main part of the articles, the main traffic in the
article, that is to say, when they do go in
minimum consignments of 20 cwt., from Class 2
to Class 3, we ask to have those articles, when
not satisfying those conditions, that is to say,
e.o.h.p., moved up to Class 4 from Class 3, where
they were put by the Board of Trade ; that
follows practically as a consequential amendment.
The Board of Trade says that straw in consign-
ments of 20 cwt. is to be in Class 2; when in
consignments of less than that quantity in
Class 3. We say that straw in consignments of
20 cwt. should be moved up, and your Grace
accepted that suggestion, to Class 3, and then we
say (but the amendment was postponed) that
straw in less consignments than 20 cwt. ought to
go into a class higher, namely Class 4. I do not
think there was any opposition.
Chairman.] On the contray, I think Mr.
Clifford referred to that.
Mr. Whitehead...] My learned friend, Mr.
Clifford, leads me, and of course I represent the
same interest; and I may say we should certainly
protest against the proposal to raise it from
Class 2 under the circumstances.
Chairman.] But straw was agreed to ; was
it not 7
Mr. Moon.] My learned friend has not caught
what I said, but perhaps I may repeat it. Straw,
under the Board of Trade proposal stood in
Class 2 in minimum consignments of 20 cwt.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Moon.] If straw was sent in less consign-
ments than 20 cwt. it was e.o.h.p., and in the
Provisional Order is in Class 3.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Moon.] Mr. Clifford agreed that straw
sent in consignments of not less than 20 cwt.
should be moved up from Class 2, where it stood
in the Board of Trade Provisional Order, to
Class 3, and that amendment was accepted P
Mr
ON RAILYWAY RATES
84 1
AND CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
10 June 1891.
Mr. Whitehead..] Yes.
Mr. Moon.] The application now is, to move
up straw, when it goes in quantities of less than
20 cwt., to Class 4, which is one class higher than
it stood in the Board of Trade Order. In no
other way can you give effect to the minimum
consignment in Class 3.
Mr. Whitehead..] Your Grace, if I might
suggest, this is entirely a new subject. If your
Grace remembers, the decision with regard to
straw in consignments of 20 cwt, was given upon
evidence as to the quantity of the load; that was
a very material circumstance in determining into
what class it should go. The average quantity
of the load of above 20 cwt. might again be a
very material element in determining into which
class the article should go. It does not follow as
a matter of course that this article should go up
into Class 4. It is not consequential.
Mr. Hanbury.] In fact, you say it is quite
possible that straw, in whatever quantities it is
sent, should be in the same class, and should not
necessarily go up a class.
Mr. Whitehead.] Quite so.
Mr. Moon..] I do not see what significance you
can give to the provision that there should be a
minimum consignment of 20 cwt.
Lord Belper | The point you are mentioning
to-day was never mentioned before, was it 2
Mr Moon.] Yes, my Lord, it has been men-
tioned before the Committee.
Mr. Whitehead..] The Board of Trade made a
special reservation by which straw, when carried
in these large consignments, was to go into a
different class; it was to go into Class 2. That
provision in favour of large consignments the
Committee rejected or overruled, transferring
the straw under such circumstances to Clsss 3;
but the Committee gave no further decision with
regard to straw, generally speaking.
Mr. Moon.] No ; I am asking the Committee
now to give their decision as to straw going in
less consignments than 20 cwt.
Chairman.] Will you refer me to the passage
in the Minutes where this was discussed ?
Mr. Moon.] Your Grace will find it referred
to on the 3rd of June. In my copy, which is
not the official copy, it is on the fourth page
from the end.
Mr. Whitehead..] It is at the bottom of the
first column and top of the second on page 688.
Mr. Moon.] My learned friend Mr. Pember
was going through the railway companies’ amend-
Inent and was under the impression that this had
been dealt with, and your Grace will see that
Mr. Hambury says: “But we have not settled
that. Our decision was only to remove from
Class 2 to Class 3 whatever it may be. We want
to know whether the other amendments are con-
sequential upon that ?” Then my learned friend
Mr. Pember says: “Yes; that is what I think
it is, that they all go up a class, and with the
minimum they are in Class 3, we will say, the
same article will be in Class 4, and so on. I
think that we ought to see exactly what form
the amendment should take in order to make the
classification right.” Then Mr. Courtenay Boyle
said : “I venture to submit that that point was
not decided by the Committee. The persons
interested in paper-making materials were not
before the Committee, and what the Committee
did decide was to put the unpressed raw material
into Class 3; they did not settle to put any
other paper-making materials into Class 4. (Mr.
Pember.) With a minimum weight, was it not
(Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) With a minimum weight.
(Mr. Pember.) Supposing it goes without the
minimum weight 2 (Mr. Courtenay Boyle.) The
Committee did not settle what was the minimum
weight that was to go into Class 4,” Then Mr.
Pember says: “I am afraid, then, that that must
be a matter of discussion"; and Mr. Courtenay
Boyle says: “I do not quite understand that.”
Earl of Camperdown.] Apparently Mr. Pember
remained of opinion that the matter had not been
settled.
Mr. Moon.] Yes; I am saying it has not been
settled ; that is why I call the Committe's atten-
tion to it, because now is the time we ask it may
be settled.
Mr. Hambury.] The difficulty is that the people
who would be interested in resisting it are not
here.
Mr. Moon. Attention was called to it, and it
was postponed.
Chairman.] I observe, after Question 4778, on
page 605, Mr. Clifford says: “We are perfectly
willing to leave that question with the Com-
mittee hereafter.” Then Mr. Yaler says: “We
think that owners’ risk should be dealt with when
rates come to be dealt with.” The Chairman
says: “But we must have something definite ;
either you object to straw being taken out of
Class 2 and put into Class 3, or you do not. If
you do not, then you agree to straw being put
into Class 3.” Then Mr. Clifford says: “That
is our view.” And the Chairman says: “Then
you had better say nothing upon anything else.”
Then Mr. Clifford says: “Precisely ; we reserve
that question of owners' risk to be discussed
hereafter.” Then Lord Camperdown says:
“But it does not follow that it will be dis-
cussed,” and then Mr. Cripps says: “As
I understand, what my learned friend Mr.
Clifford says is, that without now discussing
the owners’ risk point at all, whatever the rates
may be on either side, and whatever view the
Committee may take, he is willing, on behalf of
the traders whom he represents, to take Class 3
for straw as a compromise, and so perhaps
shortening the proceedings; ” and then the Chair-
man says : “Yes.” Mr. Cripps says: “Then
perhaps I might just ask for instructions upon
that.” Then below it goes on : “Mr. Cripps, I
should just like to ask this to make it clear. We
classify with straw in the Clearing House Classi-
fication various matters which have to do with
paper making ; these are the articles I will call
attention to as classed here in Class 2 : Algerian
fibre, china, grass,” &c. Then Mr. Balfour
Browne says: “I am not instructed for any
paper-makers, your Grace, and it seems to me
that they will be the people interested in that.
It is a matter really for the Board of Trade. If
they include all that under ‘straw,' I have no
objection.”
Mr. Moon.] Your Grace will see what Lord
(81.)
5 O Balfour
842
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
10 June 1891.
Balfour of Burleigh says in the next column :
“We took all the discussion upon the classifica-
tion upon straw just as the Committee seem
inclined to do, and regarded straw as ruling all
the other articles; and there was a general, I
think I may say, concensus of opinion that straw
was the guiding article amongst these that are
here classed.”
Chairman.] Then lower down, I say: “That
is another matter altogether. What I specially
wish to guard against is, that we are doing any-
thing other than putting straw and those other
articles from Class 2 into Class 3.”
Mr. Moon..] Yes.
Earl of Camperdomn.] There it stopped.
Mr. Moon..] Yes, and then when the railway
companies' amendments were being run through
by my learned friend, Mr. Pember, the honor-
able Member raised the question again, or the
Committee did, and it was agreed the amend-
ment should be put into shape. I do not think
my learned friend Mr. Pember had been in the
room when the discussion on straw had been
going on; I think my learned friend Mr. Cripps
had conducted that discussion ; but that was the
state of things; that there was an amendment
that straw with the minimum consignment should
go into Class 3; and the amendment of the rail-
way companies that straw and all these other
articles should go into a higher class throughout,
as it had been put into a higher class in the
other case was not discussed; and, if your Grace
would permit, I should wish to call evidence
upon it if necessary. Possibly, if we postpone
it till to-morrow, my learned friend will be able
to ascertain what the views of his clients are.
Chairman.] As it is four o'clock it is just as
well we should let it stand over.
Mr. Whitehead..] In answer to my learned
friend, I may say at once that the proposition to
raise it from Class 3 to Class 4 is a proposition
we could not assent to.
Mr. Moon..] What we propose to raise to
Class 4 only relates to consignments of less than
20 cwt.
Mr. Whitehead.] Quite so, but I am instructed
that we will not assent to that.
Chairman.] We will not go into that now,
but if Mr. Courtenay Boyle has anything to say
upon the point we shall be glad to hear him
In O.W.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I can say what I have
to say in a very few words, which will not take
up more than a moment or two. The Board of
Trade would urge the Committee to be very
careful indeed before they accept this amend-
ment, and for this reason : that the paper-making
interests were very considerably represented
before us, and we came to a settlement, which,
to some extent, satisfied them, and consequently
they are not represented here to-day. The
Committee decided one point as against the
decision of the Board of Trade ; that is to say,
that they, with the assent of a certain proportion
of the representatives of the traders' removed
straw, and following straw, such other articles as
esparto grass, megass, Algerian fibre, and several
other articles l argely used for paper making,
when with a minimum consignment, from Class 2
into Class 3. Now the railway companies are
asking the Committee to go further, and to re-
move all these articles, e.o. h.p., from Class 3 into
Class 4. I want to point out in the strongest
possible way to the Committee that there is no
straw in Class 4 in the Railway Clearing House
Classification at the present moment.
Mr. Moon...] No.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I speak, subject to cor-
rection, but I do not see any straw in Class 4.
Mr. Moon.] The point is that
e.o. h.p.,” in the Board of Trade
Order is a class above.
‘‘ straw,
Provisional
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] I daresay it was a class
above when the minimum was in Class 2; it was
in Class 3. Now, the railway companies are
pressing the principle of there having been a
difference in order to extend straw into Class 84.
Straw is not in Class 4 now in the Clearing House
Classification, and we submit there is no reason
whatever why it should be in Class 4. The Com-
mittee, I am sure, are perfectly right in deciding
that straw should be in Class 3, without any
minimum consignment at all. That is one decision.
But to go further and say that the Clearing House
Classification should be altered, and that straw
and all other articles governed by straw should be
put into Class 4, is a decision they should not
come to without certainly giving the paper-
making interest an opportunity of being heard.
Mr. Moon.] Perhaps I may be permitted to call
some evidence to-morrow, but I want to point out
this evening that, although it is true that in the
Clearing House Classification straw does not fall
into Class 4; in the Clearing House Classification
there is a minimum charge as for 20 cwt.
Chairman.] We will hear you upon that to—
IY) Ol'l’OW morning.
Ordered, That this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, at Half-past Eleven o’clock.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL OR DER BILLS.
843
Die Jovis, 1 I'
—&
t
Junii, 1891.
PRESENT :
The DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON.
Earl of BELMORE.
Earl of CAMPERDOWN.
Lord BELPER.
Sir Jose PEI BAILEY.
Mr. HAN BURY.
Mr. HUNTER,
Mr. WODEHOUSE.
HIS GRACE THE DUIKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.
Mr. Moon..] You R Grace, the first matter for
discussion this morning is the subject of straw.
Algerian fibre and other things that are classed
with straw, where they go in consignments of
less than 20 cwt. per waggon; and it is a matter
of considerable importance to the railway com-
panies, because not only is straw sometimes sent
in less consignments than 20 cwt. per waggon, in
which case it goes under the particular condition
regulated by the Clearing House Classification
which I related to your Grace, but Algerian
fibre and esparto grass and these other articles
which are used for paper-making that come from
abroad, are, to a considerable extent, sent loose,
because on the voyage the bundles break, and
when the ship arrives the Custom House authority
undo the bundles to see whether there is any-
thing in them that is contraband ; and the con-
sequence of that is that instead of the fibre going
in its trusses or bundles, and filling a waggon, it
has to be carried loose, or a certain portion of it
has to be carried loose, and when carried loose
it is very bad loading.
Now I did not quite correctly state the
position in which straw was in the Provi-
sional Order as deposited, I said that straw
in the Provisional Order, as deposited, was
in the second class with a minimum consignment
of 20 cwt. and that if e.o.h.p., it was in the third
class. As a matter of fact, your Grace, it is not
mentioned in any other way than as straw, with
a minimum consignment of 20 cwt. But of
course, the effect of the general provision that
unspecified articles should go into Class 3 would
have the effect of sending straw with less con-
signments than 20 cwt. into Class 3, and in the
case of Algerian fibre, esparto grass, and other
articles which are in Class 2, with a minimum
load of 20 cwt., they are specifically mentioned in
Class 3 as e.o.h.p. ; it being evidently the opinion
of the Board of Trade that when those articles
were carried in less consignments than 20 cwt.,
which meant that they were carried loose, a
higher charge ought to be allowed. Your Grace
will remember that the proposition of the railway
companies was that straw in minimum consign-
ments of 20 cwt. should be raised to Class 4 ;
that was the proposition of the railway companies
which was being debated before your Grace ; but
my learned friend Mr. Clifford, who I am glad
to see is now here, said that the traders were
prepared to meet the railway companies, and
that straw with a minimum consignment of 20
cwt. should go into Class 3, that they were pre-
pared to agree to, and that of course all the other
articles classed with straw should follow straw.
Now, if you put straw with a minimum consign-
ment of 20 cwt. into Class 3, that imports that
straw, when it does not satisfy that condition,
will go in a higher class; otherwise the
words minimum consignments of 20 cwt.
are mere surplusage. All you want to have,
and all that the traders would have proposed
would have been that straw without any such
limitation as now exists, should go into Class 3.
And the objection which Mr. Courtenay Boyle
raised yesterday afternoon, that straw is never
carried in a higher class than Class 3 in the
Railway Clearing House Classification at present,
is really rather more an apparent objection than
a real objection, and for this reason : You will
remember, to begin with, that there are two
reasons : in the first place all other articles in
Class 3 are carried at the class rates that apply
to Class 3, but are carted and delivered, but
straw is only station-to-station traffic already, and
the same class rate applies as if carted and
delivered ; and secondly, what you were told by
the witnesses who were called when we were
discussing straw, was, that in the case of straw,
which hardly travels more than 60 miles, it was
in fact, with the addition of cartage, putting on
a rate of an extra penny for the ordinary class
rate which applies to Class 3, and that therefore
the position of straw was intermediate between
Class 3 and Class 4. It now stands in Class 3,
and to that extent there has been a reduction
when it is sent in minimum consignments of
20 cwt.
But then if your Grace will look at the
Clearing House Classification of straw, you will
See that in the Clearing House Classification, not
(81.)
5 O 2 only
844
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT comMITTEE
#
11 June 1891.
only is there a limitation that straw shall be sent
in not less than two cwt. consignments, but that
there shall be a minimum charge as if it were
sent in 20 cwt. consignments, which is a very
different thing indeed from the Provisional
Order Classification, which only specifies that
straw shall have a minimum load of 20 cwt. If
we were permitted by the classification to charge
as for 20 cwt., whatever the load of straw was,
that would be a sufficient protection ; but
merely putting it into Class 3 without that pro-
tection does not put us in at all the same position
as we were in under the Clearing House Classi-
fication. -
Then, your Grace, you will be told by the
witness whom I shall call, that in point of fact
straw is carried in Class 4, although I do not
think it had been brought to Mr. Courtenay
Boyles's attention that it was so carried. There
is a specification, I can hardly call it an article,
in the Clearing House Classification, of light
goods ; and light goods are goods not otherwise
specified ; and light goods are in Class 4; and
. only specification of straw in the Clearing
House Classification is straw with a minimum
consignment of 20 cwt. Therefore straw, when
it is carried in less quantities, has been carried
under that description of light goods, and the
fourth class rate has been applied to it and to
other articles, also the fourth class rate has been
applied under certain circumstances. That is to
say, if it is more favourable for a trader to pay
for a minimum consignment of 20 cwt. under
Class 3 than to pay the fourth class rate upon
his consignment, he has been permitted to pay
for a minimum consignment in Class 3. If on
the other hand it is cheaper for him to send his
consignment as light goods under Class 4, they
have been sent as light goods in Class 4, and
charged for accordingly. So that your Grace
sees that if you simply put straw and these other
articles into Class 3 without any other limitation,
we shall be in a very much worse position
than we are in at present. We have at present
been carrying these light loads in Class 4;
we shall be unable to do so any longer. And my
learned friend, Mr. Cripps, suggests, as between
trader and trader, that if one trader sends in a
large consignment, and another trader sends in a
small consignment, as between traders, it is
unfair that the man who sends the larger con-
signment shall be charged less than the man who
sends the smaller consignment; but I do ask
your Grace to consider what the significance is
of the limitation which was attached to the
description of straw which the traders have
agreed to. They clearly agreed to straw being
placed in Class 3 with a minimum load of 20 cwt.,
and those words can have no significance what-
ever, unless straw, when it does not fulfil that
condition, goes into a higher class. I am bound
to say that we assumed, when that compromise
was made, that the amendment putting straw and
other articles, e.o.h.p., into a higher class, did
follow, as a matter of fact, as a consequential
amendment.
Mr. Clifford.] I do not admit for a moment,
your Grace, that that was the effect of the com-
promise to which I assented. There was no
reference in the compromise that I suggested to
a minimum load ; the compromise was that we
accepted straw to go into a higher class than that
indicated by the Board of Trade applicable to all
consignments of whatever description ; and you
will not find one single word in the discus-
sion that took place about any further amend-
ment.
Chairman.] We will bear that when you make
your speech.
Earl of Camperdown.] Nothing was said about
a minimum of 20 cwt. *
Mr. Clifford.] No, nothing.
Mr. Moon. I shall not, perhaps, have another
opportunity of answering what my learned friend,
Mr. Clifford, has now said. What I should say
is that our amendment was to put up straw with
a minimum consignment, and that possibly my
learned friend may have been under a misappre-
hension, and of course he cannot be bound if it
was so; but that was our amendment. Nothing
was ever said about altering our amendment so
as to ornit the words that attached the condition
to it.
Earl of Camperdown.] Can you point to us on
the notes that there is anything about a mini-
mum load of 20 cwt. You will see on page 605 of
the Evidence the Chairman's decision, and that
was, “ Then what we understand (in order that
there may be no mistake) is that straw, and the
articles that are bound up with straw, shall be
moved from Class 2 into Class 3; that is all we
have to deal with ; ” and that is the only decision
the Chair gave, apparently.
Mr. Cripps.) I do not know whether I may
answer that. I was here at the time with regard $.
the straw discussion. The amendment that we pro-
posed was, I have the amendment here, on page
602 I am told of the official copy, and the amend-
ment proposed was to omit, “Straw, except
otherwise herein provided ; minimum load
20 cwt. per waggon.” That was the amendment
we proposed, that it should be moved from
Class 2 to Class 4. And then the compromise
was, at least so I undersiood it at the time, and I
think it appears upon the notes, that as regards
that amendment my learned friend Mr. Clifford
said that further discussion might be avoided
by saying that it should be put up into Class 3,
that is to say, that what should be put up was
what we were proposing, “Straw, e.o.h.p., mini-
mun load 20 cwt. per waggon.” If there was any
misunderstanding, of course I say nothing about
it; but that was the amendment we were dealing
with at the time ; we were asking for Class 4,
and my learned friend, Mr. Clifford, said he
would assent to Class 3. On page 604, my
learned friend, Mr. Clifford said, “Perhaps my
learned friend will allow me just to say this in
the interest of time and with the view to a settle-
ment, that on the part of the traders we are per-
fectly willing to accept straw at the Clearing
House Classification ; that is to say, that it shall
be put in Class 3 with the proviso, as in the
Clearing House Classification, that there shall
be a reduction in the case of owners’ risk.”
Then owner's risk was taken out of the question,
so that it was left with the proviso as in the
Clearing House Classification.
Earl of Camperdown..] And that is the mini-
mum of 20 cwt., no doubt.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
845
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Mr. Clifford...] That is not what we intended,
nor will your Grace find it so expressed in any
part of the discussion. , & wº
Earl of Camperdown.] It looks like it ; it looks
as ihough you said, “We are willing to accept
it as in the Clearing House Classi º on.”
Mr. Clifford.] That was with regard to owners'
risk.
Earl of Camperdown.] No, you cannot take a
past of the classification. The natural interpre-
tation of that is, as it appears as a whole in the
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Clifford.] That certainly was not what we
intended.
Earl of Camperdown.] Certainly ; what we
were dealing then with was “straw, e.o.p.h.,
minimum load, 20 cwt. per waggon.”
Mr. Clifford.] That was the railway com-
panies' amendment.
Chairman.] The railway companies' amend-
ment was to take it out of Class 2 and put it into
Class 4. .
Mr. Clifford.] Yes. t
Chairman.]. And you, on the part of the
traders, said that they objected very strongly to
have it put into Class 4, but that they accepted
its being put into Class 3.
Mr. Clifford.] I did not in any way say that
we accepted that amendment as regards the mini-
mum load. I said that we would accept straw to
be put into a higher class than even the Board of
Taade indicated under the general condition that
it applied to all straw ; I did not express it, but
you will find that nowhere in the course of the
discussion was the limit to 20 cwt. per waggon
discussed. -
Mr. Cripps.] Your Grace, perhaps on the
official copy you have the actual terms in which
the amendment was passed. The official copy, as
amended on this point I mean, whether the Bill
does not stand now in Class 3 with straw, with a
minimum load of 20 cwt.
Mr. Clifford.] That is conceded. The amend-
ment of the railway companies was one thing,
but what I assented to on the part of the traders
11 June 1891.
was another thing; and I challenge my learned
friend to point out in the course of this discussion
any limitation of the kind he attributes to me.
Now, let me refer your Grace to what
my , learned friend. Mr. Cripps himself said
in the course of that discussion at page 605.
“As I understand what my learned friend Mr.
Clifford says is, that, without now discussing the
owner's risk point at all, whatever the rates may
be on either side, and whatever view the Com-
mittee may take, he is willing, on behalf of the
traders whom he represents, to take Class 3 for
straw as a compromise, and so perhaps shortening
the proceedings.”
Earl of Camperdown.] But then, that of course
had reference to what he said before about the
Clearing House Classification.
Mr. Clifford.] It has no reference to any thing
I said. -
Mr. Hanbury.] Mr. Cripps goes on afterwards
and says: “I think, your Grace, we might meet
my learned friend Mr. Clifford upon that sugges-
tion.”
Mr. Cripps. The suggestion being, that in
regard to our amendment, instead of straw with
a minimum of 20 cwt, going into Class 4, it should
go into Class 3.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Might I ask whether straw
is ever sent in Class 42
*
Mr. Cripps.] It is sometimes.
Wir. Hambury. Mr. Clifford assented to taking
straw without any limitation.
Mr. Clifford. J. Without any limitation; that is
what I talked of and what my clients suggested.
Mr. C. ipps, I do not think that was so. But
a little further back, on page 603 (I am sorry
there should be a misunderstanding about it), you
will see that the amendment was, “ omit straw,
except otherwise herein provided; minimum load
20 cwt. per waggon.” *
Chairman.] As Mr. Hanbury says, it is no use
going into what was supposed to be the agree-
ment then, if it is now discussed to show that
there was no agreement of that kind.
Mr. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILRINSON, having been recalled; is further examined,
as follows:
Mr. Moon.
7367. IS straw sometimes sent in less quan-
tities than 20 cwt. to the waggon?—Yes. In
Some parts of the country straw is sometimes
sent in less º and the other articles, the
imported fibres allied with it, are very frequently
carried in less quantities than one ton.
7368. Will you just explain how it comes
about that those articles are carried in less quan-
tities than a ton; what is the reason of that ?—
The articles, such as esparto, China grass, me-
gass, Mexican fibre and palm-leaf, of course
arrive at our ports of steamers, then the cargoes
are split up into lots for the various paper
works, and other works using them. The fraffic
is not of a very high quakity; the bales burst
Somotimes in loading into the ship on the other
Mr. Moon—continued.
side, some get broken in transit ; others get
broken up in unloading and loading into wag-
gons; and then there is generally a certain per-
centage cut open by the Custom House people
to see if there is any exciseable article smuggled
inside the bales. Consequently each paper
manufacturer receives a certain quantity of
loose fibre; and as this stuff is very loose, work-
ing out to about between 400 and 500 ſeet to the
ton when loose, the truck is filled up substantially
with half-a-ton or less than half-a-ton ; and we
can put nothing else with it.
7369. The truck is filled up with half-a-ton 2
—Yes.
7370. How do you carry now those loose
small quantities ; under what class in the
(81.)
5 O 3 Clearing
846
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOſ NT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
Mr. Moon—continued.
Clearing House Classification?—We
either charge them at the third class
which is a rate including cartage; or we
should charge them as light goods not classified,
in the 4th class, whichever computation was
most favourable to the trader. *
7371. But would you charge it higher than
you would charge straw or those fibres in quan-
tities of 20 cwt.?—Clearly; the difference be-
tween the 4th Class and 3rd Class.
should
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
7372. Can you tell the Committee what pro-
portion of consignments of straw (limiting your
view to straw for a moment) go in consignments
of under 20 cwt. 2–Do you refer to English
straw P
7373, Yes?—The general custom is to send the
straw traffic in quantities of one ton; because, as I
pointed out to the Committee the other day, a
farmer's waggon generally holds a ton, and our
waggons also will take a ton. But that is sub-
ject to this, that the custom may alter any day,
and if it were compulsory on the railway com-
panies to take half a ton at the third class rate,
there would be a heavy loss, because I could put
nothing more into the waggon.
7374. May I ask you this question. At pre-
sent is it in any case usual to send a smaller con-
signment than 20 cwt. of straw, except by reason
of the smallness of the truck 2–Oh, yes, but not
frequently. I made an inquiry the other day at
Paddington, and was told that the consignments
occasionally come up in less quantities; a man
keeping a pony, or one horse, would have up
from the country, perhaps from his own farm, a
small quantity ; but it is not general. *
7375. And you cannot give me any indication
of the proportion of such consignments?—No, I
could not at present.
7376. I think you gave the Committee some
figures which would show that as regards hay :
have you any similar figures which you could
lay before the Committee with regard to straw,
showing what the quantity of the consignment
is ?—I have brought with me the same statement
as that which I had in giving evidence before,
and it is here. On the morning I visited Pad-
dington I made them keep an account of 100
waggons taken indiscriminately.
7377. Of hay and straw waggons?—Yes; of
hay and straw mixed.
7378. Can you give us particulars as regards
straw 2–I have looked through the statement of
100 waggons, and there is not one case in which
less than a ton is carried.
7379. That is what I expected to find 2–Let
me supplement that by saying that this state-
ment was taken of waggons that are upon our
hay bank and straw bank, where the large loads
would be dealt with. If, by chance, there were
any small lots sent in waggons with other goods,
they would not have been at this particular place,
they would have been in the shed.
7380. I will take your statement to that effect;
but, of course, there is no evidence upon that
point?—That is true.
7381. What I take your evidence to be gene-
rally is that your objection applies chiefly to
these esparto and Algerian fibres 2–I should be
Mr. GARDINER.
| Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
very sorry for it to become compulsory upon the
railway companies to carry English straw in
small, lots at 3rd Class rates, because you will see
in reference to the figures —— *
7382. That is not an answer to my question.
Do not your objections apply chiefly to consign-
ments of Algerian fibre and esparto, and those
kindred materials 2–Not altogether, because,
although the Scotch companies and the north of
England companies are not before the Committee
at the present time, the classification would
apply to them, and I am told it is not in my own
knowledge——
7383. Then you had better not say so 2–Yes,
I am speaking of classification, and I think I
heve a right to explain.
7384. I hardly think so, unless you are
speaking of your own knowledge 2–Then a
Scotch witness ought to be put in.
Mr. Clifford..] Undoubtedly ; we shall be very
glad to hear a Scotch witness.
Mr. Hanbury.
7384*. Is Mexican fibre one of these articles?
—Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.] That I see is carried without
any limitation in Class 2 of the Clearing House
Classification ?
Mr. Moon.] That is so.
Mr. Hambury.
7385, Therefore, taking Mexican fibre as one
of the articles, small quantities of Mexican fibre ‘
which you are carrying now in Class 2, you want
to put up into Class 42–Reference will be made
to see whether that is so as a matter of fact ;
but I would like to put it to the Committee that
Mexican fibre as imported into England would
bear a very small proportion with the chief
article, namely, espario. * *s.
7386. That may be ; let us deal with one
article at a time. Mexican fibre at the present
moment you carry in small quantities in Class 2,
and you are proposing to put it into Class 42–
Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] That is so as regards Mexican
fibre. If you look as regards other articles (I do
not know whether any alteration ought to be made
in relation to so small an article as Mexican fibre),
there you will see the minimum charge as per
20 cwt. per ton in Class 3.
Mr. Hanbury.] For what?
Mr. Cripps.] Esparto.
Mr. Hanbury.] Let us clear one thing up at a
time. What do you want to do about Mexican
fibre; do you want to put it up in Class 4, seeing
that it is in Class 2 °
Mr. Moon.
7587. (To the Witness.] What do you say to
that 7–There is such a small quantity of Mexican
fibre carried that I think it would be a great mis-
take to let Mexican fibre prejudice the case of
the other articles, if the Committee make a stand
upon that. It is in my own knowledge that we
carry very large consignments of esparto; but
Mexican fibre I do not remember coming across
personally.
7558. You
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
847
11 June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
*=--
Mr. Moon—continued.
7388. You do not know much about Mexican
fibre, evidently 2—I do not.
7389. You say that you do know a good deal
about esparto ?—Bsparto, megass, and palmleaf.
7590. Does China grass go in large quantities
or small ?–I should think small. It is used
partly for making China grass cloth and partly for
paper making ; but we very seldom come across it.
7391. Does Algerian fibre come in large quan-
tities 2—I believe that is practically the same
article as espart, the broom or coarse grass.
Earl of Camperdown.
7392. Let us take another article, megass, which
is an article you have justmentioned. If it is in three-
ton loads it goes in Class S., that is to say, Class
C. Where does it go in less than three-ton
loads at the present time, in what class —lt
would go into the fourth class as one of the
light articles not specially classified.
7393. At the present time?—Yes, that is so.
7394. In other words, it goes up four classes 2
—Yes. I may say that it would be carried
always in heavy loads. His Lordship is pro-
bably aware that it is the fibre that is thrown out
of the sugar crushing machine after the sugar
juice is expressed ; it is then cleaned, and in
places near the sea it is bundled up and pressed
and sent to England for paper making purposes.
7395. In three-ton lots in Class S., and in
two-and-half-ton lots in Class 42—You see the
same thing applies to straw when packed in
the same way ; straw is in the special
class also.
7396. Just stick to megass. Is that correct :
a three-ton lot of megass goes into Class S., and
a two-and-half-ton lot into Class 47—That is so
at the present time.
Mr. Moon.
7397. Let me ask you about megass. Is
megass press packed 2–Yes, megass is press
packed.
7398. It is not specified in the Clearing House
Classification as being press packed, but it is
press packed 2–I have seen it packed myself.
7399. And it goes in the same class with press-
packed straw, is that so 2–lt goes in the special
class with a minimum of three tons; whereas we
carry straw with a minimum of two and-a-half
tonS.
7400. As regards the other articles, esparto,
China grass, Algerian fibre (flax straw, I am
not sure about), and palmetto leaf, they are
classified in the Clearing House Classification
with straw 2–Yes ; the regulation as to straw
applies to all of them.
Mr. Hanbury.
7401. What do you mean by all of them ; all
you have mentioned last 2–Yes.
Mr. Moon.
7402. That was my question ?—Yes.
7403. Flax straw I am not sure about; how is
that classed ?–That was altered yesterday, I
think. .
7404, Megass and Mexican fibre we have
considered; palmetto leaf is classed as straw 2–
Yes.
7405. You were asked by my learned friend
Mr. Clifford, as to the present practice as re-
gards straw, and I think he made a distinction
between straw and other articles. As a matter
of fact, do you protect yourselves in your
Clearing House Classification by enabling your-
selves to charge a minimum charge as for 20 cwt.”
—Yes, that is the practice.
7406. Do you think that has a great influence
on the size of the present consignments of straw
—I am quite satisfied that that is so.
7407. Do you think that if that protection is
withdrawn from you straw will not always be
consigned in consignments of 20 cwt. 2–I think
if the inducement to a farmer to send a ton of
straw is withdrawn, he may send 15 or 10 cwt.,
and the companies would loose carriage accord-
ingly.
7408. Would you say that you cannot argue
from what takes place at the present time, what
will take place in the future if that protection is
withdrawn 2–Yes, partly so. I say that there
are such consignments carried now, but not
many, in the south and west of England.
7409. I think it was rather suggested that
some of your waggons would not hold 20 cwt. ;
is that so?–No, that is not so. I have before
me our standard waggon plan.
74.10. If you say it is not so, I do not think I
need trouble you to enlarge upon that?—No, it
is not so. Straw occupies about 850 cubic feet
to the ton, and by piling it up five feet above the
sides of the waggon and properly securing it, we
can just take a ton.
7411. I have only one other question to ask
you. Was the compromise that was arrived at,
that straw should be in Class 3 now, a reduction
upon your present practice of charging?–Clearly.
At present we get the third class rate, which in-
cludes cartage. In dealing with straw we do not
perform cartage, but we give an equivalent in
other ways.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Chairman (to Mr. Moon).] Have you any
other witness to call ?
Mr. Moon.] Mr. Harrison would support and
confirm what Mr. Wilkinson has said, but he
would not give any further evidence, so I do not
propose to call him. -
Mr. Clifford..] We propose to call two wit-
nesses, your Grace.
MR, HENRY HUMPHREY GARDINER, having been re-called; is further Examined, as
follows :
Mr. Clifford.
7412. JUST state to the Committee again what
you are. You are a farmer, are yon not ?—Yes,
iving near Worthing.
74.13. And you are here in a representative
capacity ?–I am.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
74.14. What have you to say with regard to
this proposal as to straw 2––
Chairman.] First of all, what is the pro-
posal P .
Mr. Clifford.] The company’s proposal, as I
(81.)
5 G 4 understand,
848
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
Mr. GARDINER.
[Continued.
understand, is that straw in less quantities than
20 cwt. shall go into Class 4. Is not that the
proposal P
Mr. Moon.] Yes.
Chairman.] The first proposal is that it shall
be 20 cwt. in Class 3.
Mr. Moon.] I think that is already placed in
Class 3.
Mr. Clifford.] If the compromise is to be re-
jected, that must, of course, be re-discussed.
Chairman.] What I want is, that we should
thoroughly understand what it is we are sup-
posed now to be discussing. Is it admitted that
at this moment, in accordance with that compro-
mise, “straw, e.o.h.p., minimum load 20 cwt. per
waggon,” is placed in Class 32
Mr. Clifford.] It is supposed to have been
placed in Class 3, so far as we are concerned, with
regard to all quantities,
Mr. Hanbury.] That is to say, your under.
standing of the compromise was that straw of all
kinds was to be in Class 37
Mr. Clifford.] Without any limit in weight.
Mr. Hambury.j And you only assent to straw
above 20 cwt. being moved up from Class 2 to
Class 3 on condition that all straw was left in
Class 3.
Mr. Clifford.
7415. Certainly ; that was our understanding.
(To the Witness.) Have you considered this
question of the limit of weight 2—I have.
7416. What have you to say to the Commit-
tee upon it 2–If we have the larger trucks sup-
plied, as has always been the custom of the trade
up to now, I see no objection to a limit of 20
cwt. ; but in saying so, of course it ought to be
very plainly understood that the small trollies
which are not suitable for the carriage of straw,
and which are not at present used, we should
not expect to have such trucks as those supplied,
so that we could not put 20 cwt. into them.
7417. Is that your fear, that you, as a farmer,
may send your straw to the railway station, and
find there to receive it a truck that will not hold
a ton 2–Quite so. At present the custom of the
trade is that we have trucks supplied that will
hold a ton.
7418. Do you say, under those circumstances,
it would be unfair to force you to send your
straw in a higher class than otherwise ?—Cer-
tainly, by reason of the small truck.
Chairman.
7419. Let me ask you, is it not the interest of
the railway companies to carry as much straw as
you can send them 2–Undoubtedly; and I
think I told the Committee that the practice of
the trade is to use a larger truck.
7420. What makes you afraid that the com-
panies in future will tell you that they cannot
take your ton of straw, but must take it in
smaller quantities, if they have up to now always
carried the larger quantity, when as a rule it has
been sent 7–We want to guard ourselves from
being put into a worse position. If we have the
Chairman—continued.
large trucks, as hitherto we have had, I say again
we should be perfectly satisfied, but we do not
want to have small trucks told off. And I agree
with your Grace that it would not be in the
interests of the railway companies to do it, but
there are times when there are empty small trucks
at the station, and it would be convenient to
them, if they could do so, to say, “That is all we
have got.”
Mr. Hanbury.
7421. Let us understand what you mean. Do
I rightly understand that you assent to this :
that supposing the railway companies provide
you with decently large trucks, you do not object
to quantities less than 20 cwt. being sent in
Class 42–Yes, I do. I think the fairer way
would be that the minimum consignments should
be 20 cwt.
Mr. Clifford,
7422. Would you be satisfied with that mimi-
mum consignment as a compromise 2–Yes, I
should. But there is that one thing which we know
nothing about, but which is possible, we do not
want to have the small trucks forced upon us; we
never have had.
Earl of Camperdown.
7423. In short, what you want is this : that if
you come to a station and tender 20 cwt. of straw,
it shall be carried in Class 3, never mind whether
in one truck or twenty P−Yes.
Mr. Clifford.
7424. Precisely, that with a minimum per con-
signment as compared with the minimum per
truck 2–Yes.
Lord Belper.
7425. Would not the result of that be that if
a less quantity is not specified it will still go
into Class 32—Yes, and be paid for as a ton.
Earl of Belmore.
7426. If you send a ton and-a-half, you will
have to pay for two tons 2–No, we put a ton in
a truck.
7427. But supposing you put a ton and-a-half
in; that is my question ?—Yes ; then we would
have to pay two tons. But we never do that.
A ton is a convenient loading for a waggon, and
a convenient load for a truck.
Mr. Clifford.
7428. And you would be perfectly satisfied to
protect the company by making your minimum
apply per consignment instead of per waggon
—Quite so. I object to its going up into
Class 4, under any circumstances; but I am
quite willing to make the minimum consignment
a ton, and pay as a ton.
Mr. Moon..] The difficulty of making it a
minimum consignment is this: Supposing that
Mr. Gardiner were to send 25 cwt. (lown to a
station, that would be a consignment which
would satisfy the condition, because it would
mean a consignment of more than 20 cwt. Then
what would happen 2 Twenty hundredweight
would
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
849
11 June 1891.]
Mr. GARDINER.
[Continued.
would go into one waggon and five cwt. into the
other.
Earl of Belmore.] Then it would be paid for as
two tons? -
Mr. Moon.] No; he said he was willing to
pay for two tons, but there is nothing, in the
Provisional Order to get two tons out of him.
Earl of Belmore.] Nothing now.
Earl of Camperdown.] And judging by the
way I read the Clearing House Classification,
the minimum charge is for 20 cwt. per waggon
in Class 3y; so that if he sent three tons, or a
ton and a-half, you would be equally obliged to
carry it under 3y at the present moment.
Mr. Moon.] No ; we should not carry the
whole under 3y.
Earl of Camperdown.] You would carry half
at one rate and half at the other ?
Mr. Moon.] Yes.
Mr. Clifford.
7429. (To the Witness). Is that the practice 2
—No, it is not their practice.
Mr. Clifford.] I hear from Mr. Gardiner that
it is not the practice.
Mr. Moon.] No, it is not the practice; be-
cause the condidion prevents it being the practice
to send it in more than one ton quantities. It is
owing to the condition that ton quantities are
Sent.
Earl of Camperdown.] Then this is not an
accurate description in the Clearing House
Classification ; because, if you took into any
court of law the question whether the minimum
charge is for 20 cwt. they would certainly read
it so.
Mr. Moon.] You cannot get a ton and a-half
into a waggon.
Lord Belper.] The minimum load per waggon
is 20 cwt.
Mr. Moon...] Your Grace, Mr. Gardiner's
point is a perfectly fair one; Mr. Gardiner
ought not to have his straw put up into a higher
class because a waggon is offered him that will
not hold 20 cwt. ; and I understand him to say
that, if he was sure that his straw would go in
waggons that would carry 20 cwt., he would not
object to straw in less quantities than 20 cwt.
being put up into Class 4.
Witness, Yes, I object to that.
for it to be charged as for 20 cwt.
Mr. Moon.] At owners’ risk.
Mr. Hanbury.] He does not say at owners'
risk; he says that he is willing for it to be
charged as for 20 cwt.
I am willing
Mr. Moon.] Supposing he sent 25 cwt?
Witness.] I should never do such a stupid
thing.
Chairman.] But supposing you did.
Mr. Moon.] I quite agree ; I do not think he
would.
Chairman.
7430. We must legislate for what might
happen, not what is likely. Supposing you did?
Witness. Then I know that it will not go in
one truck, and knowing that, and with a full
knowledge of that, I should expect to occupy two
trucks and pay for them.
Mr. Clifford.
7431. Simply because in that case it would be
for your convenience to send the 25 cwt. P—Yes.
7432. But it would equally be for your con-
venience
Chairman.] You will have your opportunity
presently.
Mr. Moon.] This is rather a legal question;
but how could the railway company charge you,
under the Provisional Order as it stands, for two
trucks if you send 25 cwt. P—I am afraid I am
not a lawyer.
Lord Belper.] The proposal they are making
is not yet put into the Provisional Order; there-
fore they could do so under the Provisional Order
as it stands.
Mr. Moon..] If your Grace would do that, that
would protect us. If the Committee could see
their way to inserting a provision that quantities
carried in one truck, whatever the quantity is,
should be charged as for a ton, that would afford
the railway companies ample protection.
Sir Joseph Bailey.
7433. Surely it is better for the trader to have
a smaller quantity in Class 4 rather than to be
charged for a ton; because the difference per
mile between Class 3 and Class 4 is, after all,
taking the shortest distance which is most expen-
sive, only as between 3:10 d. and 3.60 d., that is
! d. ; and if you are charged for a ton you are
charged 3 d. 2–The answer to that is that if we
send 18 cwt. in a truck, or 19 cwt. in a truck,
we should be put up a class, which would be a
very serious matter; I should have to pay as a
ton.
Chairman.
7434. But then, to use your own argument, in
all probability if that was so you would take very
good care to put in a couple of hundredweight
more and make it 20 cwt. 2–A ton fills the truck.
7435. You were saying that you objected to
the proposal suggested by the honourable Mem-
ber that if you sent 18 cwt. you would be put up
into Class 42—Quite so.
7436. But knowing that, I put it to you
whether you would be likely to send the 18 cwt.
or put in another 2 cwt. and make it 20 cwt. 2–
I say that a case might arise where you could
put in 18 cwt., but you could not put in 20 cwt.;
then I say that the fair thing is to pay for a ton.
7437. What prevents you from putting in a
ton 2–The straw is sometimes loose, which it
makes it more light than at other times, and
“rousy" we call it.
7438. But you would send 20 cwt. in prefer-
ence to 182— But it might be possible that a
case might arise where you could put 18 cwt.
into a truck, but could not put 20 cwt. ; and I.
say that, from the fact of not being able to put
(81.)
5 P that
85()
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE SELEST COMMITTEE ON
11 June 1891.
Mr. GARDINER.
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
that 20 cwt. in, I do not want my consignment
put up a class, but I am willing to pay as for
20 cwt., which is a different thing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7439. What I understand you to say is, that
you would be satisfied that straw should remain
in the third class, and that you would accept the
provision that you should be charged a minimum
charge as for one ton per waggon?—A minimum
consignment. The point I raise is : in case we
could not get quite a ton in., I think a very
good way out of it, if I may suggest it, would be
to make the minimum 18 cwt. That would quite
clear it. There is just that last hundredweight
which might be the difficulty sometimes. . If
you made the minimum 18 cwt. it would clear
it entirely.
Mr. Moon..] Of course the present practice is
a ton per waggon, and the evidence is, your
Grace, that straw always does go in ton lots,
that a waggon always does contain a ton ; and it
would involve great confusion if we made the
minimum 18 cwt.
Chairman.] You generally get a ton of straw
into a cart.
The Witness.] Yes, your Grace; it is the
practice to move straw in ton consignment,
whether by road or by rail.
Mr. Hanbury (to Mr. Moon).] The Witness'
proposal is that you should charge for less quan-
tities than a ton as a ton.
Lord Belper.] That every consignment should
be charged for as one ton. That would cover the
whole proposal.
Mr. Moon.] Then supposing there were a con-
signment of 25 cwt. "
Lord Belper.] It
waggon.
Mr. Joon.] But it would not go into two
waggons.
Lord Belper.] Per waggon. -
Mr. Moon...] If you add those words it will be
sufficient. -
Earl of Camperdown.] Then there is an ob-
jection to that, because supposing some of these
small waggons were used, which we were told
exist on the southern lines, if it was per waggon,
the trader would be caught. tº
Chairman.] No, you had better stick to the
ton. -
Mr. Moon..] I do not think Mr. Gardiner has
said that he has ever had a waggon offered to
him that would not hold a ton.
Mr. Hanbury.] The much better way would
be to say “for less quantities than a ton as a
ton,” which is Mr. Gardiner's suggestion.
would not go into the
Mr. Moon.] But then supposing you have a
ton-and-a-quarter, a portion of a ton will be
charged as a ton P
Earl of Camperdown.] Yes.
Mr. Moon.] I think that is the best way. Per-
haps it would save time if your Grace would go
on with something else, and let us bring it up
later.
Earl of Camperdown.] Is it quite agreed that
the other side accept that ? -
Mr. Clifford.] I want to ascertain that from
Mr. Gardiner ; and I have another witness to
call.
Mr. Hambury.] I understand that Mr. Gar-
diner is dealing only with this English straw,
and not with the foreign articles.
Mr. Clifford.] I want to point out to the Com-
mittee that Mr. Gardiner is only a farmer, and
his evidence is only as to straw. We do not
represent the paper makers.
Mr. Moon.] Are the paper makers represented
on the Mansion House Association ?
Mr. Clifford.] It may be so; I am not
instructed.
Chairman.] If they do not instruct anybody
we cannot help that.
Mr. Clifford.] I only point out that this
gentleman does not represent them.
Chairman.] The Mansion House Association
does. : .
Mr. Clifford.] I am not instructed as to how
that is.
Mr. Whitehead.] Would your Grace allow me to
mention that I am just instructed to appear for the
Paper Makers Association, and that most of these
articles are articles used in the manufacture of
paper, and all Mr.Wilkinson's evidence went to the
discussion of these matters. The Paper Makers
Association only learned this morning from the
newspapers that this question was brought up
before the Committee yesterday, and the result
is that they are not in a position to discuss it
at this moment, and they are not in a position to
get evidence up to London. The matter stands
in this way. They understood that the compro-
mise which my learned friend Mr. Clifford
referred to was that all these articles should go
into Class 3, and, as such, they were content and
left it there ; but after yesterday afternoon’s pro-
ceedings as reported in the papers, they discovered
that the discussion once more comes up before the
Committee, and they are placed at a disadvan-
tage in that respect, that they have not got their
witnesses in the room.
Earl of Camperdown.] But you will observe
that the proposal, which is immediately under
consideration at the present time, does not move
any of these articles out of Class 3; it merely
says that every load is to be considered as a ton:
Mr. Whitehead..] That is so ; but of course it
does indirectly affect them, as the paper making
materials represent a substantial interest at
stake at the present moment. Those were the
materials with regard to which the railway com-
panies’ evidence was brought and that is really
the matter before the Committee. I would
submit that it would hardly be fair to the Paper
Makers Association, that it should be discussed
in their absence and suddenly sprinng upon them
in this way. I cannot say more than that. I
could call the secretary to the association, and
he could explain the situation and give certain
evidence; but with regard to details of the manu-
facture he is not personally conversant.
Chairman.]
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
85 I
11 June 1891.
Chairman.] We will take it from you to ex-
plaiu the situation ; we will trust to your infor:
mation ; but if there is to be any question of
evidence from the paper makers themselves, we
must hear them.
Mr. Whitehead..] I must leave it in the hands
of the Committee. I cannot say more than that.
Earl of Camperdown.] Have you had any
communication with them, any telegraphic
communication -
Mr. Whitehead. The secretary is in the room
this morning, having seen it in the papers.
Earl of Camperdown.] How early can they
bring evidence here 2
Mr. Whitehead..] On Tuesday morning or
to-morrow he says evidence can be produced.
Chairman.] It is only to bring them up.
Where do they come from ?
Mr. McCaul.] The witness I propose to call
comes from Manchester. I could get one from
London, but it is specially important if you will
allow me to speak. I have no brief in this case.
I can certainly bring a witness either on Monday
or Tuesday next, and I will undertake to do it.
I only received my instructions this morning,
and I have not been able to do so to-day.
Chairman.] Then Mr. Whitehead represents
you. -
Mr. Whitehead..] So I understand.
Chairman.] Could you not get a witness up if
you wired to him now.
Mr. Whitehead..] For to-morrow 2
Chairman.] Yes; because when we have done
with straw we shall have finished the whole of
the classification; and it would be very incon-
venient to reopen the matter.
Mr. Whitehead..] Mr. McCaul says he will
bring a witness to-morrow morning if you will
allow it to stand over.
Chairman.] Then we will hear the paper-
makers to-morrow morning." -
Mr. Moon.] In the meantime we will get the
amendment put into shape, which, at any rate,
will carry out what Mr. Gardener said he would
be satisfied with.
Chairman.] Then you think you can meet Mr.
Gardiner's case ?
Mr. Moon.] I think so, your Grace, in some
such way as the Committee suggested.
Mr. Clifford.] That is to say the minimum
should apply per consignment, and not per
waggon.
Mr. Moon.] That the minimum should apply
to the consignment, but that a portion of a ton
should be charged as for a ton.
Chairman.] I think you had better agree to
that among yourselves, if you can, outside. (To
Mr. Clifford.) Who is your next witness 2
Mr. Clifford.] We shall not call another wit-
mess upon this point, I think, your Grace.
Chairman.] Then we come to the amendment
on Part IV. : Exceptional class, proposed by the
Mansion House Association, whom you represent,
do you not.
Mr. Clifford.] Yes. 1 am afraid your Grace
will have to listen a little more to the case of
timber ; you have already been very patient in
hearing it ; but this is a point which arises under
an exceptional class; and it is a point of con-
siderable importance affecting the timber trade.
As I am instructed, 90 per cent. of the round
timber, which is transported upon the railways,
requires more than one truck for its accommoda-
tion. Therefore it will come into this exceptional
class under paragraph 2, page 14, for “articles
requiring an exceptional truck, or more than one
truck, or a special train *; and in that case the
charge for the conveyance of that round timber,
or 90 per cent. as I am instructed of the whole
traffic, will be at the mercy of the railway
companies; we thinkthere ought to be some method
of defining more clearly what the charge is to be
in those cases, and therefore we propose this
amendment, to insert after the word “articles,”
in paragraph 2, page 14, of the London and
North Western Provisional Order, the words
“ other than timber.”
Now, I may just refer your Grace to what
the existing practice is under the Clearing
House Classification. If you refer to page 99 of
the Clearing House Classification, you will find
there this provision: “Timber requiring three or
more waggons for conveyance must in all cases
be charged at measurement weight, with a mini-
mum charge as for one ton per waggon for each
waggon used.” There your Grace sees there is
a limit of weight; and we think there should be
some similar limit which would enable the timber
trade to know, more or less, what they would be
required to pay for the carriage of timber in this
Exceptional Class. I propose to call b witness
upon the point, who will explain more clearly
than I can do, what is the practice of the trade.
I may remind your Grace that when we were dis-
cussing Clause 16 of the schedule this very point
arose, and we then proposed the very amend-
ment which we are now suggesting here.
Chairman.] Did we accept that amendment or
reject it !
Mr. Clifford.] You did not either accept or
reject it, your Grace; but you postponed it at
the instance of my learned friend, Mr. Pember,
who said it might be more conveniently dealt
with upon this exceptional class. The proposal
was that “a minimum charge as for one ton per
truck may be made in the case of all timber re-
quiring more than one truck.” If your Grace
accepts what we are now suggesting there would
be that addition to Clause 16 which was so post-
poned as regards this proposal, and the insertion
of the words “for articles other than timber,” in
paragraph 2 of page 14 would meet the case with
regard to this exceptional class.
Earl of Camperdown.] What is your conse-
quential amendment to follow on this?
Mr. Clifford.] These words would go back
into Clause 16, and follow at the end of it. “A
minimum charge as for one ton per truck may be
made in the case of all timber requiring more
than one truck.”
w
Chairman | Have you met the companies upon
this to know what their view is 2
(81.)
5 P 2 Mr.
852
MINUTEs or Evi DENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
11 June 1891.
Mr, Clifford..] I do not know, your Grace,
what their view is.
Mr. Hanbury.] What is the precise difference
between that and the arrangement under the
Clearing House Classification as it exists at
present P
Mr. Clifford.] The Clearing House Classifica-
tion is substantially the same thing, as you will
hear from the witness I propose to call.
Earl of Camperdown.] To take your amend-
ment as it stands, I do not quite understand at
present from the words what use it is. You say
a minimum charge “may be made,” but it does.
not follow that it will. It does not follow that
your amendment will be operative in any way.
Chairman.] Is there any chance of the parties
coming together and arranging this between
themselves? -
Mr. Moom.] I am not in a position to say that
there is.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Clifford).] It
does not follow that your amendment would be
operative. Can you explain how that is 2
Mr. Clifford.] It seems to be permissive as
the amendment stands.
Earl of Camperdown.] You say, they “may *
do it. Suppose they did not do it?
Mr. Clifford.] It is an additional charge for
their benefit.
Earl of Camperdown.] But you are not pro-
posing to legislate for their benefit. I presume
if you put in an amendment it is something which
relates to yourself?
Mr. Clifford.] Undoubtedly.
Earl of Camperdown.] I want to know in what
way it is a benefit to you ?
Mr. Clifford.] Under this exceptional class,
paragraph 2, we should be entirely at the mercy
of the company, because they would be entitled
to charge “such reasonable sum as the company
may think fit in each case.” Now they are
entitled, as we admit, to some consideration;
and what we suggest is, that the practice under
the Clearing House Classification (their own
practice) should be followed, and should be
embodied in the Provisional Order by the words
which I have suggested, and which would entitle
them to make that minimum charge.
Chairman.] “Other than timber " are the
words of your amendment, are they not ?
MR. CHARLES HOPTON, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is
as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
7440. WILL you kindly explain what the view
of the timber trade is upon this matter?—The
view of the timber trade generally is that, con-
sidering the lengths of timber, if the Exceptional
Class, paragraph 2, stands as it is, the timber
trade generally will be left entirely at the mercy
of the railway companies, to charge whatever
sum they may think fit for timber requiring more
than one Waggon.
7441. Is it the fact, as I have stated, that a
Mr. Clifford.] “Other than timber" are the
words in the amendment as to this particular
paragraph ; but then a consequential amendment
must be inserted in Clause 16 to carry out and
embody what the exact charge is to be.
Chairman.] Why is it to apply to timber, and
not to other articles?
Mr. Clifford..] Timber, of course, is the only
article with which we are at present concerned.
Chairman.] If iron is carried in two trucks,
for instance, what is the difference between
timber and iron that should make it necessary to
insert that amendment in the case of timber
specially P
Mr. Clifford.] The difference is this, as I have
already explained, that the rule with regard to
timber is that it should be carried under excep-
tional conditions, and, as I have said, 90 per
cent., as your Grace will hear from this witness,
of round timber is so carried. In the case of
iron, obviously that would be an exceptional
matter altogether. -
Chairman.] Take, for instance, iron rails and
things of that kind.
Mr. Clifford.] To take iron girders, for in-
stance, it would be so exceptional as not to be
necessarily provided for in the way that is neces-
sary with regard to timber.
Chairman.] I do not see that myself at the
moment. However, we will hear what your
witness has to say.
Mr. Clifford.] We are concerned at present
with timber, and our case is limited to that.
Mr. Hambury.] With regard to timber, can
you give us a concrete instance of what you
Want to provide for, and then we shall know
what we are dealing with. 7
Mr. Clifford..] Mr. Hopton is here, and will be
able to give you specific instances.
..Mr. Moon.] I do not know if my learned
friend would agree to this, that the charge for
these trucks should be left to arbitration.
Mr. Hanbury.] Does not the word “reason-
able" govern that already ? That provides for
arbitration, does it not ?
Mr. Moon.] Yes, it does.
Chairman (to Mr. Clifford).] Will you proceed
to examine your witness.
Examined,
Mr. Clifford–continued.
very large proportion of the timber trade, the
round timber traffic, is carried in this exceptional
way ?–The round timber traffic is treated in this
exceptional manner; the square and foreign
timber is not so treated at present.
7442. Therefore, your remarks apply to round
timber –They apply to round timber; but I
assume that timber generally will be treated
under the exceptional clause, and if it stands as it
does at present, it is left at the mercy of the rail-
way
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
853
11 June 1891.]
Mr. Clifford—continued.
way companies to charge what they like for more
than one truck. -
Chairman.
7443. Is not the witness under a misapprehen-
sion ? He says the company may charge what-
ever sum they like. But according to the words
here, it must be a “reasonable * sum. (To the
Witness.) Have you observed that?—I have
observed that ; but it is left to the companies to
charge what sum they think fit, subject, of course,
to arbitration, as was stated just now. But What
we want to avoid is any fear of having to go to
the courts for any decision upon this point.
7444. You keep repeating that they are en-
abled to charge whatever sum they think fit; you
mean any reasonable sum ?—“Such reasonable
sum as the company may think fit.”
Earl of Belmore.
7445. They are not to be the judge of the
reasonableness —That is true ; but then the tim-
ber trade does not want to be left at the mercy
of the companies; they want to be treated in the
same manner as they have been hitherto treated
under the Acts of Parliament. The question of
the length of the timber has never entered into
this matter before. The railway companies have
had no power to charge for articles occupying
more than one truck; they have not had the
power, as I understand it, to charge for long
lengths of timber. -
Chairman.
7446. Will you explain that a little further ?
—I would rather leave it to the legal gentlemen
to explain, because it is a legal question.
7447. No it is not; it is a practical question.
You deal in timber, do you not ?—Yes.
7448. Round timber 2—Yes, and also foreign
timber. .
7449. Leave out of view the foreign timber
for a moment ; you deal in round timber 2—We
do.
7450. And you tell us, as regards the round
timber generally, some 90 per cent. (I think that
was the figure mentioned by the learned counsel),
occupies more than one truck 2–The greater pro-
portion of the native timber occupies more than
one truck. I would rather put it in that way.
7451. You send your round timber in two
trucks 2–Two or more, it may be.
7452. What do you pay now 2–On many lines
we are only charged according to the maximum
rates, which are 2% d per ton measurement for
distances up to 50 miles, and 2 d. per ton measure-
ment for distances over 50 miles.
7453. Is that their maximum rate 2–That, I
believe, is their maximum rate.
7454. In all cases do you mean?—I am not
quite clear upon that. I think the London and
North Western is the only instance that I know
of that charge above the maximum. They
charge, I think, something like 2 s. 6 d. per ton
for what they term long lengths extra, in addi-
t1On.
Mr. Moon.] Perhaps your Grace will allow
me to intervene, to inform the Committee what
the powers are of the London and North Western
Railway Company. By the 1876 Act, which
makes the section applicable to the company’s
Mr. HOPTON.
[Continued.
system generally, the company is empowered to
demand for the carriage of any single consign-
ment, timber, stone, merchandise, or other single
article, which on account of the length of the
loads may require more than one carriage, such
sum as they think fit.
Mr. Clifford.
7455. (To the Witness). Is your object, and
that of the timber trade generally, to avoid
litigation ?—That is our object.
7456. At present it is true that the company
would be limited in their powers to charge, that
is to say, they must charge a reasonable sum ;
but meanwhile they will be the sole arbiters of
what is a reasonable sum ?—That is our view.
Chairman.] Surely, according to the Act of
1876, their power is unlimited.
Mr. Clifford.] I am speaking of the operation
of the Provisional Order. My learned friend
did not quote the title of the Act of 1876 that he
referred to.
Mr. Moon.] I will give you the chapter; it is
the Act of 39 & 40 Victoria, and I will give the
chapter in a minute.
Mr. Clifford.] Do you say it applies to the
whole system P
Mr. Moon.] Yes.
Mr. Clifford.] And overrides the Act of 1846
with respect to the timber charge 2
Mr. Moon.] Yes; no doubt it does.
Chairman.] We need not argue that now.
Mr. Clifford.
7457. (To the Witness). Is it your object, on
thepart of the timber trade, that you wish to
have the powers of charge of the company with
respect to round timber defined by the Provisional
Order 2–We do; and I should like to instance to
the Committee my reasons for desiring that more,
especially on the part of the timber trade. In the
Railway Clearing House Classification if the Com-
mittee will kindly refer to page 55, it is provided
that pile-drivers new in parts, of wood or iron, not
exceeding 40 feet in length, are chargeable under
special or Class C. rates. Timber now is charge-
able under higher powers, that is, under Clase 1.
In this instance of pile drivers no extra charge is
made for long lengths, unless they are above 60
feet in length.
7458. And then there is a specified charge 2–
It says “above 60 feet by special arrangement.”
7459. They may be charged 20 per cent, I see,
over the rates for lengths of 40 feet; so there
there is a definite charge?—There there is a
definite charge. Then again at page 13 of the
Railway Clearing House Classification, builders’
implements, such as ladders and scaffold poles,
which run to long lengths, are chargeable under
first class rates. Then again at page 30, as I
think his Grace referred to, girders in the iron
trade, girders, iron or steel not exceeding 40 feet,
are charged in a special class, and exceeding 40
and not exceeding 60 feet, 20 per eent over the
rate for lengths of 40 feet.
7460. There again you have a definite charge 2
—Yes. Then in the present Provisional Order,
(81.)
5 P 3 telegraph
854
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
Mr. Clifford—continued,
telegraph posts are mentioned, I believe, in Class
It is well known they are a very great
length, and nothing extra is chargeable upon
them. They are of course timber ; girders are
provided for in Class B.
Chairman.
7461. Do I understand you that telegraph poles
require to go in two trucks?—Most assuredly,
your Grace. A truck is usually 16 feet in
length ; that is what is termed I believe a low-
sided waggon. Telegraph posts run to a very
much longer length than that. In the Clearing
House Classification, page 2, in Clause 5, it is
provided that “articles which on account of their
length require more than one waggon for their
conveyance must be charged according to classi-
fication with a minimum charge as for one-ton
per waggon.”
7462. Mr. Clifford.] Is that the proposal you
want to embody in the Provisional Order?—That
is the proposal; that is what is carried on really
at the present time. I will also refer to page 4,
Clause 15. -
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] May I point out
that the witness is making a misstatement un-
intentionally about telegraph posts Wooden
telegraph posts are not in Class B.
Witness.] It simply states “telegraph posts.”
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.] Yes; but it is in
the iron list.
Mr. Hanbury.
7463. To the Witness.) That paragraph 5
which you read from the Clearing House Classi-
fication, applies to a whole number of other
articles besides timber ; it applies to everything?
—Then I will at once go to the timber list.
Perhaps that would simplify it. That is at page
99 of the classification. As a foot note it states
there : “Timber requiring three or more wag-
gons for conveyance must in all cases be charged
at measurement weight, with a minimum charge
as for one ton per waggon for each waggon used,
whether carrying part of the load or used as a
safety waggon only.” We are perfectly content
if the Committee could embody that clause in
the classification, but we object to its being left
to the discretion of the companies to charge what
they like. As a fact, it is known at the present
time that exported timber pays a very much
higher rate than imported ; and that makes it
very difficult indeed for the home trade to com-
pete with the imported foreign timber. A large
quantity (I have been asked to state this to the
Committee) of home-grown timber is sent to the
dockyards and arsenals occupying more than one
waggon. It is used there in long lengths some-
times for the keels of ships. *
Chairman.
7464. Do you mean dockyards in this country?
—In this country.
7.465. That does not apply to what you call
the export trade ; you are mixing the two up
together?—I was asked to state this on behalf
of the home trade.
Mr. HOPTON.
–-m-mºsº
[Continued.
Chairman—continued.
7466. Do you know it of your own know-
ledge –I know it of my own knowledge. That
timber is sent to the dockyards in long lengths.
It has been the practice of the companies to
charge to the full extent of their Parlia-
mentary powers for home-grown timber ;
but, for imported timber, the question of
length has never entered into the question
of rate. That is to say, that if the rate to be
given town for timber would be 20s. or 15 s., as
the case might be, the rate from that town to,
we will say, London, that is to say from the
interior, would be, perhaps, double the rate as
against the foreign timber.
7467. You say it “might” perhaps be double 2–
It is a fact. The rate for the home grown timber
is far in excess of that for the imported.
7468. Would you explain that a little further
what happens when foreign timber arrives at the
port 2—The foreign timber arrives at the port,
and if a rate is asked for timber from that port a
rate is quoted to any given town for that timber ;
but if you ask a rate for timber from an inland
place, then you get a far higher rate charged for
timber which is of home production than you
would for foreign or imported timber going to
that same place. -
7469. The same description of timber 2— The
same description of timber.
7470. What description is that?—I can name
several.
Lord Belper.
7471. That is a preference rate 2–-That is
preference.
7472. Which is not legal, clearly. If that is
the case you could bring the railway company up
for giving a preference rate 2–The reason why
I meantioned it specially was to show that
timber of long lengths does travel, and
has travelled for years past without any
any question of the lengths being entered into
by the companies ; but where home timber is
carried by them they always charge (or at least
when I say they, I should say the London and
North Western, for that is the only company I
believe that possesses the power to charge extra
for articles of longth length) a certain amount
above the rates or powers under the London and
Birmingham Act of 1846.
Chairman.
7473. If it is an undue preference it is an
illegal charge, and you are giving an instance of
that which is illegal. We cannot deal with that?
—The more especial thing we are concerned
with is this: that timber, under its generic term
“ timber,” should be treated in the same manner
as it has always been treated by nearly all the
Acts of Parliament that I am conversant with.
When it has been loaded and has occupied three,
four, five, or six trucks, as the case may be, it
should not be left to the company to charge what
sum they may think fit, but it should be defined
what should be the maximum charge per waggon
they are allowed to make. Occasionally a long
baulk of timber might be sent for a ship's mast
or keel; it might measure possibly only one ton-
and-a-half and it might occupy six waggons.
Chairman.] It is a very long story.
7474. I do
ON RAIL WAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 855
i 1 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford.
7474. I do not think we will prolong this
matter; but putting your case shortly, is it this:
that you wish to preserve in the Provisional
Order what you now find in the Clearing House
Classification applicable to one ton per waggon P
—That is clearly the object of the trade.
7475. You do not go further than that at pre-
sent 2–We do not go further than that.
Chairman.] Before the witness is cross-
examined, I should like to ask the Board of
Trade if they have anything to say upon this
matter. (To Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) It
appears that these articles have been without any
statutory limit, and now it is proposed to fix one ;
is that so P
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] The Act which
has been just quoted seem to imply, I think,
that, so far as that company is concerned, at any
rate, this proviso was exactly in accordance with
the ordinary law. But I would venture to Sug-
gest that perhaps as the witness has made some
statements as to that, he should be cross-ex-
amined on behalf of the railway companies before
we are called upon.
Mr. Hambury.] Our point is to know whether
there are statutory maxima provided for these
articles at the present moment.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Not in all cases,
certainly ; not for articles of exceptional length,
certainly. *
Lord Belper.] For none of them.
Mr. Hambury.] For nothing in this excep-
tional class 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] For nothing that
I know of at this moment.
1Mr. Moon.] Perhaps I might call Lord Bal-
four's attention to this. For instance, I find in
the Great Western Railway Act of 1847, that
for the carriage of one boiler or single piece of
timber, the weight of which, including the
carriage, shall exceed four tons, but shall not
exceed eight tons, the company may demand
such sum as they think fit, not exceeding 6 d.
per ton per mile ; so that indirectly the maxi-
mum is fixed, although it is fixed very high, at
6 d. per ton per mile.
Chairman (to Mr. Moon).] Perhaps you will
cross-examine this gentleman now *
Cross-examined by Mr. Moon.
7476. Is round timber imported 2–Yes.
7477. Of the same description, in great elm
logs or trees.
7478. Just look at this photograph (handing a
photograph to the Witness.) I daresay you have
seen something of the same kind going on 2–
Yes.
7479. Are these sort of things imported and
sent by rail 2–I should think so. I am only
speaking without certain knowledge, but I
believe ships' crooks are imported, which are
very much more crooked than these. But that
is not a usual consignment of timber; it is an
unusual consignment.
7480. It is a very ugly one to deal with, is it
not ?–In this first drawing which you have
Mr. Moon—continued.
handed to me, I notice the timber has been un-
loaded across the lines. This is not the usual
practice; it is most unusual.
Chairman.
7481. Do I understand you to say that the
timber that is imported is the round timber, such
as you send in this country with all the branches
upon it?—The timber that I see generally is
cross cut. What is shewn here I should call a
tree, with the top not pollarded ; it has not been
lopped or topped. Timber that is carried by the
railway companies should be in the length or
piece, not with the lop or top upon it.
Mr. Moom.
7481.” Do you, as a matter of fact, import
round timber yourself?—Yes.
7482." In large trees of any length 2–Yes.
With regard to the instance you named to me of
elm, we import a large quantity of elm from
America. The North Western Company carry
it from the docks to our depôt at market Har-
borough. Some of it is imported into Liverpool.
7483.” You say it is imported; is it in long
lengths which require separate trucks 2–Yes, in
very long lengths.
7485.” I daresay you are familiar with the
provisions of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act
of 1888?–Hardly; I am not a lawyer.
7485.” You spoke of the difference of treat-
ment between home-grown and foreign imported
timber; do you know that by Section 27 of the
Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888, it is pro-
vided, that whenever it is shewn that any rail-
way company “make any difference in treatmentin
respect of any such trader or traders, the burden of
proving that such lower charge or difference of
treatment does not amount to an undue preference
shall lie on the railway company,” and by Sub-
section 2 of that same section, it is provided,
“ that no railway company shall make, nor shall
the court or 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 service " ?—That, I expect, is the reason
for the railway companies altering the classifica-
tion of 1888 to that of 1891. That was the prac-
tice originally in the Clearing House Classifica-
tion, and I will read it from the 1888 edition of
the Railway Clearing House Classification :
‘‘Timber, round British, not exceeding 16 feet
in length, actual machine weight.” In 1891 the
word “ British ’ is eliminated.
7486". At any rate, there is the fact that by this
provision of general legislation the railway com-
panies are prevented from making, and no Court
can allow them to make any difference between
home and foreign produce 2–That, I assume,
would be, or ought to be, the practice in
future.
7487°. The position of the railway companies
at present is that they can charge you what they
like, is it not ?–It is proposed——
7488". Is not the position at present that they
can charge you what they like 2–I think I stated
that the only company I knew of that possessed
powers was the London and North Western
Company.
(81.) -
7489%. That
5 P 4
856
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1821.]
Mr. HOPTON.
| Continued.
*-
Chairman.
7489*. That is hardly an answer to the ques-
tion. The question is, can, they not now charge
you what they like 2–Only the North Western
Company, I believe, by their Omnibus Act of
1876. Had it been known by the trade that
such a proviso was contained in the Act, they
would certainly have opposed its introduc-
tion. -
Chairman.] We cannot deal with what they
would have done had they known of it.
Mr. Moon.
7482. (To the Witness).] You are conversant
with the powers of the London and North
Western Company, and perhaps not with the
powers of other companies, because you are
situated upon the London and North Western ?—
We are situated upon the London and North
Western and the Midland. The Great Northern
I believe also run into Market Harborough.
7483. What are the powers of the Midland 7–
|Prom what I am told qhey have no power to
charge for articles of extra length. . They may
have power to charge as provided under the
first clause, “for articles of unusual length, bulk,
or weight, or of exceptional bulk in proportion to
weight,” but I am referring to the second clause,
“for articles requiring an exceptional truck, or
more than one truck.”
7484. Do you not think that an article which
requires more than one truck would be an except-
tional article?—Oh dear, no. I think I have
mamed many things, such as girders, builders'
materials, and scaffold poles, used generally
throughout the country. -
7485. I am told that the London and Brighton
Sompany in their Act of 1863 have the same
powers, that is to say, that for the carriage of
timber, which, with the carriage, does not exceed
four tons, the company may demand such sum
not exceeding 6 d., as they think fit?—The only
list of maximum rates and tolls that I possess is
the Table of Maximum Rates and Charges
which the railway companies are entitled to
make, published pursuant to the Order of the
House of Lords, dated the 9th August 1877,
and I do not find there that any such powers are
given to them.
7486. Do you not find in all the Acts of
Parliament of all the railway companies, that
where the weight of the article together with the
weight of the carriage exceeds four tons, they
may charge 6d. a ton per mile 2–No, I know
nothing of it.
7487. Do you say you know nothing about it 2
—I know nothing of their power to charge that,
except, as I said, in the instance of the London
and North Western Company.
7488. You said just now that the companies
had no power to make any special charge to you,
except the London and North Western ?—By
“special charge,” do you mean for articles re-
quiring more than one truck 2
7489. That is what you meant, is it?—I think
that is the only thing I was referring to in my
evidence.
7490. You meant they had no special power
to charge you where an article required more
than one truck 2–I know of no instance, except
the Omnibus Act of the London and North
Western.
Mr. Moon—continued.
7491. I may assume, may I not, that the con-
signment of timber, added to the weight of the
truck, would always be more than four tons,
because the truck itself weighs something like
that ; a consignment of timber, plus the weight
of the truck, will always be more than four tons,
will it not ?—That I can hardly tell you ; be-
cause the weight of the truck is not placed upon
the truck, as it is in the case of mineral trucks.
Timber is loaded generally upon “bolster”
waggons, as they are called, very short trucks.
7492. I daresay you will take it from me that
the weight of the trucks is nearly four tons 2–
No, I should not credit that for timber trucks.
7493. We shall give some evidence upon that
ourselves by and bye. As regards the telegraph
poles which you say are specially carried, the
note at the bottom of page 99 of the Clearing
House Classification applies to all timber there
mentioned, does it not ?—I would prefer to refer
to both places where it is dealt with, because the
Clearing House Classification contradicts itself
in many instances.
7494. Will you refer to page 99 first. Will
you kindly tell me whether, under the descrip:
tion of timber, you do not find telegraph and
telephone poles 2—Under what columns 2
7495. The left hand column A., down at the
bottom. It also refers to telegraph, telephone,
and scaffold poles, does it not ?—I do not think
it refers to scaffold poles, because builders'
materials are mentioned in the Clearing House
Classification on page 13 : “Builders' imple-
ments such as ladders, scaffold poles station-
to-station,” and are provided to be charged in
Class 1.
7496. Anyhow, they are mentioned under
“Timber,” as to which there is the footnote on
page 99 : “Timber requiring three or more
waggons for conveyance must in all cases be
charged at measurement weight with a minimum
charge as for one ton per waggon for each
waggon used.” That applies equally to tele-
graph poles, telephone poles, and scaffold poles,
wherever it may be classed in the classification ?
—Oh dear, no, because there is no footnote to
builders’ implements, but if you refer to timber
there is.
7497. I agree that there is no note in the
classification ; but there is a mote in the timber
list 2–No one would look at the timber list if
they had a classification for builders' implements.
7498. I see at the end the provision (part of
which you have copied in your amendment, but
not the whole) that the minimum charge is to be
as for one ton per waggon, whether carrying part
of a load or used as a safety waggon?—I do not
think that really is in our amendment. I under-
stood just now that the minimum truck-load clause
was postponed.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Moon).] If I under-
stood the witness just now, he referred to Class 5,
on page 2 of the Clearing House Classification ; and
I gathered from his evidence that he would have
no objection to a general clause which would in-
clude his articles and other articles, and which
contained the words “whether each waggon
carries part of a load or is used as a safety
waggon.”
Witness.] That is really what we require.
Earl
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
857
11 June 1891.]
Mr. HOPTON.
I ('ontinued.
Earl of Camperdown.] This clause makes it
general, and your amendment makes it parti-
cular; but you have apparently no objection to
its being general 2–None whatever. That is
really what the timber trade require.
Mr. Moon.
7499. I need not pursue that. I asked you
just now, and I had a purpose for doing so,
whether you said that round timber was im-
ported 2–Yes.
7500. I do not know whether you heard the
evidence of Mr. James Harrison, who is a foreign
timber merchant in Liverpool, and who gave evi-
dence on the 9th June 2–Yes.
7501. Was he wrong in saying that foreign
timber is always squared ?–Yes; he was wrong,
he made a mis-statement. He said he was
generally acquainted with deals, and that their
trade consisted mostly of deals. As a fact, timber
is imported round, square, waney, or hexagonal,
in all shapes.
Chairman (to Mr. Moon).] You need hardly
go into that. All you want to get is the fact
whether round timber is imported.
Mr. Moom.] Yes, your Grace. The witness
says it is imported, and other witnesses say that
it is not.
The Witness.] I think I have accounts of the
Hlondon and North Western where they have
carried that round timber for us imported, and
they are continually carrying it.
Re-examined by Mr. Clifford.
7502. I only want to ask you one question.
A great deal has been said about matters that do
not seem to bear upon this question really. Is
your point simply this : that you wish the charge
to be definite instead of its being left indefinite 2
—That is really our point.
7530. And you are willing to accept, for the
purposes of a definite statement, the provisions in
in the Clearing House Classification applicable
to all exceptional articles?—We should be per-
fectly content with that.
Earl of Camperdown.] I understand you to
refer to Clause 5, on page 2, and possibly also to
Clause 15, on the next page; but Clause 5 is the
important one.
Mr. Clifford.]. “Articles which, on account of
their length, require more than one waggon for
their conveyance must be charged according to
classification, with a minimum charge as for one
ton per waggon.” That is the point.
Chairman.] You mean that to apply to other
articles besides timber 2
Mr. Clifford. We are quite willing that should
be so, so far as we are concerned.
Chairman.] What do you propose 2
Mr. Cliffºrd.] We do not propose that; but if
the Committee would like to insert that as part of
the amendment, making it a general amendment
instead of a particular amendment, we are quite
satisfied. I must guard myself by saying that
I speak on this occasion only for the timber
trade.
matter of general principle, to say this provision
ought to apply to other articles than timber, we
have nothing to say upon that point.
I say if the Committee choose, as a
Earl of Camperdown.] I understand you do
not propose to insert this Clause 5 ; but the
witness says he would personally have no objec-
tion to it.
Chairman.] What is it we are asked to do?
Are we asked to put in Article 5 ; because, if
we are, that applies to other articles besides
timber.
Mr. Clifford.] All we are authorised to ask,
and all we actually do ask the Committee on this
occasion to do, is to make the addition after the
word “articles,” in paragraph 2, page 14, of the
words “other than timber,” and then, as a con-
sequential amendment at the end of Clause 16,
to say, “a minimum charge as for one ton per
truck may be made ’’ or “shall be made in the
case of all timber requiring more than one
truck.” If, as I say, the Committee choose to
say that this shall be made a general provision,
and should not be made only applicable to timber,
we have nothing to say ; but this is our amend-
ment.
Earl of Belmore.] Supposing with your con-
sequential amendment you sent a piece of tim-
ber weighing four tons, would the company only
be entitled to charge for two tons ?
Mr. Clifford. No ; it is only a minimum
charge as for one ton per truck. -
Chairman (to Mr. Courtenay Boyle).] Have
the Board of Trade anything to say with regard
to this 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The intention of the
first entry in the Exceptional Class is to provide
for all articles of exceptional length, bulk, or
weight; such as cylinders, boilers, girders, en-
gines, and a very large number of articles which
are under exceptional circumstances consigned
for carriage by railway. Unquestionably the
entry as it stands covers timber. The amend-
ment is to put in words which strike out timber
from that proviso, and also to put in a conse-
quential amendment enabling the companies to
charge for timber carried in more than one wag-
gon, whether the waggon is a safety waggon or
a waggon actually underneath the timber, as for
one ton per waggon. It is by no means an un-
reasonable proposal; and although the Board of
Trade did not, because I do not think they were
moved to do so till a very late stage, accept the
proposal, it is one which may receive the careful
consideration of the railway companies. The
provision which you are asked to insert exists in
the Clearing House Classification at the present
time. Clause 5, on page 2, applies to all articles.
I do not think the limitation should apply to
articles; but it is not an unreasonable
thing to suggest to the Committee that
it should be made to apply to timber. Timber,
undoubtedly, is carried in a very large number
of instances, in more than one truck. It is not
so difficult to deal with as other exceptional
articles, such as cylinders, boilers, girders, and
long masses of bridgework, steam engines, and
other things of that sort, and I should hope that
the railway companies, on consideration, will not
oppose a very strenuous resistance to the sugges-
tion that is made.
Earl of Camperdown.] Why should not the
provisions as to timber apply to other articles of
unusual length 2
(81.)
5 Q Mr.
858
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Because I do not think
it would be fair to limit the power of the com-
pany to charge, except by the qualification as to
reasonableness, as regards steam engines and
very large boilers or cylinders of over eight
tons. -
Earl of Camperdown.] At the present time
Some of the companies, at all events, and most of
them according to the evidence we had just now,
have not this unlimited power of making a
reasonable charge. Why do the Board of Trade,
in drawing up this section give such a general
power P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. With all submission, I
do not think the evidence went to that extent.
Certainly Mr. Hopton cannot possibly say what
is provided in the Acts of Parliament as regards
very large cylinders and boilers. If you look at
the Blue Book, which is before you, there is
hardly any company that has restrictions in the
case of boilers of over eight tons.
Earl of Camperdown.] Or restrictions as to
articles of unusual bulk or weight?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] Sometimes the restric-
tion is that they have power to charge 6 d. per
ton between four and six tons; that is the class
of restriction. It is impossible to give a general
restriction to be drawn from multifarious Acts of
Parliament; but, speaking generally, I think the
learned Counsel on behalf of the railway com-
panies will agree with me, that the general pro-
vision is that there shall be a charge of something
like 6 d. for boilers, and so on, weighing between
four and six tons : but over eight tons there is no
restriction at all.
Mr. Wodehouse..] Your proposal is to give an
unlimited power to the railway companies for
charging with regard to these articles 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] For all articles of un-
usual length. Of course it would be a question
of whether a boiler of over four tons was of an
unusual bulk or length.
Mr. Wodehouse.} Who is to be the judge of
the reasonableness of the charge 7
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The County Court
Judge. -
Mr. Wodehouse.] If it is an article said to be
of exceptional bulk in proportion to its weight,
who is to be the judge of that, the County
Court Judge 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] The appeal would be
to the County Court.
Mr. Hanbury.] Is the County Court Judge to
judge whether those are articles of exceptional
bulk, and so on.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle. He would probably
judge on the evidence of the facts submitted to
him. The facts would be submitted to him, and
I take it he would judge whether the charges
were fair.
Earl of Camperdown.] Do you think that Part
! W. as it is now drawn gives a larger power upon
the whole to the railway companies than that
which they have at present under their Acts of
Parliament P
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not think so as a
whole, speaking generally. It may possibly
extend the power from 6 d. a ton to a reasonable
sum as regards boilers and cylinders between
four and six tons in weight; but as regards all
other articles, I do not think it does extend the
power. s
Earl of Camperdown.] I should like to ask you
whether your attention was directed to articles.
5 and 6 of the General Classification ?—because
those articles appear to deal with this question in
a general way. Those articles appear to deal in
a specific manner with this class of cases; whereas
Part IV., Exceptional Class, deals with them in
a very general way, and gives a very large power,
on the face of it apparently, to the companies:
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Your Lordship will
observe that Article 5 deals only with the mini-
mum charge as for one ton per waggon ; it does
not say it shall be only one ton per waggon.
Earl of Camperdown.] Certainly not; and that
is the same proposal as in the amendment.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We certainly had our
attention directed to that particular clause ; it
was quoted to us over and over again in the
course of the proceedings.
Earl of Belmore.] And you rejected it.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] We did not put it in as
regards the articles other than timber, and indeed
we did not even put it in as regards timber. I
am not sure we might not have done so if we had
been asked to do so at a sufficiently early
Stage.
Mr. Moon.] Mr. Courtenay Boyle has referred
to what I was going to point out ; that is to say,
the effect of these sections taken together, exclu-
ding timber, from the special provision, is that
the minimum charge under the Clearing House
Classification is taken and stereotyped, and the
railway companies have no power, if the amend-
ments are adopted, to charge more than the mini-
mum so fixed.
Sir Joseph Bailey.] It does not fix the minimum
rate.
Mr. Moon.] It fixes the minimum charge which
may be made ; and the railway companies see no
article in the Provisional Order which will enable
them to charge more than that minimum rate,
unless they are allowed to charge more than that
mininium rate under the general provisions of the
Exceptional Class ; and inasmuch as timber is
taken out of the Exceptional Class there is no
longer any such power.
Lord Belper.] You surely could charge what
the Provisional Order gives you as the maximum
power under the particular classification of that
article, and then, if it is of unusual bulk or size,
the minimum that may always be charged is a
ton for every waggon; and, besides that, if there
is more than that, you can charge the maximum
under the rate you are able to charge under this
particular classification.
Mr. Moon...] But the proposal of my learned
friend is, first of all, to take timber out of the
exceptional class altogether.
Lord Belper.] But you will be able to charge
under the ordinary classification.
Mr. Moon.] No, I do not think we should be.
All that we can charge, if your Lordships will
follow
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORIDER BILLS.
859
11 June 1891.
follow me a moment, under the classification and
under the Provisional Order as regards rates, is,
we will say, 2 d. per ton per mile. Then we
have a truck of timber that contains four tons,
and we can charge 8 d. Then we want another
waggon for that timber, and all that we can
charge in addition is one ton per waggon at the
rate the Provisional Order gives us, which is 2 d.
We cannot charge more than that, as it stands
at present, because the Clearing House Classifi-
cation only lays down a minimum.
Earl of Camperdown.] And you can actually
charge anything you like P
Mr. Moon.] We can charge anything we like
for the London and North Western, and in most
cases for all the other companies; and we do.
Lord Belper, You say that it would not ine
enough to give you this minimum as well as your
ordinary rates.
Mr. Moon.] That is so.
Lord Belper.] Then you would be able to
charge more than the minimum ; I thought you
meant the minimum rate laid down in the class.
Mr. Moon...] Yes; we should be able to charge
more than the minimum I will call Mr. Wilk-
1D SOI]
Chairman.] Can you tell us what other com-
panies there are that have an unlimited power of
charging 7
Mr. Moon..] I was just going to put that to
Mr. Wilkinson : what the Great Western
powers are. The Great Western powers being
so far as I have seen them (and I have looked at
several Acts) the same exactly as the other rail-
way company’s powers. -
Choirman.] What we would like to know is,
what other companies there are who have that
unlimited power ; that is the sort of power that the
London and North Western Railway Company
appear to have under their Act of 1876.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is re-called; and further examined,
as follows:
Mr. Moom.
7504. YoUR powers as regards the carriage of
timber in your 1847 Act, which is your general
Act I suppose, are these, “For the carriage of a
single piece of timber " (I am not reading the
words that do not relate to timber) “the weight
of which including the carriage shall exceed
four tons but not exceed eight tons, the com-
pany may demand such sum as they think fix not
exceeding 6 d. per ton per mile. For the carriage
of any single piece of timber, the weight of
which with the carriage shall exceed eight tons,
the company may demand such sum as they
think fit ’2–Yes, those are the words.
7504". Tell me what is the weight of a con-
signment of timber if you add to it the weight of
the carriage 2–Our waggons generally used for
carrying timber would weigh from 3 tons to
5 tons 10 cwt. We have special waggons now
made for the carriage of timber.
7505. That is the weight of the wa
That is the weight of the waggon.
7506. What would the weight of the whole
thing be waggon and timber together ; I mean
what is the average consignment of the round
timber 2—It varies very much. I have a photo-
graph here somewhere of a case.
Lord Belper.] Are these the photographs you
want (handing the same to the witness).
Mr. Moon.
7507. Could you give me some sort of idea of
what a consignment of timber weighs in addition
to the truck 7–From two to two-and-half-tons I
should think. In this particular case I see the
measurement weight was 1 ton 17 cwts.
Earl of Camperdown.] Just that I may follow
you, and I correct in understanding that you
weigh the truck as well as the timber 2
ggon —
Mr. Moon.] For the purpose of ascertaining
the powers, not for the purpose of charge. But
for for the purpose of ascertaining the powers, if
the timber plus the weigt of the carriage exceeds
four tons, then the company may charge 6 d. per
ton per mile upon the tonnage of the timber not
upon the tonnago of the carriage; and if it
exceeds elght tons they may charge whatever
they think fit.
Lord Belper..] But if the truck weighs from
four tons to five tons 10 cwt. itself, you could
charge for anything in it, 6 d. a mile.
Mr. Moon.] For anything in it 6 d. a mile.
Lord Belper.] Even if it were half. 9 hundred-
weight.
Mir. Moon,
7508. Yes, even if it were half-a-hundred-
Weight you could charge at half that rate (to the
Witness.) . There are also powers given under
the same Act to take increased charges for any
special service performed by the Company 2–
Yes.
7309. Is it a special service to afford a safety
truck to keep the timber from running into the
train in front of it?–Clearly that must be a
special service ; otherwise of course there would
be damage to the other waggons; or if all the
timber in long lengths rested upon several
Waggons it would make a rigid girder, and would
lead to accidents in going round curves.
7510. We have heard about the minimum
charge which the Clearing House Classification
provides that you may make where timber
requires more than one waggon; is that minimum
charge always adhered to in practice or do they
sometimes charge more ?—Section 5 on page 2
of the Clearing House Classification is governed
by Section 6, that is, both sections apply; and you
will see by Section 6, “Articles requiring a
specially-constructed waggon , or requiting
alterations to be made in waggons in consequence
of peculiar shape or extraordinary dimensions
must be carried only by special arrangements.
We certainly do charge more in many cases.
7511. You do charge more than the minimum
(81.)
5 Q 2 for
&
86()
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BE FORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
A-
11 June 1891.]
Mr. WILRINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Moon—continued.
for one ton per truck in many cases?—Yes. The
matter is one for special arrangement; and in
many cases if we have long timber we only work
it by special train, if I am expected to carry
masts of timber or lengths of Oregon timber and
Californian timber, perhaps 90 feet long, I have
to provide special waggons, and I make the
matter one of special contract and charge what
I think will pay the company for the service.
75.12, I am told (you will tell me whether it is
right or wrong) that sometimes you carry this
timber on Sundays, that you can only carry it on
Sundays 2—I am sorry to say that that often in the
case. I have a photograph here which was not
prepared for this purpose (producing the same).
7513. What does it show 2–It shows that in
carrying loads of timber which occupy more
than one truck, and in any case where more
than two trucks are wanted, we have to provide
special waggons which stand idle for a long time,
and have always to be worked specially to the
joint where they are wanted, because there will
|. no loading going down to the point from
which the timber comes back. These waggons
are provided with bolsters to keep the long
lengths from forming themselves into a rigid
girder, and with stanchions and other special
appliances, to permit of elasticity in the working.
That would really come under section 6 of page 2
of the Clearing House Classification.
7514. Does one of those photographs show
that when you are loading up these long pieces
of timber you have to block the line P-Yes.
There is always a risk in loading round timber
at country stations, where there is perhaps but
one siding ; there is always the risk of the tim-
ber swinging when on the crane and blocking
the line; and therefore we put out not only
signals against the line to stop trains while the
timber is being loaded, but we put out special
hand signalmen to stand and watch.
7515. For fear a log might swing round and
block the line P-Yes.
7516. Would it be sufficient remuneration if
you were in all cases to charge one ton per
waggon, where you supply more than one waggon
for the carriage of timber 2–Clearly it would not,
it might subject the companies to a very heavy
and serious loss.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
7517. Why would it not be remunerative,
when you yourself make this very provision in
the Clearing House Classification ?–May I ask
whether you mean the provision in Section 5
or 6.
7518. Clause 5. Clause 6 refers as I under-
Sı and entirely to articles requiling specially con-
structed waggons, or alterations to waggons —
Yes ; and a piece of timber requiring two
waggons would require a specially-constructed
waggon, unless in cases where the second wag-
gon was used sole for the purposes of a safety
Waggon.
Earl of Belmore.
7519. What do you call a safety waggon —
Where you use the ordinary merchandise
waggon which contains sides. Will your Lord-
ship permit me (handing in a photograph)? That
is a very good illustration.
Chairman.
7520. You mean a waggon to prevent the
timber from running into something ahead of it?
—That is so ; we call it a match waggon, or
a safety waggon.
Mr. Clifford.
7521. But in cases where you now employ a
safety waggon, you would be covered, would you
not, by the minimum charge 2–Yes.
7522. That would apply to the safety waggon
as well as to the truck actually containing the
load 7–Yes, it would apply to the safety waggon
as the minimum.
7523. And as to waggons requiring alteration,
is not that covered by the last clause in the
exceptional Class 4. “Any accommodation ser-
vices provided or rendered, and in respect of
which no provisions are made by this schedule.”
I ought to read the whole. “For any accommo-
dation or services provided or rendered by the
company within the scope of their undertaking
by the desire of a trader, and in respect of which
no provisions are inade by this schedule.” But
in the case of a consignment of timber requiring
alterations in the waggon, it would be an implied
request by the trader, would it not, which would
bring it within that provision ?—No, because we
know that we have a certain number of consign-
ments that require these exceptional waggons,
and we have therefore provided them ; they are
already in existenee. -
7524. Already in existence 2–Yes.
7525. Then surely they are covered, and
adequately covered by the provision you have
for a minimum charge in the Clearing House
Classification ?–No ; I have said already that
they are not.
7526. Very well. At all events you make
that charge, and at present you are satisfied to
make it 2–No ; excuse me, I have stated already
that that is the minimum charge, and that we
have by Clause 6 the power, or rather it is our
regulation, to make special terms when specially
constructed waggons are used.
7527. No matter whether you may have them.
in stock or not ?—No matter, of course,
Chairman,
7628. I suppose they do not build a particular
waggon for a particular Consignment, they must
keep them in stock for the purpose of using
them when wanted 2–Your Grace is quite right.
We have 20 different special descriptions of
Waggons to carry these things; one for girders,
one for screw propellers, one for boilers, some of
º very long and heavy, weighing 10, 20, and
OI) S.
Mr. Clifford.
7529. Assuming that Clause 6 was a fair
clause, you would have no objection, would yOu,
to embody it in the Provisional Order applicable
to the exceptional class – I think I would leave
everything as the Board of Trade Provisional
Order leaves it. -
6531. With regard to your Act that you have
quoted giving you these powers of charge in ex-
ceptional cases, that is only an Act applicable to
a small portion of your line, is it not?—I have
not counted the number of Acts that we have
containing
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL () RDER BILLS.
86]
11 June 1891].
Mr. WILRINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Clifford—continued.
containing that special clause, but they cover
three pages of this book.
7532. Can you tell us the mileage –Practi.
cally the whole of the Great Western line, I
should say, subject to what I have said, that there
are three pages of them.
7533. Apparently your evidence has been
mainly confined to timber of unusual length, has
it not, very unusual length 2–Yes, that is the
amendment, “ For articles of unusual length,
bulk, or weight.”
Chairman.] It can apply to nothing else, can
it 2 -
Mr. Clifford.
7534. But surely paragraph ) would apply to
all those cases that you have just been mention-
ing, “ For articles of unusual length.” Those
would be articles including timber of unusual
length 2–Clearly.
Mr. Hanbury. But your amendment does not
go to the first paragraph at all; it is the second.
Mr. Clifford.] That is so. What I am putting
to the witness is that the case of timber of un-
usual length is provided for by paragraph I. My
amendment applies only to paragraph 2: “For
articles other than timber requiring an excep-
tional truck or more than one truck or a special
train.” But his power to charge with respect to
timber of unusual length would remain under
paragraph 1. That is my point.
Lord Belper.] They all come under the same
category.
Mr. Clifford.] Yes
to ask the witness.
I think that is all I have
Earl of 13elmore.
7535. I want to ask you one question that I
do not quite follow. You say you have trucks
specially constructed. There is a thing that has
been puzzling me for a long time. Supposing
that you have some very long timber, and it
requires to rest upon more than one truck, how
do you manage that it should not be a rigid
girder in certain circumstances, such as going
round a sharp curve 2–By one of these photo-
graphs your Lordship will see (handing a photo-
graph to the Noble Earl).
7536. By these photographs the timber seems
to be resting on one truck only 2–That one is
resting on three waggons. By providing those
upright iron stanchions, the timber may work a
little between those stanchions without risk.
7537. The timber works?—Yes.
7537.* There is nothing that turns the pivot
it rests on ; the timber itself works on this bar *
——I was going to add that we have a further
precaution that that bolster does work upon a
pivot in the waggon.
Lord Belper.
7538. That could not carry it round a very
sharp curve 2–This photograph, which was not
taken for the purpose of the Committee, shows
an instance where timber slipped in passing
round a curve, lot withstanding the precautions
of the bolster on the pivot.
Mr. Moon.] I have no further questions to ask.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee will not insert the
words “other than timber.”
Now we come to Part W., “Perishable merchan-
dise by passenger trains.”
Mr. Richards.] I am instructed, your Grace,
by the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers'
Association.
Chairman.] That is the next amendment.
Mr. Richards.] Might I suggest that as both
these amendments are virtually the same, you
wili kindly hear the evidence that we have to put
forward after the Mansion House Association
have moved their amendment; the evidence will
be much the same *
Mr. Moon.] It is very hard indeed to deal with
two amendments at the same time.
Chairman.] We must deal with the amend-
ments one after the other. - *.
Mr. Clifford..] Our amendment is a simple
question of draughting, your Grace; it is more
or less verbal, and I do not propose to call any
evidence upon it. Our amendment is on page
14, clause 1, line 26, to omit “similar ’’ and
insert “equally efficient.” Clause 1 says, “the
company shall afford reasonable facilities for the
expeditious conveyance of the articles enumerated
in the three divisions set out hereunder (which
articles are hereinafter called ‘perishables') either
by passenger train or by other similar service.”
What we say is, that similar service is vague;
one does not quite know what it applies
to ; there is no similar service to a pas-
senger train other than another passenger
train, I should have thought. And what we
suggest is the substitution of the words “equally
efficient,” instead of “similar ’’; so that it will
read: “Or by other equally efficient service.”
I should think there could be no objection to the
insertion of that amendment.
Mr. Moon.] I may say that, as regards the
whole of this Part V., which your Grace is now
going to consider, it is an obligation which the
railway companies have come under, an altera-
tion of the general law which would have been
outside the functions both of the Board of Trade,
and, as I venture to submit, of the Committee,
under the reference to them; that is to say,
whether the general law should be altered or
not, and the railway companies should come
under the obligation that they are not at present
under to carry merchandise by passenger trains.
In the course of the discussion at Westminster
Town Hall, the railway companies, feeling that
it was desirable that the whole of their charter
should be contained in the Provisional Order,
agreed with the Board of Trade that, subject to
certain restrictions, they would, as a concession
to the traders, carry merchandise by passenger
trains on certain terms; and it was one of the
terms that the facility, for the carriage of this
perishable traffic, which the railway com-
panies would be willing to give, should be
decided by the Board of Trade. Now
this amendment, your Grace, goes a little
(81.)
5 Q 3 further
862
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
ll June 1891.
further than that. Perhaps I ought to refer
your Grace to Clause 4 of Part W., which says,
“any question as to the facilities afforded hy the
company under these provisions and regulations
shall be determined by the Board of Trade,”
therefore the Board of Trade are absolute
arbiters under those terms, whether the facilities
which the railway companies give are sufficient
or not. Clause 1 provides, “ The company shall
afford reasonable facilities for the expeditious
conveyance of the articles enumerated in the
three divisions set out hereunder (which articles
are hereinafter called ‘perishables'), either by
passenger train or by other similar service.” The
Mansion House amendment proposes to alter
“similar service" into “equally efficient service,”
and that is a very different thing, because it
really puts the merchandise traffic upon the same
footing as the passenger traffic, and we have
always contended, and we contended before the
Board of Trade, that we would not have agreed
to anything that would prejudice the position of
the passenger traffic as being the traffic that has
to be dealt with first upon the line. Other con-
siderations must be subordinated to the consi-
derations of the passenger traffic; and, if you
put in the words “equally efficient,” the pas-
senger traffic and perishable merchandise traffic
will be put on the same footing, and to that we
have a very strong objection indeed. Therefore
we ask your Grace not to accept the amendment,
but to leave it to the Board of Trade to deter-
mine, as they will determine under Clause 4,
whether the facilities we offer are sufficient,
and whether the service is similar to passenger
traffic. *
Mr. Hanbury.] What do you mean by “simi-
lar ”?
Mr. Moon.] The meaning of “similar ’’ would
be that there would be a fast service, unquestion-
ably a fast service, but not necessarily so fast as
the passenger service. - *
If you look at Clause 2, your Grace, the object
of the Mansion House Association is of course
to alter “similar ”; they are not satisfied with
“similar ”——
Mr. Clifford.] Because it is unmeaning.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Moon).] Then
apparently you mean possibly less fast than by
passenger train, and they say it ought to be as fast
as by passenger train.
Mr. Clifford.] As efficient.
Earl of Camperdown.] By efficient you mean
fast.
Mr. Clifford.] That is one of the elements.
Earl of Camperdown.] But a very considerable
element,
Mr. Moon.] If we have to carry this traffic as
fast as the passenger traffic, that may disorganize
our passenger train service.
Mr. Richards.] Surely I might suggest the
next amendment, my Lord Duke.
Chairman.] No, we must deal with this amend-
ment first.
Earl of Camperdown (to Mr. Moon).] What
service could you give which is of the description
you mention, namely, not so fast as a passenger
train, but still very expeditious and fast, which is
presumably very much faster than a goods train 2
Mr. Moon.] The service which we now give
by our express goods trains. *
Earl of Camperdown.] Is that what you mean?
Mr. Moon.] That is what I mean, the service
which we now give by express goods train. We
have express goods trains, but those express
; trains are subordinate to the passenger.
traffic.
Earl of Camperdown...] But you do not call
that similar to a passenger train; you do not call
an express goods train similar to a passenger
train.
Mr. Moon.]. Certainly. It travels at a very
great rate and hardly stops at any stations.
Mr. Hanbury.] But you admit it is less
efficient, or would accept that definition.
Mr. Moon..] I think it may be less fast, and in
that sense less efficient than the passenger
service. *
Sir Joseph Bailey.] Taking such an article as
fish for example, I suppose that a fast train which
would leave Grimsby with fish, caught one day
and arrived in London for the market on the
following morning, is absolutely sufficient
although not so fast as a passenger train.
Mr. Moon.] Even the Grimsby fish trains
have to be accommodated to the passenger traffic
between Grimsby and London.
Chairman.] And some of your fast fish traffic
goes by passenger trains.
Mr. Moon..] Yes, some trucks of fish go on the
passenger trains, but there are fish trains and
express goods trains that travel from Scotland.
Chairman.] But there are consignments of
fish that go by fast passenger trains.
Earl of Camperdown.] But if express goods
trains was all you meant why did you not put in
“express goods trains "?
Mr. Moon..] I will not say that in all cases the
traffic could be corried by express goods trains,
because it would depend upon what traffic there
was to be carried, and how much expedition the
traffic wanted.
Earl of Camperdown.] You would not go so
far as to say “express goods train"?
Mr. Moon.] Not in all cases; it would depend
upon the circumstances in each particular case.
I could not say that in the case of merchandise
traffic which is going to be carried as by pas-
senger train in all cases the traffic must be carried
by express goods trains, because the traffic might
not require it. Just take an instance. A market
opens at a certain hour. From Scotland it may
be necessary to run an express goods train to
catch that market; but from other districts
nearer London it may not be necessary, because
there will be all night to get their traffic in.
Earl of Camperdown.] But under those cir-
cumstances are not the words “similar service ’’
absolutely misleading as they stand 2 Surely
any person reading that clause would have read
it “similar to passenger trains.”
Chairma n.]
() N RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISION AI, ORDER BILLS.
863
Chairman.] We might, perhaps, hear what the
Board of Trade have to say.
Mr. Moon.] If I may just answer my Lord
Camperdown, those words, I believe, were in-
serted, as my recollection is of the discussion,
because you could not say that a passenger train
was a train that conveyed no passengers at all,
but goods; and therefore it was necessary to have
some other description of a train than a passenger
train. But perishable merchandise is carried
sometimes in vans attached to passenger trains
and sometimes in trains alone, and it was neces-
sary, therefore, to put “passenger trains " in,
and some other description had to be adopted for
the trains which are not passenger trains ; and it
was thought that the proper description of those
was “ similar ’’ trains, because it was very
difficult to describe them in any other manner.
Chairman.] Perhaps the Board of Trade
would like to make some observation upon this
matter.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh...] Your Grace, I
was quite surprised to hear it suggested that an
express goods train is to come under the defini-
tion “similar to a passenger train " ; it is a new
light to me, and the idea is not what the Board
of Trade intended. What the Board of Trade
intended by inserting the words “similar service ’’
was to meet such a case as this. At present fish
and perishables are frequently carried by passen-
ger train in vans attached either before or behind
the train; sometimes there are only one or two
vans, and sometimes there are a considerable
number. At certain seasons, especially from
Scotland, and possibly from Grimsby, and other
places, Penzance, I know, was mentioned to us,
there are large takes of fish that have to be
carried rapidly to the London markets, or to the
markets of the large towns in the Midlands. The
companies say that they are quite willing to take
that by passenger train, but that they must not
be compelled to take it by any particular
passenger train, because it might so overload the
tratn that they could not possibly run it in to
time. If you force the companies to take
a large number of fish waggons upon,
say, the limited mail from Scotland to
London, you will overload the train, so that
they cannot take the passengers in time. The
idea of a similar service is that in such a case as
that there is to be an express train run fo: the
purpose of taking these perishable goods, to fol-
low the passenger train as nearly as possible at
the same time, so as to catch the market. I am
not able myself to get up any great enthusiasm
as to the difference between “similar ’’ and
“equally efficient.” I do not quite see what the
difference is. In either case it would be subject
to the arbitration of the Board of Trade. We
have thought that “similar” was the better word ;
and I am not quite sure that the particular idiom
“equally efficient” was ever suggested to us;
but our idea in saying “similar,” is that the pas-
senger service, and not the goods service, express
or otherwise, is to be the pattern upon which its
conveyance is to be regulated.
Mr. Hanbury.] Therefore you do not accept
the interpretation put upon it by the railway
companies.
11 June 1891.]
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] I do not person-
ally ; but I may not be at the Board of Trade at
the time, or I may not be the arbitrator ap-
pointed.
Mr. Hanbury.] In fact, it is not what you
meant 2
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] No ; we meant it
to be as nearly as possible the same as the pas-
senger service, but without unduly interfering
with the passenger service upon the line.
Earl of Camperdown.] In fact you meant it to
be “equally efficient.”
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.) We meant it to be
efficient certainly. As I have already said I am
not myself able to understand either from the
description by Mr. Clifford or from what
Mr. Moon has said what is the difference
between “similar ” and “equally efficient.”
And I should like to say further that I am not
quite certain whether the words “equally effi-
cient’’ would in all cases be satisfactory. I sus-
pect that even passenger trains sometimes
are late, and there would not be so much
claim for damage for them ; whereas, if the fish
loses the market, the trader would, it is very
likely, bring a claim for damages against the
railway company.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee decide to keep in
the word “similar,” and not to insert “equally
efficient.”
The next amendment by the Birmingham and
Sheffield First Dealers Association is on
page 14, clause 2, line 29, to omit the words
“ and shall not include any obligation to convey
perishables by any particular train,” and to
insert instead “perishable merchandize having
to pass over more than “one or more lines, each
company shall arrange to continue the transit at
a mimimum speed of 30 miles an hour between
starting point and destination.”
Mr. Richards.] This
behalf of the Birmingham
Fish Dealers’ Association. The Birmingham
market is practically the market for the
middle of England, and of course to a great
extent it is almost as important as the markets in
London. What the Birmingham traders feel is
this ; that they want, in some way or other, to
pin the railway companies to give them a definite
speed of service, practically, so that the goods
sent at night may arrive at the market in the
morning. This is specially dealing with meat
and fish which comes from Scotland, and passes
over two or three lines before it reaches Bir-
mingham. Their view is that this amendment
would meet their case, “ perishable merchandise
having to pass over more than one or more lines,
each company shall arrange to continue the
transit at a minimum speed of 30 miles an hour
between starting point and destination.” The
Committee will remember that Mr. Moon said,
at the former inquiry, that unquestionably it
should be a fast service, but not so fast as a
Of course where a consign-
ment will spoil, there is no doubt, as I think the
noble chairman suggested, that they are often
carried in the passenger train itself. Where the
passenger train.
amendment is on
and Sheffield
(81.)
5 Q 4 consignments
864
MINUTES OF EV II) ENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.
consignments are more numerous, where they
come very often from the north of Scotland, and
come to Perth, there, as we heard at the
Board of Trade inquiry, a special train is
made up and sent on by the ordinary
mails. The difficulty is this : that if these
trains simply arrive at Birmingham, or any other
centre, after the market is practically closed, the
value of the goods is lowered in consequence and
the market is lost. But the reason why the
Birmingham traders are anxious is this: they
would be very pleased to fix the minimum
higher, but what they feel is that if a minimum
of 30 miles an hour is fixed by the Committee
they will then have some guarantee that the
service is an efficient service, and a service
similar to passenger trains. I have several
witnesses here from both Birmingham and
Sheffield, whom I will just briefly put into the
box.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh..] Before witnesses
are called upon this point, I should like to be
allowed to say, on behalf of the Board of Trade,
that the idea of laying down a minimum speed
anywhere under any circumstances is quite im-
possible.
Chairman (to Mr. Richards).] I may also
point out to you that you are pointing to speed
that is faster than a great many of our trains in
the north ever think of going.
Mr. Richards.] Thirty miles?
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Richards.] In the north of Scotland 2
Chairman.] Yes.
Mr. Cripps.] And the same in central Wales,
your Grace.
Chairman.] I think we cannot hear this.
Mr. Clifford..] The next amendment is one
proposed by the Mansion House Association.
On page 14, Clause 2, we propose to add at the
end of the clause, “provided it has been exempted
from such obligation by the Board of Trade.”
Clause 2 provides that the facilities afforded by
Class 1 “shall be subject to the reasonable
regulations of the company, for the convenient
and punctual working of their passenger, train
service, and shall not include any obligation to
convey perishables by any particular train.” So
far we agree; but we do think that they should
not be the sole arbiters of whether they should
be obliged to carry perishables by any particular
train, and we propose to add to the clause the
words, “provided it has been exempted from
such obligation by the Board of Trade.”
Earl of Camperdown.] In other words, the
Board of Trade is to enquire into every train
and see what speed it goes at.
Chairman.] If your amendment is carried as
I read it, it would practically do away with the
necessity, so far as this point is concerned, of the
general manager, because, the Board of Trade
would then be constituted in place of Mr. Findlay
and Sir Henry Oakley, and others of that class.
I do not see how the Board of Trade would be
able to say what train this traffic ought to go by,
unless they had a more intimate connection with
the management of the railway than they have
hitherto had.
Mr. Clifford.] Surely that will be one of the
points that will have to come before the Board
of Trade upon any appeal by the traders, that
reasonable facilities are not given by a particular
trade. Surely it will then be for the Board of
Trade to decide; they must decide whether such
reasonable facilities are given.
Chairman.] They would have to do so if we
inserted these words; but I do not think that we
are inclined to do so.
The next amendment is to add to Clause 4,
“whose decision shall be final”; that must go
Out.
Mr. Cripps.] It is not wanted as a matter of
drafting.
Chairman (to Mr. Rickards). Do you want
to move that on behalf of the Birmingham and
Sheffield Fish Dealers’ Association ?
Mr. Richards.] The proposal is simply to add
the words, “whose decision shall be final.”
What the traders are alarmed at is at the pros-
pect that they shall have to go before the Rail-
way Commissioners. They want the Committee
to make legislation clear upon that point that the
decision of the Board of Trade between the
companies and the traders should be final and
not be reviewed by courts of law.
Chairman.] The clause is, “Any question as
to the facilities afforded by the company under
these provisions and regulations shall be deter-
mined by the Board of Trade.” How do you
read the words, “Determined by the Board of
Trade ’’’
Mr Richards. As a lawyer, I must confess
I think that I should contend before a court of
justice that it could not go any further.
Chairman.] Then, I think, as lawyers here we
agree with you.
Mr. Richards.]
think so, and they wished the
moved.
But the traders did not
amendment
Chairman.] But we will take your opinion, as
a lawyer, sooner than that of the traders.
Then the next amendment by the Mansion
House Association is on page 14, Clause 5, line
35, after “ consignment,” to insert “ of perish-
ables enumerated in Division 2.”
Mr. Clifford.] I think, as a matter of drafting,
those words should be inserted ; because, for
instance, Clause 5 can hardly apply to milk, or
be intended to apply to milk, which is carried,
not by the weight but by the gallon.
Mr. Cripps.] It is intended to apply to
milk.
Mr. Cliflord..] Then my learned friend can
have no objection to the insertion of the
words.
Mr. Cripps. Certainly. The question of
carrying milk by weight, or by gallon, has been
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGEs PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
865
11 June 1891.
carefully considered ; it is a matter that was
very much discussed; and the same principle
has been applied, after the discussion, by
the Board of Trade to all these various descrip-
tions.
Chairman.] We had better hear the argu-
ment, and the witnesses, if necessary, upon this
point.
Mr. Clifford.] We propose to call a witness
upon this point, your Grace.
MR. GEORGE BARHAM, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Clifford.
7540. Is your place of business Museum-street,
Bloomsbury –It is.
754.l. You are managing director of the Dairy
Supply Company, Limited ?–Yes.
7542. You are chairman also of the British
Dairy Conference 2—Yes.
Chairman.] Are you going now to the subject
of milk?
Mr. Clifford.] Yes, what we say is——
Lord Belper.] Is this amendment meant to
refer to milk?
Mr. Cripps. It is meant to refer generally
to all these descriptions, 1, 2 and 3.
Lord Belper.] To milk as well as the others?
Mr. Cripps.] To milk as well as the others?
Mr. Clifford.
7543. (To the Witness.) Are you a director
of the Express Dairy Company ?—Yes.
7544. Are you also a member of the Council
of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association ?—
Yes. -
7545. Are you deputed to to give evidence
here on behalf of that association ?—Yes.
7546. Are their views supported by other
similar bodies throughout the country —Yes.
7547. Will you mention some of them.
Chairman.] I think we will take that for
granted.
Mr. Clifford.
7548. I may take it generally then that you
represent similar associations in all parts of the
country 2–Yes.
7549. Do consignments of milk come to you
over all the lines whose schedules are before the
Committee ?—With the exception of the London,
Chatham, and Dover.
7550. I want to take you to this particular
amendment, you will by-and-bye give evidence
on other points; but, confining your attention
for the moment to this particular amendment,
what do you say with respect to it?—Would you
mind giving me the amendment?
Lord Belper.] How can an amendment relating
to weight refer to anything that is carried by
measurh 2
Mr. Cripps.j If your Lorship asks me, it is in
this way. There has always been a minimum
with regard to the carriage of milk, for the pur-
pose of a minimum charge, because you see milk
is carried in gallons under Division 1. It works
out in this way. I am told that 17 gallons of
milk are about the same as two cwt., and there-
fore it is the same as having a 17 gallon
l}}l Ill Iſlūlī). -
Lord Belper.] That is quite wrong.
Mr. Cripps.] I am only speaking on instruc-
tions.
Lord Belper.] It is 10 lbs. to the gallon.
Mr. Cripps.] Then there is the weight of the
can in addition.
Mr. Hanbury.] They are called barn gallons,
are they not ?
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Lord Belper.] But they do not pretend here
that milk can be carried by weight.
Mr. Cripps,) It is only for the purpose of a
minimum. Supposing, for instance, that we
carry what would work out less than 17 gallons
of milk, we may charge as for 17 gallons.
Lord Belper.] How can a paragraph that
refers simply to weight refer to an article that is
only carried in bulk -
Mr. Cripps.] You can transfer the bulk and
the weight very easily.
Mr. Hauburu.] But it is important to find out
that 17 barn gallons do correspond to 2 cwts.,
because that is the way they are sent.
Mr. Cripps.] We will get that for you, sir.
Mr. Clifford.
7551. The object of the amendment of the
Mansion House Association is to confine this
Clause 5 to the perishables enumerated in Divi-
sion 2. (To the Witness.) Will you explain to
the Committee why you think it should not
apply to Division 1, Milk?—Because 2 cwt., to
begin with, would be a larger minimum than is in
existence at the present time on any one of the
lines.
7552. You are going to another amendment, a
subsequent amendment of the Mansion House
Association ?–Then again, this is by weight,
and milk is carried by measure, so that we should
have two systems of charging, by weight and
by measure, which would make it very compli-
cated. -
Chairman.] Let us deal with one amendment
at a time.
Mr. Clifford.
7553. It is difficult to separate them. (To the
Witness.) But that is your general object, is it
not ?–Yes. Then if there was a large minimum
placed on milk that would greatly increase the
cost, and, inasmuch as farmers would be fre-
quently sending below the minimum, in that case
they would have to pay a double charge upon the
milk. Cows vary from day to day in the quantities
that they give ; and if there were only 12 gallons
placed in a can to-day, the railway companies
would have the power of charging for 17 gallons,
which would be 33 per cent, extra, while they
performed no equivalent service.
81.)
5 R. 7 554. Your
866
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
Mr. BARHAM.
[Continued.
------
Mr. Clifford—continued.
7554. Your objection then, arises in part from
the varying quantity that may be in a particular
can each day ?–Precisely; it varies from day to
day; it is not like timber or corn, which you can
make up to a certain weight; but cows only give
a certain quantity and that quantity of milk
must be sent.
Earl of Belmore.
7554*. Does each farmer send only one can P
—It varies. A great number send only one can;
I should think at least 50 per cent.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7555. Do you think that there should be no
minimum, either in weight or in quantity ?-You
might put a small minimum.
7.556. What minimum would you suggest ?—
Say 6, 7, or 8 gallons.
7557. Two hundredweight represents, does it
not, about one of these full milk cans which are
now carried by railway ?–Including the weight
of the can.
7558. is not that a fair minimum, and that is
if a can is sent it should be charged for as a full
can, if only one is sent?—Certainly not.
7559. You do not think so 2–No.
7560. What is the existing minimum, you say
it is a lower one now —The London and South
Western minimum is six gallons.
7561. What is it on the Great Western, have
you got it there?—The Great Western minimum
charge is 7 d., that is for seven gallons.
7562. You know that at the present time there
is no limitation as regards milk charges?–I
suppose we may take it that it is so, I am not
quite sure about it.
7563. And the effect of introducing this pro-
vision will be to place a limit for the first time !
—Yes, you may say so.
7564. Taking it that the obligation has been
put upon the company for the first time, do you
not think that one can is a fair minimum ?–No,
I do not.
Lord Belper.
7565. May I ask you, if a minimum is to be
put on an article that is to be carried only by
measurement, would it not be far simpler to put
on a minimum which should be a minimum of
measurement and not of weight?—Certainly.
7566. Because, not only do the cans vary in
weight, whether they are old or new, but they
are not all of the same size 2–Just so.
7567. Therefore it is very difficult to find out
whether a can with milk in it would come within
the minimum or not 7–Precisely.
7568. It would be extremely simple to say a
can carrying a certain quantity of milk?—Cer-
tainly.
Earl of Belmore.
7569. How does the railway company check
the minimum quantity in a can now Ż-A con-
signment note comes with every can from the
farmer to the consignee.
7570. The farmer makes his return and the
company accept it?–Yes.
Lord Belper.
7671. If a minimum is taken of a can with a
full load, the larger part of the consignment
would be below that ?—A great many of them
would.
Re-examined by Mr. Clifford.
7572. And the proportion of the charge to the
value would be very great, would it not ?—Yes;
33 per cent.
7573. In the case of an unfilled or partially
filled can 2--Precisely ; it would vary from 30 to
50 per cent., probably.
7574. In other words, the conveyance rate
would be per gallon, subject to a minimum, but
the terminal charges would be fixed in the case
of each can 2–Under these proposals.
Mr. Hanbury.] But your amendment, as I
understand, provides no minimum.
Mr. Clifford.] No, it does not.
Chairman.] Have the Board of Trade any-
thing to say with respect to this matter 2
Mr. Courtenay Boyle ] I rather think that
Lord Belper has hit to some extent a blot in the
proposal of the Provisional Order. I do not think
it would be quite satisfactory on the point being
raised that there should be a minimum in weight
applicable to merchandise carried in bulk ; and if
the Committee decide that there should be a
minimum for milk, I am not at all sure that it
would not be better to put it in as a minimum for
milk. The rest is a matter of quantum. The
proposal of the Mansion House Association,
which has not been absolutely explained yet to
the Committee, is that the minimuun should be
# cwt. in Division II., and 1 cwt, for Division
III.
Mr. Whitehead..] No.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] You must read the two
amendments together. The intention of the pro-
posal is that the minimum for the perishables in
Divisions II. and III. should be 3 cwt for Divi-
sion II., and 1 cwt. for Division III.
Mr. Hanbury.] And no minimum for milk.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle.] No minimum for milk
at all. Probably if the Committee were to adopt
the amendment, it would be consequential that
they should put in some minimum for milk,
whatever the minimum might be.
Now, as regards the quantum for minimum for
Divisions II. and III., leaving milk out of the
question for a moment, I do not think the Board
of Trade have very much to say. There is
nothing intrinsically logical in two cwt., one cwt.
or half cwt. Taking the evidence all round, and
having regard to the amount of traffic, we think
that a consignment of two cwt. should be the
minimum for, game say, anyhow there ought to
be a minimum, the trader or the person con-
signing game ought not to be allowed to send
one pheasant or one hare and get it carried at
ton rate per passenger train ; there ought to be
some limit, we believed two cwt. to be fair all
round, and we put it in. We cannot absolutely
say two cwt, is essentially and logically right,
and that 1 cwt. is essentially and logically wrong.
The quantum must be a matter of compromise
and settlement. There is nothing in principle
in one figure or the other.
Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND
867
CHARGES PROVISION AL ORDER BILLS.
11 June 1891 |
*-_
Mr. C, ipps.] I do not know whether I might
say on behalf of the railway companies that two
questions have been discussed. Whether the
minimum is expressed in weight or expressed by
bulk would not matter; it would not be material
to the railway companies as long as the same
principle as regards quantity was adopted;
therefore we have no special reason for caring
for a minimum in cwts., so far as the milk traffic
is concerned, but we do ask that if it is trans-
ferred into quantity, we shall have the same
minimum in fact. Therefore if we have
either the two-cwt. or the 17-gallon minimum
it would not make any difference so far as
the railway companies are concerned if it
is more convenient to calculate it one
way than the other. But, on the point of a
minimum, if we are going into that, I shall have
to put a witness into the box to show that we
think the present proposal ought to be sup-
ported. -
Lord Belper.] What would the railway com-
pany say would answer in bulk to the present
proposal, leaving cans out of the question ?
Mr. Cripps.] Seventeen gallons, leaving the
cans out of the question.
Mr. Hanbury.
7575. (To the Witness.) As a matter of fact,
are not these cans nearly always packed full of
milk 2–No.
7576. Pretty often, because it churns if it is
not full ?—No.
7577. What quantity, as a rule, is sent in
them —The churns, as a rule, hold 17 gallons.
7578. How much is sent?—If a farmer keeps
a large number of cows he might send, perhaps,
3} churns; the fourth one would always vary.
If he kept a small number of cows, 20 or 25,
the chances are that he would be sending less
than a churn ; so that if you fix a full churn as a
minimum, a man keeping a small number of
cows would, for nine months in the year, be
paying in excess of the quantity of milk he is
sending.
7579, But three churns would be full ?—
Three in the case of a very large number of
CU) WS. .
Lord Belper.
7580. With respect to the question Mr. Han-
bury asked, there is no necessity, so far as
carrying milk goes, to fill the cans full ?—Not
the slightest.
7581. It does not make the least difference to
the churning of the milk whether the cans are
full or not ?–Always providing that the tem-
perature of it is reduced sufficiently before it
StartS.
Mr. Hanbury.
7582. If you were sending up milk, it would
not matter to your milk whether it is sent in the
can half full or wholly full º–Not in the least.
Mr. Clifford.
7583. And as a matter of fact, what propor-
tion of the cans do actually come partially
filled 2–I should think, at least, one-third ; I
I could get you those facts by to-morrow, but I
should think at least a third.
Mr. BARHAM.
[Continued.
Sir Joseph Bailey. - -
7584. Is it the custom of the trade to send
each milk in separately, twice a day or once 7–
Twice a day is absolutely necessary in the
English trade. - -
Mr. Clifford.
7585. With regard to this one-third, a mini-
mum of 17 gallons would be unreasonable 2–
Yes, so much so that you see the railway com-
panies have not adopted in the past when they
have had unlimited control.
Mr. Hanbury.
7586. As to the practice it is important. I
did not quite catch what they have done in the
past P--The London and South Western Com-
pany make a minimum of six gallons in the past,
and the Great Western Company make a mini-
mum of seven gallons in the past, that is up to
this present time. -
Lord Belper.
7587. Is there any minimum on some of the
other lines?—The Great Northern Company
make a miuimum of 12 gallons, or have done so
in the past ; the London and North Western
Company, and the Midland Company do not
register their minimum, or rather they do not
publish it, but I believe their minimum is the
same, 12 gallons. The Great Eastern Company
have a minimum of 12 gallons : the South
Eastern Company have a minimum of 12 gallons
also, and the London, Brighton, and South Coast
Company have the same. So the highest
minimum at the present time is 12 gallons and
the lowest six.
Mr Cripps.
7588...You state that a certain quantity of
your milk comes not in full churns; about a third
of them was your opinion; but how many sepa-
rate consignments are there of milk less than a
churn, how often do you get that ?—That is a
very difficult question without going into one's
books.
7589. Is it very rare 2–Oh no ; all through
the winter a large number of churns come up only
partially filled.
7.590. I am speaking of consignments, not
churns. Can you tell me at all what portion of
the consignments come in less than a churn ?—
I could not tell you with any degree of certainty,
but I should think at least 20 per cent. I should
think I am well within the mark at that ; it would
probably be more.
Mr. Hanbury.
7591. Do you understand what the learned
counsel is asking you ? You gave me the case of
a farmer who sent three and a-half churns. That
half one would be part of the consignment of
the three and a-half, and so would not be affected
by this minimum ?—I think I am quite correct in
what I state, that at least 20 per cent. of our
milk comes up in less than one churn.
Lord Belper
7592. From one man 2–Yes.
7593. That is the point 2–Yes.
(81.)
5 R 2 7594. That
868
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
*-*-
Mr. Cripps.
7594. That is what I ask.
to say 33 per cent. 2–Yes.
7595. With regard to the London and South
Western Railway Company, I have their minimum
now, that is a minimum not on the quantity but
on the can, is it not ?—The London and South
Western minimum is on the can not exceeding
six gallons, so that it is a minimum or six gallons.
7596. Then there are various rates according
to the quantity the can is marked to contain. I
have the list here 2—Precisely.
I understood you
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
The Committee deliberate.
MR. BARHAM.
[continued.
Mr. Clifford.] We have other witnesses your
Grace.
Chairman.] By all means. (To Mr. Cripps).
Do you admit that milk ought not to be charged
by weight 2 º
Mr. Cripps.] We are quite indifferent, so long
as we get the same quantum as regards the mini-
mum. We do not desire to have a weight mini-
mum ; it does not matter to us if the bulk mini-
mum is considered the better principle.
Chairman.] Then what bulk principle of
minimum are you prepared to accept
. Mr. Cripps.] Seventeen gallons is equivalent,
in our opinion, to the two hundredweight.
Chairman.] Now we know where we are.
MR. THOMAS NUTTALL, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined,
as folows:
Mr. Whitehead.
7597. YoU have a dairy at Sudbury, in Derby-
shire, and also at Melton Mowbray ?–Yes,
7598. And you are a member of the council of
the British Dairy Farmers’ Association ?—Yes.
7599. Are you also deputed to represent here
a large number of associations and councils in
the Midlands?—Yes.
7600. Yov have heard Mr. Barham’s evidence
with regard to the carriage of milk; is your
opinion the same as his?–1 think that the limit
should be not at all more than 120 lbs. or 12
gallons of milk exclusive of the can. The
majority of contributors to my dairies do not
send in one consignment more than that amount,
and I send in, from one of my own farms to the
same dairy never put into a can more than 120
lbs. of milk, that is 12 gallons.
760l. Therefore, confining your attention
solely to milk, you would be content if a mini-
mum of 12 gallons were fixed --Certainly, that
is the one that is acted upon now ; we are
we are charged for 12 gallons whether we fill it
Or not.
7602. By what railway companies 2––The
Midland and the Great Northern.
7603. That is the existing practice, and you
would like to continue it so 2–Yes.
7604. You have, I believe, some evidence to
give with regard to butter and cheese, with
regard to the minimum weight upon those articles
but that is not before the Committee at the pre-
sent moment — No.
7605. That is the next amendment?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7606. How often do you consign yourself in
Mr. Bidder—continued.
one consignment, less than a full churn ?—Every
day; every morning, and every night.
7607. What quantities do you consign 2–I
have 36 gallons to send probably in the morning,
and I would put it in three tons instead of in
two,
7608. But, if you send 36 gallons, of course
you send about the quantity you could send in a
churn ?–Yes, that is so, but my contributors do
not do so; they have small milkings, from five to
10 gallons in our distriet, and they send small
consignments which come under 12 gallons.
7609. I am asking you about yourself 2–
Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Whitehead.
7610. You appear here, not only as repre-
senting a particular dairy, but in a representa-
tive capacity, representing a large number of
dairy associations in the Midlands?–Yes.
7611. And the practice is, as you have said,
to send these small consignments of from
five to six gallons 2–Under six and up to 12
gallons.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Clifford.] That is all our evidence, your
Grace.
Mr. Cripps.] I don't know whether your
Grace desires to hear any evidence from the
railway companies upon this.
Chairman.] That is for you to decide.
Mr. Cripps.] I will just ask Mr. Wilkinson a
question.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is re-called ; and further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
7612. YoU know that in the proposed Pro-
visional Order there is a two-cwt. minimum ?—
Yes, that is the case.
7613. Does that represent about the weight
of a full churn, including the can 2–Yes, an
Mr. Cripps—continued.
imperial gallon of milk weighs 104 lbs. ; there.
fore l7 gallons would be 174 lbs., adding 50 lbs.,
which is the weight of the churn, it is exactly
224 lbs., or two cwt.
7614. I suppose it does not matter to you
whether
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
869
11 June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
whether the minimum is calculated by weight
or bulk so long as you get some minimum ?–I
would very much sooner have it by weight, but
we have almost conceded the principle, and I
think I may answer that we will be willing to
accept a minimum of bulk.
7615. The question has been raised as to how
often you get a single consignment of less than
a churn, less than 17 gallous, about what pro-
portion of consignments do you get of less than
a full churn ?—We very seldom get single con-
signments of less than a churn. I should think
at least 19-20ths of our traffic would be carried
in full churns.
7616. You may have a churn and a half from
one consignor; but I am asking you how often
you get consignments from one consignor of less
than one churn, and you say very seldom 2–
Very seldom indeed ; it is not the custom of the
trade so to send.
7617. At the present time you have no limi-
tation either as regards consignments or payments
per hundredweight with your milk traffic 2–No,
we are quite free to do what we think fit.
7618. What is the minimum you adopt in
practice on the Great Western ?—Upon the
Great Western we have a minimum of 7 d. per
tin, not per consignment, but per tin.
7619. A minimum of seven gallons per tin 2–
Sevenpence, it is a minimum charge of 7 d.
7620. Can you work that out at all as regards
quantity or weight 2—It would be very nearly
seven gallons, seven imperial gallons. I may add
that although that is the custom of the Great
Western Railway Company, the general custom
of the companies is to have a minimum of 12
gallons.
Mr. Cripps.] I think that was stated by the
last witness.
Mr. Clifford.] The last witness did not state
SO.
Mr. Cripps.] The last witness said that he
would be content with a minimum of 12 gallons.
Mr. Clifford.] That is quite another thing.
The practice that he gave evidence to was
different.
Mr. Cripps.] But the practice of the Midland
and the Great Western, I am in the recollection
of the Committee, was 12 gallons.
Witness.] That is the Clearing House mini-
mum, but it is not adopted by all the companies.
7621. Looking to the new obligation upon
you to carry milk, and to carry it at
a new maximum, what do you think
would be a fair minimum calculation in
bulk —So far as the Great Western Railway
is concerned, all the milk traffic, subject to very
few exceptions, is carried in cans of 17 gallons;
and I think that if we are to accept the obliga-
tion by passenger train that should be the mini-
mum fixed, 17 gallons or two cwts.
7622. . And if you take 17 gallons, as
against the proposal of the Board of Trade, you
would lose the weight of the can, would you
not ?—Yes, that is the reason why the milk
dealers have pressed for a rate per cwt, because
they get their can carried for nothing.
Lord Belper.
.7623. But the milk must be carried in some-
thing, and therefore a minimum of 17 gallons is
precisely the same as a minimum of two cwt.,
including the can 2–That is so.
Lord Pelper.] You cannot carry milk without
putting it in something.
Mr. Cripps.] No ; my Lord, that would be
SO.
Cross-examined by Mr. Clifford.
7624. Your actual minimum in practice you
Say is seven gallons 2–No. I said 7 d.
7625. I thought you said that it was equiva-
lent to about seven gallons 2–It is practically
equivalent.
7626. That being so, would you think it an
unreasonable minimum that the Board of Trade
9rder should fix 12 gallons as a minimum 3–
I do think it would be very unreasonable. I
should like to complete my answer. This
inquiry has made the companies review their
position in reference to the conveyance of milk
traffic, and it is found that in the different circum-
stances, now that they have to run special trains
to carry it, some of them, and special trains to
carry back the empties, they are actually doing
the business at a loss. S->
7627. But you are quite aware, are you not,
that, whereas your existing charge is inclusive of
everything under the Provisional Order, you will
haye, both station and service terminals ?—My
existing charge is entirely in my own hands. "I
Can alter it to-morrow if I like.
7628. You are speaking of the authorised
charge. No doubt you can alter it if you like P
- We have no authorised charge; we are abso.
lutely free to charge what we think fit.
7629. I am speaking of the authorised charge
as it will be under the Provisional Order: and I
ask whether it is not the case that, in addition to
conveyance rate for milk, you will have the
power of charging station and service terminals
—Yes, that is the proposal.
7630. And not only as regards the milk, but
as regards the returned cans?—Not station ter-
minals for the cans going back.
7631. I am not speaking of station terminals
for cans; service terminals for returned cans?—
Yes.
Mr. Hanbury.
7632. Coming to the question of how the
minimum of 12 gallons would affect you, not in
theory but in practice, as I understand the con-
signments of less than a full churn are very few 2
—They are few in practice; I may say that we
pressed the Board of Trade in this matter to give
us a minimum of 560 lb., but that has not been
accepted by them.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Cripps.] That is the view of the railway
companies, your Grace, on the question of the
minimum. I need not add anything to it.
The Committee deliberate.
Chairman.] The Committee decide, with re-
gard to milk, which is the only question we have
now dealt with, that the minimum shall be in
gallons, and that it shall be 12 gallons.
(81.)
5 R 3 Mr.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.
Mr. Clifford..] I do not know whether the
Committee will decide on a form of words.
Chairman.] No, we will leave it to you to help
us. We do not put any perishables into Class 2.
We have dealt with milk ; the minimum shall
be in gallons and the gallons shall be 12.
Mr. Clifford.] These words would carry out
your decision, probably : “When a consignment
of milk is less than 12 imperial gallons the com-
pany may charge as for 12 gallons”; and then
the clause would run on.
Earl of Belmore.] Would it not be better to
make it a separate clause ?
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] Yes.
Mr. Clifford.] Then those words would suffice
for the clause.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] It would be Clause 4A.
Chairman.] Then it would be Clause 4A, and
Clause 5 would run, “Where a consignment
other than milk is less than two cwt.”
Mr. Clifford.] We have an amendment upon
that.
Mr. Cripps.] But not before this amendment.
Farl of Belmore.] No. After.
Mr. Cripps.] In any case, whatever, the sub-
sequent amendments are to Clause 5, the words
“where a consignment" ought not to apply to
milk.
Earl of Belmore.] No “other than milk" must
come in any case.
Chairman.] Then we shall deal with that in
the manner that may be decided.
Mr. Cripps.] Quite so, your Grace.
Mr. Richards.] I beg to move an amendment
for the Birmingham and Sheffield Fish Dealers’
Association. On page 14, Clause 5, lines 35 and
36, to omit in each line the word “two '' and
insert instead the word “one.” The Committee
have heard from Mr. Courtenay Boyle that the
minimum of two cwt. possesses as it were no
actual value in the eyes of the Board of Trade,
except in the form of a compromise as between
the traders and the public ; but the evidence
that I shall be able to call before the Committee
will show that at the present time the existing
minimum is 1 cwt., and that no evidence has
been called either here or before the Board of
Trade to justify the railway companies in raising
that minimum. Of course in the large consign-
ments that come to great centres, it is perfectly
true that large consignments of perishables
would be over 1 cwt.
Chairman.] When you say the railway com-
panies have raised this to 2 cwt., it is the Board
of Trade that have done so.
Mr. Richards.] The railway companies asked,
I think, for 560 lbs. before the inquiry; but then
and now their minimum, their actual minimum
which they are working upon, is one cwt. ; and
all the traders ask is that that existing minimum
upon which they have been working for a long
time, and which is conducive to a distributive
trade, is the minimum that this Committee should
affirm.
I was saying that whilst perhaps large con-
ments coming from foreign countries, of meat or
fish, may be over the one cwt., the bulk of the
consignments going into a market like Birming-
ham are under 1 cwt. and not over ; and I am
also going to call a witness to show that the
majority of the country consignments, even to
the London markets from farmers and people in
the home trade, are under one cwt. ; and that as
regards Birmingham, and also as regards other
markets, the whole of the re-distribution of the
perishables will be found to be in consignments
of under one cwt., that is to say, that in sending
away from Birmingham to different towns that
Birmingham supplies, as well as to different
people, the whole of those consignments are under
one cwt. Therefore if this classification, or rather
if this minimum were fixed at two cwt., the
smaller trader, that is the trader who supplies the
smalier districts, will be compelled to pay for
two cwt. when he is sending less than one cwt.
For that purpose I am going to call witnesses
from Birmingham and Sheffield, and one from the
London meat market, and I think also one from
Billingsgate, and I shall be able to convince the
Committee that the present working minimum is
the minimum that is conducive in the interest of
the public ; one that the railway companies have
been working upon and therefore cannot be
losing by, and that it would be only in common
fairness to the trader that it should be retained.
Chairman.] Before you call a witness, we
should like to hear why the Board of Trade put
in two cwt., when we are told the practice now is
One CW t.
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I do not know what
Mr. Richards is referring to when he says that
the practice is 1 cwt. The Board of Trade were
asked to give 5 cwt. by the railway companies.
We cut it down largely to 2 cwt., and we did
not see our way of cutting it down further. I
really do not know what is meant by the state-
ment that the practice is now 1 cwt. There is
no such statutory practice.
Mr. Richards.] I have not suggested that there
is any statutory practice, but that is the existing
practice of the railway companies.
Earl of Belmore..] I think with regard to game
1 cwt. is the practice ; or with regard to rabbits
at all events, -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle..] I am not aware of any
regulations to which Mr. Richards is referring.
Chairman.] (To Mr. Richards.) Then we had
better hear your witness.
Mr. Richards.] Before I call the evidencs,
might I refer the Committee to a return of the
railway companies' charges for conveyance of
fish, pages 36 and 37. , Nearly all through the
report the minimum charge is as for 1 cwt., and
that is what I am basing my argument upon,
that that is their minimum now ; that is the
return made in 1888 (handing in the same).
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
871
11 June 1891.
MR. WALTER WATERS, is called in; and having been sworn, is Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Richards.
7632.* ARE you a member of the town council
of the city of Birmingham and President of the
Birmingham Fish and Poultry Dealers' Associa-
tion ?—Yes.
7633. In your experience as a salesman, in
what quantity do the majority of your consign-
ments come, under or over 1 cwt. in bulk —The
majority of the consignments are consigned in
packages which weigh less than or about 1 cwt.,
I should say about 1 cwt.
7634. What is the present minimum that the
railway companies charge upon 2–For 1 cwt.
7635. Both for meat and fish P – I cannot
speak as to meat. -
7636. But as to fish, you say that the existing
minimum for which they now charge is 1 cwt. 2–
Yes.
7637. If that minimum were to be raised to
2 cwt., would it in your opinion affect both the
fishermen and the trader ?—It would.
7638. Would it practically double your car-
riage 2–In the case of small consignments it
would. -
7639. Have the railway companies at any time
suggested to you that the present minimum was
not a satisfactory one to work on ?–No, they
have not.
7640. How many years have you had experi-
ence in this trade 2–Twenty-three years.
7641. I think you have also communicated
with the traders in Bradford, Leeds, Nottingham,
Leicester, and Boston, and are authorised to
speak on their behalf —That is so.
Cross examined by Mr. Cripps.
7642. Are these special rates quoted for you ?
—I hardly understand what you mean by special
lates. -
7643. Are you a dealer?—Yes.
7644. Are there not special rates quoted to
you as a dealer with a special minimum?—Special
rates are quoted to us for fish, game, and poultry
with one cwt. minimum.
7645. But are not special rates for fish,
poultry, game, and so on quoted to dealers ?—
Yes. -
7646. And it is in reference to those rates that
you get this minimum, is it not ?–1 cannot say
that, I do not know what the powers of the
companies are as to charging.
7647. Are these rates at owners’ risk 2–At
companies’ risk also.
7648. But are the rates on which you pay
Quoted to you at owners' risk rates ?—Yes.
7649. All of them 2–Yes.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
7.650. Have you considered at all what your
rates are that you pay, what your minimum is
compared with the rates proposed here 2–Yes.
Mr. Richards.] I have an amendment on that
later.
Mr. Cripps.
7651. Then I will deal with that later on.
(To the Hitness.) At the present time you are
only dealing with the practice of the companies?
—With the practice of the 1 cwt, minimum.
7652. And as a dealer?—Yes.
Re-examined by Mr. Richards.
7653. My learned friend has asked you whether
you are dealing with this question from the
point of view of a dealer: you are dealing with
it both from the point of view of consignments
from fishermen to yourself and from yourself to
other towns 2—That is so ; that is what I under-
stand by the learned counsel's use of the term
“ dealer.” -
7654. I suppose I may take it that in the
majority of instances when you consign to other
towns from Birmingham for distribution, the
consignments are all under 1 cwt. P –In the
majority of cases they are.
Earl of Belmore.
7655. I think you said that you deal in game?
—Yes.
7656. I suppose you deal in rabbits 2—Yes.
7657. Is it not the custom of the trade when
a dealer takes rabbits from a gentleman in the
country to send him a hamper and tell him to fill
them up to the full of that hamper so as to make
1 cwt. of it !—No, the usual course is for him to
send the hamper, and he leaves it to the sender
entirely how many rabbits he puts in ; he may
not have a sufficient number of rabbits to make a
full hundredweight.
7658. But that is what you wish to get?—We
are willing to pay for a hundredweight but not
to pay for 2 cwt. when the hamper only weighs
à of a cwt. or a hundredweight.
7659. But what you aim at is to get the con-
signments filled up to weigh a hundredweight?
—Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Richards.] I have an amendment pre-
sently, your Grace, on the classification with
regard to rabbits.
Chairman.] Which is it?
Mr. Richards j It is a little lower down.
page 15, after line 17, add “Rabbits (dead).”
On
MR. RICHARD LANGLEY, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows :
Mr. Richards.
7660. YOU are a member of the Sheffield Fish
Dealers' Association, are you not ?—I am Presi-
dent.
7661. And you are also an active member of
the trade 2–Yes.
Mr. Richards—continued.
7662. Will you tell the Committee what, in
bulk, are the majority of your consignments; are
they over or under 1 cwt. 2–I have never taken
the figures out, but I should say that they are a
long way towards half, 1 cwt.
(81.)
5 R 4
872
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.]
Mr. LANGLEY.
[Continued.
Mr. Richards—continued.
7663. Did you take out the figures during one
day in last week of 15 consignments 2—I did,
and this was how l took them out. I was u
here last week expecting to be called, and I had
not taken out any figures, so the first day I was
at home I took the figures out of my sales ; that
was on Friday last. I had one consignment of
under 1 cwt., five consignments of 1 cwt., three
consignments of over 1 cwt. and under 2 cwt.,
and six consignments over 2 cwt.
7664. Therefore, practically, about half of
your consignments were under 2 cwt. 2–That is
SO.
7665. Do you deal both in fish and poultry —
Yes.
7666. With regard to fish, particularly, would
the raising of the minimum injuriously affect the
traders and the fishermen 2–Very much.
Chairman.
7667. Will you tell us how 2–The small fisher-
man on the coast who catches his own fish and
sends it away would not catch sufficient regularly
at once for to reach the minimum. That charge
would oppress the fish so much that when they
reach the market it would not pay him to catch
the fish and send it.
Mr. Richards.
7668. I think both in Birmingham and Sheffield
you get a large number of small consignments
from the east coast of Scotland?—That is so.
7669. I think you gave that evidence before
the Board of Trade ; so that it would be impos-
sible for a single fisherman to send a consignment
anywhere near approaching 2 cwt. as an ordinary
custom 7–Ordinarily that would be so.
Chairman.] The Witness has alluded to the
east coast of Scotland; will you ask him to explain
that,
Mr. Richards.] I have some figures ——
Chairman.] I do not take figures from you,
with all respect; I want to hear what style of
fish he is alluding to from the east coast of Scot-
land, where the single fisherman you have indica-
ted sends his particular catch to the market.
Mr. Richards.
7670. Those are the same figures that were
put befere the Board of Trade from this gentle-
man's books on this very point. (To the Witness.)
Just tell his Grace the particulars of those con-
signments (handing a paper to the Witness)?—
These are figures put in by another member of
our trade in Sheffield; they are his figures
particularly.
Chairman.
7671. Oh, do not let us have some other
gentleman's figures. You said that a single
fisherman on the east coast of Scotland could
not get enough fish to send to the market; I want
to know what part of the east coast of Scotland
that is, and to what fish you allude, and what
consignments they send now 2–Round the coast
by Berwick.
7672. We do not call that the east coast of
Chavrman— continued.
Scotland?—There are a lot of small fishing
stations along the coast there where the fish comes
from, as I have already indicated.
Earl of Camperdown.
7673. In consignments of under 1 cwt. 2–
Under 2 cwts.
7674. All under 2 cwts.
1 cwt. 2–Yes.
7675. Do they consign to you direct 2—Yes.
and some under
Chairman. -
7676. You are speaking now of the sea coast 2
—Yes.
7677. At Berwick 7–On the coast
there.
7678. How far do you go?—There is a long
reach of coast there.
Mr. Richards.
sº Do you go up as high as Aberdeen 2
O.
7680. The fishermen consign direct to you and
you sell the fish and remit the proceeds to them 2
—Yes
7681. Just give us an idea how many of those
towns you receive small consignments from
during the fishing season?—I receive myself
from about a dozen up there. Then there are other
salesmen in the town who receive from other
fishing stations as well.
along
Chairman.
7682. And what fish 2–Haddocks and cod
fish, and ling.
Mr. Richards.
7683. That would be a very common class of
fish, and if the minimum were raised to two
hundredweight it would practically double their
carriage, would it not ?—That is so.
7684. Would that in your opinion frequently
prevent their being sold in the market at a
profit 2–It would.
7685. At all events when fish are plentiful
there is a very small amount sent to the fisher-
man after the carriage paid 2–That is so.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7686. Do you say that you get consignments of
fish from individual fishermen 2–Yes.
7687. Have you one of those consignments by
you. You gave certain consigments which you
said you had taken out for one day; was one of
those a fish consignment from an individual
fisherman 2–Yes. (The Witness hands the paper
to the learned Counsel).
7688. I do not want any tables, but you gave
certain consignments that you took out on a
particular day; was any one of those consign-
ments from one fisherman 2–One was from
Johnson, Canal Foot, Ulverston.
7689. What was the weight of that consign-
ment?--It was one of the one hundredweight
consignments.
7690. You know that at the present time
there is no limitation to the companies' charges
when they, bring this fish traffic by passenger
train 2–That is so.
7691. I understand
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
873 .
11 June 1891.]
s---------
Mr. Cripps—continued.
7691. I understand you to say that at the pre-
sent time you are given a charge which enables
you to deal with this class of traffic in these con-
signments?—Yes; we have been ever since
have known the trade. - -
7692. Are you a dealer ?—A salesman.
Y 7693. Do you get the special dealers' rates ?—
Zes.
7694. You know, of course, that we are now
dealing, not with actual charges, but with maxi-
mum charges which the company may make 2–
Yes; I know that.
Chairman.
7695. You talk of getting these consignments
from individual fishermen, from the various fish-
ing villages on the coast; is there any reason
why a certain number of those fishermen should
not combine and send the fish in one lot?—There
is not if there were a sufficient number of them
to do so and they could agree.
7696. What do you mean : that the difficulty
would be that you could not get 2 cwt. from any-
one place in a day ?—I mean that, supposing
there were three fishermen in one place, and that
they all wanted to send their own fish, perhaps
one would want to send it to me, and another
would prefer another salesman, and another, per-
haps, another salesman.
Mr. LANGLEY.
[Continued,
Mr. Hanbury.
7697. Do you know whether they ever do
combine at present 2–I do not know of any.
C&SCs
Earl of Camperdown.
7698. These men simply consign to you direct
individually —That is so.
Re-examined by Mr. Richards.
7699. If they did not consign direct to you;
for instance, in the Cornish districts there are
men who go down as fish buyers, and buy from
the small fishermen.
Chairman.] Does he know that ? |
Mr. Richards.] The dealers receive fish in
Sheffield from Cornwall.
Chairmam.
7700. (To the Witness.) Do you receive fish .
from Cornwall?–Yes, very largely.
- Mr. Richards.
7701. But do you not receive fish in larger
consignments from fish buyers, not fishermen 2–
Yes.
7702. When they are in larger consignments
they come from the fish buyers, from the middle-
men 2–Yes.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
MR. CHARLES HENRY GLASSEY, is called in ; and, having been sworn, was Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Richards.
7703. YoU are a member of the Birmingham
Traders’ Association, and you deal principally in
rabbits and poultry 2—That is so.
7704. First of all with regard to rabbits, are
the majority of your consignments under 2 cwts 2
—A very fair percentage.
7705. With regard to the cwt. consignments,
is that at present the minimum ?—That is so.
7706. Aave you worked upon that minimum
for many years ?–Yes.
Earl of Camperdown.
7707. You said under 2 cwt.
Mr. Richards.
7708. I said the majority of consignments were
under 2 cwt., but the minimum upon which he
worked was 1 cwt. (To the Witness.) What
percentage of your consignments would be under
1 cwt. P-Quite one half.
7709. I may take it that rabbits are sold at
low prices 2–That is so.
7710. From 10 s. to 12 s.
would be about the average.
771 1. So that if you had to pay upon 2 cwt.
as the minimum it would be raising the carriage
upon all the smaller consignments?–Quite so.
7712. With regard to poultry, what have you
to say ?—With regard to the Irish poultry, about
one-third per cent. is 1 cwt.
7713. The Irish poultry come about one-third
1 cwt., and two-thirds over !—Yes; but with
regard to the Welsh and English, certainly
three-fourths of our consignments would be
a dozen 7–11 s.
Mr. Richards—continued.
hundredweights, because they are sent mostly in
flats of two dozen head, which is about 1 cwt. in
weight.
7714. So that with regard to the English and
Welsh poultry trade, three-fourths of that is
under 1 cwt. 2–Yes.
7715. Consequently, if the minimum was
raised upon it, it would be reducing the profit to
the farmer ?—Yes, quite so.
7716. Reducing the price that the farmer
would receive 2–Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7717. Is traffic carried in your case at owners'
risk; does the company take the risk or do you
take the risk 2–I believe it is sent at owners’
risk.
7718. Do you get a special dealer's rate ; are
you a dealer; do you get a dealer’s rate 2—I am
a salesman.
Earl of Camperdown.
7719. Do you get a dealer’s rate 2—My con-
signor would transact that part of the business.
I am merely a salesman, and I pay the charges
that are made upon the consignment, deducting
them from his account sale in remitting my
charges. t
Mr. Cripps.
7720. Do you pay the railway charge 2–I pay
it on account of my consignor.
7720°. Your consignor being a dealer, as I
understand 7–That is so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
(81.)
5 S
874
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.
MR. JOSEPH BARBER, is called in ; and having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. R. ichards.
7721. I THINK you are connected with the fish
trade in London and have been for 30 years and
odd 2–I am a fish salesman.
7722. With regard to the distributive trade
from London, are the majority of consignments
under or over 1 cwt. 2–Under 1 cwt. in distri-
bution.
7723. Would the raising of the minimum from
1 cwt. to 2 cwt, be injurious to the trade 3–It
would operate principally against the interests of
the fishermen. Practically the consignments of
under 1 cwt. are received from fishermen; I have
numbers daily of consignments received from
fishermen on the east coast of England, North-
umberland principally, and if the minimum was
fixed at 2 cwt. it would place them practically in
the hands of the buyers.
7724. You mean fish buyers ?—Yes; and they
would have to sell their fish to buyers in order
that they might take advantage of the minimum
rate.
7725. And of course it would be prejudicial to
the fishermen. And then with regard to
the distributive rate from London, that would
of course fall upon the traders in the country
districts?—The large consignments received in
London of over 2 cwt. are re-distributed to
small places outside of London, in smaller bulk ;
and, of course it would operate injuriously to
those traders who wish to sub-divide the con-
signments and re-distribute them from London.
The same applies to all other large centres for
receiving large consignments.
7726. I may take it that, by the fact that the
fisherman is able to send small consignments to
London, he avoids having to pay the fish buyer's
profit or trader having to sacrifice the fish-
buyer's profit 2–It is often the case that there
are no fish buyers on the spot, and they are
obliged to consign direct.
Chairman.] I understand that the large con-
signment going to London are over 2 cwt.
Mr. Richards.] Generally ; but he specially
mentioned the fishermen on the east coast, who
send small consignments under 1 cwt., who, if
they did not do that, would have to sell to fish
buyers, and there would be the middleman.
Chairman.
7727. But those fishermen do not send to
you ?—Yes, numbers of them ; I have numbers
every day from Spital, near Berwick, and per-
haps each of those consignments would be under
1 cwt., but it is charged as for 1 cwt. by the
railway companies.
Mr. Hanbury.] How would your amendment
to make it a minimum of 1 cwt. affect those small
fishermen whose consignments are now under
l cwt. P
Mr. Richards.] Because they pay us for
1 cwt. ; whereas if the 2 cwt. remain they will
have to pay for 2 cwt. They are quite satisfied
with the 1 cwt., and that is all they ask for.
Witness.] I may say that it will affect the in-
shore fishers, who are old poor men and boys.
The deep sea fishermen, who of course catch
larger quantities and sell to buyers, can consign
in larger quantities; but I am referring to the
old fishermen who are too old to go to sea and
fish in deep waters, and boys coming up in the
trade.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7728. How many consignments of fish do you
get in a day ?—I cannot say ; it varies accord-
ing to the weather.
7729. On an average 2–I suppose 14 or 15 a.
day.
7730. And how many of those would be under
2 cwt. P-It depends entirely upon the season of
the year. In the crab season the majority would
be under 2 cwt.
7731. If we could take a larger area, I do not
know whether we could take the period of a year,
what percentage of your consignments would be
under 2 cwt. 2–Taking the whole year through
the percentage would not be equal to half a
Cwt. -
7732. Do you get any of your fish on the Great
Western ?—A small quantity only ; we get some
mackerel from Newlyn.
7733. What is the minimum there 2—A mini-
mum of one cwt. is charged by the Great Western
Railway Company.
7734. What class of fish was that ?—Mackerel.
7735. Is not the minimum three cwt. for
mackerel ?—I understand it to be one cwt. I
would not be positive about it, but a consignment
of mackerel is scarcely ever so small as three cwt.,
so that it would not affect it.
7736. But mackerel was the instance you gave 2
—No, crabs.
7737. On the Great Western Railway ?—Yes,
mackerel.
Mr. Richards.] You have another point of your
evidence later on, when we shall complain about
the Great Western Company in regard to
mackerel, but we do not now.
Mr. Balfour Browne. That is satisfactory for
the Great Western to hear.
Mr. Cripps.] We do not mind hearing it.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
M. R. W. J. BONSER, is called in ; and, having been sworn, is Examined, as follows:
Mr. Richards.
7738. YoU are vice-chairman of the Central
. Meat Markets Committee 2–I am a member of
the committee.
Mr. Richards—continued.
7739. And I believe you have been engaged in
that trade for 30 or 40 years?—More than 40
years.
7740. I want
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAI, ORDER BILLS. 875
11 June 1891.]
Mr. Richards—continued.
7740. I want to ask you particularly with re-
gard to consignments from country farms,
what is the average weight of those consign-
ments that come into your market 7–I could not
give you the average weight; but they come in
very small weights, considerably less than .
One CW't.
7741. Would raising the minimum from one
to two cwt. be prejudicial to the farmers neces-
sarily 2–1 know of no minimum. At present
we are charged upon the actual weight, it may
be two quarters or 1 cwt. 14 lbs. -
7742. Therefore this proviso empowering the
companies to charge as for two cwt. would be
most prejudicial to the farmers ?–It would en-
tirely prevent small consignments.
Chairmam.
7743. Of what?— Of meat. For instance, I
have here the rate recommended by the Board
of Trade from Leicester for two cwt., which
would come to 5 s. 3.} Many consignments
weigh less than half a cºwt., and if the railway
companies were to charge 5 s. 3; d. for half a
cwt. that would entirely prevent the consign-
mentS. -
Mr. Richards.
7744. It would entirely prevent all small con-
signments 2–Completely.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7745. In your charge now do you have a
mileage charge, or is the same charge made for
one mile up to 30 or 40?—There are certain
rates fixed by the railway companies from the
different towns, it may be from Leicester, Peter-
borough, or wherever it may be, and they charge
us at that rate for whatever the consignments
may weigh.
7746. But you are not charged now for these
small consignments on a mileage rate, but so
much up to a 40 mile radius, and so much beyond
that distance?—I do not know how they fix the
rates; they are fixed, and charged to us, and we
pay them.
7747. You know that you often pay the same
rate for places that are not at the same distance
from you ?—Very probably, according to the
competition.
|Re-examined by Mr. Richards.
7748. I see 3 l is charged from Darlington
and 3 l. 17 s. 6 d. from Aberdeen 2–I do not
recollect the Darlington rate, but it is 3 l, 15 s.
from Aberdeen.
7749. It is only when you get a competitive
route that the rate is low 2–That is so.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Richards.] That is all the evidence I pro-
pose to call, your Grace, on the point of consign-
ments under one cwt.
Mr. Cripps | Your Grace, on behalf of the
railway companies, before calling a witness, I
should just like to point out what our position
is. -
Mr. Courtenay Boyle has stated what, no
doubt, is the fact, that the 2 cwt. was taken in
the nature of a compromise. We were asking
Mr. BONSER.
[Continued.
for a larger amount and the traders were asking
for a smaller amount. And then it has been
shown, no doubt, by the various witnesses to-day
that at the present time, and in respect of a par-
ticular traffic in which they are interested, there
is at the present time a smaller minimum than
2 cwt. ; and they are now asking as a matter of
fact for a 1 cwt. minimum. Your Grace, I think
upon that point the Committee will recollect this,
that we are, of course, now dealing with the
maximum conditions imposed for the first time.
Under existing conditions we may charge what
we like both as regards amount and as regards
minimum, and in fixing the minimum which we
have fixed, that has a great relation to the mode
in which we have charged. For instance, if we
have charged the same, say, for 30 or 40 miles as
we have for five or six miles, we might have
a 1 cwt. minimum ; but when you have the
1 cwt. minimum and apply it to a mileage
charge for a short distance, perhaps only
some five or six miles, or some smaller distance,
our charges even as maxima would be very much
indeed under what we are actually charging now.
The other point which has been raised more or less,
as a question of prejudice, is that as regards
certain classes of traffic the maximum powers
would allow us to charge more than we may be
doing at the present time. I do not know
whether any rates actually work out that way,
but that is the suggestion. The answer to that
is this : that here we are dealing with maximum
charges; and if even when there is any limita-
tion charges have been made of a character
suitable to the traffic, and to encourage the
traffic, why should it be suggested now in rela-
tion to the new maxima that we should dis-
courage or destroy, as it has been put, traffic of
that kind P I admit at once that when you have
what I may call an average of this character you
may find that in particular cases maxima, if
charged as a maxima, may prima facie at any
rate appear to apply hardly. But in fixing
average maxima you will have to consider all the
conditions, and not the particular instances worked
out by the traders where they might be possibly
power to charge highly. You have to consider
all the average conditions over all the systems
of all the railway companies, and on that basis I
hope your Grace and the Committee will be per-
suaded that the two cwt. minimum is a fair mini-
mum in that for the first time the obligation is
being placed upon us to carry this traffic, and
in that for the first time the obligation is being
placed upon us to carry within certain maximum
rates.
And as regards the question of the small people
and the small trader, there is not the least reason
to suppose, as is suggested, that they will be
charged any more in the future than they are
charged at the present time. But as our
maxima have to apply over a very large area
and to very differing conditions of traffic, we con-
sider that the two-cwt. which Mr. Courtenay
Boyle has said was adopted as a compromise, is
a fair compromise on this point, as between all
the traders on the one side and all the railway
companies on the other.
Lord Belper.] When you use the word “com-
promise ’’ l do not suppose you mean that the
traders were a party to it; did they agree to it?
(81.)
5 S 2 Mr.
876
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE, TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
*.
cwt. was a fair proposition on our part.
11 June 1891.
-—
Mr. Cripps.] I do not say that at all. The
traders suggested I believe originally a one-cwt.
minimum. We suggested a five-cwt. minimum.
As has been pointed out the compromise was a
two-cwt. niinimum.
Lord Belper.] That is hardly a compromise
because neither side was a party to it. -
Mr. Cripps.] A compromise by the Board of
Trade as between two conflicting views.
Lord Belper.] An arrangement by the Board
of Trade. *
Mr. Cripps.] An arrangement which is in
principle a compromise between the two con-
flicting views, not by the parties.
Earl of . Camperdown.] But your practical
minimum being one-cwt., why did you ask for
such a large sum as five cwt. 2
Mr. Cripps.] I have not all the evidenee
before me now, but we asked on this basis that
this being a new obligation for the first time and
there being no intention on the part of the rail-
way companies to charge these little traders or
destroy traffic or anythi g of the kind, the five
I know
it has not been adopted. I can only say that
there was a good deal of evidence upon this
point given before the Board of Trade on behalf
of the railway companies; I cannot carry it any
further than that ; that looking to all the cir-
cumstances, and to the fact that this merchandise
had to be carried in passenger trains, five cwt.
would be a fair minimum consignment. That
has not been accepted. -
Earl of Camperdown.] That is not my point.
My point is this: that your practice being to
make the minimum one cwt., when it came to
the proposal of what was to be the minimum you
proposed five cwt. Apparently, primá facie,
that is a very extraordinary proposition, because
it appeared to argue one of two things; either
that five cwt. was requisite, or else that your
practice had been extraordinarily lenient, far too
lenient, towards your traders.
Mr. Cripps.] That would depend upon all
the evidence. I can only say that the prac-
tice has been rather different from how this
would work out now. Here you have a mini-
mum and mileage rates in proportion to
distance. Under the existing practice, it does
not work out in that way at all. You have a
minimum, and then you have the same charge
for distance whether the particular parcel was
carried five miles or 40 miles for certain radii of
distance, and then if you work out the charges
for the smaller distance, even at 5 cwt., the com-
panies would have been losers. I am not now
arguing for 5 cwt., because it has been rejected.
Earl of Camperdown.] What you are saying
now, is that that is no answer to my question at
all. My question was, that your practice being to
charge for a minimum of 1 cwt., why, when you
went to the Board of Trade, did you ask for
6 cwt ; what was your reason '' -
Mr. Cripps.] If I may arswer that, taking the
other principle of charge which the Board of
Trade have not adopted ; that is to say, the same
charge for 40 miles as we will say for three or
four miles, that is to say, a charge irrespective of
distance, even on the 5 cwt. our actual charges
would not have bee., covered as regards small
distances. As to whether that was a fair pro-
posal to make altogether, I can only say that the
Hoard of Trade rejected it. And also the rail-
way companies have always said this, That we
do not want our passenger trains over loaded with
this class of traffic ; we only desire to encourage
it up to a certain point; we have done all we can
with regard to these small consignments; but
that was the argument put forward. If we were
now asking for 5 cwt., I should be prepared to
put Mr. Wilkinson and others in the box to give
reasons; but I need hardly say that it is not
necessary, as we only ask for 2 cwt. though if
your Lordship wanted further information, they
would be willing to say why 5 cwt. was asked
for.
MR. JOSEPH LOFTUS WILKINSON, is re-called; and further Examined,
as follows:
Mr. Cripps.
7750. WHAT is your practice at the present
time as regards the minimum charge for perish-
able merchandise in passenger trains P – The
actual practice is to give, to dealers only, some-
thing very closely representing half the ordinary
parcels rates, provided that they will undertake
to send a maximum quantity of a ll? lbs., or
sometimes less than that, and that they will take
the entire risk in connection with the carriage.
If they do not take such risks, then we charge
the ordinary parcels rates.
7751. When you speak of a special rate for
perishable merchandise in passenger trains, do
you give that at owners' risk?—Always at
owners’ risk.
7752. At the present time do you have the
same rate as regards the perishable merchandise
by passenger trains for dissimilar distances —
Yes, we do ; that is to say, we give no rate for a
less distance than 30 miles.
Mr. Cripps—continued.
7753. Therefore goods. carried, you mean, for
a less distance than 30 miles would have to pay
as for 30 miles?—Yes, that is the practice at the
present time.
Earl of Camperdown.
7754. Where do we find perishables in the
Clearing House Classification ?--They are not
classified at all. This is a new obligation.
Earl of Belmore (to Mr. Cripps).] You asked
him a question about owners’ risk, and he said
that at present these rates for 1 cwt. are quoted
for owners’ risk only.
Mr. Cripps.] I understood him to say so.
Earl of Belmore.] This Provisional Order
chiefly applies to companys' risk.
Mr. Cripps.] Yes.
Earl of Belmore.] Therefore the things are not
exactly comparable.
* Mr.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
877
11 June 1891.]
Mr. Cripps.
7755. They are not, my Lord. (To the
Witness.) The suggestion is that we shall get
higher rates for a parcel carried, we will say, ten
miles. What would that be under your existing
system of charge —At present we should charge
a rate of 1s. 2 d. per cwt.
7756. Therefore taking the 1 cwt. as the
minimum, 1s. 2 d. would be your minimum
charge —Yes, that is the case.
Lord Belper.] That would be 10 miles up to
30 miles. -
Mr. Cripps.] 1 s. 2 d. up to 30 miles; I will
take the others afterwards. -
Earl of Belmore.] You do not mean that
1 cwt. is the minimum for a parcel by passenger
train.
Mr. Cripps.] No ; what the witness means is
that any parcel under 1 cwt. will be charged as
1 cwt. t
Earl of Belmore.] But that is not the case
now by a parcel train, every parcel is not charged
as 1 cwt.
Mr. Cripps.
7757. (To the Witness., As I understand at
the present time, supposing you were carrying
perishable merchandise
Earl of Belmore.] Perishable merchandise.
Oh, yes; I thought you said any parcel.
Mr. Cripps.] Perhaps I put it too widely.
Earl of Belmore..] You said any parcel.
!
Mr. Cripps.
7758. Supposing you were carrying perish-
able merchandise by passenger train, what
would the minimum charge be for 10 miles 2–
1 s. 2 d. -
7759. Under the present proposal what would
be the minimum charge, even with the 2 cwt.
minimum ?—Before answering, I should like to
qualify that last remark by saying that if the
carriage came to less than the l s. 2 d. at the
ordinary parcels rate, we should give the traders
the benefit of that and charge the lowest rate.
7760. You mean that if the parcels rate was
lower than the perishable merchandise rate, he
would get the benefit of the parcels rate?—If it
were lower than the special rate, that we give to
dealers, if it was less expensive for him to pay
the ordinary parcels rate, we should, of course,
charge that owner.
7761. But what I am dealing with now is the
special dealer's rate as regards perishable mer-
chandise ; you say that if the ordinary parcels
rate was less, he would have the option of taking
it?—That is what I wished to explain.
7762. Taking the 1s. 2 d. that you are dealing
with, what would be the maximum charge that
you could make under the proposal, even with
a 2 cwt. minimum ?—For 10 miles, 9 d. per cent.;
so that a dealer for s. 6 d. would have the
opportunity of carrying 2 cwt. for 10 miles.
7763. At the present time, if it was only on
the 1 cwt. minimum that he carried, 1 s. 2d.
would be the actual charge 2–Eor the 1 cwt.
7764. What would be the charge at the
present time for 2 cwt., supposing it was 2 cwt.
in each case ?–2 s. 4 d.
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Mr. Cripps--continued. -
7765. And what would it be under the Pro-
visional Order ?–1 s. 6d.
Earl of Belmore.
7766. And what would it be under the pro-
posal of the other side 3–9 d.
7767. For 2 cwt. 7–No, 1 cwt.
Earl of Belmore.] Then it would be 1 s. 6d.
for 2 cwt., the same as the Board of Trade pro-
posal.
Mr. Cripps. The difference would be this;
that if the amendment is carried it is a question
of minimum. -
Earl of Belmore. Then you would only get
the single 9 d.
Mr. Cripps.
7768. We should only get the single 9 d.
(To the Witness.) In your experience as re-
gards this traffic, taking not only what we have
heard of, but all the articles in Division II. and
Division III. (the same principle applies to all
meat and butter and all the articles in fact in
Divisions II. and III.), in what quantities are
they usually, carried ?–They are generally
carried, as I think the witnesses for the traders
have agreed, in quantities over 2 cwt. between
the points of production and the principal points
of distribution. They come to London, we will
say, or Birmingham or Sheffield in considerable
Quantities over 2 cwt., and then they are
divided up into smaller consignments for places
immediately in the neighbourhood of the centre.
7769. You have a minimum, I think, for
instance, on the Great Western higher than
one cwt., have you not, for some of your
fish traffic 2-Yes. . It is our custom to give
special rates for fish by passenger trains with a
minimum of three cwt.
7770. Where does that fish come from to which
you give that three cwt. minimum ?–Cornwall,
Devonshire, and the western coast of England.
Mr. Hanbury.
7771. Do these consignments come mostly
from dealers or from private consignors ?—They
come both ways... We provide for it by saying
“from or for dealers only.”
7772. That is to say, you give an advantage
to the dealer over the private consignor 2–That
is the practice of the company at the present
time.
Earl of Belmore.
7773. How do you deal with a case like this :
Supposing a dealer gets game, say rabbits, from
a private person, and pays you the carriage, and
as the gentleman in the box just now said,
charges his customer with the amount of the
garriage that he pays you as against what
he has to pay him for his rabbits, how would
you deal with a case of that sort. You assume,
I suppose, that it is a dealer who is getting the
rate, do you not ?–No, I think not. We know
whether it is going
7774. Into his own pocket or somebody else's?
-No, we do not exactly go into that, but we do
know whether the man is a dealer or Salesman,
and if either the sender or receiver is a dealer
(81.)
5 S 3 Or
878.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. TAKEN BEFORE THE Jorn.T. committer,
Ii June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued.
Earl of Belmore—continued. -
or salesman we give him the benefit of these off
rates, as we call them. -*
7775. You give them to a salesman?—Yes,
we should call him a dealer.
Mr. C.ripps.
7776. Then all the rates in reference to which
we have had evidence have been special rates
that you give to dealers or salesmen —They are
all special rates made in our own discretion, and
which we can alter at any time. If we found we
were getting more traffic than we could comfort-
ably carry by any passenger train, we shall not
hesitate to withdraw these rates. -
Mr. Hanbury.
7777. In other words, why do you encourage
the middleman instead of the private consignor?
—This traffic would never go in large quantities
excepting either from or to a dealer. -
7778. But the result of fixing a high maximum
is to prevent the private consignor sending, and so
driving it into the hands of the dealer and mid-
dleman?—A consignor or consignee of small
quantities would be always able to take the ordi-
nary parcels rate for a little lot, such as gentle-
men would pass as presents, or send from country
to town.
7779. But a man sending, we will say, a quarter
of a cwt. of butter would be sending his butter
at great disadvantage as compared with the
dealer 2—l must admit that the practice at
present would permit of that, there would a
a difference in favour of the dealer.
7780. Is not the existing practice rather to
prejudice small consignments from private indi-
viduals and to encourage the larger consignments
of the middlemen 2–The question is not an easy
One to answer.
Earl of Camperdown.
7781. Perfectly. You can answer it one way
or the other ?—There is clearly an advantage to
the dealer; I cannot attempt to say that that is
not SO.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards.
7782. You have special rates from Liverpool
or Birkenhead on the Great Western ?—For
what 2
7783. Of three-ton loads 2—Of what. 2
7784. Consignments of not less than three-
tons, I am speaking now of meat. I was going
to follow out the question that the honourable
Member for Preston put to show that the whole
policy of the railway company is always against
the small farmer and small grower, that that is
the whole point. It is to get the large consign-
ments for some middleman, and that is why it is
that we are pressing upon this Committee.
Chairman.] But will you ask the witness a
question?
Mr. Richards.
7785. You have some special rates from
‘Birkenhead for meat at 35s. per ton 2–No, not
altogether
7786. What are they then 7–There is a rate
in operation between Liverpool or Birkenhead
and London for beef in three-ton loads of 25 s.
7787. And no farmer in the district can send
it under 50 s. or 3 l.2—Any farmer sending
because the Cornish
Mr. Richards—continued.
three tons, which is a truck load, wouldget the
Sam C. Tate. - -
7788. Do you know any other line but the
Great Western..that asks for a minimum of three
cwt. on fish (the Parliamentary Return is before
the Committee); that hampers the fish trade with
a minimum of three cwt. 2–l believe there are .
cases. I believe the Manchester, Sheffield, and
Lincolnshire Company is a case in point; but I
would sooner speak of what I know within my
own knowledge.
Chairman (to Mr. Richards).] It would be
better to confine the witness to the Great
Western; his evidence upon it is valuable, but
upon other lines, with all respect to him, I do not
think so.
Mr. Richards.
7789. Practically on the Great Western
system you have no small consignments,
fisherman has to sell to a
dealer ; is not that so?—All fish, to the best of
my knowledge coming to London is sold to
dealers. -
7790. That is to say, that the fish are sold to the
dealer in order to get consignments large enough
to send by your line 2–No, I should certainly
not admit that, because it is within my own know-
ledge that from every fishing place to which we
go the fish is not sent in small quantities; it is
sold by auction on the shore and purchased by
dealers, and many men go from London for the
purpose, and it is then sent in considerable and
large quantities of over two cwt. to places where
it is sold for consumption.
7791. You told the Committee that you had a
special rate very closely resembling the parcels
rates. What do you mean by very closely re-
sembling parcels rates, within 5 per cent.”—No.
I stated that these special rates given to dealers
were practically based on half the ordinary parcels
rateS. - *-
7792. If they decline to send them at owner's
risk you charge the ordinary parcels rates ?—
We should do so.
7793. You have given the Committee an in-
stance of the proposed new charge by the Board
of Trade for an instance of 10 miles; have you
compared the proposed charges for longer dis-
tances?—Yes.
7794. I put it to you that you never on the
Great Western Railway have a consignment of
a perishable article for so short a distance as
10 miles?—No, I should not admit that. One
of your own witnesses stated that it was the
custom of the trade to send short distances.
7795. He did not say 10 miles; I put it to
you, have you any place within 10 miles of
London say, where you have any large consign-
ments of perishables from London –-Yes, our
suburban stations, take Ealing or Hanwell are
supplied with fish from Billingsgate. *
7796. From London to Ealing or Hanwell?—
Yes.
7797. J)o you know that the present meat rate
to Liskeard is 65 s. a ton, including collection.
and delivery 2–Now you are talking about actual
rates by goods train. e ‘
7798. How goods train 2–I am giving you
actual rates for perishables. 2. M
- T.
ON RAILWAY RATES AND CHARG1/S PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. 879
jº
11 June 1891.]
Mr. WILKINSON.
[Continued
Mr. Cripps.] By goods train he says.
Mr. Richards.
7799. I deny that it is by goods train; I put
it to you that the present rate that you charge
is 65 s. a ton, and that the powers given you by
the Board of Trade with terminals are 93 s. 4d. ;
do you mean to say that you would lose by that
without collection and delivery 265 miles at
0-20, and station and service terminals, that is
for meat brought up in time from the markets –-
That is the goods train rate to the best of my
knowledge.
7800. But by undertaking that the goods shall
be delivered in time for the morning market.
Chairman.] You see you assume a good deal ;
I do not know whether he assents to that.
Witness.] I am not quite sure about this par-
ticular rate. I put it to the Committee before
that we have quite 25 million goods rates, and I
want to think a little before giving an answer.
In this particular case I believe the rate that has
been mentioned is the goods train rate ; and I
believe it is also upon the owner's risk, so that if
we missed the market there would be no obliga-
tion upon the company.
Mr. Richards.
7801. I put it to you that the proposals of the
Roard of Trade on longer distances are much
more favourable to the company than what
you have suggested for the shorter ones 2–The
difference does diminish very considerably as you
get to long distances. -
7802. And in what way do you suggest that
the company would be prejudiced by reducing
the minimum from 2 to 1 cwt., keeping it at its
present minimum ?—When the suggestion was
first made by the Board of Trade that the rail-
way companies should undertake the obligation
of carrying perishables by passenger train, we
considered the matter, and we thought it would
be reasonable to ask for a minimum of 5 cwt.,
because we know what will happen in actual
practice; that we shall have to fit vans with
automatic break couplings and every appliance
to travel with the passenger trains, and we shall
have to use those vans; and we shall very
largely have to put on a special staff to handle
the traffic, unless we can get it in something
approaching a van load. And we thought that
by putting 5 cwt. as the minimum we should
practically get something which would enable us
to put on a van and know that it would pay. We
cannot afford to waste the time and to have this
sort of thing knocking about on our passenger
platforms amongst the passengers.
Lord Belper.
7803. But you do this traffic now 2–We have
it in our own hands.
7804. But you do do it. I know you are not
under an obligation to do it?—We do it to a
limited extent, always remembering that we can
stop it if we find it inconvenient to the passen-
gers or ourselves.
Earl of Belmore.
7805. Do you say that you expect you will
have to put on special meat vans in future
after the passing of this Order?—I think there
is no doubt whatever about it.
Earl of Belmore—continued.
7806. On your passenger trains 2 – Yes, we
already do that to a limited extent ; but it is
subject to what I said to my Lord Belper; that
if we found we were getting more than we could
comfortably carry in a particular train we should
not take the risk of having to duplicate that
train for the sake of a few hundredweights of meat
or fish ; we should stop carrying, or obtain our
full parcels, rates and, then provide whatever
accommodation was necessary.
Mr. Richards.
7807. I suppose you would not dispute the
accuracy of the Return to the House of Com-
mons of the rates charged by the railway com-
panies, and in that I find that the minimum for
the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Com-
pany is 1 cwt. ; so that probably you are inte-
rested in saying that it is over that amount P−If
that is so, I quite withdraw my answer. I ex-
plained that I am not familiar with any other
company but my own.
Re-examined by Mr. Cripps.
7808. You were asked about the meat rate to
Liskeard. I do not know whether you have it
before you ; but I am told, I will put it to you
if you recollect it, that the minimum rate is
1 s. 4 d. per ton with regard to the rate for meat
as to which you were asked 2 – No, I do not
recollect it.
7809. And also it is a station-to-station rate 2
—Yes, I have no doubt it is a station-to-station
rate, and I believe at owner's risk. -
7810. And one other test, I believe, you gave
as regards these special rates which you have
given to dealers; you say that they are about
half the ordinary parcels rates? — Yes, roughly
speaking.
The Witness is directed to withdraw.
Mr. Richards.] Will your Grace hear me in
reply to-morrow P
Mr. Cripps.] We propose to call another
witness for the railway companies; we might
call him to-morrow. -
Chairman.] Certainly. The question passing
in the minds of the Committee is whether it will
not be necessary now to sit on Mondays as well
as on other days, because we see all these amend-
ments, and we shall require to have the amend-
ments to the rates put in our hands. We do not
desire to sit on Mondays, but what we do want
is to get these Bills through this Session.
Mr. Cripps.] We have the same desire to get
through as soon as we can, of course.
Chairman.] Perhaps you and the traders will
think it over before to-morrow.
Mr. Clifford.] I can only say that our desire
is at least equal to that of the railway companies
to get through.
Chairman. It is not in our power, but it is in
the power of both sides to shorten matters. We
cannot shorten matters. We are obliged to hear
all you like to put before us.
Mr. Richards.] We are most anxious that the
Committee should be able to roport this Session,
and that the Bill should become law, and the
*x
(81.)
5 S 4 D traders
880
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE
11 June 1891.
traders would have no objection to come on
Monday if you thought it necessary.
Chairman.] The question is for you all to
consider whether it will be necessary, and also
that we may have the amendments to the rates,
because that is a very important thing.
Mr. Waghorn.] Did I hear your Grace say
that you wished to hear the amendments on
rates in 2
Chairman.] Yes, certainly.
Mr. Waghorn.] On what day ?
Chairman.] Not later than Monday.
Mr. Cripps.] That will be, your Grace, on
the London and North Western Bill ; because
we shall separate on the question of rates; we
will have the London and North Western amend-
ments in on Monday. -
Chairman.] Handed in on Monday afternoon.
Mr. Woodfall.] It is certainly news to some of
us on this side that the rates are to be dealt
with separately and not first of all on all the
Bills together.
Chairman.] But they cannot be.
Earl of Belmore.] They are all different.
Mr. Woodfall.] Therefore it is only amend-
ments on the London and North Western Order
that are to be in on Monday.
Chairman.] No ; we want the amendments to
Rates because they apply to nearly all the Bills;
there may be some Bills that they do not apply
to ; but as a rule they apply to the whole or
nearly the whole.
Mr. Woodfall.] We may take it to-night that
it is only the London and North Western amend-
ments that must be in by Monday.
Chairman.] No. You can easily draw up the
amendments to rates; the whole of the amend-
ments. This matter has been before you for
months. -
Mr. PWoodfall.] Oh, yes. I have no doubt we
can, if it is understood that we have to do so.
Mr. Clifford.] As I understand, we are to
lodge the amendments upon rates applicable to
all the companies.
Chairman.] Yes, and to each company.
Ordered, that this Committee be adjourned to To-morrow, Half-past Eleven o'clock.
· · ·--. .--- ' . '·- ·-.*,,
--ı|---s.
C
•
E,
, E.
QC;
<x>
ſaeſ, º
© .
Q ！
SPOT"
and 32,
ſae!
>|
dered, by Th
AND
HN
H
ce 7 s.
()
‘.
And - to be
º Or
ță” （ º，|-
_*=_- →- O· = º$ $ ！ Þ
!\，- - Ē Ē Ē ， ž •a.
„Š'. § § 3 £ º £ ¥ $ , ， ， ， ، ،
S ſ j ſă ſă ſā ģ Ķ .
∞}=4 G ( 3 ） ğ Ģ Ģ Ķ Ķº ， ， ， ， ， ， ， .
QUO : ***º @ § ¶ ¡ ¿|-·， ！
£ ©, .. $）, „ ! .. $ $ $ “... （ § ' '： „ ！ . . . . . . . .
CO . '， ！ º $ | ¡ ¿ $¢ £ € £ © ~ . . . . .
E+--+ |， “ ºp3¡ ¿ $ $ $ 35 ） .cS .
° C) ：--. eº, ， ~ ſ-º !！ !！> • § ©· （ ） （ - ）----
Ç) * C $ $ | 3 5 × 3 ğ （, ， ، ،-
º+-+Š'. , „ ©-} $ț¢ £ © ®, º ·-
q» °. Sºſ) -, º P | -5 * # ： ; B : 3 （ ）, “ . . . . . .
© （ T ） || .© ® 5 Æ c.5 ſ， Caeſ） º - （|-… •
��-| | `- + √2 − 2, o ， ,· · · · · · -
|-+--+ |ſaeſ㧠3ğ º $ ！* ·, ！ ' . .
2 T | Ë áſ į š Ž ž Ź ź · ·
-ce ţſ##§ @ § ğ ， ，-
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ E −
ſă Ë5.§ § ..., ºs ’’’ . . .
o £+
ſae!
či ſ;
Ž
}，
©
£，
J
P.
EYRE
[
-. ， * ---∞ .--. ^-
- - - -<！--* * ·-
º, ， ، ،-rº) |
-|× -- |--- -|-
• •- - *· -|-- ’ ,, ！--
- o- -· -- -
- -- ∞- ·--
|- |-- |-|---· . ^ . . . •|··*:::* '']
· ---- T· ·-* ，~ ~ ~~
- -.* ... * -|--|-· · · · · ·
· · -|-（..· .-· , !-+-
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ---|--· · · · ·- -- -