® 4 p! pi hrn^ifv... I Plli feiili i llil 1 MIpM If Ml i al yMfrIil fejl iJ izMzk Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/report4august18812grea_0 REPORT FROM THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON R A I L W TOGETHER WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE, MINUTE8 OF EYIDENOE, AND APPENDIX. PART 1. Ordered, by U'he House of Commons, to he Printed, /V- 4 August 1881. 374. 3 '?, -3 'L Ordered, —{Tuesday, 15th February 1881] : — That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the charges of Railway Companies, and Canal Companies, and and Canal Companies, for the conveyance of merchandise, minerals, agri and parcels on Railways and Canals, into the Laws and other conditio^xo charges, and into the working of the Railway Commission of 1873 ; and to report as to any amendment of the Laws and practice affecting the said charges and the powers of the said Commission that may be desirable. Ordered, — {Tuesday, 22nd February 1881]: — That it be an Instruction to the Com- mittee, that they do inquire into the passenger fares charged by Railway Companies, and Report thereon. Ordered, — {Thursday, 3rd March 1881]: — That the Committee do consist of Twenty-three Members. Committee nominated of — Ml’. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr, Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr, O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth, Sir Henry Tyler, Sir Edward Watkln. That the Committee have power to send for Persons, Papers, and Records. That Seven be the Quorum. Ordered, — {Monday, lAth March 1881] : — That the Committee do consist of Twenty- seven Members. That Mr. Barnes, Mr. Caine, Sir Baldwyn Leighton, and Mr. Phipps be added to the Committee. Ordered, — {Tuesday, \5th March 1881]: — That the Return of the jMaximum Rates of Charges which the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom are authorised to make for the Conveyance of Passengers, Animals, Goods, &c., on Railways, be referred to the Committee. Ordered , — {Monday, ^th April 1881] : — That the Petitions for repeal of the Railway Passenger Duty from London Branch of the Bookbinders’ and Machine Rulers’ Consoli- dated Union, and Rochdale Equitable Pioneers’ Society, be referred to the Committee. Ordered,— {Wednesday, 21 th April 1881] : — That the Petition from Petworth, for inquiry into fares, rates, and charges, on the London, Brighton, and South Coast Rail- way, be referred to the Committee. PART 1. REPORT - - p- iii PROCEEDINCS OF THE COMIVlITTEE p. v MINUTES OF EVIDENCE P- ^ THE SELECT COMMITTEE appointed to inquire into the Charges of Railway Companies, and Canal Companies, and Railway and Canal Companies, for the Conveyance of Merchandise, Minerals, Agricul- tural Produce, and Parcels on Railways and Canals, into the Laws and other Conditions affecting such Charges, and into the Working of the Railway Commission of 1873 ; and to Report as to any Amendment of the Laws and Practice affecting the said Charges and the Powers of the said Commission that may be desirable; and who were also instructed to inquire into the Passenger Fares charged by Railway Companies, and Report thereon ; Have agreed to the following REPORT : — Your Committee have examined a considerable number of witnesses, and have agreed to report the Minutes of Evidence to the House. They have been unable to prepare a Report thereon in the present Session, for, although they have sat continuously since their appointment, time has failed not only for the due consideration of the whole of the evidence given, but even for the examination of all the witnesses who claimed, with good reason, to he heard. They have also been compelled by the same want of time to post- pone all inquiry into the question of passenger fares which was submitted to them by the order of reference. They consequently recommend that the Committee be re-appointed next Session. There are, however, a few points connected with the matters submitted to them, upon whicli they have felt themselves in a position to arrive at definite conclusions, and they accordingly report them to the House: — It is necessary permanently to maintain som^e special tribunal to which shall be referred questions arising as to the rights and duties of railway companies in their relations to the trade and traffic of the country ; and security should be taken that the procedure of such tribunal shall be simple, cheap, and expeditious. This tribunal should have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the special Acts of the several railway com[)anies, and should be empowered to give redress in any cases of alleged illegal charges. A locus standi before it should be given to Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture, and similar associations of traders or agriculturists. A revised classification of goods and merchandise ought to be adopted by the railway companies, as between themselves and the public, such as, under the name of tlie Clearing House Classification, is already in use as between themselves. This classification ought to be on sale at a small price for any person to buy who wishes to obtain it. a 2 374. In [ iv ] ' In the rate-book in use at each railway station the fixed terminal charge (if any) which the railway company claims a right to demand in respect of each class, as well as any other terminal charges for services rendered, should be distinguished from the mileage or mere conveyance charges. Railway companies should be bound to make no inct ‘ or rates without giving at least one month’s public notice in 4 August 1881. [ V ] PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. Tuesday, lOth Mar^h 1881 . MEMBERS PRESIONT : ]\Ir. Callan. Mr. 'William N. Nicholson. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Ashley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. Pell. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Cross. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Monk. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Craig. Lord Randolph Churchill. Sir Edward 'Watkin. Mr. Samuelson. Motion made, That Mr. Ashley do take the Chair of the Committee— (Mr. Dilhoyn ) : Motion made, That Mr. Samuelson do take the Chair of the Committee— (Mr. Samuel Morley') : Motion made. That Mr. Sclater-Booth do take the Chair of the Committee — (Mr Pell ) : Question pnt (by the Clerk), That Mr. Ashley do take the Chair of the Com- mittee : — The Committee divided: Noes, 9. Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Ayes, 10. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Monk. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Samuelson. Sir Edward W atkin. Mr. Ashley took the Chair accordingly. The Committee deliberated. . Ordered, That there be laid before the Committee an abstract of all memorials, letters, or other communications received by the Board of Trade from 1874 up to the present time relative to the rates and other charges of Railways and Canals, and also of any docum^ents received referring to the continuance and extension of the powers of the Railway Com- missioners — (Mr. Samuelson). [Adjourned till Thursday next, at One o’clock. a 3 374. VI PROCEEDINGS OF THE Thursday, Mth March 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Caine. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Pease. Mr. Callan. Mr. Barnes. Lord Bandolph Churchill. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Pell. Mr. Craig. Sir Baldwin Leigmuu. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Monk. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Hunter was examined. [Adjourned till Tuesday next, at Twelve o’clock. Tuesday, 22nd March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Monk. Mr. Craig. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Caine. Dr. Hunter was further examined. Mr. Copeland Avas examined. Sir Edward Watkin. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Bolton. Mr, Mulholland. Mr. Gregory. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Pease. Mr. Morley Mr. Pell. Mr. Callan. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 24/A March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT ; Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Caine. Mr. Monk. Mr. Craig. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Richai’d Paget. Mr. Hunter was further examined. Mr. Rowlandson and Mr. Johnstone were examined. Sir Edward Watkin. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Gregory. Sir Henry Tyler. Mr, Callan. Mr. Lowther. Sir Baldwyn Leighton, Mr. Pease. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Pell. [Adjourned till Monday next, at One o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, Vll Monday f 29>th March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair, Mr. Monk. Mr. Caine. Mr. Craig. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Pease. Mr. Barclay, Mr. Sclater-Booth. Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr, Richard Paget. Mr, Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Barnes. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Mulholland. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 31 ^^ March 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Craig. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Caine. Mr. W. B. Forwood was examined. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Callan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Mulholland. Mr, Dillwyn. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Lowther. [Adjourned till Monday next, at One o’clock. Monday, Ath April 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Pease. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Samuelson. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Williamson was examined. Motion made, and Question put, “ That the Committee be postponed until after 374, a Mr, Lowther. Mr. Callan. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr, O’Sullivan. Mr, Mulholland. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Caine. the further examination of this Witness by his evidence shall have been printed and 4 circulated PROCEEDINGS OF THE viii circulated to INI embers of the Committee ’’—(Sir Edward Watkin) : — The Committee divided : Ayes, 9. Mr. Pease. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Samuelson. Ml-. Diliwyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Cal Ian. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Mulholland. Noes, 9. Lord Kandolph Churchill. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Monk. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Willian Mr. Barclay. Mr. Gregory. . 'Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes. Mr. JVilliamson further examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 7th April 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Callan. Mr. Bolton. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Diliwyn. Mr. Caine. Mr. Cross. Mr. Monk, Mr. Mulholland. Sir Baldwyn licighton. Mr. Gregory. Mr. O’Sullivan. Sir Heni-y Tyler. Mr. Pell. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Craig. Mr. Lowther. Petitions referred to the Committee [4th April] from the London Branch of the Book- binders and Machine Rulers Consolidated Union, and Rochdale Equitable Pioneers Society, Avere read. Resolved, That the following Railway Companies, viz. : — The Midland Raihvay Company, The London and North Western Raihvay Company, The Great Western Railway Company, The Great Northern Raihvay Company, The North Eastern Raihvay Company, The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, The Lancashire and Yorkshire Raihvay Company, The Caledonian Raihvay Company, The North British Raihvay Company, The Highland Railway Company, Great Southern and Western (of Ireland) Railway Company, AVaterfoi'd and Limerick Raihvay Company, hlidland (of Ireland) Raihvay Company, Irish Great Northern Railway Company, be requested to submit to the Committee the rate-books from such three stations on each company’s system as may be fixed by the Chairman of the Committee, and that such rate-books be examined by the hoard of Trade for the purpose of determining Avhether the Raihvay Companies are charging in excess of their maximum rates, or giving undue preferences. Mr. Harrison Avas examined. [Adjourned till Monday, May 2nd, at One o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. IX Monday/, 2nd May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley In the Chair. Lord Kandolph Churchill. Sir Edward Watkin. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Craig. Mr, Monk. Mr. Callan. Mr. Barclay. A Petition referred to the Committee [27 Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Ml’. Samuelson. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barnes. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Caine. Mr. Pell. April] from Petworth was read. Mr. Muspratt and Mr. Taylor were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, bth May 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT .’ Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Monk. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. B arclay. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Caine. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Craig. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Alderman Bennett, Mr. S. Taylor, Mr. J . Broivne, Mr. C. King, Mr. J. C. Marsh, and Professor TK A. Hunter, w'ere severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, 9th May 1881, MEMBERS present .' Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Monk. Mr. Caine. Mr. B arncs. Mr. Barclay. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Bdlton. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Cross. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Craig. Mr. Phipps. Sir Daniel Goocf). Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Callan. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. T. II, P. Dennis and Mr. A. Hickman were examined. The Committee deliberated. 374. h X PROCEEDINGS OF THE MotioHj and Question put. That the Committee do restrict the scope of its inquiry, in the first instance to railway rates, with the view of reporting thereon this Session ” — (Mr. Barclay ): — The Committee divided: Ayes, 14. Mr. Caine. Mr. Craig. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Samuelson. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. O’Sullivan. Sir Edward Wathin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Mulholland. Noes, 5. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Monk. Mr. Callan. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Gregory. Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 12M May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Bolton. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Sclater-Booth. hir. Barclay. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Caine. Mr. T. Banks and Mr. G. O'Malley [Adj- Mr. Monk. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Gregory. severally examined. irned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, 16^/t May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Sir Daniel Gooch. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Monk. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Lowther. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Caine. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Pell. Mr. Hickman was further examined. Mr. B. Uinyley and Mr. C. F. Clark were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. XI Thursday/, \9th May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley ia tlie Chair, Lord Randolph Churchill. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Monk. Mr. Caine. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson, Mr. Cross. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. Callan. Mr. Pell. Mr. Barclay. Mr. .d. L. Halhburtm, Mr. T. Swan, Mr. T. Saunders, Mr. P. Brown, and Mr. *S. Skinner, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, 2drd May 1881. MEMBERS present : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. (Afterwards) Mr. Lowther in the Chair. Sir Edward Watkin. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Craig. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Callan. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Mulholland. Mr Caine. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Monk. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. Pell. Mr. Barnes. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. W. Middleton and Mr. T. A. Dickson were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Two o’clock. Thursday, 26th May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Monk. Mr. Caine. Mr. Craig. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Callan. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Pell. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. T. A. Dickson, Mr. Greenhill, Mr. M'Cauce, Mr. J. F. Fower, Mr. Sankey, and Mr. H. P. Gilbey, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. b 2 374. PKOCEEPINGS OF THE xii Monday, 30/ A May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Monk. Mr. O’Sullivan. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Cross. Mr. Callan. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Craig. Mr, Phipps. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Sclater Booth. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Righy and Mr. Brittain were examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 2nd June 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Monk. IVlr. Dillwyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. 0‘Sulllvan. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Sir Edward Watkin. Ml’. Callan. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. J, Wigliam, Mr. J. M. Inglis, Mr. T. Pint, Mr. D. R. Roberts, and The Hon. Strutt, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday, 13th June, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, \‘6th June 1881. MEMBERS present : Mr Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barnes, hlr. Samuelson. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr, Dillwyn. Mr. Lowther. Sir Daniel Gooch. hir. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Monk. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. T. Pirn, Mr. W. Shno7is, and Mr. J. S. Jeans, were severally examined. Motion made, and Question, “ That after this present week the Committee wiU meet on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays in each Aveek, till otherwise ordered” — (Mr. i>amv.elsoiC'- : — put, and agreed to. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at TAvelve o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. siii Thursday, \(dh June 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Eandolph Chui'chill. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Monk. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Diihvyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Caine. Mr. Barnes. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Gregoi’y. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. M. W. Peace, Mr. W. Fletcher, Mr. R. Baxter, Mr. J. N. Brown, and Mr. Handel Cosham, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, 20th June 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair: Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Monk. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Lowther. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Caine. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Callan. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Pell. Mr. F. B. Grotian, Mr. IV. A. Alassey, and Mr. Bennett, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock. Wednesday, 22nd June 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Air. Pell. Air. Bolton. Air. Phipps, Air. Lowther. Air. Alonk. Mr. Barclay. Air. Richard Paget, Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Barnes. Sir Edward AVatkin. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Callan. Mr. Gregory. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. E.J Lloyd, Mr. P. Spence, Air. A. W. Sinclair, Mr. T. Bell, and Mr S Duncan, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. b 3 374. XIV PROCEEDINGS OF THE Thursday, 2^rd June 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley In the Chair. Sir Edward Watkin. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Eillwyu. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Air. Cross. Air. Phipps. Air. Alonk. Mr. Caine. Mr. Pease. Air. Barnes. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Gregory. Mr. R. Heathjield and Air. B. Pope were severally examined. The Resolution of June 13th was read; — Alotlon made, and Question put. That the said Resolution be rescinded — (Air. Bolton) : — The Committee divided : Ayes, 5. Mr. Pease. Air. Dillwyn. Air. Lowther. Mr. Bolton. Air. O’Sullivan. Noes, 7. Mr. Caine. Mr. Monk. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Cross. Mr. Samuelson. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. W. Hall was examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, 0,7 th June 1881. members present: Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Sir Daniel Gooch. Air. O’Sullivan. Air. Bolton. Sir Baldwin Leighton. Air. M onk. Air. Caine. Mr. AVilliam N. Nicholson. Mr. Callan. Air. Barclay. Air. Lowther. Mr. Cross. Air. Barnes. Air. Dillwyn. Lord Randolph Churchill. Air. Richard Paget. Mr. Wilson, Air. W. F. Haydon, Air. D. T. Kempson, Air. Jesse Hatches, Mr. David Southall, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. XV Wednesday, 29th June 1881. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Callan. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Gregory. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Caine. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Pease. Mr. Monk. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Barclay. Lord Eandolph Churchill. Mr. Buckingham Pope, Mr. B. Walmsley, Mr. O'Sullivan (a Member of the Com- mittee), and Mr. A. Hewlett, were severally examined. [Adjourned till Friday next, at Twelve o’clock. Jriday, \st July 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Lord Eandolph Churchill. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Callan. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Pvir. Gregory. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Caine. Mr. Pell. Mr. Monk. Mr. J. Grienon was examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. Monday, Ath July 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Dilhvyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Barnes. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Cross. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Caine. Mr. Monk. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Eichard Paget. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Sir Henry Tyler. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Callan. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. J. Grierson was further examined. [Adjourned till Wednesday next, at Twelve o’clock. XVI TKOCEEDINGS OF THE Wednesday, 6th July 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Barclay. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Monk. Mr, Filipps. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Pease. Mr. Cross. Mr. lii chard Paget. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Grej^ory. Mr. Pell. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Edward Watkln. Mr. Caine. Mr. Samuelson. The Resolution of the Committee of 13th June was read : — Motion made, and Question put, That the said Resolution be rescinded” — (Mr. Samuelson) : — The Committee divided : Ayes, 6. Mr. Phipps. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Lowther. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Bolton. Noes, 4. Mr. Monk. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barclay. Mr. J. Grierson was further examined. [Adjourned till To-morroiv, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 7th July 1881. members present : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Craig. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Barclay. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Callan. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Pease. Sir Henry Tyler. Mr. Cross. Mr. Mulholland. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Pell. Sir Edward Watkln. Mr. J. Grierson and Mr. Findlay were severally examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock -SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. XVll Monday, Wth July 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Barclay. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Monk. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. M illiatn N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Caine. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Samuel Morley. The Committee deliberated. Resolved, That the Committee will not sit later than Thursda}', the 4th day of August. Resolved, That all Evidence, except that of the officials of the Board of Trade, be closed on the 28th of July. Resolved, That all Resolutions to be submitted to this Committee be sent in not later than Monday, the 1st of August. Mr. Findlay was further examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, \Ath July 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Sir Daniel Gooch Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Findlay was further examined. On the following Question being asked by Mr. Barclay, “ Assuming that the charge for goods on leading railways in America has been very considerably reduced within the last 10 years, can you offer any explanation why there has been no similar reduction in this country ? ” : — An objection was made to the Question : — The Committee deliberated : — Motion made, and Question put, “That this Question be now put to the Witness”: — (Mr. Barclay) : — The Committee divided : Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Mulholland. Lord Randolj)!! Churchill. Mr. Callan. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Sir Ed wal’d Watkin. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Samuel Morley. Ayes, 3. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barclav. Mr. Findlay further examined. Noes, 8. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Monk. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Sir Baldwyn Leighton, Mr. Callan. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. 0.54. c XV 111 PKOCEEDINGS OF THE Monday, \Sth July 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Alonlc. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Joseph Pease. Sir Daniel Gooch. Lord Bandolph Churchill. Mr. Samuel Morley. Sir Edward Watkin. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Caine. Mr. Phipps. ]Mr. William N. Nicholson. Sir Henry Tyler. Mr. Callau. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Craig. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Tennant was examined. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Tivelve o’clock. 'Jhursday, 2\st July 1881. members present : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Bolton. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Craig. Mr. Caine. Mr. Monk. Mr. Callan. Mr. Richard Paget. Sir Henry Tyler. Mr. Pell. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Scatter was examined. [Adjourned till Monday next, at Twelve o’clock. ]\Ionday, 2htli July 1881. MEMBERS present : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Monk. Mr. Craig. Ml’. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barclay. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Findlay was further examined. Mr. Liyht was examined. ^Ir. Lowther. Sir Edward AVatkin. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Caine. [Adjourned till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. XIX Thursday, 2Sth July 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Monk. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Cross. Mr. Nicholson. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Light and Mr. Scott were examined. [Adjourned till Monday nextj at Twelve o’clock. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Greo'ory, Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Mr. Bolton. Monday, l.?if August 1881. members present : Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Sir Daniel Gooch. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Sir Edward M’ atkin. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Lowther. hir. Dillwyn. Mr. Caine. Mr. Farrar was examined. Mr. Monk. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Barclay. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Callan. Mr. Pell. [Adjornmed till Thursday next, at Twelve o’clock. Thursday, 4th August 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Ashley in the Chair. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Cross. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Craig. Mr. Caine. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Callan. Mr. Pell. Mr. Dillwyn. DRAFT REPORT, proposed by the Chairman, read the first time, as follows: 1. Yocr Committee have examined a considerable number of witnesses, and have agreed to report the Minutes of Evidence to the House. “2. They have been unable to prepare a report thereon in the present Session, for although they have sat continuously since their appointment, time has failed not only for 0.54. d the Mr. Lowther. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkln. Mr. Bolton. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Phipps. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Richard Paget. XX PROCEEDINGS OF THE the due consideration of the whole of the evidence given, but even for the examination of all the witnesses who claimed, with good reason, to be heard. They have also been compelled by the same want of time to postpone all inquiry into the question of passenger fares which was submitted to them by the order of reference. They consequently recommend that the Committee be re-appointed next Session. “ 3. There are, however, a few points connected with the matters submitted to them, upon which they have felt themselves in a position to arrive at definite conclusions, and they accordingly report them to the House : — “(1.) It is necessary permanently to maintain a special tribunal to which shall be referred questions arising as to the rights and duties of railway companies, in their relations to the trade and traffic of the country ; and security should be taken that the procedure of such tribunal shall be simple, cheap, and expe- ditious. “ (2.) This tribunal should have jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the special Acts of the several railway companies, and should be empowered to give redress in any cases of alleged illegal charges. “ (^3.) A locus standi before it should be given to Chambers of Commerce, and similar associations of traders or agriculturists. “(4.1 A uniform classification of goods and merchandise ought to be adopted by the railway comi)anies, as between themselves and the public, such as, under the name of the Clearing House Classification, is already in use as between themselves only. This classification ought to be on sale at a small price for any person to buy who wishes to obtain it. The existing Clearing House Classification requires revision before it coukl serve as a classification satisfactory to traders. “ (5.) Every Hallway Company, whose powers of charging are contained in more than one Act of Parliament, should be bound to submit to Parliament a Bill consoli- dating those .sections which in the various Acts regulate the maximum I’ates which it is entitled to demand ; and no further powers or facilities should be granted by Parliament to any company until it has complied with this precedent condition. Such Bills, on the Board of Trade certifying that they contain a complete and accurate consolidation of the various provisions in question, and that they contain nothing more, should, after they have been read a second time, be passed without amend- ment. “(6.) In the I’ate-book in use at each railway station the fixed terminal charge (if any) wdiich the railway company claims a right to demand, as well as any other terminal charges for services rendered, should be distinguished from the mileage or mere conveyance charges. “ (7.) Railway companies should be bound to make no variation in any rate or rates without giving at least one month’s public notice in the locality. “(8.) An equal mileage rate (that is to say, a rate varying in direct proportion with the number of miles run) would greatly injure the trade and traffic of the country, which have grown up under a different system ; and your Committee can only repeat the same condemnation of such a restriction as was pronounced both by the Royal Commission of 1867, and by the Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament Avhich sat in 1872.” DRAFT REPORT, proposed by Mr. Monk, read the first time, as follows: “ 1. Your Committee has taken evidence with regard to one branch of the subject matter referred to it, namely, as to the charges of railway companies and canal companies, for the conveyance of merchandise, minerals, agricultural produce, and parcels on railways and canals, and into the laws and conditions affecting such charges. • “ 2. To some extent also your Committee has Inquired into the working of the Railway Commission of 1873, but fi’om want of time it has been unable to conclude that portion of this inquiry. “ 3. Your Committee at an early period of the proceedings resolved to postpone the inquiry into the passenger fares charged by railway companies, until it had completed the inquiry into the charges on merchandise and goods. “ 4. Under these circumstances your Committee is of opinion that it would not be justified in making a preliminary report during this Session, which must necessarily be of a partial character. Your Committee therefore rejiorts the evidence wdiich it has taken, and recommends that the Committee be re-appointed next Session.’ SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. XXI DRAFT REPORT, proposed by Mr. Barclay, read the first time, as follows: “ Your Committee, while not yet prepared to report on the whole subject remitted to them, have resolved, in view of the expiry of the Railway Commission in 1882, to submit to the House their conclusions on two important points : “ 1st. That it is expedient to give the Railway Commission power to deal fully Avith illegal charges by railway companies, and to grant an appeal from its decisions to the House of Lords only. “ 2nd. That, in the public Interest, it ought to be made the duty of a Department of the Government to j^rotect the public from undue preferences and illegal charges by raihvay companies. 3rd. Your Committee further agreed to report the Evidence taken, and to recommend the re-appointment of the Committee next Session.” Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Draft Report proposed by the Chair- man be now read a second time, paragraph by paragraph : — (The Chairman). — Amend- ment pro 2 )Osed to leave out the Avords “ The Chairman,” in order to insert the words “ Mr. Monk,” instead thereof: — (Mr. Callan ): — Question proposed. That the words “ The Chairman” stand part of the Question. — Amendment, by leave, withdravm : — Main Question put, and agreed to : — Draft Report proposed by the Chairman, read a second time, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs 1 and 2, agreed to. Paragraphs. — Amendment proposed, in line l,to leave out the words “afcAv,” in order to insert the Avord “ some ” (Mr. /Su»jMe/5o«),“instead thereof: — Question proposed. That the Avords “ a few,” stand part of the paragraph : — Amendment, by leave, witltdrawn. Sub-section 1. — An Amendment made. — Another Amendment proposed, in line 1, after the Avord “ tribunal,” to insert the Avords, “ other than the Railway Commission ” — (Mr. jDillwyn): — Question put, That those Avords be there inserted. — The Committee divided : Ayes, 7. Noes, 14. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowther. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward W atkin. Mr, Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Caine. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross, Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Samuelson. Another Amendment proposed, after Sub-section 2, to. add the words, “ It should have power to prevent an undue preference being given, not merely as between individual traders, but also as between different localities” — (Mr. Sarnnelson ) : — Question proposed. That those words be there added. — Amendment, by leave, ivithdrawn. Sub-section 3. — Amendment proposed to leave out the Sub-Section — (Sir H. Tyler) : — Question put. That the words “ A locus standi before it” stand part ot the Sub-section. — d 2 374. The XXll PROCEEDINGS OF THE The Committee divided : Ayes, 15. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Baines. Mr. Caine. Mr. Cal Ian. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Samuelson. Another Amendment proposed in Sub-section 3, after the word “ Commerce,” to insert the words “ and Agriculture (Mr. PM ) Question put. That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, to leave out the words “ and similar associations of traders or agriculturists’ —(Mr. P eJl) : — Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Sub section, — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, after Sub-section 3, to insert the following Sub-section: “ The tribunal should include some deputed officer like the chief clerks of the judges of the High Court, who should have the power to grant temporary relief under rules to be determined by the tribunal” — (Mr. Samuelsoji) •. — Question proposed. That this sub-section be there inserted. — Amendment, by leave, joithdraicn. Noes. 6. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir. Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowthei’. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward W atkin. Another Amendment proposed at the end of sub-section 3, to add the words “but such locus standi should only be given in respect of the local questions especially affecting the interest of such Chambers of Commerce and Agriculture” — (Mr. Dillwgn) : — Question proposed, “ That those words be there added. — Amendment, by leave, toithdrawn. Another Amendment proposed, after sub-section 3, to insert the words : “ That, in the public interest, it ought to be made the duty of a De])artment of the Government to protect the public from undue preferences and illegal charges by railway com- panies” — {Mv. Biijclag) : — Question proposed. That those tvords be there inserted. — Amendment, by leave, toithdrawn. Another Amendment proposed, to Insert the following sub-section : “ An efficient power of appeal should be provided in the event of the constitution of any such tribunal ” — (Sir Ediourd Watkin) : — Question proposed. That those words be there inserted. — Amend- ment, by leave, withdrawn. Sub-section 4. — Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word “ A ” — (Mr Barclay). — Question, That the word “A” stand part of the sub-section — put, and agreed to. Another Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word “uniform” — (Mr. Nicholson): — Question put. That the word “uniform” stand part of the sub-section. — The Committee divided : Ayes, 10. hlr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Mr. Craig. Air. O’Sullivan. Air. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Air. Phipps. Noes, 1 1. Air. Cross. Air. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Air. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Air. Samuel Alorley. Air. AVilliam N. Nicholson. Air. Samuelson. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. Air. O’Sullivan. Another Amendment proposed, after the first word “ A,” to insert the word “revised ” —(Sir B al dung n Leighton): — Question, That the word “revised,” be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Another SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, xxiii Another Amendment proposed in line 2, to leave out from the word “ public,” to the end of the sub-section — (Mr. Morley ) : — Question proposed. That the words “ such as ” stand part of the sub-section. — Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Another Amendment proposed in line 2, after the word “ public,” to insert the woi’ds “ It is to be understood that no such classification will be permanent, but that it will require to be revised from time to time ” — (Mr. Puget) ; — Question proposed. That those words be there inserted, — Amendment, by leave, wilhrdrawn. Another Amendment proposed in line 3, after the word “ themselves,” to insert the words “ But the Committee have not yet taken sufficient evidence on this point — (Sir Henry Tyler ) ; — Question put. That those words be there inserted: — The Committee divided: Ayes, 6. Mr. Callan. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowther. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir EdwardWatkin. Noes, 15. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr, Craig, Air. Cross. Air. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Air. Samuel Alorley. Mr. AVilliam N. Nicholson. Air. SO’ullivan. Air. Bichard Baget, Air. Pell. Air. Phipps. Air. Sam nelson. An Amendment made. Another Amendment proposed in line 4, after the word “ sale,” to leave out the words “ at a small price ” — (Air. Lowther ) : — Question put, That the words “ at a small price ” stand part of the sub-section : — The Committee divided : Ayes, 15. Air. Bai’clay. Air. Barnes. Air. Caine. Air. Callan. Air. Craig. Air. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Air. Samuel Morley. Air. William N. Nicholson. Air. O’Sullivan. Air. Richard Paget. Air. Pell. Air. Phipps. Sir Edward Watkin. Air. Samuelson, Further Amendments made. Sub-section 5, disagreed to. Sub-section 6, — Amendment proposed in line 2, after the word “ demand,” to insert the words “ for more stational accommodation” — (Mr. Paget) : — Question proposed, That those words be there inserted. — Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Another Amendment, after the word “ demand ” to Insert the words “ in respect of each class ” — ( Mr. ; — Question, That those words be there inserted, — put, and agreed to. Sub-section 7. — Amendment proposed in line 1, to leave out the word “ variation,” in order to insert the word “increase” — (Mr. Samuelson^: — instead thereof: — Question, That the word “variation” stand part of the Sub-section, — put, and negatived. 0.54. d 3 Air. Bolton. Air. Cross. Air, Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Air. Lowther. Sir Henry Tyler. Question XXIV PROCEEDIMGS OF THE Question put, That the word increase ” be there inserted : — The Committee divided Ayes, 1.5. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Caine. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. liichard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Saniuelson. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. Noes, 5. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Hillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowther. Sub-section 8. — Amendment proposed, son ) : — Question put. That the word “ An ” st divided : Ayes, 9. Mr. Bolton. Mr Caine. Mr- Callan. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowther. Mr. O’Sullivan. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. Remaining words of the Sub-section disagr leave out the Sub-section— (Mr. Samuel- part of the Sub-section : — The Committee Noes, 11. Ml’. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Saniuelson. Question, That paragraph 3, as amended, stand part of the Report : — The Com- mittee divided : Ayes, 10. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes, Mr, Cross. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan, Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Saniuelson. Noes, 10. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Phijips. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Ayes. Question, That this Report, as amended, — The Committee divided : Ayes, 11. ]\Ir. Barclay. ^Ir. Barnes. Mr. Caine. Mr. Cross. ]\lr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. IMr. William N. Nicholson. IMr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget, Mr. Pell. ]M r. Saniuelson. Ordered, To Report, together with the Mi the Report of the Committee to the House : Noes, 9. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Cullen. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Lovither. Mr. Phipps. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. of Evidence and an Appendix. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. XXV EXPENSES OF WITNESSES. NAME OF WITNESS. PROFESSION OR CONDITION. From whence Summoned. Number of Days Absent from Home, under Orders of Committee. Allowance during Absence from Home. Expenses of Journey to London and Back. TOTAL Expenses allowed to Witness. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. Copeland, J. Merchant Aberdeen - 4 4 4 - 6 18 6 11 2 6 Rowlandson, S. Agriculturist Darlington 3 3 3 - 3 14 - 6 17 - Johnson, W. Douglas Fish Salesman Montrose - 4 3 - - 5 5 - 8 5 - Forwood, W. B. Merchant Liverpool - 3 3 3 - 3 3 - 6 6 - Taylor, J. - Tradesman - Swansea - 7 3 10 - 2 14 - 6 4 - Banks, Isaac Railway Manager Cork - 4 4 4 - 6 2 - 10 6 - O’Malley, George Barrister Dublin 3 9 9 - 5 9 - 14 18 - Swan, Thomas - Cattle Salesman - Edinburgh 3 3 3 - 5 15 - 8 18 - Middleton, William - Merchant Sligo 4 4 4 - 7 10 - 11 14 - Dickson, P. A. - Merchant - Belfast 4 4 4 - 7 - - 11 4 - Sankey, R. T. - -Farmer Margate - 2 1 10 - 1 - - 2 10 - Pirn, Thomas - Merchant - Dublin 3 3 3 - 5 9 - • 8 12 - Roberts, David - Navigation Agent Dublin 3 3 3 - 5 9 - 8 12 - Bell, Thomas - Agriculturist Newcastle- on-Tyne. 5 3 15 - (twice) 6 18 - 10 13 - Sinclair, A. H. - Merchant - Newry 4 4 4 - 6 14 - 9 18 - Brown, James - Merchant Newport - 6 6 6 - 2 13 6 8 19 6 HaU, William - No profession Lancing - 2 2 2 - 1 1 - 3 3 - Walmsley, Benjamin Cotton Spinner Preston 3 3 3 - 3 2 6 6 5 6 Colhoun, R. G. - Railway Manager Dublin 4 4 4 - - - 4 4 - M'Cance, F. - - Chairman Cotton Company. Belfast 7 7 7 - 5 10 - 12 17 - GreenhUl, J. Merchant - Belfast 7 7 7 - 5 10 - 12 17 - Power, J. F. - Merchant Limerick - 7 7 7 - 6 - - 13 7 - Rigby, T. - Secretary, Chamber of Agriculture. Dublin 4 4 4 - 4 - - 8 4 - Total - - £. 205 16 6 374. d 4 [ xxvi ] • LIST OF WITNESSES. Thursday, \ltli March 1881. PAGE Professor M'illiam Alexander Hunter ----- 1 Tuesday, 22nd March 1881. Professor William Alexander Hunter- - - - - IG Mr. Alexander Copland - - 8S Thursday, 2\th March 1881. Professor William Alexander Hunter 42 Mr. Alexander Copland - - 57 Mr. Samuel Rowlandson - - 58 Mr. William Douglas Johnston - 02 Monday, 28 th 3Iarch 1881. Mr. Thomas Garnet - - - G8 Thursday, 316^ 3Iarch 1881. Mr. William B. Forwood - - 81 31onday, 4^/i April 1881. Mr. John Williamson - - 107 Thursday, 1th April 1881. Mr. Henry Harrison - - - 121 Air. Joshua Rawlinson - - 138 Mr. Edmund Knowles Muspratt 133 Alonday, 2nd 3Iay 1881. Mr. G. H Simmonds - - - 144 Mr. Edmund K. Muspratt - - 144 Mr. John Taylor . . - 157 Thursday, 5th 3Iay 1881. Mr. Alderman Bennett - - 1G2 Air. John Taylor - - - 162 Air. James Brown - - ■ 170 Air. Charles King - - - 175 Mr. J. C. Alarsh - - - - 179 Professor William Alexander Hunter - - - - - 182 Alonday, 8ih 3Iay 1881. Mr. T. 11. P. Dennis - - - 185 Mr. Alfred Hickman - - - 193 Thursday , \2th May 1881. Air. Alexander Copland - - 207 Air. Isaac Banks - - - 208 Air. George O’AIalley, q.c. - - 229 Alonday, \8th Alay 1881. Air. Alfred Hickman - - - 23.3 Air. Benjamin Hingley’^ - - 243 Mr. C. F. Clark - - - - 254 Thursday , I2t.h Alay 1881. PAGE Mr. Arthur Haliburton - - 260 Air. 'I’homas Swan - - - 263 Air. John Saunders - - - 273 Air. Thomas Brown - - - 275 Air. Samuel Skinner - - - 277 Alonday, 28rd Alay 1881. Air. William Aliddleton - - 282 Air. Thomas Alexander Dickson - 294 Thursday, 2Qth Alay 1881. Air. Thomas Alexander Dickson- 306 Mr. John Greenhill - - - 306 Air. Finley McCance - - - 816 Air. Jolur F. Power - - - 318 Air. San key - - - - 321 Air. Henry Parry Gilbey - - 827 Alonday, 80th Alay 1881. Air. Frederick Brittain - - 832 Air. Thomas Rigby - - - 341 Thursday, 2nd June 1881. Air. John R. AFigham and Mr. John AI. Iintlis - - - 354 Air. Thomas Pirn, jun. - 355 Air. David R. Roberts - - 868 Hon. Frederick Strutt - - 371 Alonday, \8th June 1881. Mr. Thomas Pirn, jun. - - 378 Air. William Simons - - . 378 Air. J. S. Jeans . - - - 389 Thursday, \0th June 1881. Air. Alaskell William Peace 402, 428 Air. William Fletcher - - 403 Air. Robert Baxter - - . 408 Air. John Nurthall Brown - - 422 Air. Handel Cossliam - - - 425 Alonday, 20th June 1881. Air. Frederick Brent Grotrian - 429 Mr. Watson Arton Alassey - - 444 Air. Henry Bennett - - - 453 Wednesday, 22nd June 1881. Mr. Kdward John Lloyd - - 455 Air. Peter Spence - - - 471 Air. Abraham Walker Sinclair - 478 Air. Thomas Bell - - - 481 Air. James Duncan - - - 484 Thursday, 28rd ./w?tel881. Air. Richard Heathfield - - 491 Air. William Hall - . - 501 Alonday, 21th June 1881. PAGE Air. WJlliam Edward Willson - 508 Air. William Frederic Haynlon - 522 Air. Donald Josiah Kempson - 527 Mr. Jesse Hawkes - - - 528 Air. David Southall - . - 531 Wednesday, 20th June 1881. Mr. Buckingham Pope - - 535 Air. W'. H. O’Sullivan, m.p. - 551 Air. Benjamin Walmsley - - 555 Air. Alfred Hewlett - - - 558 Friday, l5^ July 1881. Air. James Grierson - - - 565 Alonday, ^th July 1881. Mr. James Grierson - - - 595 Air. W'illiam Alenelaus - - 622 Wednesday , 0th July 1881. Air. Joseph Archer Crowe - - 628 Air. James Grierson - - - 629 Thursday, 1th July 1881. Mr. James Grierson - - - 658 Air. George Findlay - - - G80 Alonday, llt/t July 1881. Mr. George Findlay - - - 686 Thursday, \Ath July 1881. Mr. George Findlay - - - 707 Alonday, 18th July 1881. Mr. Henry Tennant - - - 729 Thursday, 2\st July 1881. Air. Charles Scot ter - - - 752 Alonday, 25th July 1881. Mr. George Findlay - - - 778 Mr. Jabez Light - . - 793 Thursday, 28tli July 1881. Air. Jabez Light - - - 805 Air. Archibald Scott - - - 818 Alonday, Is? August 1881. Air. Thomas Henry Fairer - - 833 [ 1 ] MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Thursday, \7th March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton, Mr. Lovvther. Mr. Monk. IVIr. Mulholland, Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Professor William Alexander Hunter, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Barclay, 1. You are a Barrister-at-Law, Professor of Jurisprudence at University College, and one of the Examiners at the London University, and to the Inns of Court? — I am. 2. You have recently contributed a series of articles upon the law relating to Railway Rates to the “ Mark Lane Express,” have you not ? — Yes, I have. 3. You have also been retained by the Farmers’ Alliance to prepare and state a case to the Committee on their behalf? — I have. 4. You have, in the course of preparing those papers, and getting up the case on behalf of the Farmers’ Alliance, had occasion to Inquire into the state of the law relating to railway charges, and the system of legislation by private Acts affecting railway companies? — I have. 5. Will you state briefly the origin of Railway Private Act legislation, with the view of ex- plaining the system of charging by tolls and by maximum rates ? — The earliest Acts, beginning from 1801 onwards, were what were called Rail- way or Tramroad Acts, and the intention was that horses or men should be employed to haul carriages or waggons upon those lines. In 1823, the Stockton and Darlington Tramroad, which had been authorised two years previously, ob- tained power to make and erect such and so many locomotives or moveable engines as they thought fit. The Act of 1823 Avas the first authority that was given to use locomotives upon the Stockton and Darlington Railway. 1 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. 6. Does the authority of every railway com- pany to make charges depend upon its private Acts ? — Yes ; it depends upon their special Acts. 7. When Is the first mention made in any private Act of maximum rates ? — The first that I have seen is the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Act of 1876 ; it contained a clause im- posing maximum rates for conveyance, Avhich was a good many years in advance of railway legislation upon the subject. 8. Will you explain to the Committee the tAvo systems of charging embodied in almost every private Railway Act, the one by a system of tolls, and tlie other by maximum rates ? — The special Acts contain, first of all, toll clauses, when the company are not carriers; and secondly, maximum rate clauses, when the company are carriers. The first mention of maximum rates is in the Liverpool and Manchester Act of 1826. 9. There is another somewhat exceptional case of the TaAV Valley Railway ; there is a maximum rate introduced into the Bill of the Taw Valley Raihvay in 1838, is there not? — Yes, there was a maximum there of 3^ d. per mile when the company carried passengers, but there was no limit for goods. 10. The system of charging by tolls was, I believe, first introduced by the tramroads, and imported into the Railway Acts after locomotives began to be used ? — Yes, 11. Did it seem to be contemplated at first A ■*— that 2 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 17 ilfarc/i 1881.] Professor Hunter. {^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. that the proprietors of the tramroads should simply own the lines and let them out to private individuals to be used in very much the same way as turnpike roads ? — Yes, exactly ; the understandino; was that the wag-o-ons and haulag-e should be found by the parties who wished to carry the traffic, and that the makers or pro- prietors of the line should merely allow the use of the line upon certain maximum tolls. 12. Have you any clause exemplifying that in detail ? — Yes, in this Stockton and Darlington Act there is a curious clause which cxjilains the transition from the old system to the railways ; the Stockton and Darlington Act of 1823, by Section 22, provides that the proprietors might demand tolls not exceeding 6 d. per mile ; these are the words of the clause : “ For every coach, chariot, chaise, car, gig, landau, waggon, cart, or other carriage which shall be drawn or used on the said railways or tramroads for the convey- ance of passengers, or small packages and parcels.” That Act appears to have been framed in the expectation that people would use ordi- nary carriages upon the railway by adapting their wheels, and that the proprietors of the line should not be carriers, but merely take tolls from the persons using the line as carriers. 13. After the railway and tramroad companies became carriers, there were maximum rates and limited tolls framed for the haulage and use of waggons? — Yes, when railway companies became carriers it became obvious that some change was necessary ; the old tramroad Acts proceed upon this principle, that persons obtaining public authority to make tramroads should not be allowed to charge what they pleased; when the proprietors of the railways or tramroads did nothing except make the lines, and offer the use of the lines to the public, it was enough to im- pose a maximum rate in respect of that service ; but when they also became carriers, and sole car- riers, upon their line, it w^as necessary to impose a maximum for the conveyance of goods and pas- sengers. 14. When was the system of maximum rates completely introduced into all the Acts of Par- liament? — Not, I think, until 1845. 15. Are there any private Acts of any railway companies which still authorise tolls, and not maximum rates? — Yes, there are two large rail- way companies, the Midland and the South Eastern Companies, to which that would apply. 16. The Midland has no maximum rate, but it has maximum tolls ? — Maximum tolls, with a reasonable sum in addition for the use of loco- motives or waggons. 17. What is the other case ? — The South Eastern. 18. Wliat is the date of its Act ? — The earliest Act is 1827. 19. Although the maximum rates have been Introduced into all Acts since 1845, the toll clauses have also been retained? — Yes. ^Ir. Gregory. 20. Are you sure that the date was 1827 ? — That was the beginning of the system ; the Act under which the tolls are fixed is the 6 Will. 4, c. 75 ; that is later, but there was this Act in 1827 : it is the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 1 1 ; perhaps Mr. Gregory — continued. I ought to explain that before the maximum rates were introduced there was an intermediate stage in which the Acts provided a maximum for the use of the line, a maximum for the use of loco- motive power, and a maximum for the use of the waggons, each maximum separately; for example, there is one Act in 1841, the Coltness Railway Act, which proceeds in that way, and there are other examples. Ml’. Barnes. 21. Are there any terminal charges mentioned in that Act?— No, that does not arise. jMr. Barclay, 22. Do you consider that the system of con- tinuing the toll clauses in private Acts is objec- tionable? — It is objectionable in this sense, that it produces perplexity and confusion in the minds of those who consult the A.cts, and who do not, perhaps, understand the history of the toll clauses. 23. With the exception of the INIidland and the South Eastern Companies, do all railway companies charge upon their maximum and not upon their toll clauses ? — Yes. 24. Have you any examples of railway com- panies which charge under their maximum rates although the waggons are supplied by traders? — Yes, that is a common thing, and the question of law was raised before the Railway Commissioners in one instance. 25. Is it the case that in one of the Acts of the London and North Western Company, a re- bate on the maximum rate is specified in respect to traders providing their owm wmggons ? — Yes, in some Acts there is a special sum named to be given back to traders in the event of their pro- viding their own waggons ; for example, the London and North Western Company provides that the company shall not be obliged to provide waggons for the coal traffic, and that a deduction of one-eighth of a penny per ton per mile is to be made when a trader supplies his own waggons. There is also a similar provision in the North Eastern Railway Act. 26. Is it usually the case that the tolls added together for the three services come to an amount which is greater than the maximum rate ? — Yes, I think almost in every case the toll for the use of the line added to the toll for the use of the locomotive, and the toll for the use of waggons, together come to more than the maxi- mum rate. 27. Are you aware of any railway company endeavouring to increase its chai’ges beyond the maximum rate by evading the maximum rate clauses and falling back upon its toll clauses? — Yes, that was attempted by the Gi’cat North of Scotland Railway Company. 28. Will you explain to the Committee the circumstances of that case? — The Great North ol Scotland Railway Company were overcharging to a very considerable extent upon certain classes of goods, and they were threatened with an action. On being threatened with that action they issued this notice : “ Notice is hereby given that the Great North of Scotland Company do not profess to act, and do not act, as carriers of SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, the undermentioned articles, namely, dung, com- post, manure, hones (manufactured or unmanu- factured), guanos, phosphates, sulphates, nitrates, muriates, kainit, coproiites (in any state), potash, salts, and all articles of a like nature. The Company, however, at the request of parties and upon certain conditions, and at agreed rates (but not otherwise), will provide waggons or loco- motive power, or both, to persons desiring the use of the railways owned, w’orked, or used by the Company for the purpose of allowing them to forward any of the above-named articles from or to any of the stations and on the harbour rails at Aberdeen.” 29. Did the Courts recognise that notice? — It was held by the Railway Commissioners, and, upon appeal, by the unanimous judgment of the Court of Session in Scotland, that this device to evade their maximum rates could not be sup- ported ; that no protestation, however formal, that they were not carriers, could avail them, when, in point of fact, they were carriers. 30. ’ Do you know whether any English railway company has attempted anything similar ? — A similar attempt was made in the case of the North Statfordshlre Railway Company ,but I am not pi’epared to speak to the facts. 31. In speaking of this attempt by the Great North of Scotland Company, you speak of some- thing within your own knowledge ; that is to say, you were one of the counsel in the case, I believe ? — I was. 32. Will you now explain the. system of charging by maximum rates ? — The maximum rate clauses classify goods, and specify the maxi- mum sum per ton per mile for each class of goods. They apply, generally speaking, to all goods weighing more than 500 lbs., but in some cases the limit is lower, 100 lbs. 33. Does the maximum rate mean that that rate is the highest, which the railway company is entitled to charge for the carriage of goods ? — The maximum rate is the utmost that any railway company can demand for conveyance, and every charge incidental to conveyance, except those services that are enumerated in their Acts. 34. Except certain services that are incidental to the conveyance which they are specially autho- rised to charge for under their private Acts ? — Yes. 35. Does the maximum rate include Insurance of goods ? — It does except in regard to the small class of valuable goods, which are dealt with under the Carriers Act. 36. Can you refer to any authorities for saying so? — I think that is practically settled by the case of Peek against the North Staffordshire Railway Company. 37. Are there not some Acts without any ex- ceptions, that is to say, without any additional power to the railway company to charge for any service incidental to the conveyance of their goods beyond simply the maximum rates? — Yes, there are some Acts in which the maximum rate covers every charge which the railway company can make. There is the Aberdeen Railway .Act of 1845, and the Dundee to Perth Act, 1845. I have noticed many others, which I need not mention. 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. 38. Are the exceptions the same in all Acts where there are exceptions? — No ; in the older Acts the only services that are mentioned were loading and unloading, when done by the com- pany. 39. What is the common form of the clause introduced now into Railway Acts, giving the companies power to make charges for services Incidental to the conveyance ? — The usual clause in the Railway Acts authorised last year is in this form, that in addition to the charges for the use of the line and for locomotives and waggons, then follow the words, “ For every other expense incidental to the conveyance, except a reasonable charge for loading and unloading goods at any terminal station in respect of such goods and for delivery and collection, and any other service incidental to the business or duty of a carrier where any such service is performed by the com- pany.” 40. Can you give any example of railway companies having introduced in subsidiary Acts power to charge for those services incidental to the conveyance, which they had not the power to charge under their original Acts? — Yes; the London and South Western Company affords an example. In 1869 the 32 & 33 Viet. c. 86, s. 10, provided as follows: “From and after the passing of this Act the section No. 13 of the Act of 1846” (that was their principal Act) “shall be read and have effect as if in lieu of the words except loading and unloading where such service is performed by the company ” (these were the words of the original Act), “ there were inserted ‘ except a reasonable sum for loading and un- loading goods at any terminal station in respect of such goods, and for delivery and collection and other service incidental to the business or duty of a carrier where any such service is 2 ier- formed by the company.’ ” 41. Did the North Staffordshire Comjiany get an extraordinary clause of that character intro- duced into a Bill last year? — Yes. 42. Will you state what that clause was ? — The North Staffordshire Railwav Act of 1880, section 13, enables the Company to charge in addition to the other services Incidental to the conveyance (the following are the words), “ A reasonable charge for the use of sleeping car- riages, saloon carriages, refreshment carriages, or receiving offices for parcels or goods, or for collecting, loading, unloading, and delivering traffic, or for the use of covers and tarpaulins, storehouses, or sheds, or for the use of stations or sidings for loading and unloading, or for any other accommodation or service not incidental to the aforesaid conveyance, where such accommo- dation or service shall have been provided by the company, but nothing herein contained shall affect the provision as to coal, cannel, slack, coke, or cinder traffic in Section 26 of the Act of 1879.” 43. Though those articles named were ex- cepted, that clause apjilies to all agricultural produce and to manures ? — Yes. 44. That Act was passed during the last Session of Parliament? — Yes, it was unop- posed. 45. Is there any example of Private Bills before Parliament this Session where a similar A 2 clause 4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, clause is attempted to be introduced ? — P es, there is one ; namely, a Bill introduced by the Great North of Scotland Railway. 46. And what new clause with regard to the services do they propose to introduce ? — The words are as follows “ The maximum charges to be made by the company for the conveyance of animals and goods upon their several railways and undertakings, as limited by any Acts in force at the passing of this Act, shall be the maximum charges which they may make for such convey- ance from the station, siding, or^ junction at which any animal or article is l eceived, booked, or consigned to the station, siding, or junction to which such animal or article is delivered, booked, or consigned, including the tolls for the use ot the railway, and the locomotive power, and the carriages, waggons, or trucks, and all expenses incidental to such conveyance: Provided always, that the company may, in addition to such maxi- mum charges make reasonable charges for the use of sleeping carriages, saloon carriages, re- freshment carriages, or receiving offices tor par- cels or goods, and for collecting, loading, unload- ing, or delivering traffic, and for the use of covers or tarpaulins, warehouses, storehouses, or sheds, and for the use of stations or sidings, for loading or unloading, and for the warehousing and wharf- age of goods, and for any other accommodation or service not incidental to the aforesaid convey- ance when such accommodation or service shall have been provided by the company.” jNIr. Gregory. 47 . Is that identical with the previous clause that you I’ead ? — Almost entirely. Mr. Craig. 48. There is nothing said there about excluding coal or coke, as there Avas in the North htaffcrd- shire clause, so that that would apply to all ? — It would apply to all. Mr. Barclay. 49. The Great North of Scotland cannot be called a mineral line ? — No ; I should say it can- not be. 50. There are no coal mines in Aberdeenshire ? — No. 5 1 . Are there some other private Bills before Parliament now which propose to enlarge the power of the companies with regard to incidental charges for those services, as in one of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company’s Bills, for example ? — That is so. 52. What does the company propose to charge additionally ? — For loading, unloading, Avare- housing, or covering ot goods at any terminal station, and for delivery and collection. 53. The company do not appear to have that poAver in their original Act? — This applies to a small line, I think, not to the Avhole of the rail- way. 54. But as regards that small line the company want additional power beyond their maximum to what they have in their original Act? — Yes; that is the railway to Faversham Creek, an ex- isting railway. 55. Do those powers to charge for services in- cidental to the conveyance mean the same as an Mr. Barclay — continued. increase of the maximum rate ? — Yes, pre- cisely. 56. What control is there over a railway com- pany charging only a reasonable sum for those charges incidental to the conveyance which they ai’e authorised to charge for? — The question can never be determined Avithout litigation. 57. And Avhat form would the litigation take ? ■ — It is provided by the Raihvay and Canal Traffic Act of 1873, that the “Raihvay Commissioners shall have power to hear and determine any ques- tion or dispute which ma}'^ arise Avith respect to the terminal charges of any railway company Avhere such charges have not been fixed by any Act of Parliament, and to decide Avhat is a reasonable sum to be paid to any company for loading and unloading, covering, collection, de- livery, and other services of a like nature ; ” and then these important Avords follow: “Any de- cision of the Commissioners under this section shall be binding on all Courts and in all legal jiroceedings Avhatsoever.” 58. Then the Railway Commissioners are the final authority in regard to Avhat is a reasonable charge for those services incidental to convey- ance ? — That is so. 59. Do you consider this method of increasing the maximum a satisfactory one, altogether apart from the question of the increase? — It is objec- tionable, because it renders that indefinite which previously Avas definite. 60. It is impossible to determine exactly AA'hether the railway companies are Avithin their maximum rates or not, when they have power to add to the maximum rate a charge Avhich is in its nature vague ? — It increases the difficulty A'ery much. 61. Is the use of stations and sidings included ^ o in these maximum rates? — Yes. 62. Will you state the grounds for saying so ? — First, I think the use of sidings or stations is a service incidental to conveyance ; a carrier could not make a separate charge for admission to his yard in addition to the sum he charged for the carriage ; every service incidental to the conveyance is included in the maximum rates un- less It is sjAeclally exempted; in some cases the Acts do authorise a charge for the use of stations. 6.3. Then the inference is that the comjianies are not authorised to charge for such services un- less they are specially authorised to do so ? — Yes. Again the terminal services are usually included in the short distance clause ; a railway company can charge for one mile as for six, as a rule. 64. Has the question been decided by the Railway Commissioners? — The question has been before the Raihvay Commissioners, and they used these Avords : “ Station services to traffic con- veyed, or about to be conveyed, upon a raihvay seem to us so essential a part of a contract to carry, that a transport rate, Avhich does not dis- criminate betAveen conveyance including and conveyance not including the use of station, is not, in our opinion, unreasonable or unequal.” That Avas an application to compel the comjiany to distinguish between the terminal and mileage rate. 65. What case Avas that ? — The case of Howard and Company against the Midland Company two or three years ago. 66. Those SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 5 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 66. Those words that you quote occur in the judgment of the Railway Commissioners in the case of Howard v. The Midland Railway Com- pany ? — They do. 67. That decision of the Commissioners ai’ose not directly upon a question of whether the companies were entitled to charge for station accommodation, but rather incidental to a claim made by Messrs. Howard and Comjiany ? — I had perhaps better explain the way in which the case arose. The Railway Commissioners are required by Act of Parliament upon the application of a trader to compel a railway company to distin- guish in the rate book how much is for mileage and how much is for terminal services, and the object of that is that where these terminal services are not rendered by the company they should not be able to charge tlie person who makes the appli- cation. Now Messrs. Howard do not use the station at Bedford ; they have a private siding, and they applied to the Railway Commissioners to cause the Midland Railway Com])any to distinguish between the mileage rate for con- veyance and the sum for the use of the station which they did not use. The Railway Commis- sioners refused the application, upon the ground that they could not distinguish use of the station from the service of conveyance ; that it Avas an essential part of the service of conA^eyance. 68. Will you give some examples of Avhat services any raihvay company are entitled to charge for, and Avhat they are not entitled to charge for, under their maximum rates ? — The question of terminals Avas considered in a very important case in the House of Loi'ds, called GidloAV against the Lancashii'e and Yorksliire Raihvay Company, Avliich is reported in the 7th House of Lords Reports In 1874. In that case it Avas held that the company could not under the usual clause chai’ge an extra sum for taking the Avaggons of a colliery OAvner from his OAvn sidings and attaching them to the trains of the company, nor for returning them from the line of the company to the sidings ; and also that the customer charged for services men- tioned in the exception cught to have a dis- tinct option given him by the company of avail- ing himself of them at the company’s charge, or of doing them himself. Then in the case of the Dunkirk Colliery Company against the Man- chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, the Raihvay Commissioners decided tAvo or three points ; first, that the back haulage of empty Avaggons belonging to a customer Avas not a special service for Avhich an extra chai’ge could be made, but that providing coal shoots for colliery proprietors to discharge their coal Avas ; and that providing signalling and interlocking apparatus, pointsmen, and signalmen at a private junction to a private siding Avere extras. Mr. Monk. 69. Was that a decision giv’en on an appeal to the House of Lords? — No; this is adecision by the Railway Commissioners, and their decision cannot be appealed against, because their decision is final upon the question of laAv as to Avhat is a ter- minal service. 0.54. Mr. Barclay. 70. Then raihvay companies, of course, are en- titled to charge, in addition to the maximum rate for everything specified in their prlA'ate Act? — Yes, everything specified as an exception. 1\. And in case of dispute the Raihvay Com- missioners have the poAver to fix Avhat is a rea- sonable sum for that sjiecial service ? — Yes, and that is conclusive. Mr. Sclater- Booth. 72. Beyond the question of terminals? — No, we are only speaking of terminals. Mr. Barclay. 73. The Raihvay Commissioners have no con- trol over the raihvay companies, so long as they keep Avitliin their maximum rates, have they? — I understand you to mean as regards the ques- tion of overcharge, of course. 74. I am speaking as regards the question of overcharge altogetlier, apart from the question of conveyance now ? — I iim not prepared to ansAver that question in the affirmative. Mr. Gregory. 75. Do you hold that that clause Avhich you have cited in the Raihvay and Canal Traffic Act Avould coA'er all the articles in the North Staf- fordshire Act of 1880 ? — YYs. Mr. Barclay. 76. I understand you to say, that you are not prepared to offer an opinion with reference to Avhether the Raihvay Commissioners have poAver to deal with raihvay companies, even Avithin their maximum rates ? — The inclination of my opinion is that they have that poAver. I do not Avish, hoAvever, to give an opinion upon the sub- ject, because there is a subtle point of law' con- nected Avith it, Avhich I need not mention. As a matter of fiict, it Avould be very rarely that such a thing Avould be done. Chairman. 77. Within your experience, do you know of such a question being raised before the Rail- way Commissioners ?— I do not know any case in Avhich it has been raised. Mr. Barclay. 78. I Avant to clear up the meaning of this word “ terminals ; ” Avhat is the meaning of the Avord “terminals” in the language of the Rail- Avay Clearing House ? — That is quite a different thing. 79. The Avord “ terminals,” in Raihvay Clear- ing House language, is something quite distinct from those charges incidental to conveyance Avhich the raihvay companies are entitled to make under their special Acts? — Y^es, the Rail- way Clearing House arrangement, as regards the distribution of through traffic, is that an allowance, at the rate of %s. Qd. per ton in Lon- don, and 4 s. per ton iu the country, is made for the terminal expenses upon goods traffic Avhen carted, and Is. 6c/., both in London and the country, when not carted. On mineral traffic A 3 the 6 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. S^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, the allowance is less. That applies to the divi- sion of through rates as between the companies ; it has nothing to do with the public. 80. The public has no interest in this question of terminals, as understood by the Railway Clearing House? — Not at all. 81. The through rate, it is presumed, includes those previous charges we were speaking of, that is to say, charges incidental to conveyance which the companies may be specially authorised to make, but the public have no concern with how the railway companies divide those gross charges amongst themselves ? — The Clearing House ter- minals are a very simple matter. Suppose there are thi-ee railways in connection, and that goods are sent from one railway over another on to a third, from which they are delivered. Now the gross sum is paid to the company that receives the goods or to the company that delivers them, as the case may be ; it would not be fair as be- tween the companies to divide this gross sum merely according to the mileage, because the intermediate company renders no service except the use of its line and its locomotives, whereas the terminal companies have all the trouble of collecting and invoicing the goods and providing station accommodation. As between the three companies, therefore, it is reasonable that there should be an allowance to the companies at both ends of a certain sum before the gross sum is dis- tributed accordino- to the mileage rate, and that IS what is done by the Clearing House. 82. Then using the word “ terminals ” now as regards the public, is a railway company entitled to charge for any terminal services incidental to conveyance, which it is not specially authorised to charge under its private Act? — No. 83. Will you explain to the Committee what services you hold to be included in the maximum rate clause where thei’e is no exception? — The words are, “ Every service incidental to con- veyance,” and in the absence of an express judicial decision 1 hardly like to give any distinct opinion. 84. Do you think loading service incidental to conveyance ? — I should say so. 85. Do you think that the maximum rate in- cludes the service of loading ? — Certainly, unless it is specially excepted. 86. And also the service of unloading? — Yes, unless it is specially excepted. 87. And everything between? — Yes, and everything between. Chairman, 88. Tn your opinion, as common carriers, are those companies bound to perform this service for which you say they are not allowed to charge? — They ai'e bound to perform everything inci- dental to conveyance, including loading and un- loading, and the charge for that is included in the maximum rate unless there is a special ex- ception. Mr. O' Sullivan. 89. Does that include all goods ? — That ap- plies to all goods, I believe ; there are no ex- ceptions. Mr. Barclay. 90. Now in regard to collecting and delivery, does the same rule apply to that ? — Perhaps. As the question has been put I might say that there is a considerable difficulty with regard to col- lection and delivery. Of course the carting is so different a service from that which the railway company is bound to render that one Avould naturally think they ought to have power to charge for it ; but, I suppose, there is a doubt upon that, and consequently the London and South Western Railway Company went to Parliament specially for power to charge for the delivery ; therefore I am not prepared to say whether a railway company can make a special charge for collection and delivery if that is not specially mentioned in their Acts. 91. If they are not sjiecially empowered to do so in their private Acts ? — Yes, that is what I mean. Chairman. 92. Those would be Acts performed off their premises? — Yes, but while they are carriei’s. Perhaps before I go from the question of ter- mnals, I might be allowed to read the opinion of the Railway Commissioners as i-egards the distinction between terminals in the Clearing House classification and what are called ter- minals charged under the companies’ special Acts. 'I'hat was a question which was also con- sidered in Howard’s case. They explained it in this way : “ It is true that in the division of reeeipts from through traffic, terminal companies are credited with an allowance for terminal ex- penses as well as with their mileage, but the amount the public pay is not affected by the principle on which companies choose to divide through receipts from traffic in which they are jointly intei’ested, and we must be careful how we give occasion lor these allowances, except so far as they may have express legislative sanction, being treated as sums which could be taken from the public, in addition to the mileage rate, to pay for the services they represent in respect either of through or of other traffic.” Mr. Barclay. ■ 93. Now, taking up the question of classifica- tion, is there any uniformity in the Railway Com- panies’ Acts in the classification of goods for which they are authorised to make different charges ? — There is a certain rough classification which is very common, but there is no uni- formity. 94. Will you give an example briefly of how the goods are classified ? — I take the London, Chatham, and Dover Aet of 1853 as a compara- tively modern Act, which follows the usual form. The first class in that Act includes “ compost, dung, and all sorts of manure, lime, chalk, lime- stone, and undressed material for the repair of roads or highways.” The second class includes, “ coke, coal, culm, charcoal, and cinders, stones for buildings, pitching and paving, dressed bricks, tiles, slates, clay, sand, ironstone, iron ore, pig iron, bar iron, rod iron, hoop iron, and other similar descriptions of wrought-iron, and iron castings not manufactured into utensils or other articles of merchandise.” The third class in- cludes, “ sugar, grain, corn, flour, hides, dye woods SELECT COMMITTEE ON BAILWAYS. 7 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [^Continued^ Mr. Barclay — continued, woods, earthenware, timber, metals (except iron), nails, anvils, vices, and chains.” Then the fourth class includes, “ cotton and other wools, drugs, manufactured goods, and all other wares, mer- chandise matters, articles or things.” That is about the most common form. 95. Under what class, now, would be charged those goods which are not enumerated ? — That is very difficult to answer. All Acts have these words, “ all other merchandise, articles, matters, or things ;” and the question is whether those general words are to be interpreted by the rule of ejusdem generis as applying only to things of the same kind as those enumerated in the same part of the clause, or whether they Include every- thing which is not enumerated specifically. That is a difficult question, and I do not know that it has been decided. Chairman. 96. Do those Avords which you are just reciting come in at the end of the last class? — They come in under the dearest class. Then some railway companies being pressed by that difficulty use these words, “ all other merchandise, articles, matters or things, except such as are included in the above classes,” or “ except such as are enume- rated in the other classes;” they put in these words, in order to cover every other article Avhich is not classified. Mr. Barclay. 97. Is what I call the “ et ccetera ” class inva- riably in the highest class ? — Almost. In the London and South Western Company’s Act it is in the third class, but almost invariably it is in the highest class. 98. Does the indefiniteness of the classification add to the difficulty of fixing Avhat are the maximum rates a railway company is entitled to charge ? — It makes it impossible (in the ab- sence of a judicial decision) to say with regard to many articles what the railway company is en- titled to charge. 99. Is there any consistency among the Rail- way Acts Avith respect to the classes in which agricultural produce is placed? — No; the most important of the agricultural products are not classified at all in some cases ; hops, for instance, are mentioned very rarely. 100. And potatoes ? — Very rarely. 101. Turnips? — Never that I have seen. 102. Mangolds? — I am not sure. I may have seen it in one Act, but they are practically never mentioned. 103. Will you give the Committee an example of hoAv some of the articles are classed in dif- ferent Acts ? — I have prepared a Table which is rather difficult to folio av in question and answer, but in that I have in the first column stated the particular kind of articles, and then in each of the folloAving columns I have given the charge made by the Great Western Raihvay Company, the London and North Westeim Company, the Great Eastern Company, the Great Northern Company, the Midland RailAvay Company, the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, the Caledonian Raihvay Company, the North- British Railway Company, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, the North Eastern Raihvay Company, and 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. London, Brighton and South Coast Raihvay Company, and if that is printed it will show at a glance Avhat is the variation. I took these as large railways and typical railways. ( The same was handed in.) 104. Would you explain the different classes in Avhich hops are placed, for instance, by the different companies ? — Hops, for example, upon the Great Eastern Raihvay are carried at 2^ d. 2 )er ton a mile. Mr. Bolton. 105. Is that exclusive of terminals ? — Yes. Mr. Pease. 106. Is that a maximum rate table ? — This is a maximum rate table. This table is to show Avhat is the maximum for each particular class of goods which the different companies are allowed to charge ; and then you will see at a glance Avhat is the variation in regard to the principal articles. In the case of the Great Eastern Com- 2 jany,hops are 2\d., on the Brighton Railway 2d., and as regards all the other railways I have mentioned they are not enumerated; therefore it is difficult to say Avhat their place Avould really be. Mr. Gregory. 107. Do the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company not enumerate hoj)s ? — No, they do not. 108. And the South Eastern Railway Com- jAany? — They are not enumerated in the South Eastern Railway Company’s Tables. Mr. O' Sullivan. 109. May I ask if you have any similar Table for an Irish railway ? — We have no similar Table for an Irish raihvay, but such a return might be made out. Mr. Gregory. 110. Do I understand that where hops are not enumerated they come under the fourth class ? — That is just the doubtful point ; I have not been able to find any case which would satisfy me that the jAoint had been decided. Mr. Barclay. 111. Noav I will ask you afcAV questions upon the subject of unequal or preferential charges by railway comjAanies ; has Parliament from the first insisted upon equal charges and equality of rates ? — Yes, even in the old tramroad Acts you find a provision to the effect that the proprietors shall have power to vary or reduce the tolls, but that the reduction or advance should be to all persons alike in the same or similar circum- stances ; that {)roviso occurs in several of the Acts betAveen 1801 and 1820; then in the special Acts of the railway companies, it Avas very com- mon to insert a clause jArotccting the public against inequality ; I may give as an example of that, the South Eastern Railway Act of 1836, the 6 Will. 4, c. 75, s. 137 ; it is a very good clause : “ Tliatthe aforesaid rates and tolls to be taken by virtue of this Act shall, at all times, be charged equally and after the same rate per ton per mile, throughout the whole of the said rail- A 4 ways 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. {Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, ways in respect of the same description of articles, matters, or things, and that no reduc- tion or advance in the said rates and tolls shall, either directly or indirectly, be made partially or in favour of, or against, any particular person or company, or be confined to any particular part of the said railway, but that every such reduction or advance of rates and tolls upon any particular kind or description of article, matter, or thing, shall extend to, and take place, throughout the whole and every part of the said railway upon and in respect of the same description of article, matter, and thing so reduced or advanced, and shall extend to all persons whomsoever using or carrying the same description of articles, matters, and things thereon, anything to the con- trary thereof in any wise notwithstanding.” 112. Can you tell the Committee if that Act is still in force ? — 1 am not sure ; I found it in their original Act; but they have so many Acts that it may possibly have been altered. 113. Is the Act under which they are now levying their tolls antecedent or subsequent to that? — I hat is the Act. 114. The toll clauses of that Act are still in force? — Yes. Then in 184.'), so many of these clauses, and other of a similar kind, occurred in all the special Acts, that Parliament thought it necessary to make a Consolidation Act of the clauses that were common ; and Section 90 of the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, was passed, enacting, “ Whereas it is expedient that the company should be enabled to vary the tolls upon the railway so as to accommodate them to the circumstances of the traffic, but that such power of varying should not be used for the purpose of prejudicing or favouring ])articular parties, or for the purpose of collusively and un- fairly creating a monopoly, either in the hands of the company, or of particular parties ; it shall be lawful, therefore, for the company, subject to the provisions and limitations herein, and in the special Act contained, from time to time to alter or vary the tolls by the special Act authorised to be taken, either upon the whole, or upon any particular portions of the railway, as they shall think fit ; Provided that all such tolls be at all times charged equally to all persons, and after the same rate, whether per ton per mile or otherwise, in respect of all passengers, and of all goods or carriages of the same description, and conveyed or propelled by a like can-iage or engine, passinsr only over the same portion of the line of railway, under the same circum- stances ; and no reduction or advance in any such tolls shall be made, either directly or indi- rectly, in favour of or against any particular company or person travelling u])on or using the railway.” Then finally comes the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, which has been most in use since, which provides “ That no railway or canal company, or railway and canal com- pany, shall make or give an undue or unreason- able ])reference or advantage to or in favour of any ])articular j)er8on or company, or any parti- cular description of traffic, in any respect what- soever, nor shall any such company subject any })articular person or company, or any j)articular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasou- Mr. Barclay — continued. able prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.” 115. Did the Railway and Canal Act of 1854 lay down the principles of equality broadly and generally ?— Yes; that Act laid it down that there must be no undue or unreasonable prefer- ence. 116. How have the Courts interpreted the meaning of that Act ?— I have looked into the cases, and the construction of the Act was consi- dered in the recent case of the Denaby Main Colliery Company and the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Raihvay Company, which affected the question of the onus vrohandi of whether the company or the parties were bound to prove the unreasonableness. The facts were as follows. The railway company had no coal rates by mileage for the South Yorkshire Dis- trict. They charged the same rate from all col- lieries in a coalfield extending over 20 miles. The Denaby Colliery Company complained that they were charged from their collieries to Grimsby and Hull the same price for a distance of four miles that other collieries in the district paid for a distance of 20 miles. The railway company urged that their mode of charging, dis- regarding mileage, simplified their accounts, and that if a mileage rate were adopted the more distant collieries would be undersold, and the traffic thereby diminished. The chief point taken for the railway company w'as, that the Denaby Colliery Company did not prove that the inequality did them any actual haim ; it was, they contended, only a benefit to their neigh- bours, and did no harm to them ; consequently they had no i-eason to complain. The Railway Commissioners decided against the railway com- pany, holding that the due and reasonable charge is that which is proportioned to the service rendered, and that there is no better measure of that service than the distance over which the goods were conveyed, and that the railway com- ])any had no right, by making a differential rate, to deprive the Deanaby Colliery of the advantage which its natural position in proximity to a sea- port gave to it in competition with other col- lieries. The railway company were not satisfied, and took proceedings in the Queen’s Bench Division on the double ground that the Commis- sioners had exceeded their jurisdiction, and that their judgment was bad. in law. In both respects the decision of the Railway Commissioners were upheld by the Queen’s Bench Division, and also on appeal by the Court of appeal, on which the Lord Chancellor (Lord Selborne), Lord Justice Brett, and Lord J usticc Laggally sat. Mr. Sclater-Booth. 117. It was not alleged in that case that the company which was nearest the sea had any- thing beyond the maximum r.ates charged? — No, that was not the jioint. hlr. Barclay. 118. Have the Courts held that competition justified an inequality of rates? — The question of comjietition has rarely come up alone, until the case of Evershed against the London and North Western Railway Company. 119. When was that case decided ? — lliat was SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 9 17 March 1881. Mr. Barclay — continued. in 1875 ; the question in Evershed’s case was one of undue preference as regarded terminals ; three brewers’ firms wei’e in such a position as regarded the Midland Railway Company, that they could send their traffic to the stations they desired to reach either by the Midland Railway or by the London and North Western; and in order to induce those three brewers to send their traffic, or a portion of their traffic, by the Lon- don and North Western, the London and North Western made them a rebate of 1 s. 9 t/. a ton ; the Railway Commissioners decided that that was illegal, and granted an injunction, and then Mr. Evershed took proceedings to recover the overcharges, and the question finally was deter- mined in the blouse of Lords ; so that Evershed’s case is decided finally by the highest Court of Appeal ; the judgment of the Court of Queen’s Bench stated this principle : “ We think that a railway company cannot, merely for the sake of increasing their traffic, reduce their rates in favour of individual customers, unless, at all events, there is a sufficient consideration for such reduction, which shall lessen the cost to the com- pany of the conveyance of their traffic.” I con- sider that case proves that when there is no other circumstance except competition, the law now is that competition alone will not justify a differ- ence in rates. 12l). Has there been any case decided where the question of sea competition came in ? — Yes. That case was fdlowed by the case of Budd against the London and North Western Railway Company; that was in 1877. Budd’s case is different as regards the facts, but in principle is identical with Evershed’s case ; the facts were as follows: The plaintiff, the Ystalyfera Iron Com- pany, has works about 12 miles from Swansea, on the lines of the London and North Western Railway, and sends lai’ge quantities of iron and tin plates by the railway to Liverpool. The charge to the company was 12s. 6 rf. per ton; but to other manufacturers, farther from Liver- pool, and nearer to Swansea, the charge was only 11s. 4d. for the same class of goods. The rail- way company offered this low^er rate to all the manufacturers within a radius of six miles from Swansea, in order to compete with the sea route from Swansea to Liverpool. The smaller freight, of course, enabled the more distant manufacturers to sell cheaper in Liverpool. The Exchequer Division unanimously held that the case was governed by Evershed’s case, and that the com- pany must either reduce its rates for the shorter distance or increase them for the lonsrer. Chairman, 121. Do I understand that in Evershed’s case, the plaintiff actually recovered the overcharges ? — Yes, he recovered the overcharges. 122. For what period ? — For a period of six years. Mr. Barclay. 123. How was it limited to six years ?— Under the Statute of Limitations. 124. How many courts had Mr. Evenshed to go through before he fixed finally the railway ' company ?— After he left the Railway Commis- sioners he brought his action, and that was 0,54. [ Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, referred to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator found the facts, and then the case went to the Queen’s Bench Division. From thence an ajipeal was taken to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, and the judgments were unanimous throughout against the railway company by all the judges. 125. Can you state liriefly what principle has been laid down by the decisions of tlie Courts as to what justifies an inequality of rates? — As far as I can make out the cases, all fall under three heads. The first is this : that a trader may gua- rantee to send large quantities of goods and thereby lessen the cost to the railway company of the carria 2 :e. It is not uhreasonable in that case that the com23any should be allowed to meet such a trader by a reduced rate, but the Court of Com- mon Pleas in 1857 held that the guarantee must be bond Jide for that object, and not in order to give a trader an advantage in competition by de- priving his rival of the natural advantage of his position. Then in addition to the question of large quantities conveyed in such a manner as to lessen the cost of conveyance, there is the question of long distances as compared with short distances. In the case of Foreman versus the Great Eastern Railway Company in 1875, the Railway Com- missioners considered that point. There was a scale for the conveyance of coals : not exceeding six miles, 9 d. per ton ; ov'er six miles and under 20 miles, 1 d. per ton per mile ; over 20 miles and under 60 miles, 1 d. per ton for two miles ; and over 60 miles, 1 d. per ton for four miles. In that case the Railway Commissioners used these words : “ As to the comparative amounts for the different mileages, it does not appear that there is a greater disproportion in relation to distances in their charges than in the cost of carriage to the company ; and if the principle on which the scale is graduated is a fair conside- ration of the cost to the company of carrying coals for the difierent distances, it is not a valid objection to the scale that it is better adapted to the business of some merchants than of others, and that its low rates for long distances are use- less to those who deal in the over-sea coal.” Mr. Bolton. 126. That decision has been practically upset, has it not, by the decision in the case of the Denaby Colliery? — No, I think not; I think they are consistent. Then allow me to say, re- ferring back to my previous answer, the third case is where there is a special expense in the cost of working. As, for example, where there is a very steep incline ; but all these cases turn upon one principle, namely, that the cost of con- veyance is different, and that an equal mileage would not be just, but that the rate should be proportioned to the cost of conveyance. Mr. Barclay. 127. Upon what grounds arc the figures you are going to give us, as to over charges by the railway companies, based? — I have obtained coj)ies of rate-books from traders and farmers, and have employed clerks to make copies. 128. How have you ascertained the maximum rates which railway companies are authorised to B charge ? Professor Hunter. 10 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE Professor Hunter. [ Continued. 17 March 1881.] Mr. Barclay — continued. charge? — I have examined their Acts of Par- liament to find what were the maximum rates which they could charge. 129. You have been assisted, you told the Committee, in finding out those Acts by that Return moved for by Lord Skelmersdale in the House of Lords ? — Those returns are given by the raihvay companies, and J have taken it for granted that they are right. 130. That they refer to the proper Acts which govern their maximum rates? — Yes. 131. Had you any difficulty about the rate- books? — We had some difficulty in the beginning, but there is no difficulty of any kind now. 132. No company, I suppose, refused to show their rate-books ? — Yes, one company did. 133. Are the companies’ rate-books easily intelligible? — Not easily intelligible ; their rate- books, as far as I found them, do not proceed upon a classification of their own Acts, but they pro- ceed upon the classification of the Railway Clear- ing House. 134. Would you give the Committee examples of that classification? — The Railway Clearing House classification has seven classes of goods ; first, what they call mineral traffic, carried in lots of not less than four tons ; and secondly, there is a special class traffic, that is to say, goods carried in lots of not less than two tons in both cases, the loading and unloading being done by the parties. Then they have five classes, so distinguished, according to number, but those classes have no kind of relation to the classifica- tion in the Acts. Mr. O' Sullivan. 135. I think I understood you to say that the farmer loaded and unloaded in this case, but that there was no exemption for the company from loading in any case ? — When the companies do not load and unload, they are understood to carry at especially low rates. Mr. Barclay. 136. AVill you take first the case of the London and South Western Railway Company, and give the Committee some examples of what, in your opinion, are overcharges by that com- pany in respect of guano and packed manure ? — In regard to guano and packed manure I have a number of stations from Petersfield ; I have the Petersfield rate-book ; guano and packed ma- nures are carried in what are called the first- class, except when under special conditions and in larger quantities they are carried in a special class, but 1 have taken a case where a quantity of less than two tons is carried. 137. I suppose a quantity rather under two tons is a common enough order by the small farmers? — Yes, certainl 3 \ Now from Petersfield to Nine Elms the charge is 12 5. 6 d. per ton, and the maximum rate is 9 s. Sir Edward IVatkin. 138. Does the 12 5. 6 ^?. per ton include the terminal charge at each end I Mr. Barclay. 139. I was going to ask how the company have dealt with the services incidental to the conveyance? — Those are station to station rates. Mr. Barclay — continued. 140. Are you going to give the Committee station to station rates?. — Exclusively. 141. Can you tell us whether the railway com- pany loads and unloads for those charges ? — That is a matter which is not within my knowledge. From Petersfield to Nine Elms the charge is 12 5. 6 d. per ton, and the maximum mileage rate is 9 5., leaving a difference of 3 5 . 6 d. 142. Of overcharge? — No; I had better ex- plain that. The London and Sonth YY^e.stern Company, when they load and unload, have power to charge for the loading and unloading. Of course where they do not themselves load and unload, they have no power to charge. Then the question is, what is a reasonable sum for loading and unloading. Practically, I look at it in this way. The South Eastern Railway Com- pany charge 6 d. per ton for loading and unload- ing : and then I take it that the London and South YVesteni Company can do it as cheaply as the South Eastern Company can, and that in a case where they did load and unload the terminal service Avould amount to 1 s. Mr. O' Sullivan. 143. For the loading and unloading of what articles? — The articles in the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth classes. Mr. Barclay. 144. Let us understand that quite clearly ; these rates you are quoting just now are what the companies call station to station rates ? — Yes. 145. But you are unable to say whether the railway company load and unload for that sum ? — That is a question of fact, varying no doubt in each case. Mr. Sclater-Booih. 146. But your charge against the London and South YYestern Company is, that, I will not say they cheat, but that they get out of the customer 2 5. 6 d. more than they have a right to get ? — Y^es, and Avhat tliey charge for loading and un- loading in the case of sjiecial traffic. 147. You give that in, and there remains at all events 2 s. 6 d. ? — Yes, or even supposing you were to give them 2 5 . for loading and unloading there would remain 1 5 . 6 c?. Mr. Barclay. 148. The Loudon and South Western Com- pany are entitled, as I understand, to charge specially for loading and unloading? — YYs. 149. If you allow them for this service 1 5., assuming that they perform it, there still re- mains the 2 5 . 6 d. for overcharge ? — YTes, the loading and unloading could not possibly be 3 5 . 6 d. 150. Can you give the Committee any other case ? — To Wimbledon the charge is 13 5 . 4 d., and the maximum rate is 8 5 . 2 d. 151. What is the difference there? — The difference between the two is 55. 2 d. Mr. Gregory. 152. Are you speaking of the same articles now? — YTes, I am speaking of the same articles, gnano and packed manure. 153. You are speaking of from Petersfield to Wimbledon ? — YYs. 154. That SELECT COMMITTEE ON RATLWAVS. 11 17 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. '^Continued. Mr. Gregory — continued. 154. That is a shorter distance? — Yes, but they charge a higher price. 155. You say you put the charge for loading and unloading at 1 s. ? — Yes, that is one charge that is made ; but I am not an expert upon that matter. 156. Is there that charge upon any other class of goods by that company for loading and un- loading? — The London and South Western Railway Company ask, for the special class, 10 <7. each way, which is 4 J. more than the South Eastern Company do. Mr. Barclay. 157. You have said that the charge made by the South Eastern Company is a guide to what would be a fair rate for loading and unloading ? —Yes. 158. The London and South Western Com- pany for one class of goods charge 10 d. for load- ins: and unloadins:? — That is for the lowest class of goods, the mineral traffic. 159. Will you continue your statement? — To Woking the charge for manure and guano is 10 s. per ton, and the maximum rate 5 s. 4 c?. ; to Guildford the charge is 9 s. 2 d., and the maxi- mum rate 4. s. 4 (/. ; to Witley the charge is 6 s. 8 f/., maximum rate 3 s.; Haselmere, the charge is 5 s. 10 c?., and the maximum 2 s.; to Liphook the charge is 5 s., and the maximum rate is 1 s. 6 c?. ; to Salisbury the charge is 16 s. did., and the maximum rate is 8 s. 11c?. ; those charges are all from Petersfield. Mr. Monk. 160. In some cases the charges are about 300 or 400 per cent, above the charges allowed by the Act? — Yes. Mr. Sclater-Booth. 161. In making up that table, how have you calculated the mileage ? — I have calculated the mileage from. Every rate-book is bound by law to give the mileage. Mr. Barclay. 162. Will you give the Committee some examples with regard to grain, oil- cake, potatoes, and beer ? — Those articles, grain, oil-cake, beer, malt, turnips, and potatoes, are carried at certain rates ; some are included in one class and some in the other. I have shown them in the table, but I must give you one or two examples. From Petersfield to Guildford the second class rale is 10 s. 10 d., and the maximum rate is 6 s. d. To Haslemere the second-class rate is 7 5. 6 d., and the maximum rate is 3 s. To Porchester, the second-class rate is 9 5. 2 c?., and the maximum rate is 4 s. Ad. To Mottisfont, the second-class rate is 21 s. 8 c?. and the maximum rate is 12 5. 3 d. To Exeter the second-class charge is 45 s., and the maximum rate, 35 s. d. Sir Edward Wathin. 163. Is the 45 s. the station to station rate ? — Yes, so it is given to me. Then taking hops from I^ine Elms to Exeter the charge is 55 s., and the maximum rate is 4.3 s. 6 cZ. ; then to Portsmouth the charge is 30 s. 10 f/., and 18 s. d d. is the maximum rate ; then to Basingstoke the charge 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. is 25 s., and the maximum rate is 11 s. 9 c?. ; to Southampton, which is much farther, the charge is 25 s., and the maximum rate is 19 s. 8 ^Z. I may mention tliat from Petersfield to Exeter the charge is 60 s., and the maximum rate is 36 s. ; that is also for hops. Mr. Barclay. 164. Can you give the Committee any examples of hops conveyed from London, as compared with hops conveyed to London? — I am not quite sure as to the difference ; those figures that I gave were from London. I can give the Committee the charges to stations between Petersfield and London. From Petersfield to London the charge for hops is 19 s. 2 d., and the maximum rate is 13 s. 6 d . ; they do not seem to make so great a difference in that case. 165. Are hops classified in the South Western Company’s Act? — No ; but the Act is so drawn that hops could not be charged more than 3 d. per ton per mile. Mr. Sclater-Booth. 166. Then when you say that the maximum rates for hops are exceeded by the railway charge, you arrive at the maximum rate for hops by an examination of the terms of the Act of Parlia- ment? — Yes. 167. And although hops are not classified, they could not be more than what you say? — The Loudon and South Western Company’s Act is quite peculiar ; their “ et ccetera" class is in the third class, and their highest class is for perish- able and consumable articles ; and owing to the peculiar construction of it, there is no doubt that hops come under the dd. rate. Sir Edward Wathin. 1 68. That is your opinion ? — I could strengthen it, I think, if necessary. Mr. Gregory. 169. What is your highest classification? — It is what is called the fifth class. I do not know whether that question relates to the Act, or whether it relates to the rate-books. Sir Edward Watkin. 170. What is the rate of the fifth class? — Fivepence. 171. Then, if they are in the fifth class, the company would be charging less than the maxi- mum rate ? — It might be so. Mr. Gregory. 172. Is that the railway classification, or is that the Clearing House classification? — I can give you the Act in a moment. I have one here in similar language ; it is in one of the South Western Railway Company’s vVcts ; they carry at 5c?. a mile “silks, indigo, cinnamon, and other spices, oi’anges, lemons, and other fruits not dried, eggs, fish, poultry, meat, and all other articles of a perishable and consumable nature.” Of course hops ai’e not an article of a “ perish- able and consumable nature,” therefore I reckon it at 3cZ. per ton per mile. B 2 173. You 12 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE n March Professor Huntek, \^Continued. Mr. Barclay. 173. You have, I believe, taken out some examples of furniture ; in what class do you put furniture? — 'fhe highest, 5cZ. per ton per mile, although pei'ha])B the better opiniou would be that 3d. would be the legal charge. From Lon- don to Salisbury the actual charge is 50 s., and the maximum rate is 34 s. 8d. Mr. Barnes. 171. Does that include breakage? — They are bound to insure by their Act. Mr. Barclay. 175. The maximum rates that you have men- tioned include insurance ? — Yes, except such articles as are mentioned in the Carriers Act. Then from Petersfield to Exeter the charge is 77s. Qd., and the maximum rate is 59 s. Sd. 176. Will you give the Committee a few examples of what the company charges for dead meat? — For dead poultry and meat, from Lon- don to Windsor, the charge is 19s. 2d., and the maximum rate is 8 s. Qd. From Petersfield to Mottisfont the actual charge is 27 s. 6d., and the maximum charge is 20 s. 5d. 177. Now let us take the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway ; can you give us the charge for the carriage of hops uji to London ? — The London, Brighton, and South Coast Com- pany carry hops to London from a specified number of stations according to what they call a hop tariff. 178. Will you explain to the Committee, first, if there is any doubt as to the cla,ss of goods in which the classification of hops under the London, Brighton, and South Coast Company’s Act is placed ? — Hops are specially mentioned in the Brighton Company’s Act. 179. In what clause? — The second. The charge is 2 d. per ton per mile. I need not enu- merate the stations, but I may mention that there are about 30 stations from the country to London which are governed by the special tariff, and the stations from London to the country are included in the second class in the rate-books. Now the tarift’ from London is a station to sta- tion rate, but to London the tariff includes deli- very in the Borough. 180. Have the London, Brighton, and South Coast Company poAver to charge for loading and unloading ? — 1 think they have. 181. What deduction or what allowance do you make (or have you made an allowance) for delivery in the Borough ? — I have taken these figures after allowing them 5 s. a ton for delivery. 182. Have yon heard at what rate other con- tractors deliver hops in the Borough ? — Yes. 183. At what rate? — I have heard that they are delivered at 3s. 3d. per ton, in one instance. I am told that by a farmer Avho sends hops there. 184. He said that he had got them delivered at price? — Yes; but of course it is really imma- terial, the difference is so great. Now, allowing for that, the charge from the country to London is so much per pocket, ivhich I am told is 1| cwt., and 1 have taken that measure. Now, to Lou- don from Caterham the charge per ton is 15 s., and I'rom London to Caterham the charge is 5 ,v., and the maximum rate is 2 s. 2 d. Mr. Craiy. 185. Do Ave understand the maximum charge to be the same as that stated upon the rate-book of the company, or is it derived from some calcu- lation? — The maximum rate is the highest sum Avhich the Act allows the company to charge. 186. As mentioned in the Act ? — Yes. Mr. Barclay. 187. You state first the actual figure Avhich you have taken from the rate-book ? — Yes ; they have five charges. Is. 9d. per pocket, 2s. 3d. per pocket, 2s. 6d. per jjocket; Is. 9d. is the charge for the nearest distance. 188. Let us keep to the first line of inquiry ; I want to knoAv Avhether that 15 s., the rate in the rate-book, includes delivery, or do you make any deduction for delivery? — I have allowed for de- livery 5 s. a ton. 189. And the actual figure in the rate-book is 20 s. jier ton ? — It is not exactly in the rate-book in the shape of per ton. I Avill put in the cir- cular ; the rate is per pocket. To Caterham J unction it is 1 s. 6 d. jier jiocket ; then to Red- hill it is 2 s. 3d. per pocket ; to Tunbridge Wells it is 2 s- 9 d. per pocket ; to Three Bridges it is 2s. 6d. per pocket; and to Polegate 3s. per pocket. Those are the different rates to London from those places. Chairman. 190. You have made Caterham by that calcu- lation ] 3 miles, is that correct ? — I think it is about a dozen miles. Mr. Gregory. 191. That is Caterham Junction, is it not, not Caterham proper? — Yes; I have the exact figures here if it is necessary to produce them. I have made the figures as level as possible for the sake of comparison. To London from Tun- bridge Wells the charge amounts to 31s. 8d. per ton, and from London to Tunbridge Wells the charge is 10 s. 5d. per ton, the maximum rate being 8 s. 4d. Then to London from Redhill the charge is 25s., and from London to Redhill it is 5 s., the maximum charge being 3 s. 6d. To Londonfrom Three Bridges the charge is 28 s. 4 d., and from London to Three Bridges it is 8 s. 4d., the maximum charge being 4s. lOd. To Lon- don from Polegate the charge is 35 s., and from London to Polegate it is 13 s. 9d., the maximum rate being 10s. 2d. IMr. Barclay. 192. I understand that you have deducted from those figures taken from the rate-book be- fore giving them to the Committee, a sum of 5 s. for carriage upon hops coming up to London? — Yes, for cai'tage. 1 have first deducted 5 s. per ton, and then the remainder is Avhat I haA'e com- pared Avith the alloAved charge in the Act. 193. Can you give the Committee some par- ticulars Avith respect to the charge for potatoes in the Act? — In the London and Brighton Com- pany’s Act potatoes are specially mentioned ; they are charged 1.1 d. a ton a mile. Noaa", for neAV potatoes, the charge from London to Sutton is 6s. 8d., and the maximum rate Is. 9d. From Loudon SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 13 17 March, 1881 .] Profesor Hunter. [ Co7iL imied. Mr. Barclay — continued. London to Three Bridges (I am giving station to station rates). 194. Have you made any allowance for load- ing and unloading ? — Fi'om London to Three Bridges the charge Is 10s. 10 6?., and the maxi- mum rate is 3 s. 8eir tolls for the use of the line (including stations), and the only question for the Court would really be, what is a reasonable amount to give for the use of locomotives and waggons in addition to the maximum tolls for the use of the line. 313. Is there one maximum toll for all articles, or does the toll vary for different articles ? — It varies with the different articles I have men- tioned . 314. What is the highest toll which they are authorised to charge ? — Three pence per mile for the use of the line. 315. And there would have to be added to that a reasonable sum for the use of the .locomo- tives and waggons ? — Yes. 316. Will you be good enough to give the Committee some examples of the charges made by the South Eastern Railway Company, your figures being based upon the statements which you have already made ? — Taking first lime and manure in bulk, in quantities over four tons, where the loading and unloading have to be done by the parties ; from Hastings to Roberts Bridge the charge is 3s. 4fi?., and the maximum rate is 9 d. taking it at 1^ d. per ton : that is governed by the maximum rate. Then from Hastings to Rye the charge is 3 s. 5 d., and the maximum rate is 2 s. 3 1 d., that is taking it at 2\d. a ton : that is also governed by the maximum rate. 317. Are those station to station rates? — Yes. 318. And is it provided that the consignor and consignee have to load and unload? — Yes, there is no question of terminals. 319. Is there no question of covering, and so on? — No. Then from Tunbi'idge Wells to Etchingham the charge is 3 s. 5 d., and the maxi- mum rate is Is. l^d. From Tunbridge Wells to Battle the charge is 3 s. 5 rf., and the maxi- mum rate is 2 s. 9 d. All those instances which I have given are cases where they are governed by maximum rates. Now from Ashford to Smeath or Wye, the charge is 3.9. 5d., and at 1|ible competition was impossible.” 561. Do not the ironmasters and coalmasters meet and endeavour to co-operate, and act in common, instead of competing ? — But the differ- ence is that these railways are all railwa 3 "s going from London to towns in the North, whereas in the case of coalmastei’s and ironmasters com- bining, it is the coal and iron masters of that par- ticular district; you have not the coalmasters of all England meeting and fixing prices. 562. As your opinion would be that there is no such thing as competition for rates, I will take the carriage of dead meat from Scotland, and 1 find that there is a rate of 75 s., which is at the rate of 1 J d. a ton, for meat from Aberdeenshire, 516 miles, I think it is, by quick train to the London market ? — That is governed by the com- petition of the Aberdeen steamers to Loudon. 563. Still there is such a rate; under those circumstances, how would you treat the case of a Leicestershire grazier, for instance, who is send- ing his meat uji to London ; would you charge him a rate per mile the same as that charged to the Scotch meat ? — 1 would charge him a rate accord- ing to the cost of conveyance to the company. 564. II the Aberdeenshire meat is brought 516 miles, and in the Leicestershire case you Sir Edward —continued, have to bring it 100 miles, will you show me how you would fix it, assuming the Aberdeen rate is 75 s. ? — I have not that acquaintance with the management of railways which Avould enable me to express any opinion worth stating upon the point, but I may explain how I conceive the principle would apply; the cost of carriage for 100 miles is a given amount. 565. What do you mean by the cost of car- riage ; do you include in the cost of carriage interest upon the fixed capital in the line over which the traffic passes? — Certainly; I use the woi'd “ cost ” in the lai-gest sense, to include everything. 566. You include interest on capital as well as outlay day-by-day ? — Yes ; of course if you cai-ry the same goods 1,000 miles it is quire within everybody’s knowledge that the cost to the rail- way of carrying them would not be 10 times the cost of carrying them 100 miles; what would be the exact figure of course I do not know. 567. Practically it would come to this, that the larger portion of the benefit of vicinity to the market, according to your views, would be given to the Leicestershire grazier against the Scotch grazier ? — What I propose is that both the Leicestershire grazier and the Scotch grazier should pay in proportion to the services w'hich the railway company render to them, and if the Leicestershire grazier has the advantage of being nearer to the market in London I do not see why he should be dejirived of it. 568. I have brought you back to this point, that you are in favour of the man who is nearest to the market having a permanently lower rate than the man who is furtherest ? — Of course ; that is the principle of the law. 569. Does not it strike you that if that principle were rigidly applied, the consumer in London would be in a very awkward position? — I am quite satisfied that the principle being a sound one, the application of it would be very beneficial to the consumer in London and elsewhere. 570. If the operation of it were to raise the 15 s. for Aberdeenshire meat to 150s., would that be for the benefit of the consnmers? — The only difference then would be that the meat would be sent by steamer, and at as cheap a rate as at present. 571. You have given a good many of many instances of rates upon the South Western Hallway ; I think you very fairly admitted, on the last occasion, that if your interpre- tation of the meaning of the bouth Western Railway Acts were incorrect it would affect the calculation ? — I do not think I quite admitted that. I did not admit that there was any possible doubt upon the subject. Reading the sections it will be perfectly clear that there could be no doubt about it. The class which is carried at 3 d. per ton per mile upon the South Western Railway is “ all cotton and other wools, hides,” and so on, and all other wares, merchandise, articles, mat- ters, or things, except as before or hereinbefore mentioned;” and inasmuch as hops are not men- tioned either before or after, it must be under that clause ; and I may mention that the counsel before the Railway Commissioners admitted that ale was to be carried at the 3 c?. rate. Now ale is hardly consumable and perishable, and if ale, (i fortiori ho[)s, which are not either consumable or perishable, would be carried at not more than 3 d. 572. If SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 35 22 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Sir Edioard Watkin — continued. 572. If you are wrong, that would affect your calculations ?— It would not affect the overcharge. There would still remain a large overcharge. The overcharge is so great, that if I 'were to allow them 5 d. there would still be an over- charge. 573. Upon the question of the relative cost of cai’riage, I think you said that in fixing the rate you had taken into account the relative cost of conveyance and a number of other elements ; would you take into account the relative cost of the railways and stations that we used ? — That is taken into account in the Act. You stopped me when I was about to read the case of Pegler and the Monmouthshire Hallway Com- pany. I could not, by any explanation I could give, make it so clear as that case does. In that case, for the conveyance of flour the Monmouth- shire Railway demanded terminals amounting to 12 s. 6(7., and that was said to be for receiving the flour, weighing, invoicing, loading, and for the use of stations, yards, sheds, platforms, and the gaslight and all the other conveniences neces- sarily connected with the stations, and the risk incidental to loading and unloading ; that was an Act which gave them no terminals, but was an Act where the tolls were limited, and not a maxi- mum rate. Chief Baron Pollock said, “ The flour was brought to the station by the plaintiffs’ agents, and was received by the defendants’ servants there, who assisted in unloading the same, and they wheeled it along the platforms and loaded it into the defendants’ trucks. For these services the company have no right to charge anything more than the tolls authorised by their Acts. They might just as well chai’ge for making the railw ay or any other cost.” 574. And you adopt that? — Pegler’s case has never been questioned. 575. Assuming this to be the fact that the London and North Western Company in the town of Liverpool alone have laid out 15,000,000 of money upon station accommodation, do you think it is reasonable that they should have no power whatever to charge anything for the use of that enormous accommodation ? — I should think it is not only reasonable that they should, but as a matter of fact they do charge for it, and that that was taken into account by the Com- mittees when they sanctioned the maximum rates. 576. Speaking of the question of the compa- rative cost of construction, you are aware I dare- say that upon the South Eastern line, which you have alluded to, they have some special power of charge given by Parliament on account of the enormous cost of construction ? — I do not under- stand to which portion of the line you refer. 577. I will take as an example the line between Charing Cross and London Bridge, which has cost 4,000,000 of money? — Yes, that is provided for in their Act. They have a high rate of chai’ge, not regarding distance, but 10 <7. for the first two classes of goods and Is. 3 <7. for the others. 578. Parliament has recognised the principle that where there is an excessive cost there should be an additional power of charge ? — That is the same thing as I have said before. The cost of the construction of the line is the capital expen- diture upon which the railway company must pay interest, and that is an element in the cost of 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin— continued, conveyance ; therefore it is a much more costly thing in my sense to carry goods over a metro- politan line than over a line in the country which has been very cheap in construction. 579. Now, with reference to agricultural pro- duce, you spoke about eggs ; are you aware how many eggs there are in a ton? — I do not know anything about that. 580. Have you ever considered really the principle of charging for eugs and feathers, and things of tliHt kind, not upon the ship measnre- ment principle, according to space, but according to Aveight ? — I think the suggestion you have made is a very reasonable one to bring before a Committee of the House of Commons, but as a matter of fact railway companies have uniformly included feathers (mentioning them frequently by name) as to be carried at so much a ton. 581. I think you press very strongly some suggestions upon the Committee ; first, Avith regard to classification, as to Avhich you said you AAmuld leave it to the Raihvay Commissioners to approve, and, it they approve, of course they practically fix the classification of goods carried on railways? — That is to say, they fix the maxima. 582. I am not upon the rates, but upon the classification at present; I admit Avith you that it is a Amry old-fashioned classification, and per- haps I may tell the Committee that that classifi- cation came mainly from the old canal and in- land navigation ; if Avas adopted in some cases, almost simpliciter from these former Acts. Noav there being, as you may say, an old-fashioned classification, you Avould put in the hands of the Raihvay Commissioners the poAver to entirely revise that classification ; is that so ? — No ; I do not propose that the RallAA^ay Commissioners should have any poAver to alter anything in the existing classification in the private Acts ; but what I suggested was, that inasmuch as there are a great many articles Avhich are not enumerated, and that the laAV which applies to those articles is, that they must be carried for a reasonable sum, it would be a simpler course that, with regard to articles not enumerated, the Railway Commissioners should have granted them ex- plicitly Avhat I am inclined to think they have at present implicitly, namely, the power to say Avhat is the proper sum to charge for the carriage of those goods ; in other words, in what class they ought to go. 583. Does not that really mean a I’evolution in the classification, because the non-enumerated are far in excess in number of the enumerated ? — I do not think it involves a revolution at all, because the Railway Commissioners would prac- tically carry out what the companies have done ; for example, turnips are not mentioned in the Railway Acts, but I think, almost invariably, turnips are carried in the special class. As a matter of fact, the railway companies have already done it. 584. As a matter of fact, railway companies have endeavoured to meet the trade of the country ? — Upon that I express no opinion. 585. Now, to go back to turnips, supposing your principle were accepted of fixing the rates, giving to the man nearest to the market the ad- vantage of his position ; would not the area fi’om Avhich a cheap article like turnips would be car- E 2 ried 36 MINUTES OP EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 March 1881.] Professor Hunter, \_Continued. Sir Edioard IVathiu — continued. ried be very much restricted ? — There are two classes of turnips ; tuniips as food for cattle, and turnips for the vegetable market ; the area as regards food for cattle would probably be comparatively small, because, as I understand, turnips are not a very valuable article, and would not bear a long carriage. As regards vegetables for the market, I have no doubt they would be carried as far as was necessary for the market ; the companies do carry them at the present moment. 586. The companies, no doubt, do carry them, and do carry them to some extent irrespective of distance, for the reason that, if they did not carry them for a long distance, they would not go at all, they do not do it for any benevolent purpose ; but if you are right, that the producer who is nearer to the market must have the ad- vantage of his ju’oximity to the mai’ket, does not it practically throw out the long distance pro- ducer from the market, or tend to do so ? — It is purelv a question of degree ; a man in Australia cannot compete by sending turnips into the English markets, because they will not bear the conveyance for the enormous distance, but he can send meat. And in the same way the dis- tance that each jiarticular article will bear to be carried is entirely a question of fact I'or each case. 587. And a question which must be dealt with according to the merits of each case ? — Un- doubtedly. 588. Uo not you think that it is very unde- sirable to give to a public body the fixing of the classification, and therefore of the rates upon commodities, and taking away from the producer and consumer the power to make their own bar- gains? — I stated that I did not propose to give the Commission any power to fix the rates ; what 1 said was, that 1 would give them power to fix within which class, having regard to the existing Acts, an unclassified article would go, and the result of that would be that the unclassi- fied article would be required to be carried for not exceeding a certain sum per ton, it being in the power of the comjiany to charge as much less as they find satisfactory to themselves, 589. But practically the form of the classifi- cation for making non-enumerated into enume- rated articles would have a tendency to reduce the rates for those articles, would it not ? — That is a matter upon which I could not answer. 590. On the contrary if it had the effect not of reducing but of increasing the rates, what would be the good of it ? — The object I had in vicAV Avas, to let the public have the means of knoAving Avhat the rate is ; at the present time you are entirely at sea in knoAvingAvhatsum you have to pay. 591. Do not understand me as disagreeing Avith you there ; I think it would be desirable to have a reform of the classification, but taking manure, do you include in the Avord “ manure ” such things as guano and phosjihates, side by side Avith common stable dung ? — Almost all Acts of Parliament contained the expression “all sorts of manure,” and having made that contract, as long as that contract exists, they must carry everything of the nature of manure at the max- Sir Edward Watkin — continued, imum rate and not exceeding that, and that was decided in the Aberdeen case. 592. Am I wrong in saying that Avhen at all events the South Eastern Company’s Acts were passed, such manure as guano, and several kinds of chemical manure were not known ? — Guano Avas knoAvn long ago. 593. It was not used in 1837, Avas it? — It has been used in Aberdeenshire since 1840 ; it was carried on the canals before the railways Avere ever heard of in that part of the Avorld. 594. At all events, am I generally right in saying that the advance in science has brought into use as manure, substances which AA'ere not in use in the earlier days of railways as ma- nure ? — That is very possible. 595. Then you think that the public should know what the rates are, and Avhat the classifica- tion is ; noAv upon the question of rates as aflect- ing the classification, arc you aAvare generally of the number of separate and distinct rates that there are in this country ? — I believe they are to be reckoned by millions. 596. Are you aAvare that upon the Great Nor- thern EailAvay there ai’e 10 millions of rates ? — I am not aAvare of the exact figures. 597. Then you go on to say, as I understand you, that these rates should be printed, and that the public should be able to buy the list ; how Avould you be able to expect to accomplish that ; you said the list should be printed and sold ? — That is a matter for the managers of railway's to determine ; I do not myself think it necessary that there should be millions of rates. 598. That is a point I Avill not enter into Avith you ? — I think it is an evil that there are millions of rates; I think it Avould be v'ery much better if they Avei’e to be grouped by themselves into classes. 599. Am I to understand that you Avould fine railway companies if they did not permit these rates? — No, I did not rel’er to the question of hoAV it should be eni'orced; I did not suggest that. 600. Did I rightly gather that you Avould have a barrister attached to the Board of Trade to de- cide upon what Avere reasonable terms? — No; I should not give that function to any barrister attached to the Board of Trade ; that is a ques- tion entirely for the courts ot laAv. 601. Then Avhat Avould this barrister at the Board of Trade do? — He Avould attend to all complaints that Avere made by any members of the public in respect to infringements of the IlailAvaA' and Canal Traffic Act, and if there Avas a primd facie ground for complaint, he Avould send notice to the railway company of the nature of the complaint, and ask them Avhether they had any observations to make upon it, and if he Avere satisfied from their ansAver that there Avas no violation of the laAV, then he Avould do nothing further ; but if he Avere satisfied that there Avas a violation of the Iuaa', he Avould probably represent that again to the raihvay company, and if they refused to accept his vieAv, he Avould haA'e to put the case before the Attorney General, and if the Attorney General Avas satisfied that there Avas a violation of the laAv, then at the instigation of the Board of Trade he Avould sue. 602. He SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 37 22 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 602. He would have power to prosecute ? — I did not use the word “ prosecute,” because that does not apply to civil proceedings. 603. Then, as I understand you further, you would give to the Board of Trade, or the Rail- way Commissioners, a control over fixing the through rates ? — What I suggested was that the initiative in asking for a through rate, which is at present confined to the companies, and is not given to the public, might be entrusted to the Board of Trade. 601. Do not you think the Board of Trade would find themselves in this position, that the various competing districts would be always besiegino; the Board of Trade to make them favourable rates to one place and another ? — The only reason why I suggest the Board of Trade is this, that if the puldic have the right to demand a through rate, and to bring their actions against the railway companies about through rates, the railway companies might be put to unreasonable trouble and ditficulty ; but I do not think the Board of Trade would interfere to ask a through rate, unless they were satisfied that the public necessities required it. 605. I daresay the Board of Trade might act very judiciously, but I want to know what it is YOU want the Board of Trade to do : as I under- •< ' stand, you would jdace in the hands of the Board of Ti-ade the fixing of all the through rates in England, Ireland, aud Scotland? — Not so; there is no doubt great difficulty in the subject, but the decision of that would depend not upon the Board of Trade, but upon the Railway Commis- sioners. 606. Take, for instance, the case which I used as an illustration, of a grazier in Aberdeenshire and a grazier in Leicestershire, supposing the Leicestershire grazier said, “ 1 am charged more per mile than the grazier in Aberdeenshire for my rate,” then, as I understand you, the Leices- tershire grazier might go to the Board of Trade, or the Railway Commissioners, and say he Avas not getting what you would give him, viz., the benefit of his proximity to the market ; that would be one of the things you Avould propose they should do, w^ould it not? — I should not dejjrive any person of the right he has at present to go before the Railway Commissioners, but I should supersede that, as it practically would be superseded, by suggesting that the Board of Trade should exercise the authority that they have at present. 607. Whether they have it or have not, it comes to this, does it not, that the authority to fix the price for the article Avhicli has to come from the point of production to the point of consumption Avould, according to that, be vested in a public authority? — In a judicial tribunal. 608. Then in point of fact the separate action of the railway company as a carrier, between the producer at the one end and the consumer at the other end, Avould be interfered with ? — The pro- ducer has extremely little liberty of action ; he must send by tlie railway company if he Avould send at all, and he must pay Avhat they ask, or his goods Avill not be carried. 609. You are leaving out of view the question of competition, which would more or less protect 0.54. Sir Edioard Watkin — continued. him ? — If there Is water competition, he could send by that of course. 610. Why should you not upon the same mode of reasoning, propose that some Govern- ment Department should fix the price of the con- sumable article itself? — Because there is no mo- nopoly in the production of the consumable article ; the price of an article in the open market, as all political economists tell us, is ulti- mately determined by the cost of production ; that price is reached by the higgling of the market where there is open competition ; and what Parliament must endeavour to do where it has created a monopoly, is to attain by its action the result Avhich is otherwise obtained where there is no monopoly by the higgling of the market. 611. You gave a very fair answer as to not interfering Avith the toll tables in the various prtivate Acts of the companies ; you .said it would be unjust aud unfair to interfere Avith this power of charge which Parliament had given to the raihvay companies, and upon the faith of Avhich they had laid out their capital ; Avould not Avhat you are recommending be an infringement of your own proposal ? — My ansAver to that Avould be, tliat at pi’esent any raihvay company has a right, as against other companies, to propose a through rate, and what I propose is that the power now given to one company as against another should be given to a public authority. The 2)OAver noAv existing is the power given me to foi’ce you to carry at a given rate. 612. If I please ? — Yes ; if there is a through rate, it is for the RalhA^ay Commissioners to appor-* tion it, or to say Avhetlier the granting of a through rate is a due and reasonable facility in the interest of the public. 613. As far as you knovAg all the long-distance rates are under the maximum power of the com- panies to charge, are they not ? — For a distance of 500 miles, I should say, no doubt it AA^as so. 614. But Avould not this be the effect if you give this poAA^er to a public department ; that if they have the power they must exercise It ; and Avould not giving them that poAver be certain to introduce political considerations in the compe- tition of district Avith district ; and would it not also be an interference Avith the ordinary laAVS of political economy, enabling the customer and producer to treat together in their OAvn Avay ? — First of all, I Avould not propose that the Board of Trade should have the poAver to enjoin the through rate. I have already stated that all the Board of Trade should have the poAver to do Avould be to initiate the application for a through rate; the question Avhether a through rate should be granted Avould be determined by a body Avhich is not affected by political considerations at all ; that is to say, by the Railway Commissioners. Then the ansAver to the second point is, that at the present moment, in the case of raihvays, there is no such right on the part of the consumers to make their own bargain. The railway com- pany have their monopoly, and the consumers must pay Avhat they ask, 615. Noav, Avith regard to the question of the person nearest the market ; are you aAvare that the gentlemen of Liverpool, one of the largest parts of the kingdom, are contending that they E 3 should 38 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Sir Edward Walkin — continued. should have the benefit of their vicinity to the market, and that they have been objecting to the rates wliich have been given to parts at a longer distance from the point of consumption?—! am not aware what the Liverpool people desire. 616. Now with regard to what you told us, which was very interesting, about the American Railway Commissioners, am I wrong in saying that as a rule the Railway Commissioners in the various States of America have rather used their position as arbitrators and mediators than as a body having penal power over others ? — That is so; they have relied very much upon their in- fluence and persuasion ; in fact in many of the states they have not our law with regard to maxi- mum rates and preferential rates, and conse- quently they have relied upon their influence. 617. The question was put to you Avhether the railway companies had not made the Railway Commissioners an expensive tribunal; am I wrong in saying that the Railway Commissioners them- selves have laid down their own rules of practice, and have, as I understand, made it a sort of nne qua non that barristers should be employed, and not merely to have the parties themselves or their solicitors before them ? — I believe the practice is for counsel to appear. I do not know that the Railway Commissioners have refused to hear a solicitor, and I do not know that it would really cheapen proceedings if they did, because of course the railway companies would certainly employ counsel. 618. I understood you to say that you thought it was not unreasonable that there should be an appeal Ifom the decisions of the Raihvay Com- missioners, ])rovided that appeal was taken di- rectly to the House of Lords, instead of having to go through an intermediate tribunal ? — 1 think so. 619. I think, as a lawyer, you will not correct me in saying that there is no other tribunal in England, except the Raihvay Commissioners, Avhere there is not a full right of apj)eal ? — The right of a})peal in all courts is more or less limited. For instance, in the county courts there are some cases in which you cau appeal, and some in which you cannot; but, as I say, I do not think it is satisfactory to the i-allway com- panies, who have such enormous interests, that the question whether they should have the right Sh‘ Edward Wathin — continued. of appeal or not should virtually rest with the Commissioners themselves. I think that is a grievance of which they should be relieved, and that the best way to relieve them, and to suit the public interest, would be to give an appeal to the House of Lords. 620. You are aware that the Railway Com- missioners have refused to give an appeal ? — They have refused to state a case in which they thought no question of law was involved, but only a question of fact. Mr. Barnes. 621. With regard to the Denaby Main Col- liery, their action was to establish a right to the natural advantage of their position, was it not ? — Yes. 622. They were deprived of that right ? — They were deprived of that right by the railway com- pany carrying at a less proportionate rate to the more distant collieries. 623. Then you would naturally suppose, I imagine, that they in taking the lease of their coal would pay a price for their coal in propor- tion to its position ? — Yes. 624. And that they therefore lost what they gave to the lessor by the action of the railway company ? — Yes, it was proved by the manager that they often had a glut, and could not get rid of their coal, in consequence of other col- lieries being able to compete with them in that way. 625. With regard to the Board of Trade in- tervening on behalf of the public, would that be almost the only instance in which there is any public interference by Government, or by a public authority ? — I have not gone into the question of policy, because, finding that the law did give this j)ower, I was quite satisfied to ask that it should be put in force. 626. And the law, you say, does give the power for the Board of Trade to interfere in the interests of the public? — That is so. 627. But the power has not been exercised? — No. 628. Would it be an expensive process for any individual to enforce that procedure on the Board of Trade ? — It would cost the individual nothing at all. (Further Examination postponed.) Mr. Aeexaneer Copland, sworn; Examined. Mr. Barclay. 629. Are you the manager of the Aberdeen Commercial Company ? — I am joint manager with Mr. William Black of that company. 630. That is a company engaged in the manu- facture and selling of manui'e to farmers and for other commercial purposes ? — It is. 631. In 1876 you discovered that the Great North of Scotland Railway Company was over- charging you for the carriage of goods ? — That is so. 632. Did you enter into a correspondence with the railway company and ask them to ex- plain their charges ? — Yes, we wrote to the secretary of the company, sending him some of Mr. Barclay — continued. the accounts we had paid, and asking him to ex- plain the charges in those accounts. 633. Did he give any satisfactory explanation to you? — No; the answer was not satisfac- tory. 634. AVhat proceedings did you thereupon adopt? — We were satisfied that there was some- thing wrong, and we took the opinion of counsel upon the question, and that opinion was that the railway company was overcharging us ; then we intimated that we would not pay their accounts. 635. You refused to pay their accounts ? — \Ye refused to pay their accounts about the month of May 1877. 636. Did SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 39 22 March 1881.] Mr. Copland. \C(mtinued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 636. Did you then take proceedings against the railway company before the Railway Com- missioners ? — Yes, that was tiie case. 637. That was in February 1878 ? — Yes. 638. Did the railway company thereupon make a modification of certain of its charges ? — Yes ; they had been overcharging for some years upon the carriage of lime, grain, coal, and manures ; those were the principal goods in question, and in the beginning of February, when they knew we were going to apply to the Railway Commis- sioners, the railway company reduced the charges upon coal, lime, and grain to the maximum rates in their Acts; but upon the carriage of manures they would not reduce their charges. 639. Did they also intimate to you that they would not carry the manures under the maximum rates, but under their toll clauses? — Yes; the railway company gave a public intimation that they had ceased to be carriers of manure, but that they would lend locomotive power, waggons, and the use of their lines to those who chose to carry manures. 640. And did they ask you to sign a re- quisition note adopting this principle ? — The railway company refused to carry our traffic in 1878 until we signed it ; we could not do any- thing else. I have hei’e a copy of the requisition note. 641. You had to sign and send them a re- quisition note for the use of the plant, and the requisition note declared that you would pay them under the system of tolls, and not under the system of rates? — Yes ; they printed a list of the charges for conveyance of manures upon that principle. {The same was handed in). 642. What is the sum of the total charges under the Great North of Scotland Act ? — It de- pends upon the class of goods ; Class 1 is a penny for the use of the railway, a penny for waggons, and a penny for locomotive power. 643. The toll charges, added together, are considerably in excess of the maximum rate ? — Very considerably. 644. What did the company do in respect to the through traffic of manure ? — The company put a stop to the through traffic also ; we had manure to bring from Montrose, and manure from Glasgow, and the Caledonian Railway Company, acting in concert with them, refused to bring those goods from Glasgow and Montrose, unless we would also sign a requisition note. 645. The Caledonian Company adopted the same policy as the Great North of Scotland Company had done ? — The Caledonian Company contended that the Great North of Scotland Company would not take the traffic from them unless a requisition note was handed to them for it. The result was that we could not get the traffic from Montrose or Glasgow without giving this requisition note. 646. The Railway Commissioners found that the railway companies were not entitled to charge under their toll clauses, did they not ? — That was their judgment. 647. Did the railway companies accept that decision? — No, they requested an appeal to the Court of Session ; and the matter was very fully debated before the First Division of the 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. Court of Session in July and October 1878 ; and the result was that the Court of Session unani- mously confirmed the decision of of the Railway Commissioners. 648. Upon what ground did the railway com- panies ask for an appeal from the Railway Commissioners ? — They held that the Railway Commissioners had exceeded their jurisdiction. 649. The Railway Commissioners stated a case which went to the Court of Session in Scotland ? — They did. 650. Has the Great North of Scotland Railway Company since conformed to the decision of the Railway Commissioners? — Yes, they have. 651. What is the last step that the Great North of Scotland Raihvay Company have taken in regard to those charges ? — They have a Bill in Parliament at the present time, asking for a reclassification of manures; they want manures removed from Class 1 to Class 2, which would raise the rates 25 per cent, upon their own line, and 33 per cent, upon the Deeside line. 652. The effect of that would practically be to reverse the decision of the Railway Commis- sioners in regard to the rates which tliey are entitled to charge for manure? — Yes. 653. Do they want power in the Bill also to charge for terminals, and station accommodation, and sidings, and so forth? — YYs, they want power to charge for the use of sidings for load- ing and unloading, and they wish also to charge for the loading and unloading, and for the use of covers. 654. The practical result of that would be to add to the maximum rates for all kinds of agri- cultural produce ? — It would. 655. That Bill is down for second reading this afternoon, is it not? — I have been told so. 656. Will you tell the Committee whether the Caledonian Railway Company at Aberdeen act in the same way as the Great North of Scotland Railway Company in regard to the charge for manure? — We found that the Caledonian Com- pany were also exceeding their rates ; and in October 1878, when the Court of Session gave their decision, we wrote to the manager of the Caledonian Railway Company, telling him that we would not pay the charges that that railway company had been making for the carriage of manure, and for a considerable time their accounts were not paid. Ultimately they were reframed, reducing the charges for the carriage of manures to the limiting rates under the Acts which govern the Scottish North Eastern section of their rail- way. 657. You objected to pay the Caledonian Railway Company the rates they were charging you for the carriage of manures ; and after some coi’respondence the Caledonian Railway Com- pany agreed to reduce their rates to the sum you contended was the proper charge? — Yes, there was a good deal of ti'ouble about it ; I had to go over the various Acts, and there was a scale of rates adjusted according to those Acts. We have paid upon that scale since, and that scale is in conformity with the limiting charges. 658. They are charging you, as I understand, the maximum rate which they are legally autho- rised to get? — Yes. E 4 659. Upon 40 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 March \8S\.\ Mr. Copland. ^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin. 059. Upon that section of the railway ? — Yes, upon that section of the railway. 660. Have you examined the rate-book re- cently to see what are the charges put down in the rate-book for manure ? — I examined the rate- book upon the 10th of this month. 661. And did you find that in the rate-book they had put down the rates they charged you before you objected, and which they have since reduced to the proper charge? — I found that the rates in the Caledonian Company’s rates-book for manures, were very much above what we are paying now. 662. Does it appear that the Caledonian Com- pany are charging you one rate, and to the public at large another rate considerably higher ? — The goods rate book shows that, but I do not know what they are doing in practice. 663. AVill you give the Committee some figures showing the amount of the charge for manure in the rate-book and the maximum they are entitled to charge under their private Acts? — Taking manure from Aberdeen to Drum- lithie, which is 24 miles, the rate for loads under a ton is put doAvn at 6 s. 8 r?. ; we pay 2 s. 11 d. There are rates for loads of one ton and ujnvards, and the rate for a load of one ton and upwards is 5 s., and for loads under a ton, 6 s. 8 (/. ; but the rate that we are charged is 2 s. 1 1 Mr. Bolton. 664. For both ? — For large and small ; there is not any difference. Mr. Barclay. 665. The railway company, I believe, is not entitled to make any difference between those two quantities? — Not by their Act. 666. What is the maximum rate Avhicli they are entitled to charge?— 2 s. Ill il. for that dis- tance. 667. And that is what they are charging you? — 2s. 11 f/. is what they are charging us; the farthing is thrown off. 668. Have you any other examples to give the Committee? — Taking Montrose, which is a dis- tance of 42 miles, the rate is 8 s. 4 d. in loads of one ton and up-wards, and 10 s. 10 d. for less quantities ; 6 s. 8 <7. for four ton loads, and the limiting charge is 5 s. 4 d. 669. Is that a fair sample of Avhat they are doing all over the northern part of the line ? — Yes. Sir Edtcard Watkin. 670. That is as respects manures? — Yes. Mr. Barclay. 671.1 want to know how much this action against the Great North of Scotland Kailway Company cost you ? — There were four actions ; the ap])li- cation to the Railway Commissioners, and the appeal to the Court of Session. Then the rail- way company raised an action of declarator in the Court of Session, to have it found that they were not bound to carry manures ; and there -was another action for the payment of the accounts. After deducting the expenses allowed us, those actions cost us 643 /. Sir Edward Watkin. 672. Is there any other complaint against the Great North of Scotland Company, except upon this question of manures ? — Not now ; they recti- fied their rates in 1878, and the rates which they had been overcharging before were reduced. 673. At the present moment there is no com- plaint? — No, there is not. 674. And the same with regard to the Cale- donian Company ? — I have no complaint against the Caledonian Company. Mr. Barclay. 675. The rate-book -which you mentioned tons just now, is the rate-book that is in force at this moment? — It appears so ; those rates that I copied from the book are not the rates that we are paying. Mr. Bolton. 676. You stated that the Caledonian Company refused to take manure from Glasgo-w, did they give you any reason for that ? — The reason they gave was, that the Great North of Scotland re- quired this requisition note, and would not receive the goods from them, unless it was signed. 677. Did you suggest how this difficulty should be overcome ? — No; I maintained that it being through traffic, they were bound to forward it. 678. 'With reference to this Bill introduced by the Great North of Scotland Comj-tan}^ which you describe as virtually an attempt to reverse the decision of the Kailway Commissioners, would it not be fairer to say that it was practi- cally to remedy the decision of the Commis- sioners? — I do not know that their decision requires a remedy ; I think it was a just de- cision. 679. The rate charged upon this is the same rate as is charged upon road or town sweepings, is it not ? — Yes. 680. And the responsibility of the railway company is very different, is it not, in the one case from the other ? — I am not aware what very different responsibility there is as regards most of these manures. I may say they were carried by the Aberdeenshire Canal before the railway was in existence, at the low^est rates ; the toll upon the canal was 1 d. a ton, and bones and guano, and the like, were carried at the lowest rate. 681. But the difference in the responsibility of the railway company is very considerable, is it not? — I have been for about 19 years connected with the manure traffic, and the railway com- panies have never had to pay any compensation for damage done to the manures. 682. The town sweepings or farmyard dung is canned in the open truck ? — Yes. 683. And in large quantities ? — Yes. 684. These manures, for which you are seek- ing to get a revision of the rates, such as guano, phosphates, Townsend’s manure, and articles of that kind, which are liable to be damaged by rain or exposure, must be carried in covered trucks, must they not ? — You must keep in view that guano is an article that is not very liable to damage by rain ; it is put out in the fields by the farmers, SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 41 22 March 1881.] Mr. Copland. \^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. farmers, and it will stand in the bags there for days before it is used. Then, again, it is carried by vessels at the lowest freight ; we had two caroces from Rotterdam just now ; one brought at 5s. per ton and another at 5 5. 3f/. per ton. You could not possibly expect a lower rate than that. Then, again, they are carried in the same kind of waggons as the street sweepings or stable dung are sent in, but a waggon carries 8 tons of this packed manure, whereas it only carries from 5 to 6 tons of the city or stable dung, so that the railway company has a greater profit in car- rying this packed manure than it has for tlie street manure, doing the same work. 685. There is no risk and no liability attaching to the railway company in the event of the manure being exposed to rain ; is tliat so ? — As I have mentioned to you, we have never had any payment for any damage done, and under ordi- nary circumstances I should say there is no damage done. 686. Is that owing to the fact that the manure is always canned in covered trucks ? — No, it is not. 687. Is it not covered by tarpaulins? — Not always. 688. But if damage did result you would con- sider that you had a claim upon the railway com- pany ? — Practically there is no damage done ; during 19 years’ experience we have never had any payment for damage. 689. Is there no liability to theft in one case that does not exist in the other? — No doubt there is that possible element. 690. A man would not run away with his pockets full of stable manure, whereas, in the other case, he might be tempted by the more valuable article ? — That is conceivable. Sir Edward Watkin. 691. Is it within your knowledge that the Railway Commissioners recommended the Great North of Scotland Railway Company to go to Parliament for redress upon the question of packed manure rates? — The circumstance that you refer to is within my knowledge, but that was Jiot the ground given. It has been misunder- stood by parties who have been talking of this matter. A question was put by Mr. Price in regard to whether a railway company could be defrauded by parties sending an article as manure. Sir Edward continued. which was intended to be used in a factory, and what Mr. Price aimed at was that there should be some penalty provided for parties com- mitting a fraud of that sort. You will find it in the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Rail- way Commissioners. It was not a reclassifica- tion of manures, or any of the articles at all that was suggested, but simply some means of preventing fraud being practised upon the rail- way com|janiesby parties repreitenting that they were sending an article such as nitrate of soda for manure, whereas they were intending to use it for. 692. Therefore, with that limit, they did suggest to the Great North of Scotland Com- j)any to come to Parliament ? — Mr. Price did suggest that he thought there should be some remedy for a railway company in a case like that. Mr. Bolton. 693. You say that tlie Caledonian Railway Company are now charging 2 s. 11 rf, ? — Yes, for manures to Drumlithie. 694. That is to say, the company are now charging their authorised rate ? — That is what they are charging us. 695. M^hen you brought it before their notice that the}.' were overcharging you, they iinme diately repaid you the sum they had overcharged you, did they not ? — It took some time before we got it. 696. But you did get it without going to law? — Yes. Mr. Barclay. 697. In point of fact, the Caledonian Railway Company did not repay you any money, did they ? — No ; we refused to pay their account until the charges were reframed. Mr. Bolton. 698. They did not proceed against you for it? — No, because the Court of Session had decided the question. Mr. O' Sullivan. 699. Do you know whether the railway com- jiany carry for anybody else at so low a rate as they do for you ? — I do not. 0.54. E 42 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Thursday, 2Ath March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay, ' Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Daniel Goobh. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Joseph Pease. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. The Right Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Professor William Alexander Hunter, called in ; and further Examined. Mr. Bolton. 700. I THINK that the tendency of your evi- dence has been in favour of a uniform mileage rate ? — I do not think so, otherwise than with the qualifications which I consider an essential part of the rule. 701. Such as the three which you enumerated? —Yes. 702. I am sjieaking in reference to towns, for example, xvhere there are three railway stations and three railway companies, such as between London and Birmingham, and I think that the tendency of your evidence is that you approve of a strict mileage rate ? — No. I specially stated that the strict mileage rate must be modified with regard to distance. 703. Then how do you propose in these re- forms which you suggest, to allow each railway company to decide what should be the allowance for the difference of distance ? — The suggestion that I made was, that equal mileage rates should be the rule, but that any railway company de- siring to depart in any respect from equality, should pre])are a scale, and obtain the sanction of the Railway Commissioners to that scale. 704. We know it is the case in many instances amongst railways that the shortest route governs the rate at present, is it not so ? — I cannot answer that question. 705. You may take it from me that it is so ; that in railway competition the shortest route governs the rate ? — I should say it did not. To Edin- burgh, for instance, there are three railways from London, the Great Northern, the Midland, and the London and North Western, and they charge 1 rf. a mile from London to Edinburgh. 706. We are now dealing with rates, not fares; if it is not so, how could you expect that in the case of railway comj)anies carrying goods from one point to another, the same points being- identical in the case of each railway, there would be any competition between them ? — The question Mr. Bolton — continued. of competition is one which I did not enter into with regard to that point. 707. But is it not a very desirable thing that there should be competition in the interest of the public ? — I do not think that there is any great competition between those different railways. I referred to the evidence that was given before the Agricultural Commission, when it was shewn that the managers of the "reat lines leading from London to the north, met periodically, and ar- ranged the rales. 708. Then you think it is desirable that there should be competition? — I do not see that com- petition has done much good to the public. 709. Do you not see that it is impossible that there can be competition if the line which has the shorter route is the one that can caiTy legally at the loAvest rate ? — Those considerations would be very proper considerations to put before the Rail- way Commissioners when the companies ask an unequal rate. There is nothing to hinder a com- pany making a lower competitioji rate, subject to the existing law, that they must proportionately lower their rates to intermediate stations. 710. Then, assuming that the Railway Com- missioners’ Court is availed of for such purpose, and that they allow one line to carry at a much lower rate over one portion of its system than they are carrying over the other portion of the system, might not th.at be felt to be a hardship upon that portion of the system where the higher rate is charged ? — If the principle Avhich 1 con- tend for is adopted, that the charge is to be in proportion to the cost of conveyance, nobody can complain. 711. I think you also stated that you thought it very desirable that the rate to be charged should in all cases include collection and de- livery? — No; I meant to convej' exactly the opposite Impression. 712. That SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS, 43 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. \_Contimied. Mr. Bolton — continued. 712. That It should not be included? — Yes. 713. \Yould you allow the railway companies to collect and deliver? — I see no possible ob- jection to that ; on the contrary, it may often be a very great advantage to the public, subject to fair plav as between themselves and outside carriers. 714. Y'ou would not compel them? — I would not compel them. There are no facts within my knowledge which would justify me in saying that they ought to be compelled. 715. If the railway companies were allowed to collect and deliver, would you allow them to col- lect and deliver on such terms as they think proper ? — Yes, on such terms as they think proper, subject to the existing law, which is that they must not give themselves, as Ctii’rlers, a pre- ference over other carriers, and the question of a reasonable charge for terminals being within the jurisdiction of the Railway Commissioners. 716. By “ giving themselves a preference ove^ other carriers, ” do you mean that they should not collect and deliver at a less rate than other carriers ? — No. 717. Then in what other way could they do it? — Those cases have been very much considered ; there has been a great number of carriers’ cases, and the question, if I am to go into it, is rather a complicated one ; but the shortest answer I could give is this : that if a railway company professes to cart at an unremunerative rate, really making its profit by going up to its maximum on the carriage, then the Courts have held that that is an undue preference. 718. You are now suggesting reforms, and amongst the reforms you suggested was the ques- tion of collection and delivery ; and I understood you to say that collection and delivery should be compulsory ? — I did not say that ; all I said was, that the charge for collection and delivery ought to be shown separately from the mileage charge. 719. I ask you w'hether you would allow the raihvay companies, wdio are not to be compelled to collect and deliver, to make such charge for collection and delivery as they themselves think proper ? — Subject to the usual rules applicable to carriers; certainly. 720. Such as what rules, applicable to carriers, that they should not undersell the private carriers? — That is a question of undue preference in each particular case. 721. You are not going to close the competition between them and the private carriers, I should think ? — If the company charge a certain mileage rate, and then say they will carry for the public at a certain rate, leaving it open to others to do it nor not, they are at perfect liberty to charge their own price, subject to a question of whether that is a bund fide arrangement, or whether it is not a mere appearance, the real arrangement being that they actually make up the differ- ence which they lose upon the cartage by increasing their mileage rate. 722. You mentioned the word “ turnips ” very frequently on the last occasion; I think in speak- ing of that subject you suggested that unenume- rated articles should be enumerated in some way ? — Yes. 054. Mr. Bolton — continued. 723. And you also suggested, did you not, that many circumstances should be taken into account in fixing the maximum rates for the different articles ?• — No. 1 suggested that the enumeration should be by analogy to the existing enumeration. 724. You did certainly say that you thought such articles as turnips for example should not be carried according to value, you said that cost was an element ? — I think that what I said was that it would not be reasonable to ask as much for turnips as for silk. 725. Then cost is an element? — It was not upon the ground of cost that I suggested the difference. 726. What was the ground? — The ground Avas the amount of care that the company must take and their liability as Insurers, and the species of carriages that they must use. 727. Then why did you not draw the same distinction between concentrated or artificial manure and street sweepings? — If it were a question of classifying de novo, that would be an argument to use, but as the laAv is at present there is no distinction ; and that would not be affected by my proposal. I do not propose to alter the existino; contract, and the existing: contract is generally expressed in the words “ all sort^ of manure.” 728. You do not propose to alter the existing contracts, but I think you pi’oposed to apply coercion to railways that were Avithout maximum rates ? — That is not altering the existing con- tracts, but I should say defining and determining them. 729. Is there not an existing contract in the case of the railways Avhich are without maximum rates ? — Yes, but they must carry at reasonable rates. 730. And you Avant to impose upon them the necessity of accepting maximum rates ? — ■ Certainly. 731. 1 think you told us that practically you found very little difference in the charges Avhether the railway company Avas limited by maximum rates or not ?— That Avas an answer which applied only to the South Eastern Com- pany’s system. 732. Do you find it so? — The only other case that I knoAV of Avhere there are no maximum I'ates, is the Midland, and I have not examined the Midland Company’s charges, and therefore I cannot express an opinion. 733. But you did recommend that Parliament should coerce those raihvay companies Avhlch are Avithout maximum rates, to impose upon them- selves maximum rates? — Y’^es; my reason Avas simply this, in order that people might knoAv what was a reasonable sum that they Avere expected to pay instead of having to go to a court of laAv and incur all the expense of litigation in order to determine it. 734. Then you have suggested to the Com- mittee that the Board of Trade should bo the public prosecutor in this case," and at the same time I think ymu said that the Board of Trade already had poAver to prosecute ? — I Avould not use the word “ prosecute,” I should prefer to say “ to take legal proceedings.” 735. But they have already the poAver at F 2 present 44 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN liEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. present? — Yes; they have already the power at present. 736. Then how would an additional law compel the Board of Trade to act, while the existing law does not in your opinion ? — I do not think it Avould be necessary to have any additional law upon that point. 737. Then you withdraw that part of your evidence ? — No ; I think 1 distinctly stated that upon that part of the question no new law wuis necessary. Mr. Barnes. 738. Can you refer the Coinmittee to the decisions upon which you relied when you stated that it was the law, that a railway company was not entitled to derive a district of its natural advantages by deferential or preferential rates? — The Courts have held ever since the passing of the Act of 1854 (there has been no difference in their language whatever) that the principle of that measure was, that it was an undue preference to deprive any person of the natural advantage of his position. The case of Bansome against the Eastern Counties Pail way Comjiany in 1857, which is reported in 1, Common Bench, New Series, page 437, was a case where the company charged less to certain traders at Peterborough than to Mr. Ransome at Ipswich. Mr. Bovill, the counsel for the railway comjiany said, “ The object is to enable the Y"orksl)ire and Stafford- shire ccal to compete with the Northumberland and Durham coal, which have the advantage of a cheaper mode of conveyance to Ipswich that was by sea. Now, Mr. Justice Crowder said, “ The object is to benefit the one dealer at the expense of the other by depriving the latter of the natural advantages of his position.” Then Mr. Justice Cressweli said, Would it be justi- fiable in the company to carry cattle for a Nor- folk farmer at a cheaper rate than an Essex farmer, in order to enable the former to compete upon more equal terms with the latter in the London market and judgment w'as given against the company. Then, in 1858, there was the case of Harris against the Cockermnuth Railway Com])any, reported in 3, Common Bench, New^ Series, page 693. In that case a colliery pro- prietor threatened to construct a tramwav, and divert his whole traff c from the defendants’ rail- way, unless they carried for his collieries at a reduced rate. The company agreed to charge less to his collieries. The Court, consisting of the late late Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Crowder, and a judge who was considered a very eminent judge, namely, Mr. Justice Willes, held that wuxs undue preference. Mr. Manisty, xvlio xvas the counsel for the railway com 2 )any, said that the object xvas not to enable the colliery jmoprietor to undersell the complainants, but to place them both upon the same footing, nj)on Avhich the Lord Chief Justice remarked, “Your argument Avould de- ju’ive a man of his natural advantages.” The ])oint is even more clearly stated in the case of Ransome against the Eastern Counties Railway Comjiany in 1858, reixoi-ted in 4th Common Bench, Ncav Series, jiage 135. 'I his was a ques- tion of the scale of charges, and the judgment of the Court was that “ the effect of such a scale of Mr. Barnes — continued- charges is to diminish the natural advantages which the position of the dealers at Ipswich, by reason of its greater proximity, gives them over the dealers at Peterborough in respect of the traffic at Thurston. Elmswell, Stowmarket, Need- ham Market, Mellis, and Diss, by annihilating, in point of expense of carriage, a certain portion of the distance between Peterborough and those jilaces, and just in proportion by which that natural advantage is diminished, and undue pre- ference is given to the Peterborough dealers, and an undue disadvantage is brought upon the com- plainants and of the other Ipswich dealers.” In all those cases the Court decided against the com- panies. Mr. Craig. 739. I should just like to ask you one or two questions with regard to the uniform mileage rates. I gather from your evidence that you have studied that question, and that you are of opinion that it ought to aj)ply in principle uni- formly throughout all the railway systems of Great Britain ; is that so? — No, the unifoi’mlty must necessarily be confined within the area governed by the special Acts. 740. Then you would simply apply the prin- ci^ile to each individual railway, in accordance with its existing jirivate Acts? — That is the ex- treme length to which I have carried the pro- position. 741. So that in coming from Lancashire to London, if you came over two lines your uniform mileage rate would have to be arranged with re- gard to each Act of those two lines ? — That is so. 742. Then I understand that it is not “ uni- form ” in amount but simply in principle ? — SinqJy in principle. 743. And that you w'ould modify that in its ap])lication, according to the circumstances which affect the cost of transit ? — Quite so. 744. Y ou would consider distance as one cir- cumstance affecting the cost of transit ? — A most important circumstance. 745. So that if you take these two coalfields of Lancashire and Staffordshire, the one being 160 miles from London, and the other 200, and every thing being equal except the distance, your mileage rate from Staffordshire to London xvould be higher than that from Lancashire to London ? — It probably would be so. I jJut my proposition in this way, that it would be for the Raihvay Commissioners to determine, and no doubt deter- mining it according to the principles xvhlch are established they xvould make that difference. 746. Without putting any question as to the mode of determining it, I xvant to get at your idea with regard to the application of the prin- ci 2 )le ; it xvould be this, that requiring less per ton per mile to come over 200 miles than over 160, the mileage rate in amouirt from Lancashire to London xvould differ from that from Stafford- shire to London ? — I should put it in this way, that the charge would be more to Lancashire, but it would not be more in the same jii’oportion as the distance. 747. But taking it per mile, the charge would be less per mile ? — It Avould xvork out at a less rate per mile. 748. So SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILM'ATS. 45 24 ikfarcA 1881.] Jt^rofessor Huntek. {^Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. 748. So that you do give a legitimate advan- tage to the nearest coalfield to the market ; you do not deprive it of that advantage which natu- rally belongs to it ? — Not at all. I consider that by so doing you give it exactly its legitimate ad- vantage, and nothing more. 749. Then with regard to quantity ; that would also be considered by you as a circumstance affect- ing the cost of transit ? — That is to say, where the quantity is guaranteed in such a manner as to make it cheaper for the railway company. 750. Sending in whole train loads for example, you would consider entitled to a less rate per ton per mile than when part loads were sent? — I would. 751. Then with regard to gradients, I under- stand that you would also consider that circum- stance in applying a uniform principle ? — I would. 752. So that it really comes to this, that you take a principle as the basis ; say that it might be the cost of conveying any goods over a mile of level road, and you fix that as a principle and apply it according to the circumstances of quan- tity, distance, and gradients ? — That is so. 753. And I presume the practical application of the principle would take sometliing like this form in your estimation ; that you would con- sider a certain departure from the horizontal line in point of gradient would justify a change in the rate ? — Most undoubtedly. 754. And a certain departure from a full train load would justify it also ? — No doubt. 755. And a certain departure in point of distance! — Quite so. 756. I think I understand your meaning. Now with regard to maximum rates, I understood you to state that in point of law a railway com- pany having the three tolls fixed and also maximum rates, would not be at liberty to charge according to the tolls, but that they must charge according to the maximum rate? — That I take to be clearly decided where they act as carriers, and they act as carriers if they supply the loco- motive and have the charge of the line. 757. Does that render it legally obligatory upon the part of railway companies to find all the three things; that is to say, the way, the engine power, and the waggons ? — Undoubtedly, subject to this qualification, that the Kailway Commissioners cannot order them to find waggons if it is not within their power to supply them ; there is that limit, “ within their power,"’ in the Act, beyond which, of course, the power of the Railway Commissioners does not go, 758. We will eliminate for the present all con- sideration of the Railway Commissioners ; but inasmuch as you have laid down a general prin- ciple, which 1 think is very clearly laid down, I should like to see your own application of the principle. If the railway companies are obliged by law to cliarge not above the maximum rate, and in accordance with the maximum rate it is legally necessary upon their part to find waggons and engine power as well as way ? — Undoubtedly, engine power they must necessarily find, but as regards waggons, it stands in this way : in some Acts there is a special obligation imposed on 0.54. Mr. Craig — continued. railway companies to find waggons ; in some Acts, as, for example, in the London and North West- ern Company’s Act with respect to carriers, there is a special exemption, but whether in a given case they would be bound by the existing law to supply waggons cailnot be determined in the ab- stract ; it is a question always for the Railway Commissioners whether it would be a reasonable facility within their power to do so. 759. In the event of a trader insisting upon finding his own waggons, would that entitle the railway company to revert to their toll chai’ges? — It has been clearly decided that when a trader supplies his own waggons, and that is ail, the railway company are still carriers and governed by the rates. 760. So that the deduction from their charge in respect of waggons would have to bear a fair pro- portion to the maximum rate; they would not be allowed to deduct simply the toll fixed for the waggons, and then charge the two residual tolls? — No ; in that case it has been established by the Railway Commis.sioners, and has never been ujDset, that a trader finding his waggons is en- titled to a deduction from the charge, of the reasonableness of which they are the judges. 761. Do you know how they arrive at the rea- sonableness of the deduction ; do they take it with regard to the tolls or with regard to the maximum rate ? — They take it with regard to the maximum rate. 762. I will j)ut a case that actually existed. Suppose that a fare is made up of a toll of l\d. for the road, ^d. for the locomotive power, and a 5 c?. for waggons, and that they have a max- imum rate of a 1 JrZ. In the event of waggons being eliminated at the request of the trader, would the company be allowed to cliarge 1 1 d. toll for the road and | d. for the engine jiower, or would they be obliged to deduct only for wag- gons a fair proportion of the If d., which is the maximum rate ? — The question has exactly stated the case ; the company cannot charge their com- bined tolls for the use of the line and the tolls for the locomotives ; they can only charge their maximum, less a deduction, for the use of the waggons. 763. So that a railway company which only refused to find waggons the toll of which was one half-penny, would be legally wrong in charging- three farthings for locomotive power and a penny farthing for the road, the maximum rate for the whole three being one penny three farthings ? — Certainly. 764. Now with regard to terminals, do I under- stand you to say that the maximum rates include loading, unloading, and covering ? — The maxi- mum rate covers every service incidental to conveyance except those services incidental to conveyance which are specially excejjted ; I con- sider loading and unloading to be services incidental to the conveyance and included in the maximum rate, unless the clause runs in this way. “ Every service incidental to conveyance except a reasonable sum for loading and un- loading.” 765. That would have reference more to general merchandise ; but let us take the case of E 3 minerals 46 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [^Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. minerals were there is no question of loading and unloading. Now I understood you to state that the maximum rate included all shunting and sorting of the load ? — Yes. 766. Also a sufficient amount of sidings for the exchange of the traffic ? — Quite so, provided of course that another question does not arise which sometimes does with regard to sidings. Where a siding is used by a coal merchant as a sort of warehouse, and trucks are allowed to remaiu for a considerable time, that introduces a different kind of consideration. 767. And the companies would be entitled to charge for standage for waggons? — Yes, they would. 768. Now take the case of collieries; the minerals generally are sent down upon a private railway to the ))ublic railway, and disputes frequently ai’ise with regard to shunting and sorting; does the maximum rate for coal include all sorting and shunting necessary before the load is taken away from the private sidings to the market wherever it may be ? — Unquestion- ably. The only point in a case of that sort woidd be this : if the private siding were a very long one of sevex’al miles, it would be reasonable, of course, that the railway company should be entitled to a mileage rate for sending their loco- motives two or three miles ; but assuming it is a short siding, the ordinary process of taking off the waggons and putting them on is covered by the maximum rate, and it has been so decided by the House of Lords in Gidlow’s case. 769. If they had to travel upon a private line they would be entitled to charge for it, but so far as going upon private sidings is concerned they are not entitled to charge for it? — Not at all. 770. Supposing there is a train load of 50 waggons to be sent to five different districts, and that they stand mixed upon the private sidings, the company Avould require to sort them in order to facilitate the delivery as they went along the line, there being, we will say, five stations between Lancashire and London at which they were to be delivered ; can they com- pel the private owner to sort them upon the private sidings to suit their convenience, or are they obliged to sort them themselves without any charge beyond their maximum rate? — I think clearly, that the sorting is included in the maximum rate. Sir Daniel Gooch. 771. Can you tell me Avhat case you refer to when you say that the Kailway Commissioners have fixed a rebate for waggon allowance ? — It is the case of Watkinson against the Wrexham, Mould, and Connah’s Quay Kailway Com- pany. 772. Are you aware that there was a very long investigation by the House of Commons Avith regard to the publishing of the rates to stations ; as to tlie possibility of doing it in con- sequence of the number of them? — If you refer to the inquiry of 1872, that question was very much considered. 773. Was not the question considered also as to the revision of the rate and the terminal Sir Darnel Gooch — continued. divisions, if possible, at that time ? — 1 forget the exact Avoi'ds of the reference. 774. But the matter was gone very fully into, was it not? — The result of the inquiry was that there was a change made in the larv of a very important kind, viz. : that auy trader should have the right to go to the Kailway Commissioners and require a company to distinguish in its rate- book how much was for mileage and how much was for terminal services. The Kailway Com- missioners have acted upon that in a liberal spirit, so that if a trader does demand that the tolls upon a particular class of goods shall be so distinguished, that has to be done ; that rvas the result of the opinion of the Committee. 775. Is not that done noAV if the public wish it ? — Yes. 776. What more would you have ? — What I suggest is, firstly, that that ought to be done in all cases without the necessity of an application, and, secondly, that the charge for terminals should be separated in the account which is rendered to the customer. 777. Have you any idea of what those accounts Avould be like ? — I think I have. 778. Would they not be very Amluminous? — I do not think so ; I think it only requires the addition of one or two columns to the account. Mr. Monk. 779. I think I understood you to say on the last occasion in answer to the honourable Mem- ber for Forfarshire, that the Board of Trade has ample power under the Act of 1854, to instruct the xVttorney General or the Lord Advocate to take jiroceedings against any railway companies that they believe to be violating the law?- — Violating any of the provisions of the Act of 1854. 780. Did I understand you to say that that power had never been exercised by the Board of Trade ? — I believe it has not, because the subject is referred to in one of the Keports of the Rail- way Commissioners, in which they state that it is a matter of regret that the jioiver has not been so exercised. Chairman. 781. Would you recommend that Parliament should find the money for conducting any pro- ceedings under that section? — Unquestionably, that is the essence of the proposal. j\Ir. Monk. 782. You would recommend that a vote should be asked for in the Estimates for any prosecution Avhich was undertaken by the Attorney General at the instruction of the Board of Trade ? — I understand that the authority of Parliament is necessary for all such expenditure. 783. And you consider that would be a very reasonable expenditure-? — I consider that would be a very reasonable and a very beneficial expen- diture. 784. Is not the statutory power given to the Board of Trade under the Act of 1854, still further extended under the Railway Commis- sioners. Act of 1873 ; let me refer you to Clause 6 : “ Upon the certificate of the Board of Trade, alleging SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 47 24 March 1881. Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. alleging any such violation or contravention, any person appointed by the Board of Trade in that behalf may in like manner apply to the Commis- sioners ; ” does not that extend the powers of the Board of Trade? — Yes; it authorises them to authorise other persons as well as the Attorney- General. 785. Are you aware whether any application has been made to the Railway Commissioners under the powers given in that section ? — I do not recollect any such case. 786. Do you consider that it is desirable that the Board of Trade should exercise those further powers ? — I think it absolutely necessary, if it is desired that the railway companies should be kept within the four corners of the law. Chairman. 787. Are you aware of any application being made to the Board of Trade under this Clause 6 by any person ? — I am not aware of any such ap- plication being made. Mr. Monk. 788. May not the Board of Trade act ftroprio motu under this clause, without any complaint from third parties? — Not under Section 6 of the Act of 1873, but under the original Act of 1854 they certainly may. 789. I believe you have examined the Reports of the Railway Commissioners? — I have. 790. Do you know whether the decisions of the Railway Commissioners have been generally acquiesced in by the railway companies ? — I think, almost without exception, they have been acquiesced in, or have been confirmed on ap- peal. 791. Have there been many cases of appeal? — A considerable number. 792. And prohibitions have also been moved for, have they not ? — Y es. 793. Then you state that the decisions of the Railway Commissioners have almost invariably been upheld by the Court of Appeal ? — I think the most important of all the decisions have been upheld ; there have been two or three cases in which they have not been upheld. 794. Could you state the number of decisions which have been reversed ? — There is Toomer’s case and the Warwick Canal; I do not remember, at present, any more. 795. Do you consider that the frequent appeals against the decisions of the Railway Commis- sioners act prejudicially in the case of Individual traders? — Very much so. 796. In consequence of the expense of defend- ing those appeals? — So much so, that of late in one or two cases, the Government have found the money to defend those cases on questions of pro- hibition ; in the Hastings case, for example, I believe the Government aj)peared b}' the Attorney General, and the whole expense of fighting that question of prohibition was borne by the Govern- ment. 797. Would you recommend any further powers to be given to the Railway Commis- sioners : I think the question was asked you generally, but I mean in reference to appeal ? — 0.54. Mr. Monk — continued. The suggestion that I made with regard to appeals, was that the distinction between ap[;eals on questions of fact and appeals on questions of law should be abolished, and that apart from that distinction every litigant should have the right to go to the House of Lords direct, without going to any intermediate court. 798. In order to save expense? — Yes. Mr. Caine. 799. Early in your evidence you instanced the case of the Great North of Scotland Company as having endeavoured to increase its charges be- yond the maximum rate by evading the maximum rate clauses, and falling back upon its toll clauses. After giving that case you were asked if you knew that any English railway companies had attempted anything similar, and your reply was : “ I believe something similar was attemjited in the case of the North Staffordshire Railway Com- pany, but I am not prepared to speak to the facts;” are you now prepared to speak to the facts ? — In that case it was precisely the same point of law as in the Aberdeen case, but when I said I was not prepared to speak to the facts, what I meant was this, that I had just given in evidence the exact terms of the notice given by the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, and I was not sure whether the North Stafford- shire Railway Company had done the same thing in those precise terms, but it was exactly the same point. It does not appear, from the judgment of the Railway Commissioners, whether that notice was in the same terms or not. 800. Was that the case of the Chatterley Iron Company against the North Staffordshire Rail- way Company? — 1 think it was. 801. What was the date of that case ? — 1878. 802. That question rather bears upon some questions which were put to you just now about maximum rates ; can you tell me what is the maximum rare upon the North Staffordshire minerals? — I cannot tell you that. 803. Is it l|(i. per ton per mile? — I dare say. 804. Can you tell me their tolls ? — No. 805. I am informed that the charge for the use of road is \\d., locomotive power | c/., and waggons ^d., total tolls, 2,V/. ? — That is the usual thing in the way of tolls. 806. You recollect that case of the Chatterley Company, do you not? — Yes. 807. Is it not the case that the Chatterley Company and many other traders upon this line, were charged those rates for many years, and that the action was bi’ought by the Cliatterlcy Comjiany to recover the difference between those full tolls and the maximum rates ? — That was tried before the Railway Commissioners, it was not an action to recover overcharges, but it was an application for an injunction. 808. Have you any opinion to offer to the Committee ivhy the Chatterley Company did not contest the matter earlier ? — I have not. 809. Do you think it was not because many of the traders upon the line had through rates at less than the maximum rate, and feared that E 4 local 48 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. \_('out\nucd. Mr. Caine — continued. local action -would disturb those through rates ? — That is a very possible explanation. 810. Did not the North Staffordshire Com- pany in that case contend that the extra charge was for terminals, which include shunting, sort- ing, and so on ? — With reference to that case, I forget the facts, but the decision was that the company must not exceed their maximum rates ; that they could not charge under their toll clauses. 811. I wish to ask your opinion upon a matter that w'as raised by Sir Edward Watkin about the rates for dead meat from Aberdeenshire. Sir Edward Watkin asked you a question which struck me as being a very reasonable one : “Does it not strike you that if that principle w-ere rigidly applied the consumer would be in a very awkward position”? and you replied, “I am quite satisfied that the principle, being a sound one, the application of it would be very beneficial to the consumer in London and elsewhere.” Then you were asked, “If the operation of it were to raise the 75 a‘. for Aberdeenshire meat to 150.C., would that be for the benefit of the consumers ” ? to wdiich you replied, “ The only difference then would be that the meat would be sent by steamer, and at as cheap a rate as at present.” Do you know the rate by steamer on meat from Aberdeen, say to London ? — 1 cannot give that figure, but I know that a large quantity of meat is sent by steamer. 812. Do not you think that if the railway rate were raised, the steamers would raise their rates? — My belief is that the rates would not be raised, because I have little doubt that the rate is a thoroughly remunerative rate at present. 813. 'Do not you think that the steam ship- owners would be glad to make it more remune- rative? — But as the steamers are paying very well just now, other enterprising men in that event would start a steamer and take the meat at a less rate. 814. But do not you know that it is very much easier to run an opposition steamer out of the trade than it would be to run an opposition railway out of the trade ? — I cannot say how that may be. Mr. Samncl&on. 815. If that were done, it could only be done by reducing the rate and not by raising it? — By reducing the rate of course. Mr. Caine. 816. You yourself have given an instance, I think, in answer to Question 120, in which rail- way rates were reduced in consequence of steam- shi)) o])position, namely, the rates from Swansea to Liverpool on tin plates and other goods, which go Iroin Swansea to Liverpool ; do not you think that if they were compelled to charge a mileage rate to Liverpool, it would increase the rate l)y the rail- way C()nq)any without getting rid of the opposition ol’ the steamship company ? — 1 assume that the com])any arc charging at present a remunerative rate, and that they can continue to do so ; accord- ing to the principle which 1 stated the difference in distance would be a sufficiently good reason for reducing the total cost to tlic company, and your Mr. Caine — continued. question seems to assume that they are at present running at an unrernunerative rate. 817. The company are not running at the mileage rate, are they ? — The result would be that they would not probably Increase their charges to more distant people, but that they would be obliged to reduce them somewhat to those who did not go so. fir. 818. I just want to get at the bottom of your opinion rvith relerence to this mileage rate. There was a time when no steamship ran from Liverpool to Carnarvon, and the railway com- pany had it all their own way. A steamer was put on the berth, and it immediately reduced the railway comjiany’s rates several shillings per ton; certainly very much below the mileage rates, and that was a rate in comjietition with the steam- ship company. That very greatly benefited the town of Carnarvon, securing them a low rate, whereas if the steamer had not run they would have'continued to pay the higher rate ; do you think that should be prevented? — Certainly not. 819. But supjiosing the rate from Liverpool to Carnarvon by railway to be 20 s. jier ton, and the steamsbip company reduced their rates to 3 s. per ton, would you allow the railway company to charge 3 s. ? — Of course that is putting a hypo- thetical question, and I must give a hypothetical answer. The answer I would give would be that the railway company must do either one thing or the other ; either reduce their rates proportionately upon the whole line, or else in- crease them proportionally. 820. Would that not knock on the head your opinion about the mileage rate? — I do not mean by mileage rate anything abstract or absolute, but simply so much to be charged for distances measured into quantities of a mile each, so to speak. 821. Would you permit railway companies to charge so low a rate in competition with an oppo- sition carrier as Avould mean a loss to the railway company, with the view of running off the oppo- sition carrier, or where would you stop ? — The existing law is this, that they are not to reduce their rates merely from competition upon one particular part of the line, without giving the benefit of that reduction all round. 822. Then there is just one more question which I should like to ask you with regard to your answer to Question 597, upon the question of the publication of lists of rates, you were asked whether there were upon the Great North- ern line 10 millions of rates, and you said you did not know the exact figure ; I suppose those 10 millions of rates wouk; be made up cf rates from every station to every other station? — Y^es. 823. But could not some rates be published from say, first class stations to first class stations upon the different lines, at no very great cost ? — 1 believe that is done in France and Belgium. ^Ir. Lotrthvr. 824. Terminals include loading and unloading, cartino- and delivery, and station accommodation? ® ♦ » *1 — When so specified. 825. Is there any obligation upon railway companies SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 49 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. \_Continued. Mr. Lowthei — continued. companies to build stations at all ? — I do not know that there is any specific obligation upon railway companies to build stations, but I do not know how they could carry on their business without stations. 826. But it is never stated in their Acts that they are bound to build stations ? — No. 827. It is not quite clear, I think, whether you do or do not think that the Railway Com- missioners should arrange a classification of the goods ; judging from your answers, I think you were in favour of that ? • — • Substantially, my answer indicates my opinion, but not quite ; what I would say is that the railway companies ought to prepare a classification, and submit that for the approval of the Railway tommissioners, and then it would have the same authority as if it had been in their original statute. 828. If they could approve it they would also disapprove ir, and they would have power to reject it ? — They would have that power abso- lutely. 829. Do you know whether the classification of goods is the same upon railways each side of the Thames? — I think from the table I put in the other day, you will find that it is very much the same. 830. I have been told they are quite different? — As regards the prices they are different. 831. But I am speaking with regard to classi- fication alone ? — I think they are not. Mr. Monk. 832. Would it be possible for railway com- panies to give all the reasonable facilities named in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act for the re- ceiving, forwarding, and delivering of ti’affic on the railway, if there were no terminal station such as that which is mentioned in the Act it- self? — It would be impossible. ]\Ir. Loiother. 833. You stated that individuals might suffer from railway companies Avhen they made com- plaints against them, and you instanced the case of Messrs. Howard and the Midland Railway Company ; do you know of many cases of that kind ? — That, of course, is within my knowledge, and I mentioned another circumstance, that some information I have given to the Committee I had 01 dy obtained upon express conditions that I should not name my informants, and I have heard a great deal of the same sort of thinjr. Mr. Grec/orij. 834. You have been asked with regard to the effect upon the consumer of bringing the produce from a longer distance, and whether it would not be a great advantage to the public to have that competition ; you assume, I presume, that railway companies, as a general rule, carry at rates remu- nerative to them ? — I should certainly assume so. 835. And therefore that they would carry to the longer distance at a remunerative rate ? — 1 could mention a case very strongly in support of that ; upon the Caledonian Company there is an obligation imposed to take traffic from the Glasgow and South Western Railway at certain 0.54. Mr. Gregory — continued, minimum scheduled rates, and upon looking at that schedule I observed that their minimum average for all classes of goods was '8 of a penny a ton a mile, from which I infer that an aver.age of ‘8^1 of a penny a ton a mile is a rate which is not unremunerative. 836. That is to say, it is their own rate, in fact ? — Yes. 837. Of course, certain allowances may have to be made for carrying over a long distance, as against a short one ? — It is cheaper to the railway companies, undoubtedly. 838. Therefore a certain allowance must be made with respect to that ? — Certainly. 839. But assuming that allowance, if thei'e is an unequal rate, as against the shorter distance, it must be more than a remunerative rate in that case '/ — Ye.s. 840. Therefore they are obtaining more than a remunerative rate for the short distance, in ad- dition to the remunerative rate for the long one ? —Yes. 841. Now, the cost of the article in the market I take to be the cost cf production, and the cost of conveyance, and a fair trade profit? — Yes. 842. Which would be equal in either case ? — Yes. 843. Therefore, in those two cases, we have equally, in either case, the cost of production, and the cost of carriage ? — Yes. 844. And the consumer at the shorter distance is handicapped by the heavier rate of carriage ? — I have some remarkable instances of that, which I can give to the Committee : the Great Western Railway Company charge a penny a gallon for milk carried 100 miles, and they charge just the same for 10 miles. I have been informed by those in the trade that very great quantities of milk from short distances are sent to Loudon by carts, because the railway charge is so high. 845. We have it in evidence that the cost to the consumer is the production, the trade profit, and the cost of conveyance? — That is so. 846. We have also got it, that the higher rate is charged to the producer at the short dis- tance ? — ■ Yes. 847. And a higher rate than that which is remunerative to the railway companies ? — Yes. 848. Is not the effect of the higher rate for the short distance that the pi’oducer at the short dis- tance is obliged to put a higher price upon his articles in the market than he wmuld otherwise have to do ?— That would be the natural ten- dency, but I should be afraid that the producer was not able to get it, and I may mention an in- stance in point : I have a complaint from a farmer who took a dairy farm at Three Bridges ; the rate for milk to Brighton was a 1 cZ. a gallon, which was a very high rate for the conveyance of milk ; that was several years ago. Three years ago the Brighton Company increased the charge for milk 50 per cent. ; but, of course, in the London market he is not able to get 50 per cent, more for milk, and the result is that he is very anxious to get out of his farm, if he can do so without sacrificing his capital. 849. In that case it operates in this way, that he loses the supply, or he has to pay a higher rate ? — The result in his case is, that either he Gr has 50 MINUTES OF EVIUENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 j^Jarck l^Sl.J Professor Hunter. [^Continued. Mr. Gregory — continued, has to be content with less than a fair profit, or he must go out of the market altogether. 850. A man selling at less tlian a fair profit, practically, I suppose, ceases to carry on a trade ? — Thai is the result. 851. I understand from you that in several of these cases of which you have told us, particularly with res})ect to the southern lines, this differential rate has led the company considerably beyond their legal rates ? — Beyond their le^ial maximum, 852. So that, for the purpose of bringing in these articles from the longer distance, as against the shorter, they have, in fact, violated the pro- visions of their Acts of Parliament? — I consider so. 853. Now, a word as regards a collection ; you were questioned about the amount you allowed to the London, Chatham, and Dover Company for the cartage of goods, and you put it at 5 -s. ; I suj)pose there is no obligation upon the com- pany to cart the goods? — IV o. 854. On the other hand there is nothing to prevent any stranger carting the goods \ — Nothing. 855. Jn fact, I think, in some cases they do so, do they not?— No doubt. 856. A lai-ge amount of goods is collected by Messrs, Pickford and Company in London, and conveyed to the railway stations? — I believe so. 857. Do you know what rate they charge for that ? — I do not know that. 858. 1 jiresume the companies would have greater facilities for carting goods ; that is to say, they might make their own arrangements for delivery, and handling which would give them an advantage ? — That is the case. 859. Therefore it might be more convenient that they should have the cartage? — It may be more convenient. 860. But there is no reason why they should charge anything more for it than any private individual ? — No. 861. I think I understand you to state that you had ascertained the rate of delivery in some cases where it was 3 s. 6 ^/. ? — I have seen 3 s,, 4 s., aiid 5 s. prices, but I took what I considered the outside figure. 862. Now, you stated that the London, Chat- ham, and Dover Eailway Company brought these goods up to Blackfriars? — Yes, in many cases. 863. And delivered them in the Borough ? — That is so. 864. That is not a quarter of a mile of cartage, is it? — It is a very short distance to the Borough Market. 865. As regards the foreign hops, I forget the rate you gave the Committee from Folkestone; what was it? — It is 17 s. 6 f/. from Boulogne, and 1 /. 8 s, 6 d., I think, from Paris. 866. And what was the rate from Canterbury? — 1 think 1 gave the rate from Ashford, Avhich was 1 /. 16 s. 8 d. 867. The carriage even from Boulogne in- cludes two transhipments? — T cs, they must load in the steamer at Boulogne ; they must unload and then reload into the railway trucks. 868. That adds to th.e cxiiense, docs it not ? — Undoubtedly. Mr. Mulholland. 869. I think you advocate an equality of mileage rates, upon the principle that districts ought not to be deprived of any natural advan- tages they possess of accessibility to a market? — Yes, and also upon the jjrinciple that railway companies ought to charge according to the cost of conveyance. 870. That may be additional, but you also advocate it upon the ground I pointed out ? — Yes. 871. Do not you consider that proximity to a seaport is a natural advantage ? — It is a very great natural advantage. 872. Would you not be rather going against the principle I have stated, if a colliery near a seaport had to pay a rate strictly according to its distance by rail from the market ; would it not be deprived of the natural advantage it possesses, if the rate of railway carriage rvere to be greater from there than from other districts which had not that advantage ? — I should propose that they should be charged upon the same principle throughout : a place Avliich is nearer the sea has a greater pro.'.imity to the market as regards the sea. In Budd’s case there was a greater j)roximity as regarded Liverpool. 873. Supposing there w'as a colliery upon one side of England, 300 miles from London, and another colliery 200 miles, and the colliery 300 miles oft' could send to London cheaper by sea than the colliery 200 miles away could by rail, w’ould you not be putting one place to a dis- advantage, if you insisted upon the charge being relatively as high in the one case as in the other? — No, if it does not pay the railway company to cany as cheaply as they can send by sea, the goods can go by sea. 874. Although they might not pay the maxi- mum rate of profit, it might be better for them to carry at a low rate than not carry at all ; and on the other side, the colliery proprietors might have some reason for sending by railway such as accessibility to the line which it might not have for sending by sea. I only wanted to see how you got over a little ap])arent contradiction upon the principle ? — What I stated was just the or- dinary law which has been laid down for more than 20 years, that a railway company is not to deprive a place of the natural advantages of its position ; if you carry that principle out, I do not see that it leads to any consequence that is at all injurious. 875. Are you aware if there are many rail- way comjjanies in whose maximum charges loading and unloading are excepted?— I think that perhajis in the large majority of cases load- ing and unloading are excepted. Chair mail. 876. I wish to ask you one or two questions about your recommendations as to reform. First of all you recommend that a raihvay com- pany should be bound to show how much it charges for conveyance, and how much it charges for terminals in the rate-book; that was, I believe, the recommendation made to Parliament by the Koval Commission, and by the Joint Committee on Railway Amalgamation? — It was. 877. Would you explain to me how in your pamphlet. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 51 24 itforcA 1881.] Professor Hunter. {^Continued. Chairman — continued. pamphlet, which you have published, you say, at page 10. “ Of late years the companies have shown greater obedience to the law, and it would hardly now be necessary in a proper case to go before the Commissioners how do you recon- cile that with your suggestion that there should be an alteration in the law ? — I do not propose that there should be an alteration in the law upon that point. 878. Is a railway company bound to do it now ? — That paragraph must have had reference to another aud a different point, that is to say, whether in the account that is rendered to the trader that distinction should be made. 879. Let me refer yon to Question 345 ? — What I stated there was, that that which at the present time could be done by an exceptional application, ought to be done as a matter of course in all the rate-books. 880. But then in your pamphlet you say that it it hardly necessary now, in a proper case, to go before the Commissioners at all, because the com- panies have of late years shown greater obedience to the law ? — What I mean is, that if a trader now makes an application to a railway company asking them to distinguish in the rate-book the different charges, the companies have recently shown greater disposition to do so without the necessity of forcing them to go to the Railway Commissioners ; but I fear that that statement is perhaps a mistake, because there is a very recent case in which the London and South Western Company refused to do so, and Mr. Amey, of Petersfield, was obliged to go to the Railway Commissioners and obtain a judgment. 881. Then you rather adhere to what you stated before the Committee than to what you stated in that pamphlet ? — Yes, with that expe- rience before my eyes. 882. Your next recommendation is that there should be a penalty attached to railway com- panies overcharging ; now, I would ask you with reference to that, whether you ever heard it suggested that the Board of Trade should have power to apply to the Railway Commissioners for an injunction in the case of a railway company being proved to have charged more than they have been legally allowed to do ? — At that point, in my evidence, 1 had in my mind overcharging, not with regard to the maximum, but with regard to the rate-book. 883. Then you Avere rather dealing with what the Railway Commissioners asked for themselves at page 6 of their 4th Report. They there say, “ We have had from time to time complaints made to us of high charges on local traffic, and it de- serves consideration whether it would not be well that this important statutory qualification of reasonableness were made of practical value, and security taken for its being observed by our being authorised to enjoin the reduction of unreason- able charges, just as we enjoin the reduction of unequal charges.” Is that what you were point- ing to ? — No, that is a different point. 884. What is your point here ? — What I mean is this : the rate-book contains a certain charge which the company profess to make, and 1 think if a company, to a particular individual, charges less or more than the sum named in their own rate-book (without reference to the question of 0.54. Chairman — continued. maximum at the present moment) they ought to be subject to a penalty ; and my reason is this, that it is by charging less than the rate-book indicates that they are able to give secret pre- ferences. 885. Then you mean there is no })enalty at- tached to preference noAV ; there is only the poAver in the Railway Commissioners to give redress? — Yes, plus the repayment of past over- charges. 886. Then you do not propose to deal Avltli overcharge in the sense of chai’ges beyond the maximum rate alloAved, otherAvise than in the sense of leaving that to the common laAV courts ; you leave that to the common laAv courts ? — Quite so. 887. Now, Avith regard to the classification; the recommendation of the ffoint Committee on Rail- Avays Avas, that the Clearing House qualification should be adopted ? — Yes. 888. You do not agree Avith that I think ? — I do not object to it as far as principle is concerned, but what I am afraid of is that the joint com- mittee did not take into consideration the enor- mous practical difficulties in the Avay of doing it. 889. Then a word as to the question about equal mileage rates ; have you read the Report of the Select Committee on RailAvays ? — I have. 889*. That Committee condemns the idea very strongly, do they not ? — They condemn equal mileage rates upon the ground that the adoption of equal mileage rates did not take account of the three circumstances Avhich I have incorporated, so to speak. 890. You Avant to have equal mileage rates as a rule, but to allow the raihvay companies to apply to the Commissioners for exceptions ? — Yes. 891. I Avill take the case put in the Report of the Royal Commission on Raihvays, and ask how any exception Avould meet a case of this sort. On page 47 of the Report of the Royal Commis- sion on Railways, it says, “ It is, however, the interest of every railway company to develope the trade of its district, and Ave learn from the North Staffordshire Railway Company that on the temporary stoppage of the supply of coal in 1864, that company, to keep up their traffic (dependent on the prosperity of the pottery trade) cari'ied coal from the Derbyshire and Leicestershire coal fields at a rate of freight barely in excess of Avorking expenses. Had the railAvay company not done so the pottery trade Avould have come to a standstill, and the raihvay company Avould have sustained great loss ; similarly the Great Western and London and North Western Rail- Avay Companies brought coal into South Stafford- shire from Wales at very cheap rates. More recently, in the case of a temporary interruption of the iron manufacture, the North Staffordshire Company carried puddled bars at exceptionally low rates of freight.” What I Avould put to you is this, if this had been a temporary emergency, the raihvay company, if your proposal Avere carried out, could not meet this temporary diffi- culty connected Avith the pottery trade or any other trade without applying to the Raihvay Com- missioners ? — I think they would. First of all, I assume that they reduce the rate on coal all round the system to everybody alike. G 2 892. But 52 MINUTES or EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Chairman — continued. 892. But I point out to you there that they Avere, by this paragraph I have read to you, carrying at a rate of freight barely exceeding the working expenses? — I do not think there Avould be anything to hinder that, because, sup- pose ilie rate at a given moment is so much per mile, then the company issue a notice that they value that particular class of goods at so much a mile ; that would not be an infringement of equality. 893. But 3mu would insist upon their carrying it all round their sj’stem at the same reduction ? — I understand that in that case they did so ; that they carried coal to everybody cheaper, not cheaper to some persons lhan others. 894. I read this as only coal from the Derby- shire and Leicestershire coalfields to tlie pottei-y district to keep the pottery trade alive ? — Exactly ; but I do not understand that they charged to the public one price, and to the pot- tery trade another price. 895. But they carried at a specially' low jnnce to the potteries upon their system, I understand ; you do not tliink they should be allowed to do so ? — I do not know that that would be objection- able, because in a case of this kind the question of reasonableness would come before the Kail way Coiumissioners. 896. In that case your system would break down, would it not? — Not at all. 1 take it in this Avay ; suppose they do so, and some person complains that the company are chai'ging less to those people than was sanctioned by the Hallway Commissioners, the Commissioners need not issue an injunction if they thought under the circumstances that it was not reasonable that the}" should do so. 897. I thought your pi-oposal was that they would be held to be infringing the law ipso facto, by charging these lower mileage rates without previously obtaining the sanction of the Kailway Commissioners? — I do not think that it would work out in that way, but if there is any diffi- culty of that kind, there is no reason why it should not be jirovided for. 898. I wish to ask you one more question ; supposing a railway company, under the autho- rity of Parliament, have obtainedaport, or docks, or harbour, and have expended large sums of money upon it, I want to knoiv whether it is your view that they ought to be forbidden to open the traffic to that port by giving special facilities to the trade to that port? — I do not propose to alter the existing law in any respect, as far as that is concerned. 899. But the existing law permits it, does it not; a railway company having two lines, one running to A. and one to B, is permitted, so long as they charge the same to everybody who goes to it, to charge less to A, which is farther from their centre, than they do to B ? — What you suggest is similar to Budd’s case. The London, Chatham, and Dover Company carry goods to Queensborough at a less rate than they do to Sittingbourne ; whether that was illegal Avould depend upon the question of competition between traders ; ivliether any trader could show that, in consequence of that, some other trader had the advantage against him in consequence of the competition. Chairman — continued. 900. Going upon the same line? — Yes, going upon the same line. 901. You would not say that you would wish any alteration of the law made in that respect? — I wish absolutely no alteration of the law with regard to undue preference. 902. Do you, in your answer to Question 442, adhere to this, that you would recommend that the Railway Commissioners should have power to deal with the question of debt and account ? — That relates to past overcharges. 903. It virtually took the form of an action for money had and received ? — Yes. 904. And you still adhere to it that the Rail- way Commissioners should have power to act in those cases ? — It is very easily done ; they have only to employ the registrar to go into the details. 905. I only want to ask you one question about the Board of Trade : taking the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1873, Section 13, are you aware that there have been many cases of corporations applying and receiving a certificate from the Board of Trade under that section ? — There are several cases of that kind. 906. But there have been no cases under Sec- tion 6 ? — I think not ; I cannot speak positively with regard to that. 907. You are aw'are that a great many Cham- bers of Commerce have been complaining that the opinion of the Crown has been given, that they are not corporations within the meaning of Section 13? — That is so. 908. But is it your opinion that they might ajipear under Section 6 ; that they might depute _ one of their body to take up the case? — Assum- ing the Committee were not of opinion that the Board of Trade should be required to do the work, and you would not accept that proposal, it would certainly be an improvement upon that proposal to give that power to the Chambers of Commerce. 909. But does not the power already exist ; might they not depute a member of their body to appear for them ? — I have not considered the question under Section 6 ; and I would rather not give an opinion upon the matter. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. 910. You gave an answer to the honourable Chairman at variance with one I understood you gave before. I understood you to say that the Board of Trade had ample power to deal with overcharges, and that any persons might appear before the Board of Trade ? — No ; the Board of Trade applies only under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and that Act dealt only with one remedy, namely, injunction, and not the recovery of past overcharges. 911. Then it was only with regard to past overcharges that your answer was given ? — That was so. Mr. Samuelson. 912. {Through the Chairman.) When you were giving your evidence with respect to the relative charges upon hops sent from abroad and hops the produce of this country, and sent from stations in this country to London, the honourable INIember for Hythe, if I understood him rightly, com- mented upon that answer by the observation that there SELECT COMMITTEE ON RATLAVAYS. 53 24 March 1881.1 Professor Hunter. [ Continued. Mr. Samuelson — continued, there Avas a difference in the value of the articles ; in fact that they were not the same articles, and also that there Avas a difference as to pack- ing, and also a difference in the expedition of sending, affecting the circumstances of the market. Noav Avhat I want to ask you is this : are you aAvare that there are similar differences of quality and of ^lacking in articles Avhich are either wholly foreign or wholly British produce. For instance, take the article of silk, is it within your know- ledge that the value of silk varies something like 400 per cent. ? — I have no doubt that the article Avhich is carried under the name of silk Avould vary enormously in A'alue. 913. And also in the condition in Avhich it is packed ? — No doubt. 914. Has any distinction been made as regards the maxkniun charges alloAved by Parliament in consideration of differences of value and condition in regard to the article of silk ? — I think I may say that, with A’^ery few exceptions, the Acts of Parliament deal Avith the commodity irrespective of its condition. There are some Acts Avhere a difference is specilically mentioned. For ex- ample, there are one or tAvo Acts Avhich dis- tinguish betAveen un]racked manure and packed manure, but except where there is a special dis- tinction of that kind, the Acts of Parliament uniformly refer to the substances, and make no differences Avith regard to the condition of them. 915. NotAvithstanding that there are enormous differences both of bulk and value Avith regard to those articles ? — Quite so. Mr. Bolton. • 916. (^Throngh the Chairman.') With regard to the ar-rangemeut betAveen the GlasgoAv and South Western Raihvay Com[)aDy and the Caledonian Company, by which the GlasgoAv and South Western Company is allowed to fix a minimum rate, from Avhich you assume that that Avas a remunerative rate to the railway company. I think you said that the rate fixed was *8 of a penny a mile ; are you aAvare of that as a fact 1 — 1 have seen it in their Act of Parliament. 917. Which is the agreement that you refer to ? — I refer to the Caledonian Amalgamation Act of 1865. 918. But to Avhat traffic does it refer? — I understand it refers to the traffic generally. 919. Does not it refer to the GlasgOAv, Barhead, and Kilmarnock joint line, OAvned jointly by the Glasgow, Barhead, and Kilmarnock, and the Glasgow and South Western Companies? — No; they are bound to take eastward tratfic on similar terms. 920. Where did you get your information from? — I think I got it from the Act itself, but I have not it before me at the present moment. Lord Randolph Churchill. 921. Sir EdAvard W atkin asked you at Ques- tion 560 this : “ You have used the term railway monopolies sometimes ; I Avould ask you whether there is any toAvn in England having more than one railway, or any toAvn upon the coast Avhere there is sea competition, where that competition does not affect the I’ailway rate?” Do you knoAV any tOAvn in England supplied by two or more raihvays where the fact of its being so supplied 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, makes the slightest difference to the inhabitants Avith respect to the rates charged them for the conveyance of goods ; I am talking of Inland towns, and not of towns upon the coast ? — I have carefully examined the rates of all the southern lines, Avith the view to see Avhether I could say yea or nay that competition had that eft’ect ; and Avhile I do not Avish to be too dogmatic upon the subject, because there are so many rates, I could see sometimes that that Avas the apparent effect in certain Instances. That depended a good deal upon the raihvay that came in contact, because the raihvays do not charge eciually high rates ; but I AA’^as obliged to conclude that, upon the Avhole, I could not positively say that competi- tion had any certain effect. 922. You quoted a saying of the late Robert Stephenson, that “ Avhere combination Avas pos- sible competition Avas impossible ; ” Avould that effect literally most of the great inland tOAvns in England ? — Certainly it Avould. 923. Do you knoAv of your OAvn knOAvledge that it is the habit of the delegates of the various raihvay conqtanies to meet so many times in the year at the RaihAMy Clearing House, and fix absolutely the rates for goods? — That is done for the through rates, and not for the purpose of the rates upon the separate lines ; but it appears from Avhat I hav'e read of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Agricuitual Depression that they meet to arrange the terms on their separate lines ; the northern lines do so, at any rate. 924. So that arrangements are made not only in regard to the through rates, but Avith regard to all rates for good-^ ? — Yes. 925. And is it not the case that those rates having been made, the raihvay comjAanies Avill not overtly change them iu favour of anybody? — 1 should consider that they Avould be bound in honour not to do so. 926. Let me ask you this : are not there Avhat are called special rates ? — Yes. 927. Is it not the case Avith respect to a man establishing a chemical manure manufactory, for example, in vdeinity to two raihvays, that he could go to the tAvo companies and ask for special rates ?— He might do so. 928. Those S 2 :)ecial rates are enjoyed, are they not, by several districts in England? — I cannot speak to jiarticular districts, but, of course, I am quite aware that that is the fact. 929. With regard to vour ansAver given to Mr. Barclay at Question 419, Avhere you Avere asked, “ Have you found individuals unAvilling to give evidence against raihvay companies, before this Committee, for example ?” and you rejjlied that you had ; I Avould ask you this : If individuals enjoyed in commercial industries, and carrying on those industries under special rates from the raihvay comi)anies, came and gave evidence to this Committee, or Avent to the Raihvay Com- missioners and com 2 )lained that these S 2 )ecial rates were in excess of Avhat the company could legally charge, and did not get their case, Avould it not be in the ^^OAver of the raihvay com{)anies to jjunish those individuals for having taken that stejo ? — It Avould not be in the poAver of the rail- Avay companies to do so, I think, practically G 3 Avithout 54 MINUTES or EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter. \ Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. without infringing the principle of equality ; that was Avhere the Midland Railway Company was checked in that case of Howard’s. 930. That was an exceptional case, but as a matter of fact there are very few peoj)le who are carrying on industries under special rates with railway companies, however much they may think they are being overcharged, who would care to go before the Railway Commissioners, or to come before this Committee ? — If they have special advantages or rates lower than other people, it is their interest to keep it quiet. 931. But those rates might still be above what they ought to be charublic against the raising of the maximum rates, or Avould you suggest that the Board of Trade should have re- gard to the interest of the public in that respect? — The jiresent practice is, that before a Bill goes to the House of Lords for increasing the rates, the sanction of the Board of Trade must be ob- tained ; but you raise a very great difficulty bv your suggestion, and that is this : a raihvay com- pany goes to Parliament Avith a Bill ; take such a case as the Great North of Scotland Railway (Aberdeen) Bill, nowin Parliament; after the Mr. Pell — continued. traders had had their charges ascertained by law according to the original contract, Avithin two years this railway company comes to Parliament with a Bill to uj)set the decision of the Railway Commissioners, in effect, and to increase the rates to the illegal standard Avhich they Avere formerly charging. Now the traders are put in a \'ery aAvkward ])osition ; Avho is to find the mone}' to fight the question ; the amount of interest to any individual is small, and unless there are some very public'spirited men. it is extremely difficult to get up funds to sustain the opposition to a Bill of that kind, consequently if there is no such opposition the Bill goes through as unopposed, and I have thought Avhether the inquiry by the Board of Trade could be of a sufficiently satis- factory kind as at present conducted. I might suggest that in cases of that kind the Board of Trade should never sanction an increase of rates Avithout sending down an inspector to hold a meeting and make an inquiry upon the spot. 984. What Avould the opposition to a Bill cost upon this question of maximum rates ? — I do not think that any ])ersons could safely attempt an opposition, with adequate appliances, Avithout seeing their Avay to at least 1,000 Z. 985. Therefore 1,000 /. might be spent by a private person upon an enterprise Avhich might, after all, not be successful, and Ave can hardly imagine that he Avould, if successful, find com- pensation ill any return to him in the Avay of business as an individual ? — That is so ; it can only be done by a very large combination, Avhich is difficult to bring about. 98G. Has any combination been attempted between the traders in this case? — In Aberdeen they have succeeded in combining to an extent, Avhich Avill cause the Bill to be opjiosed. 987. Are the traders combining uoav Avith i-eganl to this Bill Avhich is in Parliament? — ■ Yes, that is o})posed by the landoAvners, farmers, and traders. 988. And they have found the funds ? — They have. 989. Did the Board of Trade sanction that Bill ? — ^The sanction of the Board of Trade is required under the rules of the House of Lords, before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. Chairman. 990. Is it not as you say that Avhen a Bill has gone to the House of Lords, the Board of Trade does not sanction, but reports that there is a demand for an increased charge, and draAvs attention to the circumslance, but there is no question of the Board of Trade sanctioning it or approving it ; that is left to the Committee? — That is so. m. Pell. 991. Can you point out Avhat benefit the action of the Board of Trade is at all to the 2>ublic ? — I do not think the public get any benefit at all from it at present. 992. Or the Boai-d of Trade cither ? — Not at all. 993. What really do you propose in substitu- tion of this sliam supervision which it appears to be at present ? — I think the Board of Trade ought to do Avhat is done in other cases, namely, make SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. 57 24 March 1881.] Professor Hunter, [ Continued. Mr. Pell — continued. make a local inquiry, and report upon the result of that inquiry to the heads of the de 2 )artment, and the heads of the department would then either say yea or nay. 994 . Would you have the Board of Trade advertise locally the fact that a Bill was coming before Parliament which affected the interests of that locality, and invite the attendance of persons interested in the question ? — Something of that kind might be done. Sir Edward Wutkin — continued. 997. Are 3 'ou aware that the charge, monstrous as it maj’ be, conies to onl}" 3 per cent, upon the price of the article in the London market I — The charge comes to a great deal more than that to the farmer ; it comes in the summer time to an entire one-sixth of the price the farmer gets. 998. A sixth of the cost would make the price of the milk how much a quart ? — 1 ^d. would be one-sixth of 9 d., which is the price they get per gallon for the milk in the summer. Sir Edward Watkin. 995. You used the term “ reasonable profit ” in the course of your examination ; are you aware that the whole profit upon all the railways of the three kingdoms comes to a very little over 4 per cent, per annum, and, if that be so, do you consider that an unreasonable profit ? — I could not say that the railways are making an unreasonable profit at the present time. 996. Then there was another question about a farmer at Three Bridges, who was about to give up, as the Brighton Company charged \d. a, gallon more than they had charged before ; could you give the Committee the name of that farmer ? — I could not give his name. Mr. Callan. 999. Is not the north of Scotland the seat of a large industry in the shape of the manufacture of artificial manure ? — There is considerable in- dustry in Montrose and Aberdeen in that line. lOOU. Ai-e not those manures largely exported to Ireland ? — I do not know. 1001. If they are so exported, are you not aware whether there are any cheap through rates? — No. 1002. In fact you have no connection with Ireland ? — No. 1003. And I presume, like all Scotchmen having no connection with Ireland, jmu know nothing about Ireland ? — I know nothing what- ever about through rates. Mr. Alexander Copland, called in: and further Examined, Mr. Barclay. 1004. You bave had an opportunlt}’, since you were here on the last occasion, of seeing the quotations of the Caledonian rate-book for manure and grain from Montrose ? — I have. 1005. And you have quotations from the station agents, of the rates charged against j'our com- pany from Montrose for the carriage of manure and grain? — I have a table here, signed by the dis- trict superintendent of the Caledonian Bailway Company, containing the rates that we are charged by that company from Montrose. 1006. And are the rates charged you by that company from Montrose the same as appear in the rate-book ? — They are very much under the rates in the rate-book. 1007. Will you made up a statement shewing that effect? — I have taken a few of the stations, not to weary the Committee with many details of that sort. The rates for packed manure are to Dub- ton, the first station, 1 s. 3 d. per ton per mile, whereas we are charged 5 d. The rates between Brechin and Montrose are 2 s. 6 d., whereas we are charged 1 s. 3 d. The rates between Guthrie and Montrose are 3 5. 9 d., whereas we pay 1 10(7. To Arbroath, the rate-book shows 4 s. 6 (7. and the charge to us is 3 5. 4 d. To Laurencekirk the rate-book shows 3 s., whereas the charge to us is 1 s, 6 d. The rate to Stone- haven is 5 s. 10 d., whereas we are charged 3 s. 3 d. 1008. Will you also make a statement in re- 8 ])ect to grain? — The grain rates are very similar. To Dubton, the grain rate by the rate-book is 1 s. 3 -ive evidence ? — The South Durham and North Yorkshire Chambers of Agriculture, and 1 was also asked by a meeting of farmers held at Darlington last Monday. 1017. Is there a strong feeling in your district against the system of charging by the railway companies? — It is very strong indeed. 1018. What are the principal grounds of com- jilaint against the railway companies? — The prin- cipal ground upon which the farmers complain is the preference rates allowed to the owners of foreign stock and produce. 1019. You complain in the first place of the pre- ferential ra tesfor foreign produce and cattle ? — Yes. 1020. And in the second place on account of inequalities as between dififerent points upon the syslem of the various railways? — Yes. 1021. Will you give the Committee some examples of the preference given to foreign pro- duce, or will you give cattle first? — I will give you the cattle rate first, the rate as given to me by some larg-e cattle dealers from Newcastle to Man- Chester, for foreign cattle in a small waggon is 21. As. 3 d., and English cattle 3 Z. Is. per waggon. 1022. And is there a corresponding difference in a large waggon? — Yes, with a corresponding difference in a large waggon. 1023. Are the home and foreign cattle loaded at the same station and delivered at the same station? — Yes, to the best of mv knowledge they are. 1024. Is the difference due to any difference in the sizes of the cattle, or do the railway companies limit the number of cattle that you can put into a wacTRon i — Not that I am aware of, in tliat size of waggon. 1025. There would be the same number of foreign cattle as of English cattle, and no more ? — Precisely, I believe. The case I quoted, the number of imported and horned cattle were the same. 1026. What are the rates for sheep? — The sheep rates from Newcastle to Dlanchester in a small waggon are, for foreign sheep, 2 Z. 4 s. “id, and English sheep, 2 Z. 14 s. ; for a large waggon, 2 1. 19s. 3d. for foreign sheep, and for English sheep, 3 Z. 5 s. 9 d. 1027. \Yhat do you find to be the rate for the carriage of foreign cattle from Newcastle to Wakefield? — For seven imported cattle in a small waggon from Newcastle to AVakefield, the charge is 1 Z. 1 1 s. 6 d., and for seven English cattle In a similar waggon 21. 12 s. 1028. In both cases the number of cattle put into the small waggon Is limited ; not to exceed seven? — That is the usual number put into a •w'aggon of that class of cattle. 1029. ^^’’ould you give the Committee some figures showing the charges upon foreign agri- Mr RarcZa_y —continued. cultural produce as compared with English ; take the case of barley from AVest Hartlepool to Mil-field? — The carriage of barley from AYest Hartlepool to Mirfield, taking foreign barley in two ton loads, is 10s. per ton; for home grown barley, it is 18s. Ad.; in four ton loads the charge for foreign barley is 8 s. 9//., and the charge for four ton loads of home grown barley is 10 s. 10 (Z. 1030. Is that loaded at the same station and delivered at the same station? — Yes. To Elland from AA^est Hartlepool two tons of foreign barley are charged 10 s. 10 rf. a ton, and two tons of home gi'own barley are charged 18 s. Ad. 1031. AA'ill you compare the carriage of grain from Tyne Docks, Newcastle, as between home and foreign pi-oduce? — From Tyne Dock, New- castle, two tons of imported grain to Darlington are charged 5 s. 10 d. per ton ; t .vo tons of English grain are charged 6 s. 8 d. per ton. 1032. Now will you give us the charges to York ? — To YYi'k, two tons of imported grain are charged at 7 s. 6 d., and two tons of English grain at 1 1 s. 8 (Z. 1033. AVhat is the charge to Richmond? — For two tons of imported grain the charge is 8 s. 4 d., and of English grain, 9 s. 2 d. jier ton. 1034. Is any of the grain carried in bulk, or is it all in bags ? — It is all in bags, I believe. 1035. Now, as regards inconsistencies in the charge for the carriage of grain between different points upon the system of the North Eastern Rail- way, what is the carriage of grain from Sunder- land and Seaham to various other iioints ? — AA^ith regard to the carriage of grain to the South Dock, Sunderland, or to Seaham, the rate is 10 s. per ton from Leeds, Staddlethorpe Fimber, Brough, Riccall, Driffield, and Malton. 1036. Then what is the carriage from Hull? — From Hull to Tyne Dock, Newcastle, it is 8 s. 4^Z., although a considerably longer distance. 1037. Then they carry to the Tyne Dock, Newcastle, for 8 s. 4 d., although the distance is 40 miles greater than some of the other dis- tances? — Yes, that is so. 1038. Is there any difference in the carriage of foreign and liome oil-cake from Newcastle? — The cariage of imported oil-cake from Newcastle to Darlington, in four ton loads, is 5 s. lOcZ. per ton, and of home made cake 6 s. 8 tZ. per ton. 1039. AYill you hand in that table? — I will. ( The same was handed in.) 1040. AA'^ill you tell us some of the anomalies on the charges for home stock as between different points upon the North Eastern Railway? — The charge for a truck of grazing steers from Darlington to Tweedmouth (Berwick-ou-Tweed) is 2 Z. 1 1 s. 6rZ. ; the distance, as near as I can make out from Read’s Time Tables, is 107 miles. 1041. AA’^hat is the carriage from Richmond to Berwick-on-Tweed? — It is 61s. or 63 .v., and the distance is 122 miles ; from Tebay to Berwick-on- Tweed, or rather Tweedmoutli, the charge is 2 Z. 6 s. 9 ^. 1057. Do those foreign cattle get the prefer- ence in regard to expedition of liome cattle ? — That is one ])oint the cattle dealers complain of very much indeed, that the foreign cattle are placed in the through fast trains, whereas that acccommodation is refused to home stock. Mr. Pease. 1058. If the Newcastle to Manchester cattle were not carried at this lower rate, in all proba- bility they Avonld come in at some other port for Manchester ? — Yes, they might do so. 1059. Therefore it is a question whether the railway company can get anything out of them or lose them altogether? — The railway company are quite certain of the home produce, and no doubt they wish to afford facilities to foreign produce to come to their ports. 1060. You do not accuse the railway company of wishing to grant facilities to the foreign cattle to the special detriment of the home cattle? — I have not gone into that question at all. 1061. Then with regard to sheep, does not the same argument apply, that if they did not send at this through rate, probably they would not get them all ? — That I cannot sajL 1062. Are there any others goods coming in the same steamers? — Yes, I believe there are. 1063. Those goods are probably for local consumption? — That I am not aware of. 1064. If it is so, is it not the railway company's interest and the interest of the whole disrrict to get those ships into Newcastle rather than to allow them to go to others ports to discharge ? — If that is so, but a larger quantity of these cattle I believe remain at or about N ewcastle. 1065. With regard to the barley, where does the foreign barley generally go to ? — To the West Riding of Yorkshire, I believe the great bulk of it. 1066. Does not the large bulk go to Burton ? — I cannot say that ; I know as a fact that a large quantity of it goes to the West Riding of Yorkshire. 1067. If it does go to Burton, and it ivere not brought into West Hartlepool, it must be brought into another port ? — Tliat ivould be so. 1068. In that case the railway company would lose it altogether ? — I do not know that ; I believe that Hartlepool is as convenient a port for that barley as any other. 1069. Is not Hull 18 miles nearer to Burton than Hartlepool ? — I have not gone into the question of mileage. 1070. Take it from me that it is nearer, and therefore it is a question for the raihvay companies whether they can get the traffic OA^er a longer distance or a shorter ? — That may be the case. 1071. Do you think that a raihvay company is not bound to do the best it can for its share- holders ? — I have not gone into that question. 1072. Tou are not a shareholder in the railway ? — No. 1073. Are there not some eminent agricul- turists on the direction of the North Eastern H 2 Railway 60 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Mr. Rowlandson. [Continued. Mr. Pease — continued. Railway Company? — I can only give the facts as to how we are treated. 1074. Is it not a pity that the agricultural interest do not take a larger interest in the railways ? — I am not aAvare that the railway companies have ever given any particular facili- ties to agriculturists on their part to induce them to do so. 1075. Then we come to the question of these cattle coming from the Avest : the character of the cattle coming from Kirkby-'l hore, andTebay and that district, is the same as of those which go upon the main line, with Avhich you compared them from Darlington to Tebay ? — Precisely. 1076. It is not the fact that a large number of young animals come in for fattening from that moorland district of Kirkby Stephen ? — The quotations I have given the Committee are from men who buy a precisely similar kind of stock in both districts. 1077. Those are going northward to Berwlck- on-Tweed, and if the IS'orth Eastern Company did not take them at a through rate, they would probably go by the North Western line? — No doubt they would go by the North Western line, but the North Eastern Company give them a very much greater preference over Darlington. 1078. In that case competition has not brought about combination ? — We think it is placing us in the Darlington neighbourhood at a very great disadvantage compared with the western side of the district. 1079. You Avould not mind the Kirkby-Thore animal rate raised ?- — M^e would rather see the other rate lowered. 1080. Generally speaking, the facilities given to jjassergers coming to and from your markets are very large upon the North Eastern line ? — I believe they are. 1081 . Is there any other company which carries your farmers to market, there and back, at 1| d. a mile ? — That I do not knoAV anything about. INIr. Nicholson. 1082. I believe Avhat you Avished the Com- mittee to understand Avas, that you considered that if the railway company can carry from NcAvcastle at a through rate at a profit for foreign stock, the}' ought to give you the same facilities ? — Precisely. Sir lialdwyn Leiyhton. 1083. As regards those rates, one of Avhich Avas upon foreign cattle from NeAvcastle to IMaiichester, have your Chamber of Agriculture, or any other board that you are aware of, made any reju'esentations to the railway company upon this subject ? — 1 believe the dealers have, because it allccts them in the first instance; those cattle are ncarlv all sold by dealers. 1084. lias there been any alteration in the rates owing to those representations ? — I am not aware that tlierc has. 1085. Have you made any representation to auA' other body, such as the Railway Commis- sioners or the Board of Trade?— I have not done so as yet. Sir Baldwyn Leighton — continued. 1086. I suppose there has been a good deal of talk about the matter in the Chamber of Agri- culture? — Yes, for some time. 1087. For tAvo or three years, I supj)Ose ? — Not quite so long as tliat, l)ut about a year. 1088. Is it only during the last year or so that this inequality has been discovered, or that the foreign cattle are coming there? — This trade has grown A'ery much lately, and therefore the question has come more to the front than it had previously done. 1089. I suppose you can hardly say Avhether it affects the })rlce? — There is no doubt that it does affect the ])rice, because the dealers going into the NcAvcastle market, and buying seven foreign and seven English cattle, Avill find that the difference of rate affects the price to the extent of about 4 s. each; it really amounts to a dealer’s jmofit betAveen one market and another, or nearly so. 1090. I suppose it is perfectly well knoAvn now that there is that difference? — Yes, it is very Avell known amongst the dealers. 1091. Do they tell you openly that they cannot give you so much because of this ? — They tell us that this difference in railway rates makes a certain difference, and that they have to take that into consideration. 1092. Are those foreign cattle Scotch? — No, they are imported cattle. 1093. Where do they come from, Denmark ? — I refer principally to Canadian cattle as com- paring AA'ith our home stock ; there are also cattle from Holland and other places, but the dealer Avho gave me the quotation purchases principally home stock or Canadian. I therefore take the comparison according to his quotations. Mr. Craig. 1094- In those rates for cattle betAveen New- castle and Manchester there is a ditierence of \ I. 2 s. d d. per truck? — Yes. 1095. Is there any circumstance to justify that difference Avhich affects the cost of transit ? — Not that I am aware of. 1096. All things are equal, except that one is foreign and one is home produce ? — Yes. , 1097. The same thing iipplies to the sheep, the difference in that case being 9 9 d. ? — Yes. 1098. And also from NeAvcastle to AYakefield? — From NeAvcastle to AVakfield the difference is 1 1. 0 s. 6 d. 1099. The foreign producer is noAV a com- jietitor Avith the English producer in the English market ? — Yes. 1 100. So that although it may be quite correct, as the honourable Chairman for South Durham said, that the raihvay companies are right in doing the best they can for their shareholders, yet is this not establishing an inequality betAveen these tAvo classes of competitors ? — There is no doubt of it, it is putting a tax of so much j)er acre upon our ])roductions. 1101. And that they are not right in establish- ing that incApiality betAveen the home producers and tlie foreign producers, Avho ai'e competing against each other in the same market? — Cer- tainly not. 1102. I suppose SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 61 24 March 1881.] Mr. Rowlandson. [ Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. 1102. I suppose we may assume that they can carry cattle at the price at which they are carry- ing foreign cattle ? — We may naturally assume so. 1103. So that the English producer is paying all this beyond what he ought to pay, providing the rates Avere reduced to a profitable rate for carrying other produce at ? — That is what Ave think. 1104. It does not affect the individual com- petitor, but the Avhole district? — It affects the Avhole production. llOo. Because the price to the public Is regu- lated, no doubt, by the price that the foreign produce is sold at ? — That is so. 1106. The English producer is obliged to come down to that price ? — T es, certainly. Mr. Dillwyn. 1107. You spoke of the rates upon packed manure ; from Avhat Acts did you get those rates? — They were given to me by a manure dealer on .Monday. 1108. Do you knoAV Avhether they are rates under the new Act, or under the old Stockton and Darlington Act ? — They are rates quoted by the raihvay companies to him, and Avhich he gave me. Mr. O' Sullivan. 1109. Could you tell the Committee Avhat is the value of your local stock in proportion to the value of foreign stock conveyed at thi’ough rates, taking them per head ? — There are many of the foreign cattle AA’liich are conveyed under those quotations AvhIch I have given you which are equally as good and valuable as our home stock. 1110. But, as a general rule, which are the more valuable, home or foreign stock ? — I should think as nearly as I can tell that the cattle con- veyed under the rates I have given you are as nearly equal in value as possible. 1111. Do you think from your knowledge of the traffic in your district that if the rate for the local traffic Avere reduced, it would increase the traffic very much to the company from your neighbourhood ? — I cannot say. 1112. If the rate Avere reduced to the rate for the foreign stock, for example? — I cannot say hoAv far that might be the case, but I think the present rate reduces the value of our stock. 1113. You say that they are bought in the market ; hoAV do the railway companies knoAV Avhether they are foreign or local stock when they are bought in the same same market? — That I cannot ansAver. 11 1-1. Suppose a dealer in the mai’ket buys three foreign and four of your local stock, and loads the seven for any of your different markets, how is he charged in such a case as that ? — That I cannot ansAver, but in the case of a dealer ffolno; into the market and buying seven English and seven foreign cattle, the raihvay company charge him a difference in the rates. Mr. Pease. 1115. Is it not a fact that if foreign cattle go to Newcastle, and are then trucked to Man- chester or Wakefield, they are trucked as English cattle, and that the rate for foreign 0.54. Mr. Pease — continued. cattle only applies to cattle trucked immediately on the AAdiarf? — That, I believe, is not the case. Chairman. 1116. We ought to be clear about that; can- not you tell for certain ? — I can only ansAver the question tiiis way, that these rates are given me by a large dealer in our neighboui'hood, who told me that he can go Into Newcastle market and buy seven imported and truck them to precisely the same destination from the same station, and yet that they charge him these differential rates. Mr. O' Sullivan. 1117. Do you know any other shipping port Avhere the same reduction is giA^en as there is at Ncav castle to foreign cattle ? — I do not. Mr. Caine. 1118. You are pretty familiar, I suppose, Avith the price of cattle in your neighbourhood ? — I am. 1119. Do not you think that if the rate Avere raised from NeAvcastle to Manchester to the same rate as it is upon home cattle it Avould vir- tually prohibit the trade in foreign cattle between NeAvcastle and Manchester? — Ido not think it Avouhl 1120. You think that the Importer could make a living by importing them, and paying the same rate as you do from Newcastle to Manchester? — I think he could. 1121. Now, Avith regard to tlie carriage of barley and oil-cake by the North Eastern Com- pany ; is the barley and oil-cake taken out of the Avarehouses by the dealer indiscriminately, and declared to be home and foreign barley respec- tively ? — That I believe to be the case, from the best of my information. 1122. Do not the dealers, then, very often de- clare home barley to be foreign barley, or huAV do the railway company know which is Avhich ? — The raihvay company are pretty Avell able to discriminate. 1123. Is it not the fact that raihvay companies only quote these low rates for foreign produce when delivered ex-ship on to trucks ? — They Avill take it ex -warehouse, I believe. 1124. Out of any Avarehouse, or only a Avare- house as to Avhich there is distinct evidence that they have been put from the ship into that Avare- house? — That I do not knoAv. 1125. Do you knoAV Avhether those are only through rates from abroad to Manchester? — No, I believe the railway company quote station to station rates. 1126. Is it easy to distinguish betAveen the foreign and home barley ?— It is easy for the purchaser to distinguish. 1127. Suppose the case of cattle coming by steamer from Aberdeen to Newcastle ; do not you think those cattle would be shipped at the low rate to Manchester? — I think they Avouid be. 1128. They Avould be treated as foreign cattle to Manchester ? — -I cannot tell for certain. Mr. Lowther. 1129. The farmers think they have a com- plaint against the North Eastern CompanA* on account of these Ioav charges ? — They think there is a ])referencc sliown to the foreign stock. u 3 1 130. Have 62 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. Rowlandson. [ Continued. 24 31arch 1881.] Mr. Lowthcr — continued. 1130. Have they ever remonstrated? — I be- lieve the dealers have. 1131. But you do not know for certain ? — No. 1132. Are the farmers aware of the existence of the power of the Board of Trade? — Yes. 1 133. Have they ever applied to them ? — No, they have not. Mr. Samuelson. 1134. Tlie honourable Member for South Durham asked you whether you were not aware that there were several gentlemen upon the North Eastern Board who were eminent agricul- turalists; do you think tliose eminent agricul- turalists have much to do with the fixing of the rates, or do you think it lies rather with their manager? — I think it lies almost entirely with the railway manager. Mr. Barclay. 1135. I wish to recur to the question of the Mr. Barclay — continued, maximum rate which the North Eastern Railway is authorised to charge for manure ; you say it was 1 d. and Hr/., but you are not quite sure ? — I am not quite sure, but I think that is it. 1136. Even if it were \ d., the 3jr/., which appears from Lord Skelmersdale’s Return, would be still over their maximum rates for small quantities ? — It would. Chairman. 1137. Then I understand from you that the agriculturalists of the district have made no effort to combine to apply to the ordinary law for redress ? — They have not done so ; the matter has not been taken up until lately. 1138. The question of agricultural dejiression has now led them to take steps ? — The agricul- tural depression has led them to look round every corner as sharply as possible. Mr. William Douglas Johnston, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Barclay. 1139. Are you the junior partner of the firm of Joseph Johnston and Sons, of Montrose ? — 1 am. 1140. You are a fish dealer in Montrose, I believe ? — Yes, I am. 1141. You deal both in salmon and in sea fish generally? — Yes. 1142. Their business is the leading business in fish on the Forfarshire and Kincardineshire coast ? — I think so. 1143. You pay about 9,000/. a year for the rent of salmon fishings, I believe? — Yes, we do for salmon fishings and for mussel fishings ; about 500 /. of that would represent the mussel fisheries. 1144. The salmon fisheries are in several counties, are they not? — Yes, in Forfarshire, Kincardineshire, Berwick, Hadingtonshire, Fife- shire, and Inverness-shire. 1145. Do you receive the fish of about 100 boats’ fishing at sea, herrings and white fish in- cluded? — We do. 1146. What do you do with your fish ; where do ymu forward your fish ? — I'he white fish, that is to say, between the months of July and September, the beginning and end of herring fishery, are sent to all the markets where we think we will realise sufficient for them after the local demands are served. 1147. Those are such markets as Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and London ? — Yes. 1148. The salmon are sent to the same mar- kets I — Yes. 1149. And where do the herrings go? — The herrings go to those markets also in large quan- tities so long as the price that we realise will allow us to send them, for the railway charge comes to be such an enormous item that we cannot long continue sending herrings to these English markets. 1150. That is to say, the carriage of the her- rings is such a large proportion of the price realised in the JMidland towns, that the balance left to you for the ])rice of herrings would Mr. Barclay — continued. be extremely small? — It would be extremely small. 1151. Is it in consequence of that that the great bulk of the herrings go to the continental markets? — To a large extent. A large quantity of the herrings which are now sent to continental markets would be sent to the English markets provided there were rates of conveyance to those markets any way in confirmity with the value the fish realise in those markets. 1152. Have you made up a statement showing what proportion the cost of carriage bears to the prices realised in the London markets ? — I have. ] 153. What proportion does the cost of car- riage bear to the price realised ? — During the last herring fishing we sent herrings to London, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the average cost of the railway carriage compared to the gross sale of fish is 44 per cent. 1154. That is to say, for every 100 /. the fish realised in the consuming market, the railway company got 44 /. ? — It did ; that refers espe- cially to herrings. 1155. Now, what was the proportion of the railway rate to the price realised by white fish sent by the railway company ? — I took oft' two months of the white fish, Januaiy and April 1880; that is, last year, because those months are the months in which ive get, generally speaking, the largest price in the market ; for Lent ends about April. The average upon those consignments was 28 per cent, for railway cai'- riage. I may state that after Lent we are seldom able to send white fish to London, as the price of fish would get very much lower, and the ])ercent- age of the railway carriage would be double ivhat it was in the months 1 have mentioned. 1156. AVill you tell the Committee what is the charge by jiassenger train for fish from Aberdeen or Montrose to London, at the company’s risk ? — By passenger train from ^lontrose to London, which is 483 miles, as given in the railway books, the / SELECT COMMITTEE ON BAILWAYS. 63 24 March 1881.] Mr. Johnston. {^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. the charge at the company’s risk is 4 5. 8 d. per cwt. 1157. That is 93s. 4c?. per ton ? — Yes. 1158. Is the rate the same from Aberdeen? — The rate from Aberdeen is the same according to the published tables of the company. 1159. What is the distance from Aberdeen to London according to the company’s tables? — Aberdeen is 43 miles from Montrose. 1 160. That makes 526 miles ? — ^Yes. 1161. What does that come to per ton per mile? — Something over 2d. per ton per mile. 1162. Is the rate the same to Manchester? — It is the same to Manchester. 1163. What is the distance from Aberdeen to Manchester, 348 miles, is it notj — Yes, about that. 1164. How does that work out? — It would be over 3 d. per ton per mile. 1165. The fish from Montrose to London and Manchester go over several lines of railway, do they not? — They do. 1166. Then from Montrose to Glasgow the fish go on the Caledonian Railway Comjiany’s system alone ? — When sent by the Caledonian Raihvay. 1167. Are you able to quote the Caledonian rates? — Yes; those rates are all from the Cale- donian Company’s books. 1168. What does the Caledonian Company charge from Montrose to Glasgow, 117 miles by passenger train at company’s risk ? — 80 s. per ton. 1169. What does that work out per ton per mile ? — Something over 8 c?. 1170. As compared with a little over 2 c?., which is the charge to London ? — Yes. 1171. What is the charge from Montrose to Edinburgh, which is 148 miles? — By passenger train it is 5 s. a ton less than to Glasgow. 1172. That is 75s. per ton? — Yes. 1173. What does that work out per mile ? — Over 6 c?. 1174. What is the charge on fish by goods train from Aberdeen and Montrose to London ? — At company’s risk it 3s. 5 c?. per cwt. 1175. That is 68s. 4c?. per ton ? — Yes. 1176. How much is that per ton per mile ? — Rather over 1 ^ c?. 1177. What is the rate by goods train from Monti'ose to Glasgow all over the Caledonian Railway ? — At the company’s risk it is 40 s. per ton. 1178. How much is that per ton per mile ? — About 4 d. 1179. Then what is the carriage from Mon- trose to Edinburgh ? — The carriage by goods train from Montrose to Edinburgh at company’s risk is 30 s. per ton for 148 miles. 1180. How much does that work out per ton per mile ? — About 2 ^ d. 1181. Then the Caledonian Railway Company is charging well on to double the rates upon its own system which are charged as through rates when the fish goes over several systems? — Yes, that is so. 1182. Has there been an increase in the rates of the carriage of fish since the various portions of the railways in your neighbourhood were amal- 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued, gamated? — Yes; there has with every amal- gamation, each amalgamation giving more of a monopoly. With every amalgamation the rates for fish have been raised very considerably. 1183. What was the rate for salmon to London by the Scottish North Eastern line before that line was amalgamated with the Caledonian ? — By pa-senger train it was 4s. per cwt., or 80s. per ton, and immediately after the amalgamation it was raised to 4 s. 6 c/. I should say that the rate of 4s. 6(/. per cwt., or 90s. per ton (for not less than a ton weight) is at the com])any’s risk ; any quantity less than a ton, say 19 cwt., is charged 5 s. llrf. per cwt. at the company’s risk against 4 s. %d. at the sender’s risk. 1184. I believe they raised the rate on “ under one ton ” loads last year; the rate was continued as it was before, namely, 4 s. 6 c/. per cwt. for one ton and over, but the rate was I’aised to 5 s. 11 d. for less quantities than one ton ? — Yes, at the company’s risk in both cases. 1185. In addition to that direct increase of the rates, have the company increased the rates still more by estimating the weight differently from what they used to do ? — Yes, they have ; and from our quarter that has been the means of increasing the money rate from 25 to 30 per cent. For the last 30 years fish have always gone by arrangement with the company at an under weight. 1186. That is to say, salmon boxes were taken to represent a certain weight, including the ice and the tare of the box, although the actual weight of the whole was considerably more ? — Yes, that was so. 1187. And now the company has adopted the system of taking the exact gross weight? — They have. 1188. Has that had the effect of raisnig the rate from 4 s. before the amalgamation of the Scottish North Eastern Avlth the Caledonian Railway to 7 s. 5 c?. now? — To something like that. 1189. You have frequently to send smaller quantities of salmon than ton loads, have you not? — Yes; we have not got many more than a ton altogether this year. 1190. Consequently this new arrangement for smaller quantities than ton loads bears very hardly, 1 may say, upon all the consigners of salmon to the London market? — It does. 1191. In short, the rate has been raised from 4 s. to 7 s. 5 c/., or not very far from double since 1866, Avhich was the date of the amalgamation of the Scottish North Eastern Railway Com- ])any wfith ihe Caledonian? — Yes; of course that is including this additional weight. 1192. Has there been a corresponding increase upon the carriage of fish sent by goods train ? — Yes, there has. When the railway opened to Montrose about 1849, we sent fish to London for 35 s. a ton, and at that time everything went at the company’s risk ; the same fish now are being charged by goods train 3 s. 5 d. per cwt. 1193. That is an advance from Is. 9 J. per cwt. to 3 s. 5 c?. ? — Yes, the railway comjiany keep their rate-books by the cwt. 1194. The charge was raised from 35 s. to 68 s. 4 d. per ton ? — Yes. H 4 1195. In 64 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOliE THE 24 March 1881.] Mr. Johnston. \Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 1195. In both cases they are carried at the company’s risk? — Yes. Mr. Pdl. 1196. And is the fish carried at the same rate of speed? — No; about 1858 a goods train left Montrose about five o’clock in the morning, and it did not arrive in London the next morning but the morninff followinc:. Now we can send O O ^ the fish off at half-past one and it catches the same market, so that we have gained from half- past five in the morning till half-past one in the afternoon. ]\Ir. Barclay. 1197. They did not deliver the fish the next day in the morning, but the next morning but one ? — Yes, that is so. 1198. Before the Dundee and Arbroath Rail- way was absorbed by the Aberdeen Railway, what was the rate of carriage of fish to Dundee by passenger train ? — Ten Pence per cwt. 1199. Then when the Dundee and Arbroath and Aberdeen Railways were amalgamated what was the rate? — One shilling. 1200. And when the still further amalgama- tion with the Caledonian Company took place, how did it go ? — The rate was 1 s. 3 d. per cwt. 1201. And the rates generally have been in- creased in somewhat similar proportion from time to time as the various railways were amalga- mated ? — Always as railways were amalgamated the rates were raised. 1202. Wliat kind of service does the railway company give you for the fish traffic; do you consider it satisfactory? — Very partially, for the salmon the railway company give us a pretty good service now, more especially since the open- ing of the 4'ay Bridge, and last month, since the opening of the North British Railway into Mon- trose. Previously to the opening of the Tay Bridge we could not get a truck into Montrose to load salmon by passenger train ; Ave had to send them in a truck to Dubton; if there was any quantity the train would be detained so long at Dubton waiting the transference of the salmon, that we have frequently to send from two to half-a-dozen men of our own to reload our fish on to the main line. Immediately the Tay Bridge Avas opened Ave got a lot of these vans, to Montrose station, and the fish Avere taken on there Avithout being changed till they reach their destination. 1203. Can you count uoav on getting off your white fish by the passenger trains? — No. 1204. It is quite uncertain Avhether you get them of!' or not? — Yes, it is. ] 205. If you do not get them off, Avhat hap- pens ? — The fish have either to be cured, those that will cure, or sold locally. 1206. Is the fish all sent by passenger trains to the Midland tOAvns? — Y"es, it is. 1207. What happens Avlien you try to send the fish by goods trains? — The train takes such a time that the fish do not reach their destina- ation in anything like condition. 1208. It is quite uncertain Avhen the fish Avould reach the market ? — Y"es, Avhen they Avould arrive. 1209. You sometimes do send the fish by goods train to London, do you not? — Yes, London is Mr. Barclay — continued, the only market at Avhich Ave can count upon a goods train arriving. 1210. Y'ou send the fish off at half-past one in the afternoon, and they get in the next morning but one ? — Y"es. 1211. Have you calculated about Avhat speed that goods train runs at ; Avould it be 15 miles an hour ? — Yes, I think something like that. 1212. How does the fish go up; is it along Avith the dead meat from Aberdeen and Mon- trose ? — Yes; it goes in Avbat we call the dead- meat train ; that is, the goods train. 1213. I suppose there is a full train made up betAveen beef and fish at the Montrose, the Abei’deen, and the Forfar stations? — Yes, the dead-meat sent yearly from Montrose is estimated at about 250,000 /. sterling in value. 1214. Have you remonstrated Avith the raiUvay companies about the service they gave you ? — Y es, very often. 1215. Have you ever got satisfaction? — None Avhatever. 1216. When did you ever get any improve- ment in the service? — Since the oj)ening of the Tay Bridge and the North British Raihvay to Montrose. 1217. There is a branch of the North British Raihvay Avhich has been opened recently into Montrose? — Y'^es, upon the 1st of this month for goods traffic. 1218. And the Caledonian Raihvay Company has become a good deal more civil in conse- quence ? — The Caledonian Company are giving us more facilities. For instance, Ave never could get fish delivered in Dundee upon the same day until very late at night, but upon the very day that the North British line opened there was a fast train put on to deliver goods in Dundee the same day. 1219. I suppose the Caledonian Railway Com- pany told you before that, to do such a thing as that Avould be impracticable ? — Often and often, for years 1220. The benefit to you of competition has not been to get any reduction of the rates, but to get increased facilities? — Yes, that is the only thing. 1221. Have the greatly Increased rates Avhich the raihvay company have been charging of recent years, from time to time strangled the fish ijusiness ? — To a very large extent, and is doing so noAv. 1222. If the fish Avere taken aAvay from you and proper facilities Avere given for the carriage of it at reasonable rates, aa'ouUI the supply of it to Midland towns be very largely increased ? — Very much indeed. I Avould not like to say hoAv much the increase Avould be,but Avith the improve- ment of the modes of catching, and the size of the boats during the last 10 years, and especially as there is looming inthe distance, andAve are expect- ing it every moment, that steam avIU be introduced into fishing boats, I say there is no limit to the fish that could be taken out of the sea, provided Ave could get them taken to the English market. 1223. Provided you could get clear of the fish Avith pro])er facilities at reasonable rates, you do not think that it Avould be an extravagant state- ment to make, that you consider that the supply of SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWAYS. 65 24 March 1881.] Mr. Johnston. [^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. of fish from Montrose might be increased 10 times over in a few years ? — I should tliink that the increase might be considerably more than that, for I have a certificate from the harbour-master at Montrose, that last year there were delivered there 21,000 crans of herrings, that is between 4,000 and 5,000 tons. 20 years ago there was no herring fishing in Montrose at all worth speaking of. The value of those herrings was over 20,000 1. 1224. What was done with all that quantity of herrings last year ? — The greater proportion of them went to the foreign markets, Prussia and Russia, chiefly Prussia. 1225. Those herrings were cured, Avero they not? — They were cured. 1226. What is the cost to put those herrings into the continental market ? — I have before me account sales of 3,042 barrels sent b}' steamer from Montrose at 1 sAld. per barrel, and including freight and sea insurance ; the rate per cent, is five and a half, that is what it cost us upon the value of them. 1227. That is to say, the per-centage of charges for the deliveiy and selling of herrings in the continental market did not cost more than 5i per cent, upon the price realised ? — For delivery, but not for selling ; it did not include that. 1228. Have you to destroy a large quantity of the fish that you receive ? — Last year was a very peculiar year, the fish came on very heavy and we and the other curers ran out of “stock,” that is to say, of empty barrels ; the normal price of a barrel is 3 5. 6rf., and they ran up to 10 s. 6 d. The price of the empty barrel having risen so high, Ave could not afford to cure the torn belly herrings, so we sent about 400 tons, chiefly of this sort, to the manure Avork. The torn belly herrings are originally of equal quality Avith the others, but Avlien takes are large, and herrings often turned over, the bellies burst, consequently they have to be sold as a second class article. 1229. If the raihvay companies had afforded facilities and reasonable rates Avould you have sent a large quantity of them to inland toAvns? — Yes, and those would not haA'e been inferior fish, they would have been sent direct from the boats to the inland towns. 1230. What price Avould you expect to realise for those ?— From 2>d. to 6 c/. a dozen for the fresh herrings Avould be a very fair price to realise. 1231. And all the difference of price Avhich is charged in the Midland tOAvns ‘of England is due to the curers and retailers’ profits ? — Yes, and the retailers’ expenses and railway carriage. 1232. What is your opinion Avith regard to the reduction of the raihvay rates, or Avhat is your opinion of Avhat Avould be reasonable rates ? — Looking to the position Avhich the railways hold in the country, having the command of the only road, as far as the traffic is concerned, to the in- land toAvns, the interests of the country demand that the rate should be very much reduced, especially in the interest of the fishing trade. I do not speak simply in the interest of the fish curers, but of the fishermen themselves. I think that a rate of 40.9. a ton by goods train, and 50s. by passenger train, Avould be a rate that Avould 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued, pay a raihvay company for the quantity they would receive, and be a fair rate for the in- terest of everybody concerned. 1233. You Avould be quite Avilling and satis- fied with the rate to the midland towns and London of 40.9. a ton by goods train, and 50 s. a ton by passenger train ? — Yes. 1234. Wei’e those the rates that the railway companies charged from 1850 to 1852? — The railway company about 1852 charged for the same article about 37 s. a ton. 1235. You are not asking for the rate to be quite so Ioav as it Avas at that time? — No; in addition to that Ave Avould be quite willing that the raihvay companies should charge us for the actual weight as they are doing now ; but Avhen the rate Avas 35 s. Ave Avere not charged upon anything like the actual Aveight. 1236. And if the raihvay company should be satisfied Avith such rates, do you consider an enormous trade in fish Avould be developed not only from the north-east of Scotland to the midland towns and London, but elseAvhere ?— I think not only from the north-east coast of Scot- land, but also all round the island. 1237. Then the great obstacle to the cheaper supply of fish to the midland toAvns and London is the excessive raihvay charges? — In my opinion it is so. 1238. Do you hapjien to knoAv that u^) to last year it Avas the fact that beef Avas sent cheaper from Aberdeen to London than it Avas from Montrose to London? — A butcher told me that the rate from Aberdeen to London for beef was loAver than from Montrose to London by either 2 9. 6 d. or 5 s. a ton. I cannot say Avhich, and then that butcher tried to get clear of this, and sent the beef to Aberdeen and put it on board the London steamer at Aberdeen, and sent it that Avay for some time. 1239. And that compelled the railway company to reduce its rates from iMontrose and to equalise its rate to that from Aberdeen to London? — Yes. 1240. It used to be cheaper, did it not, to send live cattle from Montrose to Aberdeen, and so to London, than to send them direct from Montrose to London ? — I have had that information from the solicitor to the man Avho sent them. 1241. It was cheaper to send them 42 miles backwards than to send them from Montrose direct? — That Avas so. Sir Bdward Watkin. 1242. You have spoken of the fish trade of Montrose increasing tenfold Avith proper facilities in a very feAv years ? — I Avas speaking about the probability of that. 1243. What is the reduction that you actually Avant ; you si)oke of the charge being 40 s. a ton by the goods train, and 50 9. by a passenger train ; whac are you paying noAV ? — W e are pay- ing now vastly more than that. Mr. Barclay. 1244. Would that 40.9 a ton be at the OAvner’s risk or the company’s risk ? — As a matter of fact Ave have to send at the owner's risk, and be at I the 66 MINUTES OP EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 24 March 1881.] Mr. Johnston. \_Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. the mercy of the railway company ; but I will give it to you as the owner’s risk. What I would propose is, that we would be charged 40 s. for what is now taken at 55 s., and 50 s. for what we are now paying 75 s. 1245. Then the reduction you propose is from 55 s. to 40 s., and from 75 s. to 50 s.? — That is what I think would be a reasonable rate. Mr. iSclater-Booth. 1246. You do not pretend that the present prices are beyond the maximum in this case ? — I candidly confess to you, that I do not think that any of those engaged in the fish trade, either in Montrose or in any other place, ever thought of looking into that question. 1247. Your contention is that the fish rates are too high, whether they exceed the maximum rate or not ? — They are. Sir Edward Watkin. 1248. You contend that with these facilities you could increase the trade in a reasonable period of years, tenfold ? — I expect so. 1249. I suppose you would expect, if these reductions were made for the benefit of Montrose, that similar reductions should be made to all the fishing ports of England, whatever their respec- tive distances might be ? — When I speak about Montrose, I speak about the north-east coast of Scotland and the district generally. I am not at all acquainted with the traffic of the English ports. 1250. I think you stated that before the rail- ways were opened there was no trade of this kind at all ? — No, I did not say that ; there has always been a trade in cured fish from Montrose ; there was no herring fishing in Montrose at that time. The fishing boats from Montrose then went to Peterhead and Fraserburgh for the fishing, and the fish were sent to Montrose to be smoked, and were then sent on to London. 1251. But before the railway was made there was no fish trade between Montrose and London, or the midland towns of England, was there ? — To the midland towns there was no trade to speak of, but London there was. My father got a very good price for fish sent in ice by the smacks. 1252. You spoke of the increase in rates be- tween 1851 and the present time, which is an interval of nearly 30 years. Are you not aware that in that period the rate of working expenses on railways has increased from an average of 40 per cent, to an average of 50 per cent ? — I have no doubt it has done so, especially from the way in which the railways have been conducted. I should have said, more over, that as a fish curer I would be quite content with the rates I have named, and as a railway shareholder in some of the lines the fish run over, also to take my dividend oft’ those rates. 1253. No doubt you are very philanthropic, but do not you think that something might be done very much better for the London market, that is to say the provision of a direct railway across to Billingsgate Market? — I have no doubt C* D Sir Edward IVatkin — continued. that that might be a very great benefit, but not to remove Billingsgate Market from where it is now ; you would lose the sea trade. 1254. I am asking you whether you do not think that a through railway to Billingsgate would be a great benefit ? — No doubt it would, but the passenger train rates that I have quoted do not include delivery in London or collection in Montrose, whereas the goods trains rates do. Mr. Lowther. . 1255. Have you been employed in the fish trade since 1866? — I have been in the fish trade since 1850. My father has been in it since 1825. 1256. Do you think that the traffic has in- creased very much in the fish which is sent from Montrose to London and other markets since that time ? — I have no doubt that the traffic has increased, but the trade has varied, and is chang- ing so much. What I mean to say is that when the railway opened there was very little fresh or partially cured fish sent to London ; we smoked the herrings and made bloaters of them, and sent them to London. Now the great bulk of the herrings are sent to London, slightly salted ; by the time they get to London they are ready to go to the smokers who smoke them in London, so that there are very few bloaters made in Scot- land ; they are all made in London. 1257. I understand you to say that if there were more trade, and more facilities, you could get more fish at Montrose, and you could dispose of it ? — I think we would haA'e, because we have no interest now in helping the fishermen beyond a certain extent with their boats and nets. 1258. Have you at times any fish remaining on your hands that you could not send away by train? — We have had a very great quantity of fish. 1259. What did you do with it on such an oc- casion ? — We cured it and sent it away to Ger- many. 1260. Did you get a good price for it? — We did not. 1261. At anj rate you sold it and got rid of it ? — Yes, we did get rid of it. 1262. 1 think you told the Committee that a butcher told you something about the prices of the transport of meat, do you think you could always rely upon what a butcher told you about his profits, and so on ? — I did not ask him about his profits at all; our convei’sation was about the railway rates. 1263. You do not think he was, as you would call it, chaffing you? — No. Mr. O' Sullivan. 1264. Do I understand that the railway com- jianies have a diftcrent rate for fish by passenger as distinguished from goods train? — Yes, there is about 20 s. a ton difi’erence. 1265. And can you avail yourself of either whenever you have fish to forward to market? — To a limited extent. The railway' company have never refused to take salmon, but they' have often SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 67 24 March 1881.] Mr. Johnston. [ Continued Mr. O'Sullivan — continued. often and often refused to take fresh fish above a small quantity by passenger train. 1266. With regard to fresh fish, would it not be more advantageous to you to have expedition even if it were a little more expensive, to catch the different markets ? — Expedition is necessary, but expedition at a certain high rate is useless. Mr. Barclay. 1267. I wish to ask you whether the traffic upon the Scottish North Eastern and the Cale- donian Railways from Montrose has very much Increased since 1852? — It must have done. 1268. If the working expenses have increased generally, yet, with regard to special articles, the great Increase of traffic upon that part of the line Mr. Barclay — continued. ought to have reduced the per-centage of work- ing expenses there ? — Judging from an ordinary business point of view it would be so. 1269. And yet your argument is that, in con- sequence of the increase of the traffic upon the line, the railway company should be able to carry the fish as cheaply now as they did in 1852 ? — I think so. 1270. With regard to passenger trains, you say that the fish are sent by passenger trains, but those are not the ordinary passenger trains, are they ? — They are the ordinary passenger trains. 1271. Are there not special fish trains ? — Not as a rule, but sometimes in the herring season the company do put on a fast fish train, and they charge us passenger rates for it ; but as a rule the fish by that train never arrives in time for the market. 68 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Monday, '29>th March 1881 , MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. AsliJey. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Caine. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Crai<^. Mr. Dilhvyn, Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. The Honourable EVELYN Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr, Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulhollaud. Mr. "W. X. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. ooseph Pease. Mr. Sclater-Booth. ASHLEY, IN THE Chair. Mr. Thomas Garnet, called in ; and Examined. Mr, Caine. 1272. I THINK you are a stuff merchant at Bradfoi'd ? — Yes, I am in the worsted goods trade. 1273. And you are a member of the Chamber of Commerce at Bradford ? — Yes, I am. 1274. And chairman of the railway committee of that body ? — Yes. 1275. Are you of opinion that the great and increasing interests of the worsted and woollen industries suffer from the inequalities of the rates of railway cai’riage ? — I am. 1276. Can you tell the Committee what have been the imports of foreign wool into this country in 1880? — I think the imports in 1880 were about 1,500,000 bales, and the Aveight about 500.000. 000 lbs. 1277. And the value, if you can estimate it? — I should think, taking an estimate of about 1 s., for you cannot get at it accurately, it would be about 25,000,000 /. 1278. What is the estimated growth of avooI in this country ? — We have no criterion by which to calculate, but it is estimated at about 150.000. 000 lbs. Aveight. 1279. The value of that A\muld be about 1 s. a pound 'i — That is about the sum. 1280. That Avould represent from 6,000,000/. to 7,000,000 /.?— Yes. 1281. Is that home-grown avooI exported to any extent? — A little, but not very largely. 1282. The remainder, of course, is Avorked up in this country? — Yes, 1283. Will you tell the Committee Avhat pro- portion of the entire consumj)tion of avooI in this country is Avorked up in the Avoollen districts of the AVest Riding of Yorkshire ? — Speaking gene- rally, you may say that the Avhole is sent there, but of course there is in tlie AVest of England some consumption, aiul in Scotland there is some consumj)tion, but at all events the great bulk of it is Avorked uj) in our district. 1284. AVould you say that 9-lOths of that is Mr. Caine — continued. woi’ked up in the district ? — I think about that ; it would be a very large proportion. 1285. AVhat is the entire of the home con- sumption? — VA"e have no returns of the home consumption, but it was estimated by the chair- man of our committee to be about 70,000,000/. sterling a year. 1286. Are you speaking of the whole Avorsted and Avoollen trade of the West Riding of York- shire ? — Yes. 1287. Hoav much of that is exported? — I have the Board of Trade Returns for the year 1876 ; I am sorry I have not got them since then, and the export then A\"as 26,750,000 /. 1288. That Avould be about a tenth of the entire export trade of the country, would it not ? — About an eleventh. 1289. Has the trade of your district been in a flourishing condition for the last three or four years ? — I am sorry to say, certainly not. 1290. AYill you kindly give the Committee your opinion as to the chief cause of that depres- sion ? — One thing that Ave are suffering very much from is foreign competition ; then there is the bad state of trade as Avell, and there are A'arious other causes. 1291. Still foreign competition is the main rea.«on Avhy trade has been so bad ? — AA’^e trace it to that. 1292. Then I Avill ask you Avhether the foreign trade in England in worsted goods is so severeh' competed for by the other markets of the world, that the cost of carriage from your district is a serious item, and may readily affect the amount of your total exports ? — It is. 1293. I believe your Chamber of Commerce has been aliAe to the im2)ortauce of this question for some years, and has apjiointed a committee of its members to Avatch the railAvay rates, and as far as possible to jirotect the interests of the dis- trict? — It has. 1294. Have other Chambers of Commerce taken SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 69 28 March 1881.1 Mr. Garnet. \ Continued. Mr. Caine — continued. taken joint action with you in the matter ? — They have. 1295. What Chambers of Commerce are those? — Speaking from memory, the Leeds Chamber of Commerce, Huddersfield, Halifax, Wakefield, Dewsbury, Batley, and I daresay one or two others. 1296. The Chambers of the district in fiict? — Yes. 1297. Will you kindly say to the Committee what your complaints against the railway com- panies consist of? — Ihey consist of two points chiefly: the differential rates of carriage to Brad- ford and differential rates of carriage from Brad- ford. 1298. W'hat action have you already taken to get those various complaints redressed ''' — We have had interviews with the principal railway companies, and we have also had lengthened cor- respondence with them, pointing out to them the differential rates, and asking them to give us the relief to which we considered we were fairly en- titled. 1299. Have you got that relief? — We got a relief of half-a-crown a ton on shipping goods in 1878. 1300. But that was not the relief that you thought you were entitled to, or that you wished to have ? — Not at all, as regards doing away with the differential rates I am alluding to. 1301. You got that concession on the subject of differential rates? — To the extent of 2 s. 6 d. 1302. Let me ask you if thsse chambers of commerce, which you have alluded to, have taken joint action with you, and unanimously agreed with you in the course you have pursued ? — To a certain point. 1303. What was that point? — When we could not net the assimilation of rates that we desired, the Chamber of Commerce of Bradford made a representation upon their own account to the railway company proposing another means of re- medy ; Ave did not ask, or did not call together the Associated Chambers to confirm that ; I have no doubt they would have done so if they had been consulted. 1304. After association had failed you took action upon your OAvn account? — Yes, and the consent of the Associated Chambers was not asked for then. 1305. Does not Manchester compete severely with you for the export trade in worsteds and woollens ? — Very severely. 1306. Can you give the Committee the rates of carriage from Manchester and Bradford re- spectively, to London, for exportation only ? — The rate from Manchester to London for export is 25 s. a ton ; the rate from Bradford to London for export is 35 s. a ton. 1307. And do you know what is the mileage in each case ? — I think there are a few miles of difference between the two, but the difference is very slight ; but Dewsbury is within one mile of the distance that Manchester is from London. Dewsbury is one of our chambers, and acts with us. The distance from Manchester to London is 182 miles, and from Bradford to London it is from 188 to 190 miles. I have not the exact measurement. 0.54. Mr. Caine — continued. 1308. Then for this small difference of distance there is a difference of 10 s.,as between Bradford and Manchester, for shipping carriage? — Yes, there is a difference of 10 s. on goods for export between .Manchester and Bradford. 1309. I should like to ask you Avhether the export trade of woollen goods from your district is equal to or exceeds that of Manchester ? — It is much larger. Ifradford is the seat of the v;oollen trade. 1310. Do you know any reason why tliis great difference should exist ; has any reason been given to you by the railway company when you made a representation to them ? — The reason given to us, at the time, was that IManchester sent much larger quantities of goods, and they Avere enabled to give them a loAver rate. 1311. But the explanation Avas not satisfactory to you ? — It Avas not. 1312. You could not see that the railway com- pany, in carrying from Manchester to London, could carry for 10 s. per ton cheaper than they could from Bradford to London, in spite of the great advantage Avhich they said they possessed in the larger quantities of goods from Manchester, as compared with those from Bradford? — No. 1313. Do the Manchester goods measure, as a rule, less cubic feet per ton than the Bradford goods? — I should say not, but of course I have not the specific Aveight of the cubic foot of Manchester goods; they are very mixed as a rule. 1314. But your experience as a large stuff manufacturer, Avould enable you to sav whether Bradford goods Avere bulkier than Manchester goods? — I should say not. 1315. How much of the Bradford goods go in a car load ? — It depends upon the car and the tonnage of it. I can give you the specific weight. Our goods average, I should think, about 25 lbs. per cubic foot. I cannot tell you hoAV much the raihvay companies put on to a truck, but that is about the Aveight of the goods. 1316. I suppose Manchester competes with you in the home trade as Avell as in the export trade? — Very severely. 1317. I take it for granted that London is the chief market for the home trade? — Yes, it is. 1318. Can you give the Committee the rates on your goods from Manchester and Bradford to London for the home trade ? — From Manchester to London the rate is 40 s. per ton, and from Bradford to London it is 43 s. 4 d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1319. By what railway is that? — By either railway, the London and North "VYestern, the Great Northern, or the Midland BailAvays. Mr. Caine. 1320. I take it for granted that the rates are equal by all the great carrying lines? — ’Yes. 1321. They compete with each other, and the rates are taken at the same figure ? — Y es. 1322. I presume that the goods are not deli- vered at the same points in London for the home and the export trade ? — The goods are delivered at the Docks for export. 1323. By the London and North Western I 3 Railway 70 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. [^Continued. Mr. Caine — continued. Railway they would go to Poplar for export, and to the Euston Station for the home market? — I am not acquainted with the exact details, but the goods are delivered in both cases in London. 1324. Do you know whether that rate includes cartage to the various warehouses ? — Yes, it in- cludes cartage to the various warehouses where the delivery is within a certain distance. 1325. And in the case of the export trade the goods would be delivered on or at the side of the ship ? — Or at the Docks. I cannot say whether or not there are any extra charges for shipping. 1326. Could you give the Committee any opinion upon the total quantity of goods sent to London respectively for home consumption and for export ? — If I did it would be mere guess work. 1327. Do you think that London takes more goods from your district for the home trade than are sent from your district for export ? — I should not like to answer the question. I should think the home trade is much larger than the export trade, but whether more goes to London or not 1 cannot say ; we have no means of getting that information except from the railway companies. 1328. Would you give it as your opinion that the home trade in London takes as much or nearly as much as the export trade over those respective competing lines? — From our district [ should think it probably would, but I merely give it as an opinion. 1329. Then, bearing in mind the difference in rates which you have just named between 25 s. from Manchester and 35 s. from Bradford to London for export goods, and 40 s. in the one case and 43 s. 4 d. in the other for home trade ; in point of fact the home consumer pays 60 per cent, more than the foreign buyer from Bi'ad- ford ? — If the home consumer bought from Brad- ford and the shipping goods went from Manches- ter, to exactly the same extent, the foreign pur- chaser would get an advantage of 60 per cent, in cari'iage over the home consumer. 1330. Can you give the Committee the foreign export rates to Liverpool, Newcastle, Bristol, and Hull ? — I have not made myself acquainted with them. 1331. Do you know whether dift’erential rates exist to those ports ? — VV ith regard to wool they do. 1332. But with respect to your manufactured goods ? — There is very little sent to Bristol for shipment, and I could not say whether there is any difference there or not. 1333. Or at Liverpool ? — I could not say as to the rates to Liverpool. 1 334. I will ask you whether the home growth of wool is handicapped by the specially low rates upon the foreign wool at the port of entry ? —Yes. 1335. Can you give some instances of that to the Committee ? — I can give you an instance. Upon the same railway (the London and Worth Western) the rate on foreign wool carried from London to Bradford is 37 s. 6s ; I cannot tell you the name of the railway in this case, but Winchester is the centre of a large wool district, and I am not acquainted with the distance, but I should think the distance is about the same from Win- chester to Liverpool as it is from Winchester to Bradford. If the wool is sent from Winchester to Bradford the company charge 49s. 'Id. a ton ; if they sent it to Liverpool for home consump- tion they charge them 41s. 8 c?. a ton for it ; if it is sent to Liverjjool to be shipped they charge 36 s. 8(7. a ton for it. 1339. Is English wool shipped to any large extent ? — America at times takes a considerable quantity Ifom us, but it is a very spasmodic de- mand. Mr. Sclater Booth. 1340. Would they send wool from Winchester to Liverpool with the view to the home con- sumption of Manchester or Liverpool ?- — No, but that is the rate quoted. Mr. Caine. 1341. There is a difference of 5 s. a ton between the export rate and the home trade rate to Liverpool ? — Y es ; to Bradford the rate is 49 s. 2 d. Mr. Sclater Booth. 1342. But Bradford is further fromWinchester, is it not ? — I cannot speak ' with any certainty as to the relative distances, bu I do not think there is any substantial difierence. 1343. What combination of railway comjianies is required to furnish a through rate from Win- chester to Liverpool ? — I should think it could come by the same railways exactly that the London and North Western Company could deliver it to Liverpool, and that the London and North Western could deliver it to Bradford. 1344. But I want to know how many railway companies combine to make the through rate from Winchester to Liverpool, and from Winchester to Bradford respectively ? — I should think it would be exactly the same in each case. Mr. Caine. 1345. If itisthe London and North Western it must go over two lines ; if it is the Great Western it must go over three lines, wliich makes all the diflference ? — But the Great Western Railway Company has not a terminus in Bradford. 1346. Have you the charges from Bradford and from Liverpool to Winchester by the same railway? — The railway companies charge the same rates. 1347. But from Liverpool to Winchester the traffic SELECT COMMITTEE OX RAILWAYS. 71 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. {^Continued. Mr. Cahie — continued. traffic can go over two lines, and from Bradford to Winchester it lias to go over three ? — If I were to apply to the London and North Western Company for the rate from Bradford to Win- chester for wool, they would quote me 49 5. ‘Id., as a through rate ; if I went to Liverjiool and asked for a through rate to Winchester for ship- ping they would quote me 42 s. 8 d. 1348. You get the two rates from the same company, do you not ? — Yes. 1349. Now have you any figures to give the Committee with reference to the rates upon Welsh wool? — Not upon Welsh wool, but upon Irish, which is largely consumed in Bradford. 1350. There again you are handicapped? — Yes. 1351. Now will you give the Committee some details with regard to Irish wool ? — The through rate from Dublin to Bradford for Irish wool is 36 s. 8 d. per ton ; if we could bring it to Liverjiool under a declaration that it was to be exported and were charged the rate for wool forwarded from Liverpool to Bradford we could get it for 3 I s. \ d. 1352. Would you show how that rate would be made up ; how would you bring it to Liver- pool, in the first instance, under a declaration for export? — The Dublin through rate is 36s. 8d. as I have stated. 1353. Will you give the Committee the rate from Dublin to Liverpool for export, and let us know how you would bring it ? — The Dublin rate is 36 s. 8d. a ton, whereas if wool is booked from Dublin to Liverpool, and thence for ex- port, the freight is 10 s. per ton. 1354. Ten shillings per ton is the freight from Dublin to Liverpool by sea if declared for ex- port? — Yes, with town dues. Is. 3d., equal to ils. 3d. Placed upon the same footing, it should be for Bradford 10 s. per ton forwarded to Liverpool ; for cartage at Liverpool and town dues, 2 s. 9d. ; and railway carriage from Brad- ford to Liverpool, 18 s. 4d. ; that brings it up to 31s. Id.; whereas if we get a through rate from Dublin they charge them 36s. 8d. 1355. You say that if this wool were brought by steamer from Dublin to Liverpool, delivered for export, it can be carried for 10s. freight? — Yes. 1356. Then you add certain town dues, and cartage and railway from Liverpool to Bradford, which is 18s. 4 d., which together make 31s. Id.? — Yes. 1357. With regard to the rate from Liverpool to Bradford, is that only on foreign avooI? — No, it cannot be foi’eign wool, because it is Irish wool that I am talking about. 1358. Do you know what the freight is from Dublin to Liverpool upon wool which is not de- clared for export? — No, I do not, because the merchants in Bradford ask for a through rate. 1359. But why do you ask for a through rate when you know you can get it for 31s. Id. by paying the sea freight? — I presume you would have to make a false declaration. 1360. You do not know what is the freight from Dublin to Liverpool upon wool which is not declared for export ? — I had not the particulai’s with me, but 1 forwarded to the Committee on my return the facts. The rate for wool from 0.54. Mr. Caine — continued. Dublin to Liver})ool for export is 10 s. per ton ; that is for^ re-shipment, but the Screw Company and the railways have combined and insist upon 15 s. a ton, if the wool is to be forwarded to Bradford. 1361. That is a jioint v/hich requires to be settled before we can tell if there is anything in your comparison; do you know who owns the steamers? — The London and North Western Company own the steamers to Holyhead. 1362. Is the 36s. 8d. the rate by Holyhead? — No, to Liverpool. Chait'man . 1363. Although you are not prepared to say what the charge is from Dublin to Liverpool upon goods not declared for exportation, are you prepared to say that it is more than 10s. ? — 1^111 prepared to say that a wool merchant in Brad- ford, if he could get any advantage by ascertain- ing those rates, u ould very quickly avail himself of it. Mr. Caine. 1364. I never heard of the steamers between Ireland and England charging differential rates for home trade and export trade ; do you know, of your own knowledge, that they do so? — I onl\ know from these facts that I am giving you now. 1365. You know for a fact that you would have to make a false declaration to get the goods through at the 3 1 s. \d. through rate ? — This is the evidence produced by the avooI trade of Brad- ford, and that evidence is that they have to pay a rate of 36 s. 8 d. for wool from Dublin to Brad- foi’d. Mr. Barclay. 1366. Then your complaint in this case would be against the steamers from Dublin to Liver- pool, and not against the railway from Liverpool to Bradford ? — That is so, but we complain that the railway company giving us a through rate should not place us at that disadvantage, but give us the benefit of any sea rate that there is. Mr. Caine, 1367. The real difference, as I understand your evidence, is in the sea freight, and not in the railway rate? — So I understand from the figures. 1368. The link that we want to complete your evidence is to know whether the steamers charge a differential rate between the export and the home trade ? — That I cannot answ'er you. 1369. Is there anything that you desire ta state generally to the Committee ? — I only wish to say generally that we do think it desirable that these anomalies in the rates should be thoroughly inquired into, our opinion being that it is something like heaping up new rates upon old ones. U e cannot get that relief that we think we are fairly entitled to unless we can bring pressure to bear either from competition or from other sources, and there are so many anomalies in the rates of carriage, that we hope and think a thorough inquiry will be advan- tageous both to the trade and also to the railwav companies themselves. I 4 1370. Do 72 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 J\Iarch 1881.] Mr. Gaenet. ^Continued. Mr. Barclay. 1370. Do you think that these differential rates are driving trade out of the natural chan- nels — I think they are, as far as we are con- cerned. 1371. Are there are any foreign-manufactured woollen goods coming to Bradford ? — Yes, very large quantities. 1372. From what ])ai’t ? — Chiefly from France. 1373. But where are they landed ; where do they come forward ? — Through London, and also through Hull. 1374. Have you any idea what the rates are upon those foreign-manufactured goods coming to London, and then on to Bradford? — Fo ; 1 have not the rate-books ; they pay the carriage generally from F'rance to Bradford, hut I have the rates from London to Eoubaix, and also the carriage of wool from London to Bradford, but not from Eoubaix to Bradford. 1375. Do any of the manufactured goods come up from Southam 2 )ton to Bradford ? — I should not think so, or very little indeed. 1376. You think that the goods mostly come from London or Hull to Bradford ? — Yes. 1377. But you have no idea of the through rates ? — 1 have not the particulars of them. 1378. Could you find out what the rates are from the Fh'ench ports to Bradford in order that they might be compared with what you are pay- ing from London and Hull? — I could, but I could not give it to the Committee to-day ; I should have to refer to books and paper's. 1379. Is Manchester nearer to a shipping port than Bradford? — Yes, it would be nearer to Liverpool, but not irearer to London. Mr. Nicholson. 1380. Or Hull? — No it would not be so near to Hull as Bradford is. Mr. Barclay. 1381. Does that account in any rvay for the dlft'erence in freight charged to London as between Manchester and Bradford? — The rail- way companies have never given us that informa- tion when we asked why they made the difference; they have told us that larger quantities were sent, but they never told us that proximity to a ship- ping port was the reason. 1382. Is there a suspicion that if they did not charge these lower rates from Manchester to London, the goods would go to Liverpool for export? — Suspicion there is, but I have no know- ledge of the fact. 1383. Would that explain the difference? — It may to a certain extent, but at the same time it leaves us in a very unfortunate position. 1384. If your bale goods are as heavy as 25lbs. per cubic foot, an ordinary sized waggon must take at least 3 or 4 tons of them? — Yes, I should think that a railway waggon Avould carry quite an equal weight of Bradford goods as of Manchester goods. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1385. Can you tell me what is the amount in round numbers of the import of foreign wool into Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. Bradford? — We have no data at all to go upon except that Bradford and the district we may say consumes very nearly the whole of the wool. 1386. But how much foreign wool do you im- port into Bradford and the district annually ? — I see that we import about 500,000,000 lbs. per annum. In 1876 we exported of that 173,000,000 pounds, and the balance of that wool, with the exceptions I have stated, comes into our district, is collected there, manufactured, and sent away for consumption. 1387. So that the foi'eign imports are very large ? — Yes. 1388. They are considerably larger than the exports ? — Yes. 1389. The quantity imported being very much larger than that which is exported, would that, in your opinion, justify the company in giving a lower rate to the imports and to the exports? — But they do not ; we complain of their giving facilities for sending imported wool to Bradford which they do not to the home-grown wool. 1390. Can you tell me the difference between the imported wool from foreign countries and the amount produced at home and sent to the Bradford district to be made up ? — I should think we export something like the amount of avooI that we grow here; we exported 173.000,000 lbs. in 1876, and the estimate (and I must tell you it is only an estimate) is, that 150,000,000 lbs. of wool are grown in this country in the year. 1391. And that principally goes to Bradford to be made up? — Almost entirely. 1392. Then the railway companies have to carry to Bradford a very much larger quantity of foreisn wool th.an of home-grown atooI ? — Cer- tainly, to Bradford and that district. Mr. Caine. 1393. I think the wool chiefly exported is foreign wool, which is brought here for distribu- tion ? — Certainly. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1394. How long have you been connected practically with the woollen trade? — It is 30 years the 7th of January last since 1 went into the worsted trade. 1395. When you were first connected with the woollen trade were there any railways to Brad- ford at all ? — Yes. 1396. How many railways were there? — There were the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the Mid- land Eailways. 1397. Which was made first? — The Midland Eailway, I think, but that was before I went to Bradford. 1398. Can you tell the Committee what was the rate paid then from Bradford to London by the Midland Eailway? — I have not the remotest idea. 1399. Was it higher or lower, do you think? — I could not tell you ; I have not the information before me. 1400. How many railways have you now in Bradford; how many different companies? — We have four. 1401. What are they ? — The Midland, the Lan- cashire and Yorkshire, the Great Northern, and the SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 73 28 MarcA 1881.] Mr. Garnet. [^Conthued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, the London and North Western ; the two latter run over the Lancashire and Yorkshire into Bradford ; we have two railways really, but four companies represented. 1402. Since when have you had these four companies ? — I really could not fix my memory to that. 1403. Is it within the last 10 years ? — I think the Great Northern Company had a separate station there within the last 10 years, but they have found it more convenient to run into the Lancashire and Yorkshire Station. 1404. Do you recollect at all when you had only two railway companies running into Brad- ford ? — Yes, certainly. 1405. What were your rates then per ton ? — That I could not tell you. 1406. Have the rates increased at all in the last 10 years? — I should say they have been reduced. 1407. Is that reduction owing to the fact of there being more railways now going into Brad- ford than there were ?— I think it has been caused by the altered circumstances of railway travelling altogether, and the lai'ge amount of through traffic that is carried over the railways, and the competition which exists everywhere. 1408. Do you think it is owing to the competi- tion of the railway companies? — No doubt that led to it in the beginning. 1409. Do you think that the fact that Bi-adford has had four lines of railway running into it has produced a decrease in the rates ? — I would not say that it had resulted merely from four lines running into Bradford, because they have been coming in a great many years, but they now run on to the same system. 1410. Is there any competition, to your know- ledge, between the companies, forgetting the woolcarried over their lines? — We always consider that there is a certain competition between the railway companies, but still they assimilate their rates and we can get no advantage from either one by telling them we will give them the whole of our traffic. 1411. What is the principal port which you send to; is it Liverpool? — Goods intended for the continent and Australia, go to London chiefly. 1412. How many railways have you from Bradford to London? — Three. 1413. Is the rate the same by all the rail- ways ? — Precisely the same. 1414. Is the distance the same by all the rail- ways? — That I cannot say, because I have not the mileage ; but the rates are the same, irre- spective of distance. 1415. Can you tell me how many lines you have going from Bradford into Liverpool ? — We have three lines. 1416. Is the rate the same by those lines? — We look upon it at any rate that the Lancashire and Yorkshire, and the London and North Western Bailway Companies, are almost identi- cal, but the Midland now runs from Liverpool to Bradford. 1417. Have you the same rate by the Midland as you have by the other two companies? — I am not acquainted with the rates well enough to 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. speak with certainty, but I believe it is the case. 1418. Would it be possible, now, for any large firm of wool merchants in Bradford to get a lower rate from Bradford to London on any of those three lines than you have quoted ? — No. 1419. It would not be possible? — I believe not. 1420. Why is that? — Because the railway companies have a recognised rate, which they do not break to the best of my belief. 1421. Have they agreed together to charge a certain rate? — Yes. 1422. That rate they have agreed together not to break for any parties under any circum- stances ? — I have that in evidence under their letter. 1423. So that there is no competition, practi- cally ? — Yes, there is competition in this way ; the merchants in Bradford are getting very large quantities of wool from London to Brad- ford by sea ; they can get them within a reason- able time. They come from London via Goole, and save something like 10 s. a ton, besides get- ting the goods insured ; and what w'e contend is this, that if the railway companies can afford to carry finished goods from Manchester to London at 25 s. per ton, it is sadly too much to cliarge for the raw material 37s. Q d. a, ton, because it happens to come to Bradford, where we cannot bring the same competition to bear upon them. 1424. Do you mean that you can get your wool from London to Bradford by rail at 37 s. 6f/. per ton, and by sea for 27 s. 6 d. ? — We can saAC between 7 s. 6 d. and 10 s. I believe there is 2 s. 6 d. paid for insurance by sea, but the Brad- ford merchants can save that, and are doing so now by carrying it by sea. What I contend is, that it seems an outrageous rate to pay 37 s. 6 d. for the carriage of the raw' material, when the same railway companies can carry from Man- chester the finished article, which requires much more careful carrying. 1425. Is it your opinion that the charges of the railway companies for wool from London are stimulating the sea traffic, and ai’e encouraging the merchants of Bradford to bring their goods by sea ? — I am quite certain of it ; I have had letters from many merchants in Bradford who are getting their ■wool that way now, on account of the charges of the railway companies. 1426. There is one other thing I want to ask you about now ; I think you told the Committee that wool sent from Winchester to Liverpool for export, was carried at a lower rate than wool sent to Bradford for manufacturing? — There is a very serious difference ; the wool sent from Winchester to Bradford is charged 49s. 2 r/. a ton ; that is for manufacturing. The rate for ■wool from Winchester to Liverpool, which is declared for export, is 36 s. 8 d., being a dift'erence of nearly 13 s. 1427. I suppose that, you consider, w'orks hardly upon , the Bradford w'ool trade ? — I think so. 1428. Do you think it works equally hardly upon the producers of the wool? — Certainly. 1429. Is it not an advantage to the producer of the wool to be able to get his material carried K at 74 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. [ Continued. Lord Raiidolph continued, at a very cheap rate to a large market? — That is what we want. 1430. Would not Liverpool, with its various steamers going to all parts of the world, be a very much larger market for wool than Bradford ? — The grower would be benefited by reducing the rate to Bradford where the gratest amount is consumed, to an equality with the rate to Liver- pool which is equally distant from Winchester. 1431. Is not there a very large export of home grown wool? — Not from the Winchester dis- trict. 1432. But is there not a very large export of home grown wool ? — It is nothing compared to the home consumption ; America, as I said, is a buyer of English wool frequently, but it is a very sjiasmodic trade, in fact, you may say there is, with that exception, very little export of wool from Liverpool; there is a very large export of Australian wool which comes to the Loudon market, and is there sold by auction, but that goes chiefly to France and Germany. 1433. What do you suppose is the object of the railway companies carrying wool from in- chester to Liverpool cheaper than from Win- chester to Bradford? — I suppose we cannot, being an inland town, bring the pressure of competition to bear so much as they can in Liverpool. 1434. You do not think it is an advantage to the agriculturist to have his wool carried cheaper to Liverpool than to Bi’adford ? — No; but it would be to Ids advantage to have his wool car- ried as cheaply to Bradford as to Liverpool. 1435. Are you aware that the foreign railway companies all make a considerable reduction on wool carried for export ? — I have not considered that point. 1436. Should you object if the railway com- panies made a difference between the woollen goods you manufacture in Bradford for export and the goods you manufacture for home con- sumption ; suppose they made a difference in favour of the wool that was exported, how would that suit you ? — We do not see any reason w'hy there should be any difference. 1437. You do not see any reason why there should be a bounty given by the railway com- pany upon exjiorted goods? — Certainly not, the rates should be the same. 1438. But the railway companies do give a bounty upon home grown wool from Winchester to Liverpool for exj)ort as compared with w’oollen goods from Bradford to Winchester ? — They do. 1439. Would you object if they did a similar thing to the manufactured article as against the raw produce ? — I presume you mean if they gave a bounty to Bradford as against the exporter. 1440. If the railway companies gave the same advantage to Bradford for its manufactured ar- ticles as they do now do to Winchester for its raw material, should you object? — We should not come here to ask for any such a thing ; we ask for a fair trade, and no favour at all. Mr. Schter- Booth. 1441. When you pay 49 s. 2 r/. for wool from Winchester to Bradford, do you object to that as Mr. Sclater-Booth — continued. being unfair as compared with the Liverpool rate, or do you say it is in excess of the maximum rate they ought to charge by their Acts ? — I do not presume that the railway companies cliarge above their maximum rate, either to Bradford or to Liverpool. 1442. That is no part of your complaint ? — No. Loi’d Randolph Churchill. 1443. Have you ever Investigated the maxi- mum rates of those companies? — No. 1444. You have not looked into the rate- books ? — No. 1445. Y"ou do not know what the railway companies have the right to charge either to Bradford or Liverpool? — No. 1446. You are the chairman of the committee appointed by the Chamber of Commerce to give evidence upon the subject of these charges ? — I am. 1447. And you have not looked into the ques- tion of the legality of these charges as shown by the rate books ? — I have not. Mr. Peai,e. 1448. With regard to the trade at Bradford, has it not been in a very bad condition for the last three or four years ?— It has. 1449. Have there been any profits made at all? — I cannot speak for my neighbours, but I am afraid they would give a very bad account. 1450. The railway companies have not been the predominating source of the evil in your neighbourhood ? — Since the trade became very bad in Bradford economy in every point has been thoroughly watched. No doubt whilst trade was very prosperous in Bradford, these questions did not force themselves to the front so much, but this economy xvhich is noxv being sought for, does not apply only to railway charges, but applies to every other branch of the manufacture from the beginning to the end of, and there is a thorough sifting to see where we are trading at a disadvantage, and where we are trading on an ec[uality. 1451. At the present moment, even if there Avere a considerable reduction in your railway charges, the trade would not be in a prosperous condition, would it? — Every reduction that we get tends to our benefit. 1452. Now, with regard to the wool that is exported, is there any quantity of avooI which goes from Hampshire to Liverpool for export ? — I should not be able to say, because Ave have no data to go upon ; the raihvay companies are the only people Avho can supply that information. I should not think the quantity Avas large. 1453. Y"ou Avould think, as compared Avith any oth.er Avool trade that you are acquainted with, that it Avas infinitesimal ? — I should say it Avas. 1454. With regard to foreign avooI, Avhich is sold in London, you say nearly all comes to the Bradford district ; is that so ? — No, there is an export of 173,000,000 lbs. weight; that is the export from London direct ; the residue comes almost entirely into the manufacturing districts. 1455. Y'ou consider that 327,000,000 lbs. Aveight of Avool comes from London to Bradford to be manufactured ? — Not to Bradford only, but to SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 75 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. ^Conthiued. ]Mr. Pease — continued. to the woollen and worsted districts of the West Riding, with the exceptions that I state. 1450. With regard to these goods that go for export to London, do you know where they go? — They go all over the world very largely to Australia. I should think the bulk of the goods from our neighbourhood to Australia go through London. 1457. And those are charged from Bradford 35 s. a ton ? — Yes, those are charged from Brad- ford 35 s. a ton, and our competitors with Brad- ford only pay 25 s. 1458. Do you know the rate from Bradford to Hull for Australian export ? — I do not know it. 1459. Would it be 35 s.? — I should think there is very little trade from Hull with Australia. I am myself in the Australian trade, and never loaded a case at Hull. 1460. But vessels could be loaded there? — Yes. 1461. Would not another port nearer to Brad- ford necessarily limit the trade to the more dis- tant port? — I should think it did not apply to those particular ports, because vessels for Aus- tralia have to bring a cargo back, and their prin- cipal “ in ” cai’goes ai’e taken to London. 1462. If there were another port accessible at 25 s., the railway company must either go without the trade, or charge a 25 s. rate only ; is not that so ; the 25 s. port Avill rule the rate which the company can obtain to any other port? — It does not necessarily follow unless the other is equally convenient. 1463. But the minimum rate at which you can send your goods would be the one that you would adopt ; supposing the railway companies put up the export rate to 40.?., would they get the traffic if there were a port which could be reached at 35.?.? — We do not ask them to do that. 1464. You complain that there is a discrepancy in the rate as between the foreigner and the exporter? — We ask them to bring down the Bradford rate to an equality with the Manchester rate. 1465. You say there ought to be no higher rate for the home trade than for the export trade? —We do. 1466. Supposing the companies were to raise the rate for the export market to the home rate of 40s., would you be satisfied? — We should be better satisfied that the home rate should be lowered to 35 s. 1467. How much nearer is Manchester to the Australian ports than Bradford ? — I should think nothing at all. 1468. Is it not nearer to Liverpool ? — It is a little nearer to Liverpool, but not nearer to the Australian shipping port, which is London ; and we are also nearer to Hull. 1469. Cannot Liverpool be made an Austra- lian port ; supposing that 25 s. is the rate on goods from Manchester to Liverpool for Aus- tralia or any other place you like, will they get any London traffic for foreign export above that rate ? — That I do not know; it depends upon the need for the shipment, and where the ship is. 1470. How many miles is Bradford from Man- chester, 60 or 70 miles? — It would be rather less ; about 40 miles, I think. 0 . 54 . Mr. Pease — continued. 1471. I suppose there is such a thing as Aus- tralian tonnage at Liverpool? — Yes. 1472. What I want to come to is this: what- ever the rate to the nearest port is from Bradford will not that be the only rate which the railway companies can obtain ? — No. 1473. You think they can get a higher rate than that which belongs to the nearest port ? — I pay it regularly. I could transport goods to Liverpool, I believe, at the rate of under 1 /. a ton. 1474. Could you ship your goods to Liver- pool under 35 s. ? — Yes. 1475. Then the freight in London is better than Liverpool? — Yes, it is more convenient for the shippers. 1476. They Avill go to London for 35 s. rather than to Liverpool for less ? — Yes, I should think 19-20ths of our goods for Australia go tlu’ough London, 1477. Then with regard to Irish wool, is there much Irish avooI comes to Bradford? — I should think, Avith the exception of Avhat is exported, the Avhole of it. 1478. Is there any export practically? — Yes, the Americans take hash wool. 1479. In Avhat proportion compared Avith the Bradford trade ? — I should think a mere infini- tesimal part. 1480. The quantity which goes from Dublin to Liverpool for export is as nothing compared Avith that wliich goes to Bradford ? — Certainly not. 1481. Therefore it Avould pay the railway com- panies better to raise the rate of their exported Avool than it Avould to lower the rate on that Avhich Avas going to Bradford ? — No doubt. 1482. Are you quite sure about the steamers Avhether there is not a through rate in connection Avith the railway companies from North Wall to Liverpool ? — A through rate there is from Dublin to Bradford, and that, as I have already stated, is 36 5. 8 «?. a ton. 1483. But why cannot the Bradford wool merchant, buying in Dublin, freight it across, and then take the local rate from Liverpool to Bradford? — On the same ground that I cannot send goods to a Avholesale London warehouse, unless I make a false declaration, and say that they are for shipment. 1483. * But I presume your Irish avooI is landed upon the quays at Liverpool, indepen- dently of any railway comjiany? — I send goods to the London markets, some for shijmient, and some for home consumption, identically the same goods, and probably of the same Aveight ; for one class of goods the railway tariff is dif- ferent from the other. 1484. If you buy your wool in Dublin, cannot you ship it in Dublin perfectly independently of any railway company ? — My opinion is that there is probably some arrangement betiveen the shipping companies. 1485. Is it not possible to put on a boat of your own if the trade is worth it? — We could make a railway of our oAvn if the trade were Avorth it. 1486. But it is a very simple thing to put on a steamer; the Bradford trade could, if they chose, run a steamer from the North Wall to K 2 Liverpool ? 76 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. [Continued. Mr. Incase — continued. Liverpool ? — If it were practicable, but I do not see that it could be done. 1487. You could take up a steamer to freight from one port to another? — But we are not shippers. 1488. When you have got your Irish wool to Liverpool, cannot you take advantage of the local rate between Liverpool and Bradford ? — I merely presume that with regard to the rate across from Dublin, there is some understanding between the shipping and railway companies ; and it is my idea that rather than let the steamers fetch the whole trade from Dublin direct to its destination, they get a liittle share of the car- riage by bringing it across Liverpool, and re- shipj)ing to its port of destination ; that is the only thing I can gather from it. 1489. Then with regard to the competition between Bradford ind Hull and London, and the route direct from Bradford to London by rail, you say the mei’chants make a little saving by taking the wool from London to Bradford via Goole? — Yes. 1490. And that that pays ? — Yes. 1491. Then you cease to complain, I suppose, of the railway rate? — No, we do not; we con- tend that the railway companies are charging too high a rate for the carriage. 1492. You think that the railway rate ought to be reduced, Avhether the companies wish it or not, to the sea freight ? — As a matter of justice to us we think so. 1493. And that you ought to have the choice of the two routes at the same price ? — We see that they can carry shipping goods from Man- chester to London for 255., whereas, (or bringing to Bradfordfrom London (aboutan equal distance) merely raw material, the charge is 37 s. 6 d. per ton ; and we contend that that is handi- capping the trade in an unfair manner. 1494. You have three routes from Bradford to London, have you not ? — We have three. 1495. And one by sea? — Yes. 1496. The sea is the cheaper route ? — Yes. 1497. And you much prefer the railway ? — It is prompter and quicker. 1498. And you would give more for the rail- way carriage on account of the promptness than you would for ihe sea? — Yes, we would. Mr. Payee. 1499. The grievance that you complain of is, first, the difference of the rate from Bradford to London as compared with the rate from Man- chester to London? — Yes. 1500. You also comj)lain of the difference be- tween the two rates from Bradford to London on goods for home consumption and goods for ex- port ? — Yes. 1501. From Bradford to London, the goods for home consumption are charged 43 s. 4 d. ? — Yes. 1502. The goods for expoit arc charged 35 s. ? —Yes. 1503. Those goods being of the same descrip- tion, and forwarded in the same way, and upon the same lines of road ? — They can be sent away just the same, i)acked the same, the same weight, and the same goods, and everything identical. Mr. Paget — continued. 1504. The difference between them bein<»' 8 5. 4 rf. a ton ? — Yes. ° 1505. Are the goods insured for an equal amount in either case at the expense of the rail- way companies? — The railway companies take the risk of them both. 1506. And the expense to the railway company of conveying those goods would be identical in the two cases? — 'fo the best of my knowledge and belief, with the exception of some terminal charges perhaps, of which I do not know the par- ticulars. 1507. You fall to see any reason for making a difference of 8 5. 4 d. a ton, which tells against the home consumer, and in favour of the foreign consumer? — We think we should like to see the difference removed. 1508. 'fhen you have a third grievance, as I understand, which is the difference of rate from London to Bradford on foreign wool, which you give the Committee at 37 s. 6 d. for a distance of about 200 miles, whilst you inform them that the rate from Banbury to Bradford, a distance of 142 miles, is 40 s. ? — That is so, and both upon the same company’s line. 1509. Upon the same company’s line they admit what is as compared to English, foreign wool for 37 s. 6 d. over 200 miles, whilst over 142 miles of their line they charge a higher rate, of 40s. upon home grown wool? — Yes. 1510. And you see no reason why that differ- ence should be maintained ? — We think it is handicapping our trade to do so. Mr. Nicholson. 1511. I think I understand that the London merchants buy more largely of Bradford goods than the London shippers, that is to say, the London merchants who buy for the home trade buy more largely than the others who buy for export ? — I imagine that is the case, but that was merely an estimate. 1512. Do not some of the London merchants, who buy for the home trade, ship very largely ? — Yes. 1513. The goods are selected at the London warehouses by the shipper, and there packed ? — Yes. 1514. So that if goods are ordered to go to the dock side direct, they cost a less amount of carriage by 8 s. 4 d. than if they passed through the London warehouses? — They do. 1515. Does the raw material, that is, the wool which comes from London to Bradford at 37 s. 6 d. a ton, go in less or in greater bulk than the goods for which the 25s. are charged? — 1 should think the bulk would be very much the same ; the bales are press packed. M r. Loicther. 1516. Do you suppose that the lines between IManchester and London, and between Bradford and Loudon, can be worked at the same expense ; do you know anything about that ? — I could not give an o])inion upon that point. 1517. The hon. Member for South Durham said there were four or five routes, and you said you preferred the railway to the ivater route, although the water route was the cheapest ? — Yes, if the rates were fiiirly equal. 1518. But SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 77 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. {^Continued, Mr. Lowther — continued. 1518. But you would prefer, as I understand you, to get the wool by rail at the rate you com- plain of, instead of getting it more cheaply by water ; therefore as you prefer the railway route, I take it there must be some disadvantage in the water route ? — The goods are longer upon the road no doubt. 1519. Time, I take it, at Bradford as else- where, is also money ? — It is at times, but it is not worth much now. 1520. From Bradford to London, which is 200 miles, you pay 37 s. 6 d., and from Banbury to Bradford, which is 142 miles, you pay 40 s. ; do you suppose that more wool is sent from London to Bradford than from Banbury to Bradford ? — Certainly. 1521. How much; as much again, or three times or four times as much? — It is altogether out of proportion. 1522. I may take it that it is easier to send a large quantity from London to Bradford than it is to send it in small quantities from Banbury to Bradford ? — Certainly. 1523. And that might account for the railway companies being able to carry it more cheaply ? — The railway companies do not acknowledge that Avhen we asked them to reverse the ques- tion. 1524. You seemed to think that there was hardly competition enough among railways; you have four different companies, I think ? — Yes. 1525. And those four railway companies charge you the same rate, do they not? — Yes. 1526. Then I think I understood you to say that the railway companies had agreed amongst themselves about the rates ? — Certainly, all the companies give us an identical rate for our goods. 1527. But the Committee would have under- stood from your answer that the companies had agreed to charge you one rate, and neither of them would reduce it ? — Certainly, that is so. 1528. I think you said you had evidence of their having agreed amongst themselves not to reduce the rate ? — I have had interviews with the London and North Western Company, the Great Northern Company, the Midland Com- pany, and, 1 think, the Great Eastern Com- pany, at the Clearing House at Euston, on the very subject, and they sent us an identical answer, in which they adhered to the same rate of tariff. 1529. I may take it for granted that those four railroads are not all of them on equally good terms ; Avhen there are four railroads coming into a town like Bradford, they are, probably, not very good friends ? — They are very strong com- petitors for the traffic. 1530. And yet not one of those four railroads can afford to carry your goods cheaper than they carry them now ? — They will not. 1531. I suppose if they could they would? — Not if they had a working agreement, which I presume the companies have for the traffic. 1532. Still you do not think the companies would reduce their rates in order to get your traffic ? — I am quite certain I could not get a re- duction. I do not wish to be misunderstood ; I could not get one railway company to reduce its 0.54. M r. Lowther — continued. rate below what the others would send the goods at. They did give us a concession of 2s. Qd., but it was a united concession of all the railway companies bringing the railway chai’ges iden- tical with each other as they were before. 1533. When you say the railway companies will not reduce their rates, I come to the con- clusion that they cannot afford to reduce their rates, but you do not come to the same conclu- sion ? — Certainly not. 1534. You say the railway companies still hold together in charging you those rates ? — Yes. 1535. And in regard to the steamers between Dublin and Liverpool ; have the London and North Western Company any steamers on that line ? — I do not know. 1536. You do not know that there are four companies competing between Dublin and Liver- pool ? — I have very little knowledge upon that point. This, which I have been stating, is in- formation from the wool trade in Bradford ; they give us these rates and bring their evidence be- fore our chamber to show the inequality of the various rates. In the same way as the tariff be- tween Bradford and London is produced by merchants, so these fioures, with regard to the traffic between Dublin and Liverpool, are pro- duced by gentlemen engaged in the trade to show the inequality of the charges. 1537. The same thing applies in the case of steamers as applies in the case of railroads to my mind ; there are four companies competing be- tween Dublin and Liverpool, and yet they do not reduce their rates? — I cannot go into that matter. Mr. Monk. 1538. Is it not your contention that if the railway companies can afford to carry goods for export at, say 25 s. per ton, and do carry them at that rate, they ought to carry goods of the same class for home consumption at the-same rate ? — That is our contention, that if they can afford to carry the one they ought to afford to carry the other, and if they are carrying the one at a loss they ought not to do it. 1539. I ask you that because it seems to be the practical reply to the questions just addressed to you by the honourable Member. Now, is your chief complaint against the railway com- panies that their charges are preferential in favour of the export trade ? — That is not our chief camplaint, but it is a comj)laint. Our chief complaint is that there are differential rates as between Manchester and London and Bradford and London ; that we, being very severe com- petitors in business, selling the same goods, for the railway companies to carry for 25 s. from Manchester to London, an equal distance to that from Bradford to London, while they charge us 35 s., is an injustice to the Bradford trade, and we wish to have it remedied. 1540. You believe that the expense to the railway companies is not greater from London to Bradford than from London to Manchester? — I have no reason to believe that it is. 1541. Have you any specific remedy to re- commend in the way of legislation or otherwise ? K 3 That 78 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. {^Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. — That is rather travelling beyond our pro- vince. 1542. Have the Bradford traders complained to the Board of Trade or to the Railway Com- missioners respecting those preferential charges ? — We have not brought the question before the Kailway Commissioners for this reason, we have no locus standi before them as a chamber of com- merce. 1543. Do you think it desirable that a chamber of commerce should be allowed a locus standi be- fore the Railway Commissioners? — We do, in- deed. 1544. You would recommend that that should be inserted in the Bill wbich must be brought in next year ? — ^Certainly ; we have no charter for our chamber in Bradford, and consequently we have no position, and the Railway Commissionei's would not listen to us. 1545. But may not an individual trader now complain to the Railway Commissioners of these preferential charges? — Yes; but it would have to be, I suppose, at his own personal risk and expense. 1546. Have you any difficulty in ascertaining how the charges are made uj) when the through rate is granted ; I mean with regard to the chai’ges for collection and delivery? — No; upon api)lication to the railway companies they give you their rate ; a through rate if they can give it you, and that is what they abide by. 1547. The companies do not explain to you how that rate is made up ? — I never had any ex- planation of it. 1548. I presume there is a difference betw'een the charges from station to station, and those for collection and delivery ? — Yes 1549. You do not know w hat sum is added per ton for cartage? — We do not get those parti- culars with regard to the traffic from those centres of industry ; they do not give them to us, but they only give us their through rate. 1550. Asa rule, at Bradford, do the railway companies cart for you ? — Within a certain dis- tance of the railway the company cart for us without extra charge. Mr. O’ Sullivan. 1551. Y"ou were asked by an honourable Mem- ber whether you thought the railway comj)any could convey goods from Bradford to London more cheaply than they are doing at present ; can you tell the Committee what are the dis- tances by the different lines from Bradford to London? — I cannot tell you that by the different lines, but it may be said to be about 190 miles from Bradford to London. 1552. Do you mean to say that all the rail- ways w'ould be the same distance ? — No; the dis- tance by the London and North Western Railway w'ould be about 200 miles. 1553. What is the shortest distance? — I think it is from about 180 to 190 miles. 1554. And you think that a line of 180 miles can carry goods somewhat more cheaply than a line of 200 miles could ? — But they will not as a matter of fact. 1555. But as a business man do you think they ought to be able to do so ?— I should think so. Sir Daniel Gooch. 1556. You spoke of the amount of wmol that was exported from Bradford ; was that exported as wool? — I spoke of wool exported from the United Kingdom ; we have very little exported from Bradford except by the American buyers, who come over and take up a little of the north country wool. 1557. You just mentioned something about getting the detail of the rate ; you say you do not know what the detail of the rate is, how much for carriage and how much for delivery ; you can get that, can you not, from the railway com- panies under the present law ?— I have no doubt we could. 1558. You have never chosen to ask for it? — I have not asked for it. Mr. Samuel Morley. 1559. I should like to take you to Winchester again ; you consider that if the Bradford manu- facturer and the foreign buyer were to meet at Winchester, the foreign buyer would have the advantage over the Bradford manufacturer in the cost of carriage, inasmuch as the wool sent to Liverpool would go there per mile at a lower rate than the wool of the manufacturer would so to Bradford at.? — YYs, that is so. 1560. I.suppose your substantial complaint is an ap})eal for fair play between the parties in the carrying of their goods? — That is all we meant. 1561. Have you had your attention drawn to the court of the Railway Commissioners? — We have not because, as I say, we cannot appear before the Railway Commissioners as a Chamber of Commerce, they would not hear us. 1562. Y"ou are not perhaps old enough to remember when a very large proportion of the Bradford goods used to be sent to London by canal ? — I canuot say that I recollect that. 1563. It was so, and those highways and canals have been closed very much to the public by the railways, which have become practically a mo- nopoly, you agree to that do you not ? — Certainly, they make a sort of monopoly of it, because they aa:ree to one rate for carriage. 1564. You have not thought perhaps of any change in the constitution of the Railway Com- mission, which might help you as a Bradford manufacturer? — No doubt it is a very difficult question to give an opinion upon, 1565. This Committee is appointed to consider the permanence or continuance of the Railway Commissioners, and we should be glad to have the advice of men who are conscious of an evil with reference to any remedy for it. Might the Railway Commissionei's be made more accessible to those who have to send goods by railway ? — Certainly, I wish it were so. 1566. Y"ou would favour the continuance of the Railway Commissioners’ Court? — Certainly. 1567. Probably with extended powers ? — Yes. 1568. My honourable friend the Member for South Durham, recommended that the Bradford traders should establish steamboats ; they are not likely to do that, it would be mixing up two classes of trade, probably, without great advantage to either ? — I do not think they are likely to adopt that course. 1539. Still SELECT COMMITTEE OK RAILWAYS. 79 28 March 1881.] Mr. Garnet. [ Continued. Sir Daniel Gooch. 1569. Still the canals are not closed, are they ? — !No, they are not entirely closed. Mr. Barclay. 1570. Is there any portion of the canal in the railway company ? — No, the canal in our neigh- bourhood is not in the hands of the railway company, the Leeds and Liverpool canal was I think under the control of the Midland Railway Company or of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company some years back. Mr. Pease. 1571 . How many years is it since the control of the railway company over the Leeds and Liverpool Canal ended? — Some years, but not very many. Mr. Miilholland. 1572. Can you suggest any explanation of the a’ates being lower from Manchester than from Bradford to London? — We can give no expla- nation of it, but we think they ought to be identical. 1573. You do not kuow the principle of the difference? — The only reason we have been able to elicit from the railway company is, that the manufacturers send goods in large quantities from Manchester- 1574. Would the proximity of Liverpool to Manchester, as a shipping port, not account for it? — They have never given that as the reason. 1575. 1 suppose your position is, that although there is competition between the railways in some respects, they find it more advantageous to have combination in regard to rates? — Yes. Chairman. 1576. Your complaint with respect to rates reduces itself to these two things ; first, that you are charged more from Bradford to London, than they are from Manchester to London for the same goods ? — That is one chief grievance. 1577. And the other is the preference given to goods for exportation, over goods for con- sumption in the home market ? — Those are the two points. 1578. With regard to the first matter, I under- stand that you are not prepared to say, that there is no more expenditure connected with the con- veyance of goods from Bradford to London, than there is in the conveyance of goods from Man- chester to London ? — I have no knowledge that there is any difference. 1579. But you are not moreover prepared to assert, that the railway companies are charging from Bradford to London more than the maximum rates allowed by Act of Parliament? — I do not bring forward that charge at all. 1580. You are aware, I suppose, that this <[uestion of granting special rates was before the Royal Commissioners on Railways, as well as before the «Toint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament?— I think so. 1581. I would call your attention to a para- graph on page 47 of the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Railways, in which they state. The power of granting special rates thus permits the development of trade which would not other- wise exist, and it is abundantly evident that a 0.54. Chairman — continued. large portion of the trade of the country, at the present time, has been created by and continued upon the faith of special rates ” ; have you any remark to make as to that paragraph ? — Then if there is any special rate granted, Bradford and that district, through the magnitude of its interests, is fairly to ask for that special rate on an equality with any other producing district. 1582. I suppose you will agree that it is the object of the railway companies, or of the com- bination of railway companies, to create the largest amount of remunerative traffic in the district they serve ? — Undoubtedly. 1583. Can you suggest any reason, except that object to create the largest amount of remu- nerative traffic, why the railway companies should charge more from Bradford than they do from Manchester? — I have no reason at all to give why they should charge more from Bradford than from Manchester. 1584. I suppose you will agree that the reason they have fixed upon that rate is that it gives the company the largest amount of remunerative traffic ? — That may be their opinion. 1585. Supposing they are charging within their maximum legal rate, I ask you whether the proper course for a body of traders, who complain that they are charging too much, would not be to appear before Parliament upon any occasion, and ask for a reduction of the maximum rates of the railway com])anles ? — 1 am not thoroughly conversant with the maximum rates, but I should doubt very much whether any goods about wliich our Chamber now complains, or passengers either, are charged maximum rates upon any line leaving Bradford. 1586. We have had evidence before us to the contrary up to this time, but you are prepared to maintain that all the maximum rates that you know of as being authorised are excessive ? — What I maintain is that our interest being so large, and our district being in very severe com- petition with another manufacturing district equally distant from the place of consumption, we are fairly entitled to ask for the same privi- leges and the same charges for transit as the competing district ; that is our plea, and that is our claim. 1587. Now, with reference to the second point you complain of, namely, preference given to goods for export; that, I think, is a very old subject of inquiry and complaint? — It is. 1588. 1 think you will find that the subject was inquired into by the Select Committee which sat on Railway Companies Amalgamation, in 1872 ; I do not know whether you have read the Report, but you will find, on looking at page 19, the following statement : “ The rates of carriage on goods for exportation are constantly lower than the rates to the same place for con- sumption now, I ask you, supposing the rail- way companies were to listen to what you say to- day, and were to raise the rate on goods carried to London for exportation at the same ])rice as they charge on goods for the home market, in what way would that benefit you? — We do not raise our objection from that point of view at all. 1589. You come here and make a complaint of the inequality of the two charges, and 1 ask you K 4 how 80 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 28 iliarcA 1881 .] Mr. Garnet. [^Continued. Chairman — continued. how you would be benefited, and whether, on the contrary, you would not be very much dam- nified if the railway companies were to raise their rates on goods to London for exportation to the same price as is charged for those goods taken I'or home consumption ?— If the railway companies find, through competition, that they are under an obligation to carry goods for export at a somewhat lower rate than for home con- sumption, we, I do not suppose, should I’aise that as a very serious question ; but the question we raise is this, that for sending goods for export both from Manchester and from Bradford, they should give us equality of rates. ^ 1590. I dealt with the two points as separate, but I understand now, if your answer means anything, that you do not lay much stress upon the second point, but only upon the first point ? — The second point is not so serious as the first. 1591. Do you lay any stress at all upon the second point? — Yes, certainly. 1592. Then, answer my question ; I ask you how the people of Bradford would be benefitted ; on the contrary, if tliey would not be damnified very much if the railway companies, in answer to your call for equality, were to raise the rate for goods for export to the same rate as they chartie upon the home article ? — It would not necessarily follow if you have a competitor in Manchester 1593. Hut do leave IManchester on one side ; vou stated to the Committee that the rate from Bradford to London was 43 s. 4 d. for the home market, and 35 s. on goods for exportation ; now, will you answer the question which I have already put to you twice ? — We should not be benefitted, certainly, by the export being raised to the home rate. 1594. Would you not, on the contrary, be damnified ? — As far as the rates from Bradford were concerned, certainly ; but Ave might receive a benefit in another direction by doing aAA'ay Avith the competition which Avas favoured in its rates, and was competing Avith us A’ery severely in the same goods. 1595. You mean from other tOAvns? — Yes. 1596. The Committee have taken that point into consideration, but I Avant to see Avhat im- portance can be attached to your second point ? — As far as the Bradford trade goes, Ave should not Avant it. 1597. It seems to be a great advantage to the Bradford manufacturer to get a Ioav rate quoted for the goods that he is going to send abroad ; the loAver the rate for them the better, is it not ? — Yes, certainly. 1598. Tlien as to the access by sea from Lon- don to Bradford, you say that the route by rail is quicker than by sea, via Goole?— Yes. 1599. Is it not lair, in your opinion, that ex- ])edlliou sliould be j)aid for to a certain extent ? — Yes, certainly. 16(H). Therefore you get some equivalent for the extra ])ayment by the rail ? — T es ; but Ave ansAver that by asking that the difterence should be Avithln reason. Mr. Barclay. 1601. If the ralhvay companies were bound ta equalise the rates betAveen Bradford and London for export, and for home consumption, does it necessarily folloAV that they Avould raise the loAver rate to the higher one ? — I do not see that it necessarily follows at all. 1602. I suppose you think the raihvay com- panies are exacting, in the meantime, the most that they possibly can out of the Bradford trade? — That is our opinion. 1603. And that if they Avere forced to equalise the rates as you believe thev are legally bound to do, as betAveen London and Bradford, upon those goods, they would arrive at some medium charge betAveen the highest and the loAvest at the present moment? — I imagine that would be the case. 1604. And you AA'ould advocate that policy Avlth the A’ieAV of doing justice to everybody? — I would. 1605. That the raihvay companies should charge in proportion to the cost of conveyance, and not upon some arbitrary terms that they themselves adjust? — The ansAver to that cjuestion Avoiild require a little qualification. 1 606. Do you think that the railtvay companies should be authorised to charge differential rates betAveen Bradford and London for the same kind of goods, Avhen the cost of conveyance to them is the same in both cases ? — Asa matter of right Ave think not, unless there are the very strongest reasons for their doing so. 1607. You think that the cost of conveyance being the same in both those cases, they ought to charge the same rate? — Yes. Mr. Sclater Booth. 1608. T understand that you do not make a charge against the raihvay companies in any case of their exceeding their maximum rates as autho- rized by laAv? — That is so. Mr. Caine. 1609. Do you do any trade with the continent yourself? — Very little. 1610. Can you tell me Avhether French manu- factured Avoollen goods, precisely of the same nature as those manufactured in your district, come into Bradford in competition Avith your products ? — They do. 1611. Then really the condition of your trade at present is a life and death struggle for existence ? — That is so. 1612. Can you tell me Avhether it is Avithin your knowledge that the raihvay companies of England give any ])reference to goods coming from abroad to Bradford, as compared Avith Avhat they charge for goods from Bradford to the con- tinent ? — I cannot ansAver that question. 1613. Those goods, hoAvever, are coming into Bradford to a very appreciable extent ? — They are to a very large extent. 1614. The foreign goods are competing Avith you in every market in the Avorld in your own trade ? — Yes, Ave buy them ourseh-es. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 81 Thursday, 3\st March 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Asliley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Cal Ian. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Ci’aig. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Gregory. j\Tr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuelson. Sir Edwai’d Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. jMr. William B. Foravood, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Samuelson. 1615. You are the Mayor of Liverpool, and were lately President of the Incorporated Chamber of Commerce ? — I was. 1616. You are a merchant in Liverpool, I be- lieve ? — I am. 1617. What is the feeling in Liverpool with reference to railway charges ? — There has been during the last 25 or even 30 years a very strong feeling that we are suffering very con- siderable injury from the excessive railway charges, both to and from Liverpool. 1618. What do you mean by excessive chf rges, do you mean charges in excess of the rates which the companies are authorised to charge ? — No, I mean in excess of the rates at which the railway companies are willing to, and do carry to and from other parts. 1619. In your opinion what has been the effect of that upon the trade of Liverpool ? — That a large amount of trade which should pro- perly centre in Liverpool has been diverted to other ports and places. 1620. Can you give the Committee an in- stance of those trades ? — Yes. During the period which I have mentioned the inward trade from Calcutta and the inward trade from China and Australia have almost entirely left l./iverpool. A large portion of the outward trade to Calcutta has left Liverpool, and more recently a con- siderable proportion of the grain trade, and of the timber trade, has l)een diverted from Liver- pool to Barrow, Fleetwood, and Hull ; and the trade in dye-wood cargoes has been largely diverted to Goole. 1621. Have the railway companies had any special interest in permitting this diversion of trade from Liverpool ? — The railway companies Mr. Samuelson — continued. practically own the jiort of Barrow, and they have consti’ucted the docks there at a cost, including their investment in steamers, of 2,000,000/. sterling; that is the Furness Railway Company. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, and the London and North AVestern Railway Company, but pi'incipally the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company, have constructed docks and warehouses at Fleetwood ; the London and North Western Company have constructed and own the docks at Holyhead, and also the steamers trading between Holyhead and Ireland ; and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- pany have a large sum of money invested in Goole, and a large interest also, I believe, in Hull. 1622. Have the railway companies any docks at all in Liverpool ? — They have not; the docks in Liverpool are entirely owned by what I may term a national trust. 1623. Do you mean that they are not conducted for profit ? — The docks are not conducted for profit ; the money has been raised by bonds, and the docks are managed by elected representatives of the ratepayers, and representatives nominated by the Board of Trade. 1624-5. The object of the arrangement having been to protect the trade of the adjoining counties ? — Precisely so ; to protect the trade of the county. 1626. AVhat has been the course which the railway companies have pursued in order to divert trade, as you say, from Liverjiool, to those ports in which they have a more direct Interest? — Tlieir practice has been to chai-ge from those ports, in which they are directly interested, a lower rate of carriage than they are in the habit of charging from Liverpool. 0.54. L 1627. Do 82 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 31 March Mr. FORWOOD. \_Continued. Mr. ISamuelson — continued. 1627. Do you mean a lower rate absolutely, or a lower rate for the distance? — A lower rate per mile. 1628. M^hat course has recently been taken by those Interested in the trade of Liverpool in order to bring out these faets ? — A joint com- mittee has been recently appointed, consisting of members of the City Corpoi’ation, of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and of all the trade associations of the town, to investigate the sub- ject, and take such steps as they may deem de- sirable to obtain a rectification of the rates of carriage from Liverpool. "VVe have published a report, copies of whieh have been furnished to the Committee, and we have laid our case before a meeting of the directors of the railway com- panies Avhose lines converge upon Liverpool. A verbatim copy of that interview has also, I be- lieve, been handed to the Committee. 1629. And what was the reply which you received from the railway companies Avhcn you applied to them : can you give a summary of it ? — I think, in a few rvords, the tcnour of the reply of Mr, Moon, the chairman of the meeting, was, that Liverpool was already very well treated, and what was promised us at the suggestion of Sir Edward M'^atkin was, that our complaint would be referred to their traffic managers for investigation. But I may mention that this was not the first time that we had brought our case before the railway companies. 1630. Did they suggest anything else? — They did not. 1631. Was that interview held at the instance of the authorities of Liverpool, or at that of the railway companies ? — The interview was asked for by the joint committee of the Liverpool Corporation and the Trade Associations. 1632. At the Interview Avas not it suggested that the further consideration of the subject had better stand over till you had an opportunity of giving evidence before this Committee ? — It was sugge.sted that as this Committee was sitting that was one reason why Mr. Moon would not enter into the reply as fully as he might otherrvise have been inclined to do, but I do not think it was suggested that we should wait until this Com- mittee had reported. 1633. But that rvas a portion of his reply? — That was a portion of his reply. 1634. That he preferred not to make any de- finite statement now. Inasmuch as this Committee was sitting? — Yes, as he would have to do it again, the whole case being about to be gone into before this Committee ; he preferred, there- fore, not to make any definite reply. 1635. Do you hand in a report of the pro- ceedings ? — 1 do ; this is a verhatlm re])oi-t of wdiat took place {lianding in the same'). It also contains a copy of the report of the special committee. 1636. The report of your committee, 1 beiieve, contains really the gravamen of your complaints ? — Ih'ccisely so. 1637. It contains tables which show briefly exam])les of the unetpial charges? — Yes. 1638. From Avhat passed at that interview, and from your general experience, have you much hope of any reduction being made in the Mr. Samue/snn — continued. charges which you consider e.xcesslve ? — x\bso- lutely none. 1639- Then Avhat is it that you look to for re- lief?— We are hoping that we may be able to carry our case before the Railway Commis- sioners, and that the Railway Commissioners will have enlarged powers given to them to enable us to bring our ease before them. 1640. You consider your case to be of that nature that they, with their present powers, Avould not be able to deal rvith it fully ? — I think it is very doubtful. 1641. Can you explain that a little more fully ? The Railway Commissioners have power to re- dress inequalities or unfair Treatment as between individuals, but it is doubtful Avhether their power extends to the redressing of inequalities as betAveen places. Then, again, Ave do not com- plain that the railway companies exceed their maximum rates of charges, but our complaint is that their charges are unreasonable as compared Avith Avhat they carry at, to, and from other places. We understand that the Railway Com- missioners have no jurisdiction to interfere Avith the railway companies Avhen the maximum rates are not exceeded. 1642. At least you are not clear that the Rail- Avay Commissioners have any jurisdiction in the matter? — That is my impression. 1643. When you say that they have no jiOAver to interfere Avith rates from different districts, do you apply that to the same railway company or to different raihvay companies ? — It is applicable to both alike. 1644. Would it be sufficient for you if the Railway Commissioners had power to interfere as regards the rates charged by the same raihv'ay Company to different distriets? — I think so. 1645. Ai e there any peculiarities in the posi- tion of Liverpool as a place of trade ? — Our trade in Liverpool is entirely that of an entrepot ; Ave are not a manufacturing town, and we l;ave no mineral resources : Ave entirely depend for our trade upon our geographical position or proximity to the manufacturing centres of Yorkshire, Lan- cashire, and Staffordshire, affording, as Ave do, a cheaper route from those manufacturing centres to a port than to any other port in the kingdom. 1646. Then it folloAvs, that if ports more dis- tant from those manufacturing centres have their goods carried at the same rate as to Liverpool, your trade Avould suffer ? — Precisely so ; and Ave are de2)rived of the advantages of our natural geograijhieal jiosition. 1647. And it is a fact, in your opinion, that the raihvay companies have deitrived you of the advantages of your position ? — Largely so. 1648. And they have done this by excessive charges as compared Avith those from more distant ports ? — Precisely so. 1649. Can you give some general examples of the charges of AA'hich you comjilain? — 1 should first of all like to make a statement Avith regard to the magnitude of the trade of Liverpool, shoAv- ing hoAV largely the raihvay companies jn-ofit by these very excessive charges. I find by a Return of the Board of 'Prade, Avhich I have in hand, that the total value of imports and exjiorts in England last year Avas 633,000,000 /., of Avhieh London had SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 83 31 March 1881.] Mr. Forwood. [ Continued. Mr. Sarnuelson — continued. had 194,000,000 /., and Liverpool 191,000,000 L, therefore, practically, a third of the trade of the kingdom passes through Liverpool. I have the figures also for Bristol, Hull, and Glasgow, whicii amount in the gross to another 90,000,000 /. 1650. Have you any other tables you desire to bring before us? — 1 have a table giving the rates of carriage on manufactured goods, and on grain, timber, cotton, wool, provisions, and sugar, to and from Liverpool to the centres of consumption, and to and from the centres of manufacture to Liverpool, 'flie first table refers to manufactured goods, and I must further men- tion here, in explanation of this table, that the first set of columns gives the gross I’ate of carriage. Mr. Loicther. 1651. By manufactured goods, do you mean fine goods?— Yes; the second set of columns gives the gross rates with the terminals deducted, according to the evidence given before the Royal Commission in 1865, which reported in 1866. The third set of columns gives those terminals worked out upon the basis of the cost of loading and unloading, and covering and other expenses, which the railway company may incur. The figures which I will give simply refer to the gross rates of carriage. In regard to manu- factured goods (and I mention this in a little detail, as there is no other witness here to speak ■with reference to manufactured goods) I have taken them from Manchester, Leeds, and Brad- ford, to Liverpool ; those are the three centres of the cotton and woollen manufacture of the country ; and I have taken them from Manchester to Hull, from Manchester to London, Manchester to Southampton, and Bradford to Hull ; I find the average rate to Liverpool is 3 '91 d. per mile ; the average rate to other places is I'QT d. per mile, in round figures, which is nearly 2 d. per mile more for the carriage of those goods to Liverj)ooI than the railway companies are willing to carry them to other ports for. Mr. Sarnuelson. 1652. You pay nearly double per mile? — Our rate is rather more than double what it is from Manchester to Hull ; it is quadruple that from Manchester to Southampton, and very nearly treble that from Manchester to London. Now I may mention here that the rate, including cartage in Liverpool (I am obliged to add cartage for comparative purposes, as the railway companies deliver goods at all other ports, but not at Liver- pool) is 11s. 6 rf. for 31 miles; that is 4’45 c/. per mile, including the allowance for cartage, and I have put on 1 s. 6 d. for cartage ; I may say that in respect of these rates we have ab solutely derived no benefit in Liverpool from the opening up of the railway system in this country. The rate of carriage before railways existed, from Liverpool to Manchester, varied from 4 s. to 6 s., and the maximum in the Duke of Bridgw'ater’s Canal Act, which is unrepealed to this day, is 6.?. per ton; I must be under- stood as referring for the present only to manufactured goods. As another proof of this exceptional rate of 11 s. 6 d., I may state that I 0.54. Mr. Sarnuelson — continued. have seen an offer from a large proprietor of carts and horses who has expressed his willingness to convey goods between Liverpool and Man- chester, and from Manchester to Liverpool, if we would guarantee 1,000 tons each way per week, at 8 s. per ton, from the warehouse in Manchester to the ship’s side in Liverpool, or 3 s. 6 d. a ton less tliau the railways charge to day. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1653. What would be the difference of time occupied in the journey ? — The time occupied would probably be as long again by road as by railway, but in nine cases out of ten as regarded goods, that would not be a material circum- stance. Mr. Sarnuelson. 1654. I suppose, practically, the goods would be loaded at night in Manchester, and be delivered the next morning in Liverpool ? — That is so ; in the next place there is no cheaper traffic in the country than the traffic between Manchester and Liverpool ; it is a constant flow both ways ; I should further mention with re- gard to this traffic, that in the original Act of the Manchester and Liverpool Railway, the railway company were bound to make a reduction in their charges when their dividend exceeded 10 per cent. ; their dividend was 10 per cent, in the years 1841 and 1842; it was 9 per cent, in 1843, but in 1844 they effected an amalgamation with the Grand Junction Railway, and the dividend since then has never reached 10 per cent. ; that clause is still nnrepealed, and TV’e feel confident that if we could get the two traffics separated, we should have a very large reduction in rates under that clause in the original Act of Parlia- ment. 1655. Y"ou have no means of ascertaining what portion of the profits of the London and North ^Yestern Company is derived from the Man- chester and Liverpool Section t — No, the entire system is, I believe, treated in hotch-potch ; that was the effect of the evidence given before the Royal Commission on Railways, I believe. 1656. But you are confident that if they were or could be separated, the profit upon that portion of the line would be considerably above 10 per cent. ? — Very largely ; then I should like to add to that, that the total weight of cotton manu- factures exported from this country is 498,300 tons, of which 65 per cent, is shipped from Liver- pool, and the total weight of woollen manufacture shipped from the United Kingdom was 66,700 tons. 1657. You stated just now that there were parties willing to contract to convey the manu- factured goods by cart at a much cheaper rate than by railway, between Liverpool and Man- chester ? — That is so. 1658. Has that ever been practically carried out ? — It has not. 1659. Will you state why it has not? — The idea of making such an inquiry, and suggesting such a proposition, was quite a recent one ; it never occun-ed to us even to venture upon such an inquiry. L 2 1660. Was 84 iMlKUTES OF ETIDENCE TAKEN BEFOIIE THE 31 March 1881.] Mr. Forwood. ICunfinuad. Sir Edward Wathin. 1660, Was this proposed to take the goods from the warehouse in Manchester to Liverpool all the way in carts, and put them alongside the ship ? — Yes. :^Ir. Samuelson. 1661. Do you think such a trade as that could be carried on for any length of time, or that it would lead to a reduction of railway rates ? — I have no doubt that it would lead to a reduction of railway rates. 166it. So that it woidd be a very bad specula- tion for any person in the long run if lie pro- ceeded to set up plant for that purpose ? — I think so, if it only succeeded in reducing the railway companies’ rates. 1663. Then with regard to grain, will you give the Committee the rates of carriage ? — The average rate from Liverpool to the four great centres of consumjition is 2*29 d. jier mile, and the average rates from three other ports, Lon- don, Fleetwood, and Avonmouth, to those cen- tres of consumption, is lAQd., showing a dif- ference against Liverpool of '80 d. per mile. The import of grain into Liverpool is 1,200,000 tons per annum, 1664. Will you name some places which you regal'd as centres of consumption ? — Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham, and Preston, are the four points which I have taken. I have the same ivith regard to the carriage of timber, but Mr. Harrison is here, who will speak with re- gard to the timber rates, therefore I will only give the average ; from Liverpool it is 2-45 d., and from other ports l'59d. 1665. That is a dltference of nearly 1 d. ? — Yes ; then I come to the tables with regard to cotton. I have taken the rate for cotton from Liverpool to four centres in like manner, and the average rate there is 3'90 d. per mile, whereas from other ports to four centres of consumption, the average rate is 2*93 d. 1666. The other centres of consumption being in Lancashire and Cheshire? — They are all in Lancashire. The quantity of cotton forwarded from the interior to Liverpool is 608,000 tons ; the distance between Liverpool and Manchester is 31 miles, and the rate is 9 s., but the Lanca- shire and Yorkshire Railway Company, in order to develop their docks at Fleetwood, are willing to carry cotton from Fleetwood to ISIanchester, a distance of 50 miles, for the same rate of 9 s. In the same way, the Furness Railway Company and the Midland Railway Company owning the docks at Barrow, are also willing to carry cotton from Barrow to Manchester, 87 miles, very nearly three times our distance, for the sum of 9 s. ])er ton. 1667. Do those charges from Fleetwood and Barrow include any dock charges ? — The dock charges there are of a nominal character. 1668. Of the railway companies you have named, the Lancashire and Yorkshire has termini both at Liverpool and at Fleetwood? — Yes, at Fleetwood they own the docks ; at Liverpool they do not. 1669. The Furness Railway Company has no terminus at Liverpool, but the Midland Company has? — Yes. 1670. The F'urness Railway Company has a terminus at Barrow alone ? — At Barrow alone. Mr. Samuelsoii — continued. 1671. Have the IMidland Railway Company running powers over the F^urness line ? — I am not sure which way it is ; the Furness Railway Company carry to Manchester over the Midland line, I believe. 1672. Excluding the Furness Railway ; in the case of the Lancashire and Yorkshire you give the case of a railway which is self-contained, and which has termini at both places ? — Yes, precisely so. The next table I have is with regard to wool; the import of wool into Liverpool is 27,000 tons per annum ; there the average of three rates, between Liverpool and Leeds, Roch- dale, and Kidderminister, which are the centres ot manufacture, is 3'39d. per ton per mile. The average rate from Hull, London, and Bristol to those three centres of manufacture is 2'29 d. ; that is to say, that in Liverpool we pay an in- creased rate of LlOd. per mile upon our wool trade. 1673. Yearly 50 per cent. ? — Yes. Mr. Callan. 1674. IMay I ask if that is Irish wool or foreign wool ? — It is foreign wool ; in both cases I have taken the same centres of consumption. Mr. Samuelson. 1675. Have you the rate from London to Leeds, taking the gross rate and not the mileage rate ? — It is in our special report, page 50 ; from London to Leeds the gx'oss rate is 37 5. 6rf. 1676. What is the gross rate from Liverpool to Leeds? — 19s. lOd. ; that is equal to 3'26c/. per mile. Mr. Barclay. 1677. Do those rates include cartage? — They include cartage : I have added cartage to Liver- pool to make it equal, comparatively, with other places. 1678. Does the Liverpool to Leeds charge in- clude delivery in Leeds ? — I am not sure of that; I think not ; none of the Liverpool traffic, gene- rally speaking, is either collected or delivered. 1679. They are station to station rates, are they not ? — V’es. Mr. Samuelson. 1680. Except that you add 1 s. 6 d. at Liver- ]jool to cover cartage and collection ? — That is so. I may mention that from Liverpool to Kidder- minster the distance is 94 miles, and from Bristol to Kidderminster it is 112 miles; we are 18 miles nearer to Kidderminster, and have to pay 2s. 6c?. more carriage. I'he next set of tables I have are connected with the provision trade, which is a vex'y lax'ge tx*ade between Liverpool and Anxerica. We receive annxxally aboxxt 250,000 tons of pro- visions into Liverpool ; iix this table I have taken three ceixtres of consumptioix, Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham ; the average I'ate to these three centi'es, Leeds, IManchestei', and Birxxiinghara, from Livei'pool is 3'14d. per mile. I havetakeix it also fronx London to Leeds, Avonmoxxth to Birxningham, and Avonmouth to IManchcstei', the same centres of consumption. 1681. Avonmouth SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILAVAYS. 85 31 March 1881.1 Mr. Forwooe. IContinued. Mr. Puget. 1681. Avonmouth is Bristol? — Yes, prac- tically Avonmouth is Bristol. Tlie average of those three rates is l‘75rA You will, perhaps, notice that Avonmouth and Liverpool are equi- distant from Birmingham on the Midland system, hut here, as in other cases, I could point out, if it is not going too much into detail, that we pay in Liverpool 3 s. 4 c/. per ton carriage more than is demanded from Avonmouth, _ _ 1682. That is upon the same system, is it not. Yes^ it is upon the same system, the Mid- land system. The next tables I have relate to sugar. ... , .1 . .i683. Are those provisions in each case tliat you are speaking of? — Yes, the same article. Kow the next tables relate to sugar, of which Liverpool imports about 240,000 tons a year, which is mainly manufactured, I may say. In the city of Liverpool; there I have taken three centres of consumption again, Birmingham, Leeds, and Manchester. Mr. Samuelson. 1684. You there speak of refined sugar, do you not? — Yes, of refined sugar. Mr. Gregory. 1685. May I ask what are included in the pro- visions which you previously referred to . Bacon, pork, and hams. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1686. And dead meat ? — Dead meat Is a special rate. I think that is quite a new article of im- portation. Mr, Gregory. 1687. And cheese? — I do not know whether cheese is included. Now dealing with sugar, the average rate from Liverpool is 2-lOd., and the average rate from other ports to the centres I have mentioned is T40 d. Mr. Samuelson. 1688. The rate from Liverpool being very nearly double the average from other ports ? — Yes, very nearly double. Now I will take from Greenock to Birmingham, which is 300 miles ; if is 204 miles more distant than Liverpool ; the railway company are content to take 1 s. % d. a ton for carrying sugar 204 miles. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1689. And what do they charge from Liver- pool ? — The separate rates are as follows : The rate from Liverpool to Birmingham is 17 5 . 6 c/. per ton for 96 miles, and the rate from Greenock to Birmingham is 25 s. for 300 miles. 1690. That Makes 7 s. 6 A more for the extra distance? — Yes; the same thing is true with regard to Leeds. Leeds is 127 miles further distant from Bristol than from Liverjjool, and the railway company are content to carry that 127 miles for 5 s. 0.54. Mr. Bolton. 1691. What are the totals ? — From Liverpool to Leeds, which is 75 miles, the rate is 17 s. 6 o?. ; from Bristol to Leeds, which is 202 miles, or 127 miles more distance, the rate is 22 s. 6 d. The tables I have dealt with represent the carriage of 2,765,000 tons per annum to and from Liver- pool, and I have made a calculation that if we had the advantage of the same rates of carriage as the railway companies are content to accept from other ports, we should make a saving of 400,0007. per annum upon our carriage, upon those articles alone, or, iii other words, we pay an overcharge of 400,000 /. upon the carriage of the articles which I have named. Mr. Samuelson. 1692. Which means that you would have a vastly increased entry and export of goods from the j)ort of Liverpool? — Precisely so. 1693. You do not mean that you would put that money in your pocket, but it would be an encouragement to that extent to the port of Liverpool? — We should have so much more trade. 1694. Have you anything else to say on this head ? — No, not upon that head ; I should like to say something upon the other head with regard to the preference given to railway ports as compared with Liverpool ; I have already touched iq)on the case of Fleetwood. What I may say in short with regard to Fleetwood is, that it is 30 miles more distant than Liverpool from the centres of manufacture, whereas the railway rates are identically the same as from and to Liverpool. 1695. By the centres of manufacture you still mean Lancashire and Yorkshire ? — Yes, When I come to Holyhead, that of course is a distinct traffic, it is the Irish traffic, and Liverpool again is the natural port for the Irish ti’affic to concen- trate in, 1696. That is to say, to eoncentrate in for cer- tain districts? — Liverpool being nearer to all those centres of consumption than any other port, but, as a matter of laut, the Irish trade to Liverpool, during the past 10 years, has increased about 7 per eent. and the Irish trade to Holy- head has nearly quadrupled. I give these figures with regard to Holyhead with a little diffidence, because the Collector of Customs at Holyhead applied for information to the railway companies for statistical information for me, and the railway companies absolutely refused to give him any, so I can only give you the growth of trade at Holy- head by the number of boats despatched daily from Holyhead to and from the various ports. Sir Edward Watliin. 1697. Can you give the Committee the number of boats daily to and from Holyhead, and the number of boats to and Ifom Liverj)Ool in the Irish trade ? — I coidd give you the number of boats to and fi’om Holyhead, but not the number of boats to and from Liverpool ; I am not pre- pared to speak to that off-hand. 1698. Would it not be largely in excess of ihe number from Holyhead ? — No, I think not; but 1 L 3 thought 86 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 31 March 1881.] FoRAVOOD. '\_Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued, thought it better to take the dues paid by the various lines of steamers upon the traffic they bring to Liverpool, and that is the basis of my statement that there has been an increase of about seven per cent, during the past 10 years. Mr. Somuelson. 1699. That is a definite statement with regard to Liverpool, and the other is the best estimate that you have been able to make ? — It is the best estimate I have been able to make. Now I should like to explain how it is that Holyhead has developed at the expense of Liverpool ; the distance (taking Dublin as the centre) from Dublin to Liverpool is 144 miles by sea, and the distance between Liverpool and Manchester for examjile, is 31 miles. Sir Edward Watkin. 1700. By which route? — We generally reckon the old line the shortest route. Mr. Samuelson. 1701. At any rate the difference between the two lines Avould not be above a mile or two? — No, I think not. Then the distance between Dublin and Holyhead is 64 miles by sea, and the distance betAveen" Holyhead and Manchester is 121 miles. I think it will be obvious to the Committee that it must be much cheaper to carry cattle 144 miles by sea and 31 by rail, than to carry them 64 miles by sea and 121 by rail ; but as a matter of fact the London and North Western Company monopolise the facilities of the shipping trade in Dublin, and they have an arrangement with the City of Dublin Steam Navigation Company, Avhich runs both to Liverpool and also to Holy- head, and they make the rate precisely the same, whether the cattle are shipped from Dublin via Liverpool, or from Dublin via Holyhead to Man- chester, or other places of consumption. Mr. Samuelson. 1702. Will you explain iiiAvhat Avay the railway com])an 5 ' control the shipjnng fa6ilities at Dublin ? . — I believe they have some special arrangement with the railway companies converging into Dub- lin, although I am not aware of the exact details of the facilities they control ; but I may be allowed to put the case in another Avay to you. There is another opposition line of steamers not in this agreement, running between Dublin and Liver- pool ; they bring eattle across at 4 s. per head. The regular steamers charge 7 s. per head, yet I am told by the dealers that such Avere the extra facilities they could obtain in Dublin for cattle Avhich they shipped by the Holyhead steamers, or by the City of Dublin Steam Navigation, Avhich is working in combination Avith the Lon- don and North Western Company, that they found it paid them better in their trade to send their cattle by that route at the higher charge. IMr. Callan. 1703. What is the name of the company that charges the 4 s. ?— Tedcastle’s. 1704. You referred to the charge of 7 s. per Mr. Callan — continued. head by the regular company ; does that imply that the other is an irregular company ? — -Per- haps I used an improper Avord ; I ought to have said the company in combination Avith the Lon- don and North Western Comjiany, the City of Dublin Company. They have an arrangement Avith the London and North Western Company by Avhich they are guaranteed, I believe, a cer- tain amount of traffic by their boats. Mr. Barnes. 1705. Is speed one of the main items of the facilities ? — 1 should imagine so ; I should also imagine that it Avas cjuicker to get from Dublin to Manchester via Liverpool than it was via Holyhead. I can state further that cattle leaving Dublin at six in the evening arrive in Liverpool in time for the goods train the next morning at seven o’clock, and they are in Manchester shortly after eight. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1706. Hoav long do they take going the other Avay ? — I am not quite sure hoAv long they take the other Avay, but 1 do not think it can possibly be more expeditious. Mr. Samuelson, 1707. When cattle come by those independent steamers, do you knoAv Avhat is the charge from Liverpool to Manchester? — Is. Q d. a head, making a total charge betAveen Dublin and Man- chester of 5 s. 9 d. a head ; the charge by the City of Dublin Company’s steamers, or via. Holy- head, is 10 s. 3 d. per head to Manchester. 1708. Then the raihvay companies charge Is. Q d. per head from Liverpool to Manchester when the cattle arc not conveyed by steamers Avith Avhich they are in combination? — Yes, the railAvay companies charge 1 s. 9 d. per head under those circumstances. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1709. Then the rate of 4 s. Avhich you spoke of is only from Dublin to Liverpool? — Yes. 1710. And the 7 s. rate is from Dublin to Manchester, is it not ? — The direct rate from Dublin to Manchester is 10 s. 3 d. ; the 7 s. was from Dublin to Liverpool. Mr. Paget. 1711. Would you kindl}' give the Committee the rates from Dublin to iMauchester upon each of the two routes 1 — The rate by Avhat I Avill call the Tedcastle line of steamers from Dublin to Manchester Avill be 5 s. 9 d., Avhich I Avill call the free trade rate, for there is no monopoly. The rate betAveen Dublin and Manchester via Holy- head, or by the City of Dublin Steam Navigation Company is 10 s. 3 d. 1712. As against 5 s. ^ d. ? — Yes. IMr. Samuelson. 1713. But notAvithstanding that the cattle dealers arc in some Avay put at a disadvantage so great SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWAYS. 87 31 March 1881.J Mr. Foewood. '^Continued. Mr. Samuelson — continued, o-reat as to make it scarcely worth their while to avail themselves of the lower rate by the Ted- castle line ? — Precisely so ; it is a trade for which facilities are very important. If cattle miss a market, of course their value is at once depre- ciated very materially. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1714. Where are the facilities given, in Dub- lin 9 — In Dublin, at the port of shipment. 1715. Do you know whether this Tedcastle Company takes in the cattle? — No, I am not familiar with the Dublin arrangements. Mr. Bolton. 1716. What are the facilities you refer to? — I understand that the London and, North West- ern Company have the control of the companies converging in Dublin, and also of the shipping arrangements at North Wall, and as their ser- vants know perfectly well that their Interests are via Holyhead, rather than via Liverpool, of course you see how they can work it. Lord Randolph Churchill. 1717. Do I understand you to say that the Irish Railway Companies are Avorking in Avith this combination ? — Some of the Irish Raihvay Companies are AA’orking in Avith this London and North Western Company. Mr. liarnes. 1718. I suppose the North Western Company have a train Avaiting for the cattle Avhen the steamer arrives? — Yes, they have a train Avalting Avhen the steamer arrives ; of course there is every facility given them for getting their cattle off. Mr. Samuelson. 1719. Do you happen to know what are the rates and charges upon English cattle conveyed from places near Liverpool to Manchester? — I do not know that. 1720. What are the remedies which you would propose for the disadvantages under which you say LiA'erpool is placed? — The first remedy Avould be an enlargement of the powers of the Railway Commissioners to enable them to adjudicate in cases of unequal charges between different places, in the same Avay as they have now power to deal with unequal charges betAVoen individuals. 1721. Then you assume the Railway Commis- sioners have not that power at present? — Yes, I believe they have not that poAver at present. As an alternative to that proposal I Avould suggest that they should have the poAver of deciding what is a reasonable charge upon the traffic, Mr. Bolton. 1722. To fix the rates, in fact? — Yes. Mr. Samuelson. 1723. You AAmuld give them poAver to fix rates which should not be in conformity with the 0.54. Mr. Samuelson — continued. maximum rates and tolls in their Acts ? — The maximum rates and tolls in all the Acts want a thorough revision. I do not think they are any guide Avhatever as to Avhat the rates of carriage should be upon the different railways. 1724. Nor as to what they really are, I sup- pose ? — Nor as to Avhat they really are in point of fact. 1725. You look upon those maximum rates as being, in a certain sense, obsolete? — Precisely so. 1726. Then, with reference to extra services rendered, or Avhat are called terminal charges, have you any suggestions to make to the Com- mittee? — I think the recommendation of the Royal Commission and of the Joint Committee of the Houses of Lords and Commons upon Raihvay Amalgamation should be carried out, and that the charge for terminal expenses should be publicly stated in the railway stations. 1727. You mean that they should be stated without being asked for ? — Yes, that they should be stated Avithout being asked for. 1728. And that it should not be necessary to go before the Raihvay Commissioners, before a judicial tribunal, in order to compel the raihvay companies to state Avhat their terminal charges are? — We think that Ave ought to have the rlo-ht to know Avhat we are charged, and also Avhy we are charged a particular rate of carriage. 1729. And that you should knoAv that at the time Avhen you are charged? — That we should know it at the time Avhen Ave are charged. 1730. Have you any reason to believe that there are preferential charges, as betAveen different persons from Liverpool, or from any other port Avlthln your knoAvledge ? — I knoAv that there are rebates given upon the Manchester traffic in manufactured goods. 1731. And Avhat is the consideration for that rebate ? — I do not know that there is any parti- cular consideration, but rebates are given, A'ary- ing from 2 s. 6 d. to 5 s. a ton, upon the traffic between Manchester and London, and between Manchester and Southampton. The 2 s. 6 d. I know, but the 5 s. I Avould not speak to so posi- tively. Mr. Bolton. 1732. Is that exceptional, or is that rebate given to everyone? — It is exceptional. Mr. Samuelson. 1733. You mean that one person pays 2 s. Q d. less than another ? — He receives a rebate Avhere another person cannot receive it. 1734. The rebate is not shoAvn in the rates of the raihvay company of course ? — It is not shown, 1735. Have you had any experience of that? — I have had experience of it in my own business. I had to abandon a branch of my business, of forwarding goods from Manchester to London, because my firm could not obtain the rebate which other firms Avere receiving. Mr. Gregory. 1736. Was any reason given for your not receiving that rebate ? — No ; we apj)lied, but Ave could not get it. L 4 1737. You 88 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 31 March 1881.] Mr. Forwood. '^Continued. Mr. Gregury — continued. 1737. You were met with a simple negative; they did not give any reason for their refusal ? — They did not give any reason. I have no doubt that if we had gone to the railway comjianies, and said that we were prepared to guarantee a certain number of thousand tons per annum, that would have been a very powerful argument for the rebate. Mr. Samuclson. 1738. Your goods would not be taken in train loads ? — I have no doubt that they would take whatever traffic might lie offered ; the rebate would be the same. 1739. Then, with regard to your proposed alterations in the powers of the Railway Com- missioners, have you any other suggestion to make upon that point? — Yes; I think we can claim that the Railway Commission is the child of Liverpool ; we agitated for its establishment, and, practically, w'e have found it no benefit to us ; we have never yet been able, although the Commission has existed some years, to bring a case before them, or to approach them in any way, because our Trade Associations and Chambers of Commerce have no locus standi before the Commissioners; I would suggest that a locus standi be given to Incorjiorated Cbambers of Commerce. 174u. Did it ever occur to you that some member of your trade bodies, some individual, might have appeared ; would that liaA'e been pos- sible ? — It is very difficult to get an individual to fight a case for tlie whole community. 1741. Even if his expenses had been guaran- teed ? — We never ajiproached the matter from that point of view. 1742. You would not look upon that as a very convenient proceeding? — No, the case would be limited to that jiartieular man’s grievance ; we have rather a general grievance than particular grievances. 1743. l ou would have, then, to fight one case to-day, and a case generally similar, but some- what different, the next day? — We should be very much cri])pled in our lawsuit, I think, under those conditions, 1744. Is there any other point which you would like to mention to the Committee? — 1 do not think there is. INIr. Gregory. 1745. You say that you personally made ajipli- cation for this rebate ? — I did. 174G, And, to your knowledge, it had been made to other firms? — Yes, it has been allowed to other firms to my knowledge. 1747 And no reason was given for the refusal to you? — No, there was not. 1748. Wore the other firms larger carriers than your firm? — I think they were larger carriers ; on account of their having this rebate we wore in a position to obtain, as we thought, equal (inantitios of goods if Ave had had it, but thev, having the rebate, Avere in a position to Avork at a cheaper rate. 1749. I think you gave the Committee the rate for grain ? — 1 did. Mr. Gregory — continued. 1750. Is there any differential rate for im- ported grain as compared Avith home-grown grain ? — Tliat I am not jirepared to say. 1751. Or for imported provisions ? — I am not prepared to say. Mr. liolton. 1752. With respect to rebates, I think you said that 2 s. 6 d. a ton, in some cases, Avas granted as a rebate ? — Yes. 1753. And in other cases, more ? — We have reason to believe that more Avas given, but our opinion Avas formed from the rate at whicli our competitors were able to work that particular traffic. 1754. Is that a rebate conceded to the for- Avarding agent ? — It is conceded to the forwarding o o c* agent. 1755. It is not a reduction from the rate of freight ? — No, it is a rebate to the forwarding agent. 1756. Does the shipper get the benefit of that? — lie does in this respect, that the forAvarding agent c.an reduce his charges. 1757. bnpposing 2 5. is given to one man, and another man gets 5 s., is any charge made in that case for foi’Avarding at all : — Take the case from Manchester to Calcutta, Avhich includes, beyond the railway carriage, the freight to Calcutta ; naturally the man Avho receives a rebate of 2 5. 6 d., can afford to quote a loAver rate than the man Avho receives no rebate Avhatever. 1758. Is the shijijier generally cognisant of this rebate? —1 presume he is. 1759. Can you tell the Committee Avith re- ference to the jiractice of other firms? — My im- pression is that it goes upon a through rate, quoted from Manchester to Calcutta, and this rebate is taken into consideration in the rate. 1760. Then the through rate is not the bill of lading freight? — Formerly the tlu’ongh rate was not the bill of lading freight; the through rate Avas the carriage and the cost of handling the goods in London, but I believe noAV the through rate is placed upon the bill of lading. 1761. 'I'hen hoAv does the shipper get the bene- fit? — Obviously in this Avay ; presuming the man Avith the rebate can afford to carry goods from Manchester to Calcutta at 40 s. a ton, ujion the same conditions the man, without the rebate, Avould have to charge 42 s. 6 d. 1762. Then it is the steamer makes the charge and not the railway company I — The raihvay com- pany makes the rebate. 1763. The shipper pays the freight, and the shipper is really the ])arty concerned, and not the forAvarding agent ; therefore I tliink it is the ship Avith Avhich you make the contract, and not with the raihvay company ?— He makes a contract Avith the ship at a certain rate of freight, and he make the contract Avlth the raihvay conqiany at a certain rate of freight. 1764. That Avould not be a through rate, be- c.ause if there is a through I'ate there can only be one agreement? — The forAvarding agent makes several agreements. 1765. If there is a through rate, is there not one agreement? — There is one agreement as between the forAvarding agent and the shipper. 1766. You SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 89 31 March 1881.J Mr. Fobwood. {^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 1766. You said his remuneration depended upon the amount of the rebate ; if the through rate is the rate in the bill for loading, how does that affect the shipper ; does he pay the forward- ing commission ? — It is all included in the through rate ; he does not pay the forwarding commission over and above the through I’ate ; the through rate includes commission. 1767. You spoke of the enormous trade to Livei’pool, and you quoted figures of tonnage ; I think you said there was 608,000 tons of cotton, I will take that first; then you spoke of the same railway charge being made to Manchester from Fleetwood, and from Furness, the one being 50 miles, and the other 87 miles, as against 131 miles from Liverpool ; is there much cotton actually landed at Fleetwood and Barrow ? — There is not much at present; there is a strong endeavour being made to encourage that trade. 1768. But so far there has not been much trade in cotton? — No, not much. 1769. Practically, Liverpool is getting all the cotton? — Practically, at present we are getting all the cotton, but those other ports are bidding for it. 1770. Assuming the cotton were landed at Fleetwood and Furness, how would the Man- chester manufacturer or the consumer suffer ? — He suffers by having to pay at the same rate, or a higher rate to Liverpool in order that the rail- way companies may foster these docks. 1771. But he does not pay a higher rate, I think?— They ought to pay a lower rate from Liverpool than from Fleetwood. 1772. You stated that the rate did not exceed the maximum rate ? — No, but it is beyond what is reasonable. 1773. You stated in one part of your evidence that the maximum rates were not exceeded, and in another answer you told the Committee that you thought that the maximum rates had become obsolete ; what are the Committee precisely to understand ? — The maximum rates have really no reference to the charges accepted by the railway companies. 1774. Do you mean that they exceed them ? — No, I do not say that. 1775. Then, practically, there is a reference ? — No, I say they do not charge maximum rates. 1776. Then all these charges that you are complaining of are within the maximum rates ? — So far as I am aware they are Avithin the maxi- mum rates. 1777. Did you compare any of the rates ' — I looked to the London and Manchester Act of 1826, and to various Acts referred to in the Report of tbe Royal Commission, and I think they are generally within the maximum rate, but they are unreasonably high, in my opinion. 1778. Then the whole question is as respects the disadvantage to Liverpool alone ; whatever may be the disadvantage to Liverpool is a corres- ponding gain to some other place; for example, if the 608,000 tons of cotton, Avhich are now deli- vered at Liverpool Avere delivered one-third there, one-third at Barrow, and one-third at FleetAvood, it Avould be a disadvantage to Liverpool to that extent, but not to the country at large. 1779. Not if the rates were identical; the maximum rates, you admitted, Avere not ex- 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. ceeded ? — The maximum rates are not exceeded ; but I do not see any connection betAveen the two cases. 1780. You said the China trade was leaving you ? — It has left us. 1781. And the Indian trade? — The import trade, to a large extent. 1782. How do you account for that? — We account for it to a large extent, as I have al- ready stated, in consequence of the high raihvay charges between Liverpool and the points of con- sumption. 1783. Supposing London is a larger market for tea than Liverpool, Avhy should tea be taken to Liverpool ? — TAventy-five years ago Liverpool Avas a considerable market for tea. 1784. That was rather a flash in the pan, Avas it not ; before the company’s charter there Avas no great trade in tea to Liverpool ? — My memory does not extend to the company’s charter ; but 25 years ago Ave had a trade in tea to Liverpool Avhich has all gone. 1785. American cotton goes to Liverpool to a great extent. Liverpool is a better market for American cotton than London is ; whereas London is a better market for tea than Liverpool is? — Yes, that is no doubt so. 1786. Do not you find in your experience that trade has a tendency to concentrate in that Avay ; do not you think it Avould be very aAvlcAv ai-d for the Continental demand for tea to be taken to Liverpool ? — My experience is rather the con- trary ; that the trade of Liverpool is inclined to distribute itself all over the coast Instead of con- centrating. 1787. You stated that the rates for sugar from Greenock to Birmingham Avere 25 s., and from Liverpool to Birmingham 17 s. 6 rZ. ? — Yes. 1788. What is the comparative amount of sugar Avorked up in the Clyde as compared Avith Liverpool? — About 240,000 tons of sugar are worked up in Liverpool, and 280,000 tons upon the Clyde. 1789. Then the excess is in the Clyde? — Yes. 1790. Is it not strange that they can afford to pay 25 s. a ton upon the Clyde, Avhereas you com- plain of 17 s. 6 (Z. at Birmingham, because the consumer does not care hoAv the cost is made up, and the price is 7 s. 6 d. less on the one case than the other ; hoAV do you account for that ? — Our complaint is that the consumer has to pay too mucli for getting the sugar from Liverpool. 1791. If, paying 7 s. 6 c?. a ton more, the Gi'eenock people can compete Avith Liverpool for sugar to Birmingham, it cannot surely be a ques- tion of the raihvay charge ? — We think that if Ave had a fair rate of carriage Ave should be able to supply Birmingham Avith a large quantity of sugar. 1792. But you have already 7 s. 6 cZ. less car- riage than the Clyde ? — If the Clyde rate be a just rate to Birmingham, our rate to Birmingham ought to be 10 s. less than it is to-day. We should do a very much larger trade to Birmingham if we had the benefit of our geographical position in the same proportion. 1793. You get the benefit of your geographical position to the extent of 7 s. 6 d. a ton I — But we have not the full benefit of our geographical position. M 1794. Is 90 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 31 March 1881.] Mr. Forwood. \_Coniinved. Mr. O' Sullivan. 1794. Is the railway competition between Liverpool and Birmingham equal to that between Glasgow and Birmingham? — Yes, I think I may say broadly that there is the same ; the railway companies work together in both cases. Mr. Bui ton. 1795. You spoke of the facilities afforded to the cattle trade at Dublin, which you said, if I did not misunderstand you, enabled the railway boats, although carrying at nearly double the rate, to cut out the Tedcastle line ; will you de- fine those facilities ? — I can only give you the statement that was made to me to that effect. 1796. Your statement was that the Tedcastle line carried the cattle from Dublin to Liverpool at half the price of the railway boats, but that owing to the want of facilities in Dublin the Tedcastle boats could not compete with the com- panies ; now what are the facilities you there refer to ? — I am not familiar with the trade my- self. I gave you the statement as being the statement of a large cattle dealer. 1797. But they must be shipping facilities ? — Yes. 1798. -And those shipping facilities must have cost some money ? — Xo doubt. 1790. Should not there be some return for that, and does not your statement answer your own doubt, that if those facilities are so much ap- preciated they are worth the money paid for them ? — I understand that the facilities are of a double character ; in the first place, probably, as you slate, they are better facilities in them- selves, but the other reason is the advantages which the railway company give to the shippers. 1800 I will put it diflerently ; do you suppose that, if the Tedcastle line went to the same ex- pense in providing facilities, they could still con- tinue to carry at 4 s.? — I understand that the railway companies have such advantages in the monopoly of the lines converging upon Dublin that the other lines cannot compete with them in the giving of facilities. Mr. O'SuUivnn. 1801. Have not the railway companies 12 boats a week going from Dublin to Liverpool ; how many has the Tedcastle line ? — I think there is one going every day. Mr. Holton. 1802. You propose that the Railway Commis- sioners should fix the rates between various places in the kingdon?— I suggest that the Railway Commissioners, wherever there is a com- plaint as to the rates, should hear the complaint, and if they find the rates are unreasonable should decide that question. 180,3. And your contention is that the present conditions upon which railways have been made, with maximum rates, should be abolished, and that instead of that the Railway Commissioners should have power to control the rates upon the railways all over the kingdom? — What I should prefer would be that all the maximum rates should be revised, and that then, if a complaint were made before the Railway Commissioners that a Mr. Bolton— rate was unreasonable, they should have power to fix the rate or alter it. Mr. Caine. 1804. I think in your last statement, in your examination in chief, you expressed the opinion that the individual trader hesitates to move in this matter to which you referred ? — He does. 1805. Is not that very much because, if he did move he would be a marked man with the railway company? — No doubt it would be so, particularly in the cattle trade. 1806. Does not that point to the desirability of Chambei’s of Commerce having a hici'.s standi before the Railway Commissioners? — Yes. 1807. If they had a locus standi they would take up the cause of private traders, being a body composed of an aggregate of private traders? — That is so. 1808. You referred to the Australian trade having gone to Loudon; 15 or 20 years ago, it will be in your recollection, that there was a very large trade between Liverpool and Australia ; there were the White Star ” and the “ Black Ball ” lines, which carried the mails from England to Australia, in fast clipper ships ; the trade to Australia was almost exclusively the Liverpool trade ? — It was. 1809. Now I will ask you whether the rates u])on wool from London to the great centres has had anything to do with driving the Australian wool trade from Liverpool to London ? — That is my argument, that tlie wool trade having been largely concentrated in London the ships bi’ing the cargoes of wool to London, and naturally load out there. 1810. There is one more question wdiich I wish to ask you. I will just take one case; you re- ferred to the rates on cotton to Manchester from Liverpool, Fleetwood, and Barrow, and, broadly speaking, you stated that the rates from Fleet- wood were twice, and from Barrow thrice, those from Liverpool ; supposing the change took place, that your evidence points to, that those rates should be increased, do you think it would tell against the consumer in Manchester ? — My argu- ment has been, not that those rates are too low, but they jirove that our rate at Liverpool is too high. 1 do not believe that the railway com- panies would carry goods to those places at a loss, and that only proves tliat the rates to Liver- j)Ool are excessive. 1811. It might proA'e that the railway com- panies are carrying the cotton at present at a loss to create a traffic ? — Yes, at the cost of the traffic to Liverpool. 1812. But you do not think that any rates which would affect the trade to Barrow' would injuriously affect the trade to Manchester? — I think not. Sir Edward IVathin. 1813. You were good enough to refer to a meeting at Euston Station, where I had the honour of meeting you ; are not you aware that the traffic managers of the various railway com- panies having termini in Liverpool are now en- gaged in going carefully over those rates of which YOU complain, w'ith the view to see whether, a revision could be made ? — I think you said that they SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 91 31 March 1881.1 Mr. Forwood. iContiuued. Sir Edward Wat kin — continued, they would do so, but I am not aware that they are actually engaged in doing so. 1814. Take it fi'om me that they are doing so. Now I understand that your contention is for an equal mileage without regard to distance t — That is not my contention at all. 1815. Let us take two cases. Liverpool is 31 miles from Manchester, and Grimsby is, I be- lieve, 110 ? — Yes, that is so. 1816. Now presuming you are charged, we will say, upon cotton, 10 s. a ton to Manchester, how -would you fix the Giimsby rate ; what would you charge the merchant at Grimsby as against the 10 s. charged to you, one mileage being 31, and the other 110 ? — I should not charge it by an equal mileage rate ; I should have regard to the distance as well. 1817. If you were to charge 10 5. for the 31 miles, it would practically make the rate to Grimsby, in that proportion, 35 s. ? — That would be by equal mileage rates; but I think that you must have equal mileage rates for equal dis- tances. 1818. Then how would you deal with the longer distances ? — Of course if a princqile like that were adopted, it would have to be adopted by all the railway companies throughout the country, and not be applied to one railway and not to another. 1819. But we will keep to these two cases; at present, I think, taking the statement you have made, and that others have made, that an equal mileage at Grimsby, compared with that charged to Liverpool, would raise the whole of the rates to and from Grimsby, 40 per cent. ; is that what you propose? — No, I have no proposition to make to the Committee at all for equal mileage rates without regard to distance. 1820. You were talking entirely about price in the evidence you gave ; is not the most important question, the facilities that are given as a part of the price ? — The most important question 1 think is the rate. 1821. You put price before facilities ? — Of course price assumes reasonable facilities. 1822. Assuming a merchant in Manchester desiring to send dry goods to the city, I dare say 3 -ou are aware that goods are now delivered before the letters are delivered ? — That is not so. I have large experience, and I can say that it is not so ; goods arrive in Liverpool probably before the letters are delivered, but it is generally 12 or 1 o’clock before 3 'ou get the goods out of the rail- wa)' stations. 1823. I am speaking about London, and if you go to Cheapside you will find that the goods which left Manchester the night before by special goods train are delivered before the letters are delivered. Now would you not consider a special facility like that of more importance than a few shillings in the rate? — Every trade must be guided by its own peculiarities. 1824. But surely a gentleman of large expe- rience like yourself could put a value upon trade facilities ? — Broadly speaking there is not much advantage with regard to goods between Man- chester and Liverpool in their being delivered a few hours earlier. 1825. Then why should there be that advan- 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. tage in London ? — There maybe advantages of which I am not aware. 1826. Would you take the two cases I have given you, and define what you would do as respecting the comparative rates between Grimsby and Liverpool ; you say you would not charge the Grimsby merchant so much more than the Liver- pool merchant arithmetically, in proportion to the extra distance ; what would you charge him? — I am not prepared to say what the rate for 100 miles should be, if the rate is 10 s, for 30 miles, there may be other witnesses prepared to go into that point to day, but I am not. 1827. Now could you tell the Committee any- thing about the sea rates to Liverpool ; Ave will take it in this way, Liverpool has access to every Scotch poi’t upon the west coast, it has access to every port in Ireland, it has access to every port in England, including the port of London, it has access to all the Continent, and it Is the nearest port to America ; now, Avhat further pro- tection do you Avant than the sea, that exists already ? — We do not want any protection at all, but only to have the benefit of the natural ad- vantages of our jAosition, 1828. You have talked about those natural advantages, but surely you are aAvare that com- petition by Avater, to and from Liverpool, has almost put an endtOAvhat Ave used to call transit; for example, Ave used to bring cotton at 15 «. a ton, and store It in the Avinter in Liverpool, and then send it to Grimsby, and send it across to Russia ; I dare say you are aAvare that that has been put an end to by Avater competition ? — If the 15 5. rate Avas an unfair rate, it Avas right that it should be put an end to. 1829. But that Avas not the reason ; the reason Avas that the long route by Avater could undersell the route by land and Avater? — Quite so; I think it Avas one of the recommendations of the last Committee that sat upon the subject, that the sea competition should be kept alive. 1830. Again, are you aAvare that Ave used to take salt for the Newcastle chemical manufac- tories ; from Cheshire, by rail across to Grimsby and Hull, and then by ship from those j)Oits to Newcastle, whereas uoav, almost all of that, as you are aAvare, goes from Liverpool direct? — If the railway companies cannot carry at a profit, to compete with the sea traffic, it is better that it should go by sea. 1831. I want you to admit or state to the Com- mittee that the sea competition, to and from Liverpool, has destroyed a great many trades that went, a few years ago, partly by land and partly by water? — In the examples I have cited, we have carefully excluded the cases where the railways have to run against sea competition. 1832. That seems to me to be a comjAlete answer to all that you have said, that Avhere the cases you have cited ai’e in your favour, you have left out the argument for the other side altogether? — In ansAver to that, I should like to state that I have gone through the cases Avhere Liverpool may be considered to have a lower mileage rate than any of those other places, and I find the cases are such as these ; from Liver- pool to Whitehaven, and the ports upon that coast, where the railway companies have sea competition, there they take a very low rate from M 2 Liverpool, 92 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 31 March 1881.] Mr. FORWOOD. [^Continued. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. Liverpool, but that low rate is no advantage to Liverpool, because the goods go there by sea. Likewise they take goods to Swansea and New- port, where there is sea competition, at a low rate from and to Liverpool. 1833. But you would not let them do that, as I understand you ? — Not if they are taking goods at a losing price. 1834. You wish to protect their profits? — I do not wish the Liverpool rates to be handicapped on purpose that the railway companies may make lower rates for other places. 1835. Now you spoke of sugar from Greenock ; what is the rate by water from Greenock to Liverj)ool ? — I do not know ; but I imagine it would be 7 s. or 10 5. a ton. 1830. Is that less than the railway rate from Greenock to Liverpool ? — I should imagine so. 1837. Is it not the fact that, to every place you can reach by water from Liverpool, the rate is lower than it is by railway ? — 1 think, in many cases, the railway companies carry at the same rate as the sea rate. 1838. Can you give me an instance where the railway company carry at the same rate as the sea rate ? — 1 have not those cases at hand to cite to you. 1839. I do not think you can quote an in- stance where there is sea competition where the sea rate is not less than the railway rate ? — I presume it is so, if you say so. 1840. You have spoken of the effect of the rates that you complain of upon trade ; do you mean to say that a difference of 15 s. or 20 s., or whatever it may be, upon manufactured goods, would really have any sensible effect upon the trade ? — A difference of 5 s. upon manufactured goods is sufficient to turn the trade. 1841. Are you aware that manufactured goods are never worth less than 3 s. or 4 s. per lb., which makes it 160 /. to 200 L a ton ; do you mean to say that 5 s. upon 120/. or 200/. a ton would make any difference to a trade ? — Yes, we have to consider, not the value of the article, but the amount of the freight ; I think Sir Edward himself, if a merchant, would patronise the cheapest route. 1842. We take that as the cheapest route which is really the cheapest rate ; I think you will admit that facilities are of as much im- portance as price, and that facilities are an addi- tion to the actual cost of transit. Now you have stated, I think, that Liverpool has rather suffered than gained by the construction of railways, or that Liverpool had had no benefit from their construction ? — I said that Liverpool had had no benefit by the construction of railways, refen-ing to the particular rate I was then speaking about, namely, that between Liverpool and Man- chester. 1843. Will you tell the Committee whether it is not the fact, in the years during which the railway system developed in Liverpool, that, in consequence of that development, Liverpool has developed more largely than any other English port ? — Certaiidy ; but we think that, if Ave had had fair and reasonable charges, our trade would have been very much greater still. 1844. Is it not the fact that the trade in Liver- pool, in consequence of the facilities afforded for Sir Edward Watkin — continued, trade, has been doubling itself in every 14 years ? — The only way you can look at is as to the por- tion of the trade of the country concentrated in Liverpool. I have not the figures before me to say whether Liverpool has or has not doubled, as you suggest, but I mean to say that there is a smaller jier-centage of trade noAV concentrated in Liverpool than there was 14 years ago. 1845. We will come to that point presently, but during the railway ])eriod there has been a marked development in the trade of Liverpool ? — Yes. 1846. y\nd there has not been one year in which the trade of Liverpool has not been some- what more than it was the year previously ? — I am not quite prepared to say that exactly, but practically Liverpool has been prosjierous. 1847. It has been a progressive prosperity? — It has been a progressive prosperity, with the exception of the one or two years of the cotton famine. 1848. Now let us see ivhat it is that you want ; you say Liverpool does not carry the same pro- portion of the trade of the country as it did many years ago ? — Yes. 1849. Of course, you are aware that before the period of free trade our exports and imports were something under 200,000,000 /., tvhereas now they were something over 600,000,000 /. ? — I think that is about right. 1850. What interest has the Manchester con- sumer in Liverpool having a monopoly in the same proportion of the trade of the country ? — It is the interest of the consumer to o^et his soods o o ^ by the nearest and quickest way, and that is Liverpool. 1851. 'I'here rve come back to our old friend, the equal mileage rate ; now, while you admit that there has been an enormous increase, yet you complain that, as compared with the total trade of the country, you have not maintained the same per-centage? — That is so. 1852. Now, I think your proposal xvas, that the Liverpool rates should be reduced by the amount of 400,000 /. ? — I think we are paying 400,000 /. more than we ought to. 1853. You really mean to suggest that by some means the Bailway Commissioners, or some other means, the railway shareholder should get from the Liverpool traffic about 400,000 /. less than he does now ? — That we should pay so much less. 1854. £.400,000 is 4 ])er cent, upon 10 mil- lions of money ? — That is so ; we complain that you are taking about 400,000 /. more out of the pocket of the country and of the Liveroool traders than you are entitled to. in our opinion. 1855. And you Avould prevent us from doing it? — You are taking more than you are entitled to. 1856. Noav you say there has been a strong feeling about these charges at Liverpool ; has it ever taken the form of opposing any of the Bills of the railway companies in Parliament ? — Yes,' I believe the Chamber of Commerce opposed the Midland and Cheshire Lines Bill. 1857. Did they successfully oppose it? — No, they did not. 1858. That seems to show that, at all events. Parliament thought there was not a very great srrievance O SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 93 31 March 1881.] Mr. Forwool. \_Continued. Sir Edioard Wutkin — continued. grievance made out at that time? — I will just read the case put before the Committee at that time. The oppostion then was to a Bill pro- moted by the Midland Company, the Sheffield Company, the Great Northern Company, calling themselves for this purpose the Cheshire lines, and the oj)position from Liverpool was with the view of obtaining reduced charges from the rail- way company. There was a town’s meeting held upon that subject, and Mr. Withers, one of the Directors of the Cheshire Lines Commitee, at- tended, and in the course of his speech he said, “ Let the Slieffield Company have its Bill ; it would then come here to compete with the other companies, and by that means benefit the ti’ade of Liverpool ; ” that was the plea upon which the Midland Company obtained their Bill into Livei’pool. I believe I gave evidence in favour of that Bill myself, but 1 may say that since the Midland Company came into Liverpool, so far from competing with the other railway compa- nies, it has made a jointpurse, andthe rates are the same ; there has been nor eduction in the charges. 1859. But has there not been an enormous in- crease in the facilities? — Yes, the facilities have grown with the extension of our dock system. 1860. But the dock system did not build the railways ? — The railways were built to meet the dock system. 1861. But if there had been no extension of the dock system, there would have been no ex- tension of the railways and no extension of the trade; is not that so? — Probably. Then Mr. Withers goes on to say, “ Alt that we want is a fair field and no favour, but do not overweight us. Let us into the town of Liverpool, and we will soon show our opponents that they must transact their business in a better manner than they have hitherto been doing.” 1862. I ask you, as a fair man, whether the facilities, since the Cheshire lines came to Liver- pool, have not been very largely developed and improved? — There have been more stations built, but I do not believe that there have been more facilities afforded. Mr. O' Sullivan. 1863. Had you any cause of complaint before? — No, we had no cause of complaint before ; there are more stations, bnt practically, the facilities remain the same. Sir Edward Wat'nin. 1864. With regard to cartage, are there not a greater number of systems of collection and de- livery than there were before ? — There are not a greater number in regard to the dock system. 1865. Is not the town, to use the forwarding agent’s term, “better covered,” for the collection of goods and commodities ? — I do not think it is with regard to the extension of the dock system. 1866. With regard to what you told the Com- mittee as to the disappearance of the Calcutta and the China trades entirely from Liverpool, is not that to be accounted for by the improved facilities that have been given in London for the trades with those places? — With the exception of the money facilities in London, there is no facility for these trades in London which you have not in Liverpool. 1867. How is it that those trades left Liver- 0.54. Sir Edward Wothin — continued, pool ? — Because our only attraction, the low rate into the interior, Avas taken from us. 1868. Am I right or wrong in saying that you have in your favour the difference for manu- factured goods from Manchester between 1 1 s. 6 d. and 25 s., therefore you have a protective duty in your favour of 13 s. 6 r/., which is a tax of 13 s. 6 cf. placed upon the London shipowner? — The only advantage we have is our proximity to the manufacturing centres; the shipoavner in London has all his Government freight, which he gets a high rate for ; he loads all the Govern- ment freight, and he can afford to take a small quantity of Manchester goods to fill up at a low rate ; we in Liverpool have not that advantage. 1869. Then in point of fact, whether the rate affects the thing, or whether it does not, there are other things which have contributed largely to the removal of this particular trade from Liver- pool to London ? — The most potent thing has been the railway carriage. 1870. It cannot be so, because you have a preferential rate of 13.9. 6 d. over the London merchant already; the rate of carriage when that is 13 s. 6 d. in your favour as against the London merchant, cannot be a reason why the trade de- serted the low rate and went to the higher ? — There are certain advantages in London which enable a London shipowner to take Manchester goods at a rate which your high railway car- riage to the Liverpool merchant does not enable him to compete with. 1871. The question is a question of the posi- tion of the merchant and shipowner in Liverjiool and London respectively ; according to your own very frank statement to the Committee, the Lon- don shipowner and merchant is taxed to the extent of 13 s. 6 c?. a ton in favour of the Liver- pool shipowner and merchant. If that be so, and there is not the slightest doubt about it, how can it be that a railway rate which is 13 s. 6 (/. against the London merchant, can have induced the trade to leave Liverpool and go to London ? — The London merchant has local advantages in regard to Government freight, which enable him to take those goods at a comparatively low rate of sea freight. 1872. You do not propose that those Govern- ment freights should be sent to Liverpool? — -I do not ; if we had our proper rate from Man- chester to Liverpool, we should hold our own. 1873. What is the rate you want, it is 1 1 s. 6rf. now to Liverpool as against 25 s. into London ; what do you desire? — If the Liverpool rate were made, say 7 s. 6 d., we should consider that a fairer ^iroportion. 1874. Your cure for the difficulty would be to make a preferential rate of 17 s. 6 d., instead of 13 s. 6 c?.; now you have spoken about the Liver- pool Docks, is it not the fact that Liverpool is about the dearest port in England, if not the dearest? — I think Liverpool and London are very much upon a par. 1875. Not with the modern facilities of the Victoria Dock ; but let us take the old illustra- tion of Grimsby and Liverpool, is it not the fact, dealing with a ton of cotton at Liverpool, that at first they take the town and dock dues, 3 s. 6 c/. ; cartage. Is. 6rz7 1881.] Mr. Williamson. {^Continued. Mr. Samuelson — continued. 2227. You make the comparison from a later date than the mayor did on Thursday ; — Yes. From 1869 to 1872, there was a great in- crease in the trade of this country, and we kept our own in proportion to that great increase of trade. By the returns I have here, which are the returns of tons of cargo (because value does not represent really what is necessary for rail- ways to carry in order to make profit) from 1869 to 1872, the total export and import of all cargoes to and from the United Kingdom increased by 24 per cent. Liverpool during that time increased her dues on goods by 30 per cent. ; of course I may mention that in Liverpool we can only base our figures upon the dock and town dues collected, which are the best criterion you can possibly have. In the next period, from 1872 to 1878, which Avas a period of considerable depression, the imports and exports of the United Kingdom increased 24|^ per cent., whereas the dues in Liverpool increased only 9^ per cent, during that jAeriod. 2228. Will you give the tonnage figures ? — In 1869 the total exports and imports to and from the United Kingdom were 28,667,103 tons, and the dueson goods in Liverpool Avei’e 383,849/. In 1872 the exports and imports Avere 35,558,786 tons, or an increase of about 24 per cent. ; the dues in Liverpool on goods amounted in that year to 500,974/., shoAving an increase of 30|- percent. Now, taking the next period, from 1872 to 1878, Ave had in 1878, 44,283,213 tons outwards and inwards for the whole kingdom, shoAving an in- crease of 24^ per cent. In that same year, 1878, the dues in Liverpool were 548,945/., or an increase of 9^ per cent, over 1872. In 1879 the exports and imports of the United King- dom increased 4 per cent., Avhilc the Liverpool dues shoAved an actual decrease as against the previous year. From 1879 to 1880 the total ex- ports and imports of the United Kingdom shoAV an increase of 16 per cent., and the Liverpool dues amounted in 1880 to just upon 600,000/., or an increase of 9f per cent, over the previous year. Perhaps you will allow me to give you a sum- mary of it in this way. From 1869 to 1880 the total exports and imports of the United Kingdom shoAved an increase of 87 per cent., Avhile the Liverpool dues on goods during the same period only shoAved an increase of 56 per cent. I have ali'eady shown the Committee that during the earlier jieriod we Avere in excess of the pro- portion, and it is upon that that the general im- pression rested in Liverpool that Ave Avere losing Avay ; and it so happens that during that period the BarroAV, FleetAvood, and Garston Doekscame into competition with Liverpool, besides other “railway docks,” as I may call them. 2229. And that competition you consider to have been an unfair competition ? — I consider it to have been an unfair competition, and it is in consequence of the general impression that this inquiry took place in Liverpool, and that is the Dock Board’s case in connection Avith the inquiry. Mr. Barclay. 2230. Is it the general complaint in Liverpool that the raihvay companies give unfair rates from Mr. Barclay — continued.. other ports to Inland towns as against Liverpool ? —That is so. 2231. And that by so doing they are depriving Liverpool of its natural advantages for trade? — —Yes. 2232. Are all the inland rates adverse to Liver- pool ? — I should say that, Avith very fexv excep- tions, they are. 2233. Can you tell me, for instance, what is the mileage rate as betAveen Liverpool and Car- lisle and BarroAV and Carlisle ? — That I could not, because we do not contend that Ave should supply Carlisle as against BarroAV, Carlisle being so much nearer. 2234. But it might be interesting to knoAV whether the raihvay companies give you the benefit Avhen you are the longer distance, the same as they do to BarroAV, when it is the longer distance from the consuming place? — That might be a proper subject for inquiry, but Ave did not go into it. 2235. Then are you aAvare that the railway companies give cheap rates out of Liverpool to ])laces Avith Avhich there is sea competition ; to Glasgow, for instance? — Yes, they do ; they are forced to do so by the sea competition. 2236. Does that ofier any advantage to the trade of Liverpool? — No, I should say it does not. 2237. Does it offer any disadvantage to the jx»rt of Liverpool? — I should think not. 2238. Does it take aAvay the trade from the port of Liverpool that Avould go coastAvise, on the natural advantage principle ? — If you refer to foreign imports, I should think it does not affect the trade of Liverpool, because the goods must be brought there before they are cither transhipped by steamer or rail. 2239. But Avhen goods have to go to GlasgOAv, is it any advantage to the port of Liverpool that the raihvay company carries at cheap rates in competition with the steamei’s ? — None. 2240. Does it divert trade or dues from the port of Liverpool, Avhich, under natural circum stances, would go to that port ? — No, I can- not see that that would affect LiA'erpool at all. Our contention is that at the back of Liverpool you have an immense consuming and industrial popu- lation Avhich Liverpool ought to supply, in iSouth Lancashire and South West Yorkshire, and that the trade Ave have there is being tapped by the raihvay ports. 2241. Are you aAvare Avhether the freights from abroad are cheaper to BarroAV or FleetAvocd than to Liverpool? — Not to FleetAvood, and I am not sure that they are so to BarroAv ; to Fleet- Avood there is no difference of f reight. As far as the shipowner goes, he would sooner come to Liverpool than to FleetAvood. 2242. Do you knoAV any case in Avhich the policy of the raihvay companies in carrying so much cheaper per mile from Barrow' and Fleet- Avood, or other ports than from Liverpool, has the effect of reducing the price to the consumer ? — I cannot see it does so ; for instance, take the matter of grain, they Avill carry it at the same rate from FleetAvood to Manchester and Stockport as from Liverpool, therefore it does not cheapen the article to the consumer at all. 2243. I understand SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 109 April \S%\.'] Mr. Williamson. {^Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 2243. I understand you have already told us that foreign freight is not cheaper to Barrow or Fleetwood than to Liverpool ? — Certainly not to Fleetwood in the matter of Avheat. The wheat that comes to Fleetwood from abroad comes in bottoms which call at Queenstown or Falmouth for orders; all those ships call for orders for the United Kingdom, and there is no difference in the freight at ail ; it is a question for the owner of the cargo. If he is a Manchester man he can land that cargo at Fleetwood, and put it down in Manchester cheaper than he can if it is landed at Liverpool, as he saves dues, &c., at Fleet- wood. 2244. Can vessels be chartered at New York cheaper for the Barrow trade than for Liverpool ? — I should think not, but I am speaking of vessels calling for orders. 224o. I wish to know whether chartering from New York direct to Barrow or Fleetwood, vessels could be chartered more cheaply than to Liver- pool ? — I am not aware that there is any charter- ing direct to those places ; the chartering is generally for orders. 2246. Are the docks at Liverpool and Birken- head sufficient to accommodate a much larger trade than frequents them ? — There has been a considerable pressure lately for accommodation for the larger class of steamships, and to meet that want we are spending a very much larger sum of money at the north end of Liverpool ; and when those docks are completed there will be ample accommodation for a long time to come. 2247. Supposing that trade, which, during the last few years has gone to Barrow and Fleet- wood (a trade which you contend ought to have come to Livei-pool direct), had come to Liver- pool direct, could you have given it accommoda- tion ? — Certainly. 2248. From that I infer that as far as that trade is concerned the construction of the Barrow and Fleetwood Docks was absolutely unneces- sary ? — I should not like to say that. 2249. As far as that trade is concerned, which would under your contention come to Liverpool under its natural conditions, has the construction of the Barrow and Fleetwood Docks been at all necessary in your opinion ? — So far as South Lancashire and South West Yorkshire are concerned they were unnecessary. 2250. If the dues charged at Fleetwood and Barrow v/ere sufficient to pay the interest on the cost of construction and maintenance of the docks there, do you think the dues at Barrow or Fleetwood would be cheaper than they are at Liverpool ? — If to pay a dividend also upon the money spent were an element, I should think not. 2251. You do not pay any dividend in Liver- pool? — None at all; it is a public trust adminis- tered for the public benefit. 2252. You only pay interest upon the money borrowed from the public for the purpose of con- structing the docks ? — Yes, and the bonded money does not exhibit the whole amount of money expended upon those docks. 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. 2253. Then I ask you whether upon similar terms, that is to say, paying interest on the cost of construction, the Barrow and Fleet- wood Docks could be maintained cheaper than the Liverpool Docks ; that is to say, whether at those ports they could afford to take lower dock dues than they do at Liverpool ? — I could not say, because to answer the question one would require to know what the relative cost of con- struction was, as compared with Liverpool, and I cannot speak to that. 2254. According to your impression, do you believe that the dues charged at Bari’ow and Fleetwood are sufficient to pay the cost of con- struction of the docks ? — There are no dues charged on goods at Fleetwood, that charge is borne out of the railway rate ; the railway rate goes to pay dues which ought to be incurred by the goods which use the docks. 2255. And I suppose it is one of the complaints of Liverpool, that the interest on the cost of the construction of the docks is charged against the public in some other shape, instead of being levied in the shape of dues as at Liverpool? — There is no question about if, it must come out of the best paying part of the traffic. 2256. Can you tell the Committee under whose control the docks at Fleetwood and Barrow are? — Those at Fleetwood are under the control of, and are mainly owned by, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company. 2257. And at Barrow ? — I cannot say, the Furness Railway and Docks seem to be pretty much one ; at the same time I could not say whether they are separated or not, at all events they play into each others hands. 2258. So far as the South Yorkshire and Lancashire trades is concerned, do you admit that there are any greater natural advantage at the ports of Fleetwood and Barrow than at Liver- pool ? — I say that the port of Liverpool is a vastly superior jiort to any of those, so far as the port is concerned ; but if you speak as an owner of cargo, there is no doubt that the owner of the cargo has to pay the cartage of the cargo at Liverpool, from the docks to the rail ; whereas at the other port, at Fleetwood, the railway comes down to the ship’s side, and there is no cartage. 2259. That is one advantage that both Fleet- wood and Barrow' have, as compared with Liver- pool, in this respect, that the railway waggons in the first-named places come alongside the vessels? — That is true. 2260. And the cartage is saved ? — Yes, the cartage is saved. 2261. Is there any other advantage which these ports have as compared with Liverpool ? — I am aware of none, except that the railway companies give greater facilities to the owners of pi'oduce ; they will store cargoes of produce at the warehouses at Fleetwood for a very long time without any charge. 2262. You eould hardly call that a natural advantage, I suppose ; that is rather a pre- ferential or artificial advantage at the general cost to the public ? — It is so ; or at the general cost of the best paying part of the traffic, which 0 3 we 110 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 4: AprillSSl.'] Mr. Williamson. 'iContinued. Mr. Barclay — continued, we maintain is between Liverpool and Man- chester, Stockport, and such like places. 2263. Your contention is that the traffic between Liverpool, Manchester, and Stockport, and those places, has to pay, to a certain extent, too much in order to pay the expenses of the Fleetwood and the Barrow Docks ? — That is our contention. Mr. Dillwyn. 2264. I would ask whether the dock dues you charge at Liverpool include all other charges, such as pilotage? — No, the dues are a specific thing ; pilotage is another ; the pilotage charges do not go to the Dock Board at all ; they belong to the pilots and the boat owners, but they are under the regulation of the Dock Board. 2266. Are they heavy ? — No, the pilotage charges at Liverpool are very light indeed. 2266. As compared with Fleetwood and Barrow ? — At Fleetwood and Barrow you have a longer distance, but they are very light, I believe. Mr. Pease. 2267. Liverpool has compulsory pilotage, has it not, to which shipowners object, I believe? — No, that is not the case ; the steamship owners, as an association, would as soon be without com- pulsory pilotage, but the sailing-ship owners would prefer to retain it. 2268. There is no compulsory pilotage at Fleet- wood and Barrow, 1 believe ? — No, it has not come into play there. 2269. Have you compared the increase or the decrease of the trade to other ports, which were mentioned the other day, as you have done for the Liverpool trade ? — Bristol has fallen oflf, I believe ; but take the other ports more comeat- able, Sharpness, Cardiff, and Avonmouth, those, I believe, have very much increased. 2270. To the detriment of the old port of Bristol? — I believe so. 2271. Therefore, the old port of Bristol has not been the one that has got any advantage out of Liverpool ? — To some extent I believe it has, in the shipment of iron from the Midland district. 2272. 1 do not mean the Bristol Channel ports, but Bristol proper? — We have principally dealt with the newer ports, which you may call railway ports, like Avonmouth, Sharpness, and Cardiff. 2273. Then presuming that the rate to what were termed by the Mayor of Liverpool the four centres of consumption, ure the same from Fleetwood and Barrow, and from Liverpool ; that is to say, the same in gross; that is w'hat you complain of, is it not? — Our complaint is this, that Fleetwood, Barrow, and Garston have special advantages from being railway ports, and that the gross rate charged is, as a mileage rate, considerably under that charged from Liverpool to the same places. 2274. Supposing the railways were all in one hand, the company would be carrying a longer distance for the same money ?— They do so in the case of Fleetwood, &c., now. 2275. Does not the rate of the lowest possible distance regulate the rates from all other ports Mr- Pease — continued. practically ? — It does not seem to do so ; because when you take even a shorter distance, such as that from Fleetwood to Preston, the rate from Liverpool to Preston is higher than it is for the shorter distance from Fleetwood to Preston. 2276. What is the distance Irom Fleetwood to Preston ? — Twenty miles. 2277. What is the distance from Liverpool to Preston ? — Twenty-eight miles. 2278. What are the gross dues? — On timber it is 3 s. 4 d, from Fleetwood to Preston, and 6 s. 3d. from Liverpool to Preston ; that is a difference of 34 per cent, as against Liverpool upon the mileage. 2279. Taking cotton from Liverpool to Stock- port, have you the rate for that ? — From Liver- pool. to Stockport, a distance of 36 miles, the rate is 9 s. a ton, or 3 d. per ton per mile. 2280. What is the distance from Fleetwood to Stockport? — Sixty miles; and the rate is 9s. per ton, or 1| d. per ton per mile, a difference of 60 per cent, upon the mileage rate, in favour of Fleet- wood. 2281. Therefore the rate charged for the shorter distance practically settles the charge for the longer distance? — It does not do so in mileage, in the gross it seemingly does ; but even dis- tance does not settle it ; the railway com.panies arbitrarily decide for themselves. 2282. The railway companies are charging the same rate for the longer distance as for the shorter distance ? — They are, as a rule. 2283. Could there possibly be any ship going into Fleetwood with cotton if its cargo were to be charged a higher rate to Stockport than the Liver])ool rate? — No, it would not pay to go there. 2284. It would not go there ? — No, it would not. 2285. Therefore the public have the advantage of the choice of ports at the same rate ? — The jiublic have no advantage from it, because Liver- pool could supply the whole. 2286. Presuming the ship had other cargo to be sent on to Newcastle or Carlisle, to the freighter it makes no matter which port he goes into with the cotton ? — It is a question of little moment for the owner of the cotton, or wheat or other article, what port he goes into, so long as he gets the article put down at the same rate. 2287. Do you come to the conclusion that it is not an advantage to the public to have the choice of ports at the same rate ? — I should not like to answer the question in the negative, but it is certainly not to the advantage of Liverpool. 2288. I understand the Mersey Dock Board arose from the purchase of a number of private undertakings amalgamated? — No, at one time the dock property belonged to the Town Council, and was managed by a committee called the Dock Committee of the Town Council; Birkenhead was not a private dock. 2289. Upon the other side of the river there were other docks than those belonging to the corporation? — 'I'here are the Duke’s Docks, which belong to the Bridgewater Canal Naviga- • • 1 1 ^ ® tion still. 2290. Did the trust only become accountable for the actual money expended upon those docks which it took over, or were there any premiums paid SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, 111 4 April 1881.] Mr. Williamson. [ Continued. Mr. Pease — continued. paid to tlie Liverpool Corporation and private parties ? — There was not a premium given to the corporation for the docks. 2291. But for certain I’ights over them ? — For the right to levy town dues there was a payment made. 2292. These town dues have practically become a charge upon the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board, have they not ? — Yes, they have. 2293. Therefore, where there are no such charges as at Fleetwood and Barrow, those people can do the work more cheaply than you can? — I do not say that. 2294. But neither Fleetwood nor Barrow are handicapped as Liverpool is by that amount of capital which was paid over to the Liverpool Cor- poration ? — I should say not, Mr. Lowther. 2295. You said there were special advantages afforded at Fleetwood and Barrow ; what are the special advantages to the owners of produce ? — Take a cargo of wheat which has been ordered by a Manchester miller on to Manchester, instead of ordering it to Liverpool he will order it to Fleet- wood, because he saves the dues which he would incur if he sent that same cargo to Liverpool. 2296. Do you mean the harbour dues ? — The dock and town dues; again, if the vessel dis- charged in any open dock, he would have cartage to pay to the railways. When wheat is dis- charged in a closed dock in Liverpool, that is into the grain warehouses, there is no cartage to be paid upon such, because the railway companies take the wheat from the grain warehouses. 2297. Then you have cartage in Liverpool? — Yes, Ave have cartage, 2298. Could the railways not have been con- structed so as to avoid that cartage? — They take away a large quantity of produce now over the railway, which is all round the docks ; but the railway companies have no right to pass over the estate. I should mention that in Birkenhead the railway companies have perfect liberty to pass over all the lines of rail there. 2299. You said that all inland rates were adverse to l.iverpool ? — Almost entirely. 2300. Now, there are a great quantity of oranges sent to Liverpool, are there not ? — Yes. 2301. Do you know the rate between Liver- pool and Barrow for oranges ? — I do not know it. 2302 . I am told it is 84 miles, and that the rates are 16 s. 6 d., and between Liverpool and Glasgow, which is 220 miles, the rates are 21s. 6 cZ. Now, I am told that between Bristol and Birmingham, which is 90 miles, the rate is 17 s. 6 d.? — That is so. 2303. And the rate between Bristol and Leeds, which is 202 miles, is how much? — 37 s. 6 d. 2304. Are you quite sure the rate is 37 s. 6d.? — Yes; those are the figures which we obtained from the trade. 2305. Then I think I understood you to say that the trade to Liverpool had fallen off, more particularly when Barrow and Fleetwood came into existence? — Yes; when the competition of these outside ports took place there is no doubt the trade of Liverpool did fall ofi in a greater degree than it ought to have done. I do not 0.54, Mr. Lowther — continued. mean to say that you should literally adhere to these per-centages of figures, for this reason, that at one time we supplied all the north-east of England with provisions; but when Messrs. Wilson, of Hull, opened their line direct between New York and Hull, of course we could not ex- pect to supply the district immediately round Hull ; and then also there is a large trade now direct between New York and the north-east of England which did not exist formerlv. These causes all go to tap the trade, to a certain extent. 2306. That would account for it more than the high rates you pay upon the railways ; that is to say, the falling off of trade at Liverpool is not so much, as we are given to understand, a falling off due to the high rates charged by the railways as to the sea competition? — We contend that much of our trade goes through certain other ports which ought to go through Liverpool, in consequence of the high mileage charge to and from Liverpool as compared with those other places. Mr. Nicholson. 2307. You stated that the dock and harbour charges at Liverpool on cotton were 3 s. Qd. a ton ? — I think it must have been the mayor who said so, but they would be about that, 2308. Then that added to the 9 s. would make 12 s. 6 cZ. a ton, charged from the ship’s side, from Liverpool to Stockport ?— It would be so. 2309. Are you aware whether anything more than the 9 s. would be paid on cotton coming from Fleetwood ? — There must be something in- curred in handling the cotton. 2310. That is the point which I wish to get at? — That does not appear, of course, in the railway charge. Ml. Callan. 2311. I think you stated that you endorsed Mr. Forwood, the mayor’s, evidence? — Yes, generally, I do. 2312. Do you accept his evidence as regards Ireland altogether ? — That was a subject never taken up by our committee. 2313. Then I may take it that you do not endorse his evidence altogether as regards Ire- land ? — I cannot do that. 2314. Do you, or do you not? — I cannot do either, not having gone into the subject. 2315. What are the Liverpool tonnage rates for the Irish steamers? — The coasting trade runs from about 3 cZ. to 6 cZ, a ton dock dues. 2316. What are the tonnage rates for coasting steamers on the eastern coast of Ireland ?— From the east coast of Ireland they are 4^ d. a ton. 2317. What are your harbour rates? — There are no harbour rates charged at all ; they are infinitesimal, 2318. There are harbour rates, what are they? — They run from § d. 2319. What are the harbour rates on steamers coasting from Liverpool to the east coast of Ire- land ? — Five-eighths of a penny. 2360. What are your wharf rates upon the same class of vessels? — We have no wharf rates in Liverpool we have appropriated berths to the various lines of steamers. 04 2321. Will 112 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 4 April 1881.] Mr. WiLLlAMSON. {Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. 2321. Will you refer to page 19 of the pamphlet produced by the mayor? — It is so; you are quite right. 2322. Is it not rather strange that a stranger like myself should, in a matter affecting you, be better acquainted with it than yourself? — You get the information from the same source as I do. 2323. What are the total rates ; I am speaking of steamers trading from the east coast of Ireland to Liverpool ? — They are about d. The facts are, that a steamer entering the dock and paying dock tonnage dues, pays no harbour nor wharfage rates ; but if she does not go into dock, but in- stead, goes alongside the stage, she pays wharf- age dues and harbour rates only. 2324. When you were considering the ques- tion as to the decrease of the trade of the port of Liverpool, and as to the railways depriving Liverpool of its natural trade, have you ever con- sidered the question of your own charges? — Yes, we have and are always doing so. 2325. Have you ever had any complaints from Irish steamship companies ? — I could not say whether we have, or not. 2326. You come here to give evidence before this Committee as a member of the Mersey Dock Board, and you cannot tell us whether you ever- had any complaints from the Irish steamship trade ? — I am not a member of the docks and quays committee, who have to do with such questions. 2327. Then as a member of the Mersey Dock Board, you know nothing whatever about the Irish trade ? — I know nothing whatever about the Irish trade. 2328. And you know- nothing whatever as to whether it is your own laches which has caused the diminution of the trade with Ireland ? — I can- not say Avhat it is. 2329. Then is your mind a perfect blank upon the subject? — I can only say that neai'ly all the cattle from Ireland are landed at the landing stage, and you cannot have better facilities for- landing them than you have there. 2330. And where are they driven then ? — To the railway station. 2331. How far would that be? — It would depend upon the stations they were sent to ; the great cattle station is Edgehill. 2332. How far- would that be ? — That would be 2\ miles, I think. 2333. Is it not nearer four miles ? — I think not. 2334. The cattle are driven right across Liver- pool, are they not? — Yes. 2335. If cattle were landed at Holyhead, how far- would they be driven?— I cannot say. 2336. You said that no greater facilities were afforded anywhere than were afforded at Liver- pool? — I said, as regarded the landing. 2337. You further state that the railway com- panies give great facilities for the storage of goods at Fleetw'ood ? — Yes. 2338. With the facility they also, I believe, give civility ? — I should be very sorry if any of the officials of the Dock Board did rrot give civility. 2339. I was asking about Fleetwood? — I should be disposed to believe they do. Mr. Callan — continued. 2340. Do the Dock Board give similar facilities ? — They cannot offer the same facilities as they can at Fleetwood, because the railway companies come alongside the docks there. 2341. Are they allowed to use locomotives along the line of docks at Liverpool ? — Not along the line of docks, because there is so much cart traffic ; it could not be done. 2342. You would not give the r.ailway com- pany permission at any time to do so ? — It could not be done. 2343. I am not asking about whether it could not be done: I ask, as a matter of fact, are the i-ailway companies allowed to use locomotives along the line of docks ? — Not in Liverpool, but in Birkenhead they are, where it does not inter- fere with the cart traffic. Mr. Barnes. 2344. I think you stated that the docks in Liverpool, being a trust belonging to the town, only pay an interest on the bonds ? — That is all. 2345. Do not they pay beyond that, a sum for redemption?- — There is 100,000/. a year set aside for a reserve fund, as a sort of security, to the bondholders. 2346. That is over and above ? — Out of revenue ; out of revenue there is 100,000 /. set aside every year. 2347. Vessels chartered from New York to call for orders you say go at the same freight to Fleetwood and Barrow? — Yes. 2348. But Fleetwood can give no cargo out, can it, or do they go to another port from that ? — You can ship coal fi-oin Fleetwood, and you can ship iron as well as coal from Barrow. 2349. It is notio their advantage to go to this port ? — No, not at all ; I believe that as far as the shipowners are concerned they prefer to go to Ijiverpool ; but it is not the shipowner who has the control of the sending of his ship, it is the OAvner of the cargo who controls the destination of the ship, Avhen she calls for orders. 2350. You think that Fleetwood and Barrow, having each of them a docks and a railway in one hand, the dock and the town dues are sunk in the rate inward? — They are sunk in the carriage. 2351. And does that militate against Liver- pool, Liverpool having to make the toAvn dues and the railway rate in addition ? — It simply means this, that the actual railway carriage charged is so much less from Fleetwood to Man- chester than from Liverpool; to that extent we are handicapped. 2352. Have you any instances in Avhich the railway companies charge the same rate where goods go to a more distant town than Barrow or Fleetwood ; you say that cotton is sent from Fleetwood and also from Liverpool at 9 s. to Stockport, can you take another case ? — You will observe that Liverpool is a shorter distance to all these centres of industry ; the only exception is as between Fleetwood and Preston. Though the distance is greater from Liverpool, the mile- age charge is disproportionately in favour of Fleetwood. 2353. I think SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. 113 4 ylp/i? 1881.] Mr. Williamson. \_Continued. Sir Edward Walkin. 2353. I think you were the chairman of a com- mittee who issued tlie report which I have here, marked private and confidential ; it is the report of the executive committee to the general com- mittee on railway rates and railway administra- tion alfecting the port of Liverpool ? — I was. 2354. Then, in point of fact, you have studied the question very carefully? — I have only studied it with reference to the point as to how the trade from outlying ports affects the trade of our port. 2355. Butyou state that the Indian, Australian, and China trades have been altogether lost to Liverpool bv the differential rates by railway ? — The mayor of Liverpool stated so, but I did not. 2356. Would you state to the Committee what is the cause of the removal, if there be such a thing, of the India, China, and Australian trades from Liverpool ? — There ai’e many causes which have led to it, but I think the great reason why, for instance, the China trade inwards has entirely centred in London, is the facilities given for working the large and increasing trade from China. 2357. What facilities do you refer to? — Banking facilities; naturally a trade carried on in that way comes more directly under the eyes of the banking interest, and, to a certain extent that would apply to the Calcutta and Australian import trades. 2358. Although, no doubt, everybody would admit that if you had lower rates at Liverpool, it would be an advantage to somebody ; you would not yourself confirm the mayor in roundly stating that Liverpool had lost the India, China, and Australian trades entirely because of the railway rates for carriage ? — I should not say so ; but allow me to add this, that the mayor in his remarks upon that point referred to the inward trades from those different jffaces which Liver- pool has entirely lost; a very small portion only of the Calcutta trade still comes into Liver- pool. As regards the export trade, we have almost lost that a.s well, excepting in a very small degree ; and I may mention that the owner of the only line of steamers we have from Liverpool to China told me that he is obliged to load half his steamers now in London, instead of loading them all in Liverpool ; tliat is in consequence, not so much of the advantages of loading in London, as that it does not pay him to come round to Liver- pool to load his cargo after discharging inward cargo. 2359. But he did not contend that the sole cause of the loss of the tea trade was the railway rates? — No, certainly not. 2360. I want to know whether it is not the fact that there is a thing called the Steamboat Conference, which regulates the Indian and China trade, both from London and Liverpool, and that the receipts of that conference are thrown into a common pot and divided ; that is to say, tho'e trades have a combination which rigidly divide the freight, and divide the profits? — I be- lieve there are combinations in London of the kind you name, but whether the lines to India or the one line out of Liverpool to China are in that combination, I could not say. 2361. But you would not contradict me, when 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. I suggest that there is that combination ? — I would not contradict you. 2362. With regard to the evidence of the mayor, the honourable Member for Banbury put a question to him, and one part of the answer of the mayor was as follows : “ The maximum in the Duke of Bridgewater’s Canal Act, which is un- repealed to this day, is 6 5. a ton; I must be understood as referring, for the present, only to manufactured goods ” ; would yon confirm that statement? — I believe it is in the evidence that we had put before us, but I have not myself inquired into the Kailway and Canal Acts, and I should not like to express an opinion upon the point. 2363. Would you contradict me when I say that that Act authorised a rate of 6 s. to be charged upon the canal which terminated at Run- corn ?— I am aware that the canal terminates at Runcorn. 2364. In fact, they have no other terminus? — They have no other terminus ; but still they delivered goods, and they do still, by canal into Liverpool. 2365. But do you m.ean to tell me that the whole charge from Manchester to Liverpool, au- thorised by the Duke of Bridgewater’s Act, was only Gs. for merchantable goods? — I believe that is the reading of it ; I can recollect the time when goods were being brought from Liverpool to jVl anchester by canal at 4 s. 6 d. to 5 s. 6 d. a ton. 2366. That was in the time of competition? — Yes, probably. 2367. If I am right in assuming that the 6 s. which the mayor gave to the Committee as the maximum charge between Manchester and Liver- pool, was the maximum charge to Runcorn only, then the service performed at present and in past times included, in addition to the distance to Runcorn (the conveyance over the canal), 20 miles of sea carriage from Runcorn to Liverpool? — I could not answer the question. 2368. But if it is a fact that that which the Mayor of Liverpool deliberately stated to the Committee as the rate from Manchester to Liver- pool was the rate from Manchester to Runcorn, the mayor would be wrong? — Yes, I think the mayor meant that from Manchester to Liverpool was a 6 5. rate. 2369. He said so? — So I understood. 2370. Do you concur with his worship in say- ing that Liverpool has had no advantages from railways? — I should bo very sorry to make that admission. 2371. I will take the question as far as rates go ; I will not assume that the mayor ventured upon the proposition that Liverpool was not benefited in any way by the construction of rail- ways, but that it was not benefited upon the ques- tion of rates. Now, am I wrong in asking this, whether through the opening of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester the cotton rate was not reduced 33 per cent., the grain rate 30 per cent., and the timber rate 20 ])er cent., and whether since then further reductions have not been made? — I would not express an opinion upon those points; the question, 1 presume, that leads out from your figures is, whether Liverpool has been benefited by the railway interest or not. r 2372. I want 114 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 4 April 1881.] Mr. Williamson. {^Continued. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. 2372. I want the answer, Yes or No ; whether you know it, or do not? — I do not know. 2373. Can you tell me what the rate for bale goods was in decennial periods fi'om 1811 to 1881 ? — I cannot. 2374. Or for cotton, or for grain ? — No. 2375. Or for sugar?- No. 2376. Or for timber ? — No. 2377. Do you mean to tell the Committee that whether you take 1811, 1821, 1831, 1841, 1851, and so on up to 1881, the rates have not been largely reduced since the opening of railways ? — I do not know whether they have or have not. 2378. If they have, you will concede to me in assuming that Liverpool has been benefited in the matter of rates? — 1 should not like to say anything with regard to the mayor’s evidence upon that point. When I said that I approved of the evidence given by the mayor, and con- curred in it, I referred mainly to the evidence he gave ujion the different rates, and the actual figures that he quoted. 2379. Referring to the evidence given before this Committee upon the 31st of March 1881, in answer to a question by the honourable INIeinber for Banbury, No. 1652, the mayor said this : “ I may say that we have absolutely derived no benefit in Liverpool from the opening up of the railway system in this country ; ” having read to you that answer, may I ask you, do you agree with the mayor? — 1 could not say. I do not see that I could make that statement myself from my own knowledge. 2380. Now, I do not wish to weary you or the Committee either. If you are unable to verify the statement th.at I ask you to verify, namely, that since the opening of railways any very large percentage of reduction has been made in the carriage of imported traffic, let me ask you whether it is not also the fact that since the date I mentioned, about 1830 I think it was, there has been a very large increase in all work- ing expenses, in the value of property, for sta- tions and sidings, in rates and taxes, and wages, and everything of that kind? — There has been ; but at the same time there has been a very large corresponding reduction probably in the cost of working traffic otherwise, apart from labour. 2381. But as regards working traffic, in the same w'ay and by the same means, between 1830 and the year of our Lord 1881, there has been an enormous increase in the cost of performing every operation, has there not ? — Yes ; but there has been very great economy in the appliances for saving manual labour, which there were not at the previous date. The question is one which I should require to consider before answer- ing with any precision. 2382. Perhaps you would allow me to ask you, whether 20 years ago the working expenses averaged 20 per cent., and now they average 50 per cent. ; I may take that as an illustration ? — I could not say. 2383. Now I will refer to another point : take it that the cost of an operation is not simply the price paid for perfoiming one part of the opera- tion, but the real value consists, not only of the cost of conveyance or lifting, or anything of that kind, but of the facilities given to trade and to Sir Edward Wathin — continued. industry involved in the operation ? — There is no doubt that they all are questions in the cost of handling produce. 2384. That is to say, if I can take a quantity of perishable machinery by railway in one-sixth of the time in which I could have conveyed it by cart or by road, that -would of course be a justifi- cation for a higher price being charged ? — There is no doubt that it is a very important considera- tion. 2385. Now, as a member of the Dock Board, you are aware that previously to the construction of the Canada Dock, the timber trade of Liver- pool was all carried to the Brunswick and the Toxteth Docks, near the carriers’ premises ? — Yes. 2386. Upon its removal to the Canada Dock, I believe the carriers were compelled to follow, and take premises adjacent to that dock ? — Yes. 2387. Then is it not the fact that the com- paratively high rents charged for such accommo- dation entailed, in the case of the water carriers, an additional cost of not less than Qd. a ton? — I could not say how much. 2388. But it was something like that ? — Probably. 2389. When your Bridgewater property was purchased and made into a joint stock company, was not there a representation made to the Dock Board that the rent charged to the Bridgewater Company was excessive, and a reduction was asked for ? — That was before I entered the Dock Board as a member ; I could not give you any information with regard to that. 2390. I will not press you any further upon that point. Now, I presume you will agree per- fectly with me, that the cost of land for all pur- poses in Liverpool has enormously increased ? — It has. 2391. I think I am not wrong in saying that very recently the Dock Trust have sold to the Midland Company land at about 6 /. a yard, or 30,000?. an acre? — Yes; but it is to be hoped that the Midland Railway Company will make money out of it, or else they would not come there. 2392. Now you stated that there were no dock dues at Fleetwood; you are quite certain of that? — On cargo, I believe that is so, from in- formation I have obtained. On shipping there are dues of course. 2393. Are you quite certain that there are no dock dues charged, generally speaking ; there may be exceptions, but if there are would you kindly give them me. I am told there are dock dues charged ? — I know one case, with which I had something to do; a vessel brought a cargo of wheat, and there were no dues upon that. 2394. That was wheat ; do you know any cargo, or any other article, of which that could be said ? — On coal outwards there were none. 2395. I am informed that there are dock dues and charges made ? — In this case there were none. 2396. Is it not the fact that the dock dues and charges are the same at Birkenhead as they are at Fleetivood ? — I am not aware whether any chai’ge for warehousing or rent is made at Fleet- wood ; there is at Birkenhead ; at Fleetwood there SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWAYS. Ii5 A April Mr. Williamson. [^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. there is a charge called craneage, but that Is for discharging ship. 2397. I am speaking entirely of storage ; Is it not the fact that storage, using the term in the widest sense, is charged at Fleetwood on the same terms as at Birkenhead ? — By stoi’age you mean the putting in, I presume ; if you mean the handling of the stuff in the warehouse, or after it is in the warehouse, that is a different thing. 2398. I presume it would mean putting it in there, keeping it in there, and taking it out ? — In Liverpool we have a charge for putting it in after it is landed on the quay from the ship ; that is called the master porterage charge. At Fleet- wood there is a charge made for storage, which is about 10 c?. a ton ; but after that I believe there is no charge made, and it is stored for a month, if necessary, without charge. 2399. I am asking about storage, whether it is not the same at Fleetwood and Birkenhead? — There cannot be much difference in that respect between one and the other. 2400. Is not that an arrangement between the officials who control the Fleetwood Docks and the officials who control the working of Birken- head ? — I could not say that. 2401. You have told the Committee that your complaint about Liverpool is not that there has not been an enormous increase of trade, but that you have not maintained the per-centage of trade that you had 30 years ago ? — I have only gone back about 11 years ago. 2402. Can you tell me whether or not it is the fact that with two or three exceptions every port in England can say the same thing ? — No, that cannot be said. 2403. That cannot? — No, not to the same ex- tent at all. 2404. Then you think it is to the interest of the consumer to have as few new docks as possi- ble ? — I do not say so. 2405. Then you think that there ought to be competition between docks ? — I think general competition is healthy, but it must be fair com- petition. 2406. Can you tell me any one rate for 31 miles from a port to a market, which is less than the rate charged between Liverpool and Man- chester ? — Our complaint is that Liverpool is handicapped in the way that I have already given evidence upon. 2407. But still, take any market you like. If you can show me a case where a port 31 miles from a market is charged a less rate than Liver- pool, I should agree with you that it is an injus- tice ; but can you show any case of long distance ports in competition with Liverpool, where Liverpool has not a decided bounty in the rate. I am^ not speaking at the rate per mile, because that is immaterial, but in the actual amount of rate? — Take the case of iron from Wednesbuiy or Wolverhampton. 2408. I say from a port to a market, or from a market to a port, can you give me any cases in which any port 31 miles of a market (31 miles being the shortest distance between Liverpool and Manchester) is charged a less rate than the rate between Liverpool and Manchester, for any article ? — I cannot answer the question. 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 2409. Now take a longer distance ; can you give me a case Avhere there is any longer dis- tance, say double the distance if you please, where Liverpool has not a large bounty over rival ports. Take London ; is it, or is it not the fact that as regards rates from London to Manchester, and from Liverpool to Manchester, London pays a good deal more, and Liverpool pays a great deal less? — In the gross certainly; but then you have five or six times the distance. 2410. In the gross you will admit that as respects the port of London, Liverpool has the advantage? — Yes, on the gross rate it has; but allow me to tell you this in explanation, of which perhaps you may not be aware, vessels coming to London from abroad always come at a much higher rate than they do to Liverpool ; perhaps it is 5 5. a ton from Calcutta, so that that comes in to equalise the matter again. 2411. Still whether thei’e is anything to equalise the matter or not, it is the fact that whether the differential rate is too little or not, Liverpool has the advantage which its proximity to the sea gives it, of a very large bounty, as against London, Bristol, and all other long dis- tance ports ? — Upon the distance between Lon- don and Manchester, as compared with the dis- tance between Liverpool and Manchester, there is no doubt that the gross rate is higher from London to Manchester. 2412. Take shipping bales for example, the cost to London is 25 s. ? — Yes ; but the railway paid dues out of that. 2413. And to Liverpool 13 s. 6 (?. ? — Yes; 11 s. 6d 2414. Is it not the fact, that there you have a bounty against the London shipowners of 1 1 s. 6 d. a ton? — Yes, that is so. 2415. Then if that applies everywhere, what is the grievance of Liverpool ? — We think that if it pays the railway company to carry this very long distance at a certain rate, it ought to pay the railway company to carry for the shorter distance at a loAver rate than for the longer distance. 2416. You think so, but is it not the fact that every man in business sells at different prices and at different rates of pi’ofit to different customers taking different quantities. Is there any trades- man in the world who sells at the same rate of profit to all his customers alike ? — I am not a tradesman, so I could not speak to that. 2417. Or any shipowner ? — I should endeavour to get the best freights for my ship. 2418. You think that principle ajiplics to all conditions of life ? — Yes, I presume so. 2419. And you think that if any restriction were applied it would be unfair.? — But we have not fair competition in Liverpool. 2420. Pardon me, I did not ask you whether you had proper competition in Liverpool ; will you let us keep to the question ; do you think it is sound political economy to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest? — No doubt. 2421. Why should that not apply to Liver- pool ? — All railway companies having termini In Liverpool agree to charge certain rates ; we are powerless to reduce those rates ; and we P 2 have 116 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 4 April 1881.] Mr. Williamson. [^Continued. Sir Edward JVathin — continued, have certain jiorts competing ’.vith us, to and from which they charge lower rates, handi- capping our trade and abstracting our legitimate trade. 2422. What is the legitimate trade of Liver- pool?^ — Before Fleetwood and Barrow and all these places were developed, the inland districts w'ere our legitimate trade, to supply these districts, 2423. Before Liverpool came into play London did that? — No, before London did it Bristol did it. 2424. If we could wake up in about 150 years time, should we not be rather surprised at the views you now hold as regards those completing jiorts ? — That might be so. 2425. Now, you have been good enough to admit to me that facilities of business, rapidity of transit, safety, and a thousand other things, which you as a man of business understand, are jiractically elements in the thing which we usually as a matter of political economy call j)rice or cost. Now, Avhat is tlie reason why all these new ports and an old port, which I will come to in a moment, enable you to land and discharge pas- sengers, and to a large extent goods, alongside the quay, wdiereas you gentlemen in Liverpool are obliged to use tugs and lighters to land them at your piort? — The reason is not far to seek ; as I said before, in the instance of a man who owns a cargo of wheat, he brings it by Fleetw'ood, and delivers it in Manchester, because the railway companies charge him nothing for the docks he has provided for him there, and he has it carried for a longer distance at the same rate as he has from Liverpool. 2426. Then why do you not reduce the dock rates in Liverpool? — We can only reduce the dock rates in Liverpool when we have a surplus. We are bound to make certain charges for the facilities that we grant to vessels coming there, but we make no pirofit out of them. M e made a considerable reduction recently. 2427. You make no profit out of it because you have the town dues on your shoulders, and probably spient a great deal too much upon it ; that is to say, your trade to some extent is suffer- ing from mortgage ? — No, not at all. Take London ; the charges in London are higher than ours, because they have to do not only what we have to do, but to p)ay a dividend to the share- holders besides. 2428. If I come by the Cunard or other steamer to Liverp)ool, I shall have first of all very often to wait off the bar outside ; secondly, I can only get into the river at a certain state of the tide; and, thirdly, I have to w'ait there until the tug comes alongside, and I am taken with my baggage in that tug to the quay ; that is so, I think ? — To the landing stage. 2429. And the same with all other steamers ? • — The p)assenger boats. 2430. And the goods boats too? — If they are very large boats, and deep-keeled, they cannot dock when it is low tides, otherwise they dock sometimes right away. But I should mention that in the new docks we are building, these large steamers will be able to dock generally by the same tide, and as is now done at Alfred Dock. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 2431. Do you think that facilities do not form a part rd the cost? — For passengei’s there is no charge ; 30 years ago ships of that size were not required, and we are keeping pace with the facilities required to develop trade, whether in goods or p)asseugers. 2432. Is it not the fact, that so far from ships of that size not being required 30 years ago, they could not get into the piort of Liverpool ? — Certainly not. 2433. How was it that they began to goto the p)ort of London before they went to Liverpjool ? — That is an historical question which I cannot answer; hut it so happens that w^e have much larger vessels coming to Liverpool than go to London. 2434. Nothing larger than the “ Great Eastern ” ? — She has been to Liverpool too. 2435. In the port of London if I land from one of the American steamers I land alongside ? — With cargo boats, that is the boats which go from New York to London, you may do so; but you cannot compare those boats with the passenger boats to which you referred before, from which piassengers are landed at the landing stage at Liverpool. 2436. Take a passenger boat from the Brazils, is it not the same thing ? — A passenger boat from the Brazils only comes to Southampton, I think. 2437. How (io they land there; by lighter ? — I think these are scarcely questions bearing upon the point, and I think it is altogether irregular. A vessel coming up to London has to stop at Gravesend ; it is vei’y seldom that she can come up all the way at once. In the same way in Liverpool a vessel can occasionally come right up to the stage on the same tide. 2438. You spoke of Fleetwood and Barrow, and other coraf)eting ports ; now the idea in building these doclcs has been to bring the rail- way train with its freight alongside the ships, is it not? — 1 have no doubt that the railway docks can arrange it so. 2439. In fact, to destroy the loss of time, the danger, and the risk and cost of lighterage ? — No, I think the only thing you can say they save is the cartage. 2440. But do you mean to say that if you can bi’ing a ship full of goods alongside the rail- v/ay with their hydraulic appliances, that is not an enormous labour saving ? — Yes, no doubt it is. 2441. And that if Liverpool and Grimsby were the same distance from Manchester, if Liverpool did not do that and Grimsby did, Grimsby would not get the whole trade in these days of competi- tion ? — No doubt there is something in that, but I think the main difference is the question of cartage. Taking fine goods, the railway com- panies take them down to the ships in Liverpool. 2442. But I think that an honourable Member asked you whether there was any provision for locomotives or compressed air engines, or any- thing of that sort, going round the docks in Liverpool? — No, there is not. 2443. How long have you known the docks ? — I may say 25 years. 2444. F'or 25 to 30 years after the opening of the docks there have been no tramways or engines working round the docks? — No engines round the Liverpool Docks. 2445. Supposing SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 117 4.4/^^7 1881.] Mr. Williamson. {^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 2445. Supposing it is 31 miles from Liverpool to Manchester, and 110 miles from Manchester to Grimsby, would you charge the arithmetical dif- ference to Grimsby as between the 31 and the 110 ? — I would not, because there is a consider- able ditferenee in the mileage ; but the mileage rate, notwithstanding, ought to be the basis for fixing the rate. I should say that from Fleet- wood to Manchester, as against from Liver- pool to Manchester, an equal mileage rate would be reasonable. 2446. That is to say, if it were 60 miles from Fleetwood and 31 miles from Liverpool, you would charge double for eotton and grain to the Fleetwood merchant what you would to the Liverpool merchant ? — It is 50 miles. 2447. One would be 50 pence, let us say, and the other 31 pence, according to your view? — Yes, and the Manchester importer would be able then to Import from Fleetwood at about the same price as he could from Liverpool. 2448. Now what is the distance between Birkenhead and Manchester? — I could not say ex- actly, but I should think it must be about 40 miles. 2449. At all events, it is very largely in excess of the distance to Liverpool ? — Yes. 2450. Are you in favour of applying the Fleet- wood and Liverpool principle to the Birkenhead traffic ? — There is no competition there ; you are sending to the same plaee. 2451. But it is different distance, different merchants, and different ships ? — But it is not a competing port with Liverpool. 2452. As a port, no; but as respects merchants surely, yes. Now just think for a moment, and tell me this : assuming that it is 45 miles from Manchester to Birkenhead, and that it is 31 miles from Manchester to Liverpool, would you then charge 45 pence to Birkenhead and 31 pence to Liverpool, assuming again the penny rate ? — I would say this : if a line of steamers were started from Fleetwood to Calcutta, in competi- tion with a line of steamers loading at Birken- head for Calcutta, then 1 should say that they should be both placed at an equal mileage rate. 2453. Why should you say that ? — Because they would be competing ports, and within the same area. 2454. Then in point of fact, where there is competition, you would advise the Committee that it is just and right to charge a rate which is to some extent largely Irrespective of distanee ? — No, I would not say irrespective of distance. I think a very long distance has something to do with the charge, as against a considerably shorter distance. From Birmingham to Avonmouth, and from Birmingham to Liverpool, there is not mucli difference in mileage, and they should be eharged equal mileage rates. 2455. Now we will follow this Calcutta ship : you have said that if there were a Calcutta ship going from Birkenhead, and another Calcutta ship going from Fleetwood, you would make the same rate between Manchester and Birkenhead as you would between Manchester and Fleet- wood ? — Yes, mileage rate. 2456. Where is your principle, then, about equal mileage charge? — That is the principle of equal mileage charge. 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 2457. But in the one case it is 50, and in the other 45 miles? — I should have an equ.al mileage rate. I look upon equal mileage rates as the basis for adjusting the inequalities complained of. 2458. Now the mayor said, in his evidence, that he thought the railway companies were charging Liverpool 400,000 1. a year more than they ought to charge ? — The mayor made that statement upon his own authority. 2459. Do you agree with him? — I could not, because I have no means of arriving at any such calculation. 2460. Do you wish to take 400,000 1. away from the shareholders, who built these magni- ficent railways and stations in Liverpool ? — I do not wish anything of the sort. Ifyou find the rate from Fleetwood to Manchester pays you, then I say the rate from Liverpool to Manchester should be brought down to the same mileage rate. 2461. That is to say, if I am a shopkeeper and sell one article at per cent, profit, I should be bound to sell every other article at the same rate? — No, I do not say that. 2462. Then what do you say ? — If you have spent so much money in the stations at Liverpool, it must not be forgotten that in projiortion to that expenditure you have a great deal more traffic. 2463. But do you want to make this traffic profitless ? — I do not wish the shareholders to get a sixpence less dividend than they are entitled to. 2464. You do not wish to see the shareholders ruined ? — I do not wish to see the shareholders ruined in any way ; but, on the other hand, I do not wish to see Liverpool injured. I should like to make one observation on a point mentioned on the last occasion by Sir Edward Watkin, when he referred to the injury done to the railway interest by the shipping interest in now doing all the salt carrying trade from Cheshire to the Tyne ; the facts are, there are about 250,000 tons sent from Cheshire to the Tyne in connection with the chemical works every year. Before the rail- ways were opened Liverpool shipping carried all the salt round there ; now taking last year’s ship- ments, there were only 14,000 tons of salt sent from Liverpool to the Tyne ; there were about 80,000 tons which went from Weston Point, that is the mouth of the canal ; and over 150,000 tons went by rail to Newcastle. Mr. Cross. 2465. I think you stated at the beginning of your examination that you did not intend to give detailed evidence, and that you could not supple- ment the statement of the Mayor of Liverpool respecting the details which you were asked to give ? — I only support him in the figures which he gave ; he quoted from the figures which are before the Committee. 2466. Many of the questions which have been asked you by Sir Edward Watkin you are not quite prepared to give definite answers upon ? — No. 2467. And you are not prepared to give an answer upon them ? — I am not prepared to give the same answers as the Mayor did, because I have not studied many of the questions. p 3 2468. Your 118 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 4 April 18«1.] Mr. WiLLiAMSON, [^Continued. Mr. Cross — continued. 2468. Your complaint is that whereas the general increase of trade has been 87 per cent, from 1869 to 1880, Liverpool has only increased by 56 per cent. ? — Yes, or a stronger point is taking it from 1872 to 1880, which is a period of depression and railway and dock competition ; the difl'erence is very marked ; while the total trade of the country increased 51 per cent., Liverpool only increased 19^ per cent. 2469. Have you any particulars with regard to the increase of trade at Fleetwood and Barrow ? — I have not the returns, though I have tried to get them ; Barrow does a very large trade and Fleetwood a very increasing trade. I think the Chairman of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail- way Company stated at the last annual meeting that Fleetwood had imported about 50,000 tons of wheat alone in 1880 more than in 1879, and that they were going to increase their warehouse accommodation to meet this increasing trade. Mr. Bolton. 2470. I think the general purport of your evi- dence was that the trade of Liverpool had been injured by the action of the railways ? — By the action of the railways, through the railway ports so called. 2471. But by the railways having given greater facilities to the other ports than to Liverpool, therefore Liverpool had suffered? — That is an- other way of stating it ; it is so. 2472. JDo you also allege that the public have suffered in consequence of that ? — I am not prepared to say that they have. 2473. Then if you are not prepared to say that the public also have suffered, your opinion is simply that Liverpool by itself has suffered ? — That is so. 2474. You say that Llverjiool has been un- fairly treated by the railway companies ? — Yes. 2475. Not that the jiublic have been thereby injured ? — No. 2476. You have given the Committee some figures which I was unable to take down, but the general sense of them is that the trade of Liver- pool has not progressed to the same extent as the general trade of the country ? — That is so. 2477. Do you allege that that is all due to the uufair treatment of Liverpool by the railway com- panies ? — I do not say altogether. 2478. To what extent do you go? — That to a large extent our trade is tapped, as is shown by our report. 2479. Have you made inquiries with reference to that, or is it just a conclusion at which you have arrived without inquiry ? — The inquiry is very complete. We have had before us repre- sentatives of every trade in Liverpool, who have given us evidence, and they all conclusively jioint to that. 2480. Have they given you facts ? — They have. 2481. Have you summarised any of those facts? — There is a bidef summary in that report, which was handed in by the mayor at the last meeting of the Committee. 2482. I think your evidence all points to the fact that it is through the advantages given by Mr. Bolton — continued'. the railway companies to Fleetwood and Barrow that Liverpool has been so injured? — And to Garston also, and the Bristol Channel ports. 2483. Those Bristol Channel ports and Garston and other places, have they not withdrawn what you termed in one case legitimate traffic from Liverpool? — No; because if you take the iron industries in Staffordshire, which lie nearer to us than to those ports of the Bristol Channel, yet iron is carried outwards, and the provisions, and grain, and other articles of produce inwards, at a lower milage rate than from Liverpool. 2484. Supposing that the railway rates were mileage rates, is it not possible that they would supply some districts more favourably than Liverpool '? — I could not tell. 2485. Are they so away from tlie centres of all trade that they cannot possibly have with- drawn fi'om Liverpool some traffic which ought legitimately to belong to it, using your own term legitimately with respect to the traffic of Liverpool ? — I cannot see^that. If you deal with Birmingham and the distinct round there. 24:86. 1 am not dealing with Birmingham and the district round there ; but you say that you bave satisfied yourself with reference to various mat- ters from inquiry, and not from mere statements or opinions, and I ask you, do none of these ports supply districts which you ought legitimately to supply, according to your view of the legitimate location of trade ? — Take any one port ; take Fleetwood, for example ; you might say that Fleetwood is not entitled legitimately to supply any place except Preston. 2487. Fleetwood, you say, might legitimately supply Preston ; then, before the establishment of Fleetwood, how was Preston supplied ? — By Liverpool. 2488. Then that is a legitimate deduction from the trade of Liverpool? — Quite so; it is the only jilace nearer to Fleetwood than to any other port. 2489. What is the distance from Fleetwood to Manchester? — Fifty miles. 2490. And from Birkenhead to Manchester? — Forty-five miles. 2491. So that Birkenhead is even a little nearer than F'leetwood is to Manchester? — Yes, it is nearer considerably. 2492. What reason do you assign for the rail- way companies dealing in this fashion with Liver- pool, because 1 think they must have some interest in supporting Liverpool as well as in supporting Fleetwood, or Barrow, or Gi-imsby ? — I have no doubt the Lancashire and Yorkshire Com- pany have a direct interest in maintaining Fleet- wood. 9493. But we find the London and North Western Railway Company and the Midland Company in the same boat with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company ? — Yes, I believe they have running powers, but it is the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company which owns that port. 2494. Can you give the Committee any reason why the comjiany should jirefer to ruin Liver- pool and build up F’leetwood? — I think it is a long way from ruining Liverpool, but they are certainly doing injury to our ti'ade by carrying goods SEI.ECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 119 4 April 1881.] Mr. Williamson. '[^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. goods cheaper from there than they do from Liverpool. 2495. What advantage have they in that? — If it i.s their own line, that is the advantage, I sup- pose. 2496. Not if they carry for 50 miles for the price they charge for 31 miles? — Then it only comes round to the old point, that if it pays them to carry from Fleetwood to Manchester or Stock- port, it ought to pay them to carry from Liver- pool to Manchester or Stockport at the same mileage rates. 2497. What advantage can it be to the com- pany to cai’ry from Fleetwood to Manchester in place of carrying from Liverpool to Manchester ? — If I were a railway director I mi»ht know, but I only speak from my standpoint of Liverpool, and it is for this Committee, finding the evil, to provide remedies. 2498. The rate from Fleetwood, and from Liverpool to Manchester, is about the same in gross? — Yes, in the gross. 2499. It is 9 5. a ton? — Yes, on wheat and timber ; generally you might say it is the same on the gro«s. 2500. Then what possible advantage can it be to a railway company to carry double the dis- tance for the same money ? — That is a question which I cannot answer. 2501. Then they must have some reason for doing it ? — They must tap a better paying part of the traffic to make u{) the loss on the other. 2502. You do not allege that the 9 s. rate from Liverpool to Manchester, or whatever rate it is, is above the maximum rate ? — I do not say it is ; I do not say that the companies are charging above the maximum rates. 2503. Do you allege that any other ports ex- cept those two, Barrow and Fleetwood, have pro- fited by the injustice done to Liverpool ? — If I recollect rightly, Mr. Moon, to a deputation that he received the other day, stated that Garston has not paid them ; either he or some one stated that, and I do not believe that it has paid them. It may be the same with the other two ports. 2504. Who are the owners of these docks at Barrow ? — I do not know at all ; the railway and docks are distinct, yet they are pretty much one. The intei’ests are identical, I believe, from all I can hear. 2505. Are they owned by the railway com- panies? — I could not say that the docks are owned by the railway companies, but the share- holders in one are shareholders in both, I be- lieve, to a large extent. 2506. The mayor in giving his evidence, at Question 1730, was asked, I think, by Mr. Samuelson : ‘‘ Have you any reason to believe that there ai’e preferential charges as between different persons from Liverpool, or from any other port within your knowledge ?” To which the mayor replied, “ I know that there are re- bates given upon the Manchester traffic in manu- factured goods.” Are you aivare of any similar preferences given to individuals ? — I believe those matters are kept so very quiet that no one shows his hand, but the fact is pretty Avell known in London that such rebates have been given ; 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. whether they are continued or not I could not say. 2507. But you do not know anything yourself about the matter? — Except from the genei-al talk in the city by those who ought to knOAv. 2508. You do not speak from your knoAvlcdge upon the point? — No; I do not think those Avho receive rebates are likely to divulge the fact. 2509. You said that vessels coming from the channel for orders would go to any port in the United Kingdom Avithout an Increase of freight? — Yes, generally. 2510. But that for vessels loading with Avheat direct for London there Avas a difference of 5 5. a ton ? — It is not so much as that ; but that if it Avere to a direct port as much as 2 5. 6 d. a ton Avas knocked off. What I said about the 5 s. rate Avas, that a vessel coming from Calcutta to Lon- don Avould generally get about 55. or 6 s. a ton more all round than she would if she came to Liverpool. 2511. Is that within your OAvn knoAvledge ? — Yes, it is. 2512. Amongst the trades Avhich have left Liverpool, has not the jute trade to a consider- able extent gone ? — Yes ; it is almost entirely gone. 2513. Why is that? — Because of late years the trade in jute. Instead of coming to Liverpool or London, goes direct to Dundee. 2514. Do not you think that you should make a deduction for that in your estimate of the traffic coming to Liverpool now as compared Avlth Avhat came there in former years? — No, because the quantity that Ave had AA^as very small com- paratively. London Avas the great jute port be- fore, and not Liverpool. 2515. Still a good deal of the trade did go to Liverpool? — Yes, but that Avas a period before that I have named to you as the time at which we began to lose trade. 2516. IIoAV do you account for the outAvard trade from Liverpool to India and China still continuing? — There is a very small trade noAV outward to India from Liverpool as compared Avith what there used to be ; to China there is only one line of steamers noAv, the Ocean Line, and half their boats noAV load in London instead of loading in Liverpool. 2517. When you say there is only one line of steamers, do you mean only one line of steamers leaving Liverpool for China? — Only that one line. 2518. I thought there Avere a number of foreign steamers on the line ? — No, only that one line. 2519. You spoke of free Avarehouslng at Fleetwood. I am not sure that I caught your meaning Avith respect to that ; do you mean that the Avarehouses are granted free for the storage of goods? — I have heard that Avheat is alloAved to lie a month there Avithout any chai’ge for rent. 2520. Is there not anything of that sort in London, that the first charge covers a certain time free of rent? — Yes, there is that, I under- stand. 2521. Is that not the case in FleetAvood ?— No. p 4 2522. Then 120 3IINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 4 April 1881 Mr. AVilliamson. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 2522. Then with respect to the arrangement ■which you believe to exist between the railway companies and the docks, the railways, as well as carrying at half the mileage rate that they do from Liverpool, have also to grant free storage ? — They grant such facilities to the owners of the cargo as to induce them to use the docks. 2523. Does not it strike you as peculiar that a railway company should spend its money in this reckless manner, which cannot possibly bring it any profit ; first, they have to haul the goods double the distance ; secondly, to provide docks at great expenditure, which they get no dues for ; and thirdly, to provide storage free, and they have only to carry their goods to the same point Mr. Bolton — continued. after? — Yes, but the storage has to be arranged within certain limits, but certainly they do not charge any dock dues- on these goods, and the chara:e for handlinff is light. o o o Mr. Morley. 2524. Sir Edward AYatkin conveyed, in a question to you, the idea that the traders Avere in tlie habit of making different charges upon dif- ferent articles, have you the least conception that the Avholesale dealers of Liverpool have difterent charges for their goods ? — I could not say ; I presume the wholesale merchant takes the best market prices he can for his articles. SELFXT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 121 Thursday, 7th April 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Ml*. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldvvyn Leighton. xVIr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. X. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Pell. Sir Henry Tyler. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Henry Harrison, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Cross. 2525. You live at Blackburn, in Lancashire, do you not? — Yes. 2526. And you are the mayor of that borough ? — I am. 2527. Will you state to the Committee what the population of Blackburn is? — It is about 105,000. 2528. WEat is your business ? — I am a cotton spinner and manufacturer. 2529. And you pay a very considerable sum per annum to the railway companies for the carriage of cotton, and cotton goods ? — I do. 2530. I believe you are also a member of the North and North-east Lancashire Master Cotton Spinners’ Association? — I am. 2531. And a member of a committee of that association ? — Yes. 2532. You give evidence on behalf of that association, and also on behalf of the cotton trade of Blackburn and the district ? — I do. 2533. Blackburn, I believe, is a very great centre of the weaving of cotton cloth ? — It is the great centre of cotton manufacture and weaving. 2534. Will you state to the Committee what quantity of cotton cloth was manufactured, not in Blackburn alone, but in the districts of North and North-east Lancashire, in the year 1880? — About 220,000 tons of cloth were manufactured in the year. 2535. Will you state what proportion that bears to the entire quantity of cloth manufactured in the country ? — I think it is very nearly one- half the quantity of cloth manufactured in this country ; if not quite that, it is two- fifths, I should think, of the entire manufacture of the country. 2536. Can you give the weights of cotton and cotton products carried by railway, to and from the district which you represent ? — The amount of cotton that we receive in North and North- east Lancashire, so far as the association is con- cerned, is about 145,000 tons from Liverpool in 0.54. Mr. Cross — continued. the year, and from Manchester we receive from about 77,000 to 80,000 tons of yarn in the y^ear; we have very little cotton from Manchester. 2537. You receive, I think, very little cotton either from Fleetwood or from Barrow? — Veiy little indeed. 2538. What is the number of spindles and looms in Blackburn with their consuming power and manufacturing power, and the weights of cotton carried by railway to and from Blackburn alone ? — In the municipal borough of Blackburn there are about 1,600,000 spindles and 58,000 looms. The consuming power is equal to about 70,000 tons of yarn per annum, and the producing power is about equal to 75,000 tons of cloth per annum. 2539. That is in Blackburn alone? — Yes, that is in Blackburn alone ; we receive in Blackburn also about 36,000 tons of cotton from Liverpool, and about a similar amount, say 36,000 tons of yarn from Manchester. The other figures I gave were for North and North-east Lancashire ; these relate to Blackburn alone. 2540. Has the question of the railway tariffs on cotton and cotton goods only been recently' considered by you, or is it an old-standing grievance ? — It is an old-standing grievance which has been complained of for a very long time. 2541. I believe that resolutions have been passed by the town councils of various neigh- bourino- towns with resrard lo it ? — Yes ; in 1878 the Cotton Manufacturers’ Association in Black- burn mooted this question, and it was taken up by the corporations of Blackburn, Preston, Clitheroe, Accrington, Darwen, and Burnley, and we asked the railway companies to receive a deputation upon the subject. 2542. Each of these corporations thinking they had a grievance in the rates which were charged by the railway companies? — Yes. Q 2543. They 122 MINUTES OF EYIDFNCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 7 JjoWZ 1881.] Mr. Harrison. \_Continued. Mr. Cross — continued. 2543. They passed resolutions, and I think you have a memorial to put in upon that subject? — Yes, I will put in a memorial which was sent to the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- pany. ( The same mas handed m.) 2544. Is the carriage of materials a very im- portant element in the cost of cotton manu- facture ? — Yes, it is very important. Lord Randolph Churchill. 2545. Was this meeting to which you have re- ferred held in consequence of overcharges by the companies? — In consequence of the high charges. Mr. Cl ’OSS. 2546. Were the charges above the statutory rates ? — Xot that I am aware, but they were high charges compared with the charges on other classes of traffic or goods. 2547. Will you state to the Committee the proportion which the cost of carriage bears to the wages paid to the -workpeople in the production of cotton cloth ? — The cost of carriage, taking a ton of cotton, is about 50 s. ; there are various transits between leaving Liverpool and coming back to Liverpool, if the article is for export, or coming to London, if it is for export. 2548. Will you explain -what you mean by those “ various transits ” ? — In the first instance the cotton leaves Liverpool for the great spin- ning centre, Oldham and the neighbourhood ; that is the first transit. Then, after it is spun into cotton yarn, it goes to Manchester for distribution and sale ; it then goes from Manchester to the centres of manufacture, say to Blackburn or any of the towns in Xorth-east Lancashire; and then when manufactured, back from Blackburn to Man- chester, and afterwards from Manchester to Liverpool or London, if it is I'or export in the grey, to India, China, or elsewhere ; that makes five transits. 2549. Will you give the details of those trans- its ? — The rate of carriage from Liverpool to Oldham is 1 1 5. Sir Edward Waikin. 2550. Is that carted ? — All cotton is delivei'ed into the goods station at Liverpool at the expense of the spinner. Mr. Cross. 2551. And it is delivered to the manufacturer at Oldham at the expense of the railway com- pany? — Exactly. From Oldham to Manchester the carriage is 6 5. 8 d. ; from Manchester to the manufacturing centre, say Blackburn, for in- stance, the charge is 10 s. 10 d. ; that is, the yarn is collected at the railway companies’ expense, and delivered at the railway companies’ ex- pense. Mr. Barclay. 2552. Those are all“ collected and delivered” rates? — Yes, and then, after manufacture, the cotton cloth is taken back from Blackburn to Mr. Barclay — continued. Manchester, that is 10 s. lOd. again ; in this case of the cloth we load and unload it. Mr. Cross. 2553. Will you tell the Committee what that comes to altogether — I am taking the instance of the charge to Liveiqiool only. Mr. Barclay. 2554. This is not “ delivered ” then ? — It is not a loaded rate, but it is a delivered rate. Then I take it that these goods in question, India goods, go to Liverpool, and that makes the charge 48 s. 4 d. ; from Manchester to Liverpool I have taken the charge at 9 s., and you vvill see that I have not included in that estimate that some portion of those goods may have been bleached or printed. Mr. Cross. 2555. Can you state the rate per ton per mile which those different items amount to which you have detailed to us ? — I have not got that calcu- lation ; I have only got the mileage at which it works out from Liverpool to Blackburn, and from Manchester to BlackbuiTi. 2556. Which railway are you referring to ? — The Lancashire and Yorkshii’e. 2557. Will you give the Committee the rate per ton per mile on some of the transits, as far as you can ? — Taking the distance from Liverpool to Blackburn, which is 35 miles, the cost of car- riage, less the cai’tage at Blackburn, that is to say 11 5 . per ton, works out at 3'77 d. from station to station per ton per mile ; and taking Manchester to Blackburn (the collection at Man- chester and the cartage at Blackburn being deducted from the rate, that is 1 s. 8 d. per ton, 10 r?. for collecting and 10 rf. for distributing), we pay 449, or 4^ d. per ton per mile. In the case of the China goods, the amount goes up to 64 s. 4 d. per ton ; from Liverpool to Oldham it is 11 s. per ton ; from Oldham to Manchester, 65 . 8 d. ; from Manchester to Blackburn, say 10 5. 10 d. ; Blackburn to Manchester (back again), 10 s. 10 d., and Manchester to Loudon, 25 s. ; that makes a total of 64 s. 4 d. for goods that go to China by way of London. 2558. You have taken out, have you not, the per ceutages which those charges come to upon the raw cotton ? — I have. The carriage on the various transits I have specified, is in the propor- tion of from 3f to 5| per cent, upon the value of the cotton itself. 2559. Have any changes taken place in the tariffs of the railway company in the last few years ? — In 1872 the railway company advanced our rates. 2560. To what extent, and what was the eflfect of the increase of the rates ? — They advanced our rates about 10 per cent. ; they advanced the rate for the carriage of cotton from Liverpool to Blackburn 1 s. a ton, and the rate from IMan- chester to Blackburn 10 fL a ton. 2561. What was the ostensible reason for the inci'ease of rate in 1872 ? — The then high price of coal and the advance in wages : I think those were SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 12a 7 A])ril 1881.] Mr. Harrison. [ Continued. Mr. Cross — continued. were the reasons given for the increase of the rate. . . „ 2562. Can you give the Committee any infor- mation as to what the price of coal was in 1872 ? — In 1872 the price of coal at the pit’s mouth was 16 s. per ton. _ 2563. Andean you tell the Committee wiiat the price is to-day ? — To-day it is 8 s. ; but prior to the riots in the collieij districts the price of coal was 6 s. 6 6?. at the pit’s mouth. 2564. Have you any idea what the railway companies are paying for coal at the present time : they probably have a contract ? — I believe it is the fact that the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company are supplied at the present time at 5 s. 6 d. per ton. 2565. Will you explain how the two railway companies which supply your district woik ? The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- pany supplies us in a great measure with the Liverpool produce, cotton, and so do the Lon- don and North Western Company; the com- panies join, in fact, in a certain proportion ; I do not know how far. 2566. They have a joint arrangement as to the traffic in your neighbourhood?— I think so. Ijord Randolph Churchill. 2567. What is the cost of the carriage per ton as compared with the labour per ton? I have gone into that. I find the value of the fabour in the shape of all the wages paid for spinning, and the manufacturing process, is from 20 /. to 21 1. per ton. 2568. That does not include anything tor plant ? — No. Mr. Cross. 2569. The wages you have stated are, as I un- derstand, the wages paid to the operatives from the time the cotton enters the mill to the time it is sent to Liverpool for export ? — Quite so. Mr. Barclay. 2570. That includes nothing for capital? — No. Lord Randolph Churchill. 2571. How much a jiound would that be"' — d. Mr. Cross. 2572. That is upon the average of the ordinary shirtings Avhich are made in your neighbour- hood? — Upon the average of the ordinary manu- factures. Mr. Bolton. Sol 3. Y"ou have not given the Committee the cost of a ton of cotton ? — The cost of a ton of cotton to-day is about 60 1. Sir Edward Watkin. 2574. What does it average from year to year? — Taking the last three years it averages a little over 6| d. per lb. for American cotton. 0.54. Mr. Cross. 2575. With regard to this question of the increase of cost, I think you said that the cost of carriage was increased in 1872 by the railway companies in your neighbourhood, which are the Lancashire and Y'orkshire, and the London and N orth W estern ? — Y es. 2576. And that though coal is now less than half the price it was in 1872 the railway com- panies have not made any rednetion ; is that so ? — They have not made any reduction in the rate of carriage whatever. 2577. Have you had any communication with the railway companies with respect to any reduc- tion of the rates since the fall in the price of coal? — In 1878 the Master Cotton Spinners’ Association mooted this question, and it was afterwards taken up by the various neighbouring corporations ol Blackburn, Preston, Burnley, Accrington, Clithe- roe, and Darwen; a memorial was presented, and a deputation from each of those corporations, and from the association of the master cotton spinners, attended before the railway directors and laid their case before them. The directors promised to give the matter their most careful consideration, and to give their reply shortly on the matter. 2578. Did you receive any favourable reply from those railway companies ? — lYe received a reply on the 9th of January 1879, in which they stated that they declined to grant any reduc- tion. 2579. Did they state any reasons for not grant- ing a reduction? — I will read the letter ; it is addressed to the then Mayor of Blackburn : “ Referring to the various memorials i)re8euted to the directors of this company at the interview between them and de])utations introduced by you on the 17th December ult., and to the representations then made, I am instructed by the directors to state that they have care- fully considered the application for a refluction in the rates for the conveyance of goods, and they desire me to remark, in the first place, that in the statements made by the members of the deputations as to the reduc- tion in the cost of coal and labour since 1872, the memorialists have taken but a limited view of the cost of railway workings, the fact being that whereas no doubt there has been a very considerable decrease in the cost of coal, the expense to the company for labour has been largely increased, there having been advances in the wages of the servants of almost every department, in some cases to the extent of 10 per cent., while reductions in the hours of labour have been conceded equivalent to an additional 10 per cent. ; and at the same time, I must add, that other items of exjiense have also been con- siderably increased. The total working expenses of this company for the half-year ending June 1872, were 46‘87 per cent, on the traffic receipts, while for the half-year ending June 1878, they were 56'59 per cent. During the latter part of the last half-year no doubt a reduction in the working expenses has been effected; the accounts of the half-year have not, however, yet been made up, and it is, therefore, imjiossible to sav what the reduction amounts to ; but there is no reason to expect that the per-centage of cost will be nearly so low as in 1872. In addition to other Q 2 items 124 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 7 Apnl 1881.] Mr. Harrison. ^Continued. Mr. Cross — continued. items of expenditure since 1872, the company have, with a view to increased safety of working, adopted the block system on their lines, the expense of which down to the present time has been not less than half a million sterling, but no increased charge has been made upon the public in consequence of this expenditure, though the additional cost of maintenance and working, together with the interest on the outlay, is equal to a permanent charge of about 50,000/. per annum, a sum largely in excess of the increase of rates of which you complain. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, the directors feel that they would not be justified in reducing the rates of carriage. I am Instructed to address this letter to you as the gentleman who, in your capacity of Mayor of Blackburn, introduced the deputations ; perhaps you will be good enough to instruct your town clerk to com- municate the contents to the various bodies re- presented at the interview. — Yours faithfully, J. H. Stafford, Secretary.” 2580. I think you stated that the two com- panies worked in conjunction? — That is my opinion. 2581. Those rates refer to cotton and cotton goods ? — Yes. 2582. Are those goods easy of carriage? — Yes, they are particularly easy ; cotton is particularly easy to load and unload. Skips of yarn weigh about 300 lbs., and are easy to move, and cloth is easily loaded and unloaded. 2583. What do cotton bales weigh ? — About 440 lbs. 2584. Are many claims made by consignors for damage ? — In the carriage of cotton there are practically no claims, and the same applies to yarn in skips. I have not known one, nor can I learn of a claim for damage having been made in transit. In the case of cloth, claims have been made, but they are infinitesimally small. 2585. Can you give your ow n expei'ience ? — In our own case, over three years, the average claim is 3 1. per annum. 2586. On about what amount in value of cloth ? — I should say on a value of about 1 90,000 1. a year in cloth. ' 2587. In the average of 190,000/. worth of cloth, your claims have not averaged more than 3 /. in the last three years ? — That is so. 2588. I think you stated that yarn was equally easy of carriage with cotton ? — Yes. 2589. Can you produce any table showing the rates of cotton from Liverpool and Manchester to towns in North-east Lancashire ? — I produce a Table of rates in our district of North-east Lan- cashire {the same was handed in). 2590. Can you give the Committee any com- paratives rates for the carriage of cotton and the carriage of other articles? — Yes, I will take a case in point, because the distances are very much alike ; that is, the carriage of coal. From Skelmersdale to Blackburn the distance is about 26^ miles, and the haulage of coals is 2 s. per ton. To this, of course, must be added a rate, we will say, of 10^/. for collecting the coal, for Ave must make the com])arison fair between the coal and the cotton or yarn, Ave Avill say \0d. for collectins: the coal, 6 d. for the hire of Avaggons, Mr. Cross — continued. and 10^d. a ton a mile, if conveyed a less distance than 50 miles, and 3 e?. a ton a mile if conveyed 50 miles and upwards.” The distance between Blackburn and Manchester is 245 miles ? — Yes, that is correct. 2880. Let us assume it to be 25 miles, at 3^ d. a ton a mile, the charge would come to 7 s. 6 d. ? — Yes. 2881. So that after adding the proper amount for the terminals, 1 s. 10 d., the charge which the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company is entitled to make for the carriage of manufactured goods between Blackburn and Manchester, is 9 s. Ad. a ton? — Yes, for which they charge us now 10 s. 10 cZ. 2882. Do you agree with those figures ? — Yes, I do. 2883. So that if those figures of yours are coiTect, that is to say, allowing Is. 10c?. for collection and delivery and the covering of the goods (excluding the loading and unloading which you say you perform yourselves), the railway company is over-charging you for every ton of goods between Blackburn and Manchester 1 s. 6 c?. a ton? — Yes, exactly; it has recently occurred to us to look into the Act of Parliament with regard to this matter, and at present the various Acts are under the consideration of the town clerk ; it is only one of those pieces of advice that we have acted upon just recently. 2884. It was only recently that it occurred to you to examine the Acts of Parliament to see if the railway companies were exceeding their authorised charges? — Yes. 2885. You have a rate also of 10 s. a ton, have you not, between Manchester and Darwen, a distance of 20 miles ? — Yes, that is so. 2886. Can you say ivhether the manufacturers there load and unload the goods ? — Yes, they do, it is the custom, so far as regards cloth. Mr. Barclay — continued. 2887. It is the custom to load and unload the goods, and in the case of Darwen, you only make the same addition to the mileage rate as you do in the case of Manchester and Blackburn ? — Yes. 2888. Between Darwen and Manchester, I un- derstand the distance is 20 miles, and 20 miles at 3f d. a ton per mile, comes to 6 s. ? — Yes, that is without the terminals. 2889. If you add the terminals to the 6 s.,how much do you bring it up to ? — To Is. 10 rf. 2890. What is the railway company charging ? — Ten shillings; that makes it just 2s. 2d. a ton more than they are authorised to charge, ac- cording to your reading of the Act. 2891. It is not my reading of the Act, but I should say that the railway companies have submitted a statement to the House of Lords, in which they themselves described the maximum rate to be, as I have said it was, from the Act of Parlia- ment, 3f against railway companies for damage to articles in transit was infinitesimally small. 2918. Do not you think that that is due to their being obliged to take more care of the manufiictured article ? — The care consists in putting a tarpaulin on. 2919. Do not you think that for any extra care, they ought to be allowed to charge extra .? — But the Committee will agree, I think, that they ought not to make an extra charge for putting on the tarpaulin, especially when that tarpaulin is put on by our own servants. Mr. Lowther. 2920. You said you considered as final the answer given to you by the Lancashire and York- shire Railway Company to the application you made to them ? — Yes ; the latter letter. 2921. You did not consider the first one as final ? — No ; we thought after two years, with the alteration in the price of coal and labour, we might approach them asaln, and we went to them in 1872, and again in 1878. 2922. But on the whole, you are disposed to agree with what they said, or you do not disagree with what they said, although you would like a lower rate ; you thought there was reason in the letter? — I thought there was not much reason in it ; I thought it was simply a refusal con- veyed with as much excuse as they could well frame. 2923. But if you thought the excuse was not a very good one, you would have applied again, would you not? — We can do very little good with the railway companies except we bi'ing pressure to bear upon them. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. 2924. With regard to the rates you quoted at first, I think you stated that you were not aware that they were above the maximum ? — Yes, I spoke with great reserve upon that point. 2925. That was not your special complaint, and you were not able to say, whether they were or were not in excess ; but is there any differential rate in the district which you have quoted? — No, not that I am aware of. I do not know any other rate for any other class of goods than cotton goods. 2926. And not upon the same class of goods ? — No, I do not know what they charge for the same class of goods. 2927. Then your complaint is, not of the dif- ferential rate, but of the high charge? — Yes; our complaint is of the high charge. R 4 2928. Then 136 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 7 April 1881.] Mr. Harrison. {^Coiitinued. Sir Baldwyn Leighton — continued. 2928. Then yon stated that in 1872, 1 think, tlie rates were advanced, owing to the price of coal and the rate of wages? — Yes, that is so. 2929. The price of coal afterwards came down? — It came down to a third of the price of 1872. 2930. Has there been any reduction in the rate following upon that reduction in the price of coal and wages? — No, there has never been any re- duction in the rate since the year 1872. 2931. The rate went up and never came down? — Yes, the rate went up, but did not come down. 2932. Wliat was the rise? — About 10 per cent. It was 1 s. between Liverpool and Black- burn on the rate of 10s. lOrf., and 10 [)ended to each Railway Bill introduced into Parliament in the future, should be enforced. It is rather a curious thing in con- nection with this ])oint, that railway companies sometimes bring in Bills without exactly knowdug what is to be the schedole of tolls, maximum rates and charges, that those Bills are to carry with them. We ask that a schedule of maximum rates, charges, and tolls, should be attached to every Railway Bill; but I would like to bring bel'ore the Committee an instance of the great difficulty trailers have iu finding out exactly what are the ma.ximum rates to which they in any par- ticular case are to be subjected. I have a case in the i)aper before me of the Hendrc Limestone Company, Mr. Muspratt. SEI.ECT COMMITTEE ON ItAILIVATS. 141 7 April 1881.] Mr Muspratt. \Continued. Chairman — continued. Company, near Mold. That company carried limestone from Rhydymwyn to Widnes. We discovered that the rates were extremely high, and we thought we were unfairly dealt with as compared with the other limestone quarries situated in Derbyshire. In order to find out whether the rate was an overcharge or not, we had to look into five Acts of Parliament for this one chai'ge. The maximum rates between Khydymwyn and Widnes, an actual distance of under 34 miles, the whole of which is practically in the hands of the London and Nortli Western Company, will be contained in no less than five Acts of Parliament. W e brought the case before the London and North Western Railway Com- pany, and we got some reduction of the rate ; but we did not get so much reduction as we think we are entitled to. But, notwithstanding the difficulty of knowing exactly what amounts the railway companies were entitled to charge in any particular case, first because of the imperfect classification, and the impossibility of ascertaining the maximum rates, owing to the insufficiency of the ])ublicatlon of the schedules, and the complication of terminal charges, and the additional charges allowed by special clauses in later Acts, it is my opinion that many of the short distance cliarges in par- ticular are over charges. These have been con- tinued for years, and amount to a very large sum due by the railway companies to the traders. The Widnes traders have of late years repeatedly called the attention of the London and North Western Railway Company to some of these (as they considered) overcharges, and some years ago recommended all the traders only to pay the railway accounts under protest. Since attention has been called to these charges in special cases, and particularly since Mr. Roberts and Mr. Clare have recovered in the county court over- charges on certain articles, some of them have been refunded. But, although some of them have been refunded by the railway companies after a decision in the county court, still the fact remains, that the railway companies do not pay back these overcharges,- except they are con- tinually pi-essed, and it is with the veiy greatest difficulty that, even after a decision has been given in a court of law, they will admit a case of overcharge. I should be glad to call your atten- tion here to a case in point. Mr. Clare’s case was the case of scrap iron from Widnes to St. Helens. It was brought before the St, Helens county court on Wednesday the 12th December 1877, and a decision was given in favour of the traders. What had been charged hitherto at about 3 s. 4 d. was ultimately settled at 10 d. a ton, and when the railway companies were asked how they made up the charges, as it was well known that on the Widnes Railway there were no terminals, they thought they would put in a terminal charge out of their own imagination ; and they put in what they called clerkage. However the county court judge did not allow clerkage, and gave the decision in favour of Mr. Clare the trader. But now I just want to draw your attention to this, that in spite of that decision, considerable correspondence took place in 1880, by some Widnes traders ; that was 0.54. Chairman — continued. three years after that decision was given in the county court. Messrs. Gaskell, Deacon, & Company, traders in Widnes, refused to pay any- thing more than lOd. a ton, where the railway company charged 15.4 d. Mr. Houghton, on behalf of the London and North Western Company writes, asking why they had not paid the 1 s. ^d., Messrs. Gaskell, Deacon, & Co., ask how the com- pany make up the charge, and there is a reply from Mr. Houghton to say thatthey make up the charge as follows : tolls for eight miles along the line at l:^d., lOd. ; clerkage, &c., 6d., making a total of Is. 4d. Messrs. Gaskell, Deacon, & Co. write and dispute the clerkage, they ask under what Act of Pai’liament the company are entitled to charge clerkage. I will not trouble the Com- mittee with the correspondence, but it continues for some time, all about this question of clerkage, Avhlch had been decided three years before in the county court. Mr. Caine, 3002. What was the final result ? — The final result was that Messrs. Gaskell,.Deacon and Co. have not paid the 1 s. 4 d., but have only paid the 10 d. a ton, and they will only pay the 10 d. a ton. 3003. And no action has been taken against them? — No action has been taken against them whatever. I would now draw attention to the fact that on the V\ idnes Railway, the railway company is a common carrier, and is bound to carry goods, and cannot turn round upon us the same way as the company did at Newton. 3004. Do you recommend that every railway company should be a common carrier ? — Yes ; I support the recommendation of the Railway Commission, that they should be bound to carry all goods offered to them. 3005. Do you base your recommendation upon the fact that the Birkenhead Railway Company are at present, or have been refusing to carry the coals of the Newton Colliery Company, and that therefore the Birkenhead Company are not com- mon carriers ? — Yes. Perhaps I may now re- turn to my original statement. The difficulty of first ascertaining whether it is an overcharge or not, and the natural indisposition to litigate, pre- vents traders often from obtaining redress. As an example of what takes jdace in the case of two rates quoted, I could obtain no satisfaction till I mentioned publicly at the council of the Chamber of Commerce that these overcharges had been made, not until then did 1 obtain a re- duction of the rate. As the amount was trifling, no further steps towards recovery have been taken. I will very shortly tell the Committee the facts of the case. Ihere were two rates which I knew or guessed were overcharged ; one was the charge of 4 s. 2 d. a ton upon sulphur from AVidnes to Lea Green, a distance of G or 7 miles ; and the other was a charge of 3 s. 4(/. a ton, that the company quoted for a waste manganese jiroduct to AVarrington. When those charges were quoted, I wrote, as I generally do, to the railway comj)any, to ask them to separate the terminals, and I need hardly say, that like anybody else ivho applies for a separation of the s 3 terminals 142 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 7 April 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. [ Continued. Mr. Caine — continued. terminals, in his pi'ivate capacity, I got no satis- faction whatever. The railway company did not rejily practically to the point; they simply wanted to know ivhat rate I would like to pay ; they evidently knew it was an overcharge, and desired to draw from me an offer of what I Avould like to pay. I however refused to go into any hig- gling of that kind, and I got no satisfaction until I stated publicly in the Chamber of Commerce that, in my opinion, all the short distance charges were overcharges. Then that brought a tele- gram endeavouring to get me to settle the case. I have settled those rates ; the one at 4 5 . 2 c/. I have settled at 2 s. G (/., and the one at 3 5. 4 d. I have settled at 1 G d. These considerations lead me to the opinion that some means should be adopted to prevent these overcharges, other than the action of individual traders. The Kailway Commissioners suggest that greater pow'ers should be given them. That you wdll find in paragraph 14 of our memorial. There ought to be a jniblic office to wdiich a trader could send a complaint, Avhich should be investigated by the department, who would have easy access to the various Acts under which the companies levy their rates ; and if it is found that the company have violated the law, the case should be brought before the Kail way Commissioners for decision, and they should have ])Ower of enforcing the de- mands by ])enalties. You will see that the Rail- way Commissioners themselves have asked for an extension of their power, and in tlieir Fifth Report, paragraph 31, they say : “ At present, if a railway company act in a manner unauthorised by their special Acts, we cannot aive an injunction to restrain them, unless it can also be shown that in so acting they are infringing some provisions of the Act of 1873.” What we ask is this : that if a railway company overcharges (and I think you have had ample evidence that they do overcharge), there should be some easy method of bringing them to book ; that any infringement or violation of their special Acts should have penalties attached. Now, 1 am not a lawyer, but as far as I understand the powers asked for by the Railway Commissioners, they would enable the Railway Commissioners, if they decided, in the case of an overcharge, to say to the railway companies. You shall not continue that overcharge, or, if you do continue it, you shall be subject to a penalty of 200 /. a day, or something of that kind. 300G. AVith regard to these overcharges of Avhieh you complain, are they absolute over- charges of station to station rates, or are they made up by terminals? — They are in many cases overcharges of station to station rates, and in some cases they are made up by terminals. It is very difficult to separate them. Now, Mr. Hunter says in his evidence, that the simplest way to carry out the third section of the Act of 1854 would be to appoint a barrister-at-law, who should receive all complaints that were made against railway companies, and should communi- cate with the railway companies upon them. This suggestion coincides very nearly wltli my view, and it will be for the Committee to decide how best to carry out the idea ; but that it should be left to private traders to enforce the law against railway comjianies is evidently unfair, and so long Mr. Caine — continued. as this remains the case, the public will not be sufficiently protected. Another point on rvhich traders have a grievance is that railway companies frequently give a preference in carriage for articles for export over those for home consumption. For instance, I may mention the case of the coal rates on a railway in our neighbourhood ibr shipment. Coal can be shipped at Widnes at 1 s. 2 d. from whatever colliery it comes in the Lancashire district. We traders complain that we might very often have to pay half-a-crown a ton for the same coal, which, if it w'ent for shipment, would go past our works, and would go to supply our rivals in trade at a lower rats of carriage ; that would practically be a bounty upon exportation. We contend that is unjust, and that there should be some remedy, namely, that the rates for export should not be less than ihe rates for home con- sumption. These, 1 think, are the main points to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. You will see, I think, that if these recommendations are carried out, a very great ])rotection will be given to the traders. If we had a simpler or a detailed classification with maximum rates attached, we should then be able to ascertain with very little trouble whether we were overcharged or not. Then if the action were left in the hands of a public prosecutor or some public officer, justice would be done much more readily to the tradei’s than it is at present ; and altogether I fancy that if these recommenda- tions were carried out the case of Liverpool would be pi'actically met. What Liverpool complains of is, that the ivates of carriage are to and from other ports more favourable than to herself, and that she is practically deprived of the advantages of lier geographical position. Now, I have noticed that in many cases the Liverpool uitnesses have been questioned whether they mean by that that there should be mileage rates, the answer has been “mileage rates,” but “mileage rates ” is a very vague term. Nobody contends that the railway companies should be bound to carry at an equal rate per mile over the whole line, long distances and short distances toi^ether. What we really contend for is, that there should be equal treat- ment of one port with another and of one class of goods with another, and that, under the same cir- cumstances, where tlie same services are rendered, the railway rate of carriage should be the same. I think if that were fully carried out the railway companies themselves would liave, as the basis of their rates, to adopt practically the mileage sys- tem. Long distances, no doubt, -would be charged at a less rate than shorter distances ; but I think that the main point that we ought to contend for is this, that they should adopt some system. Railway com])anies at j)resent, in fixing their rates, it is evident (and if I had time I should be able to enter much moi-e fully into detail, but I have given you representative cases) have no sys- tem whatsoever, except this. When they think that they can levy the maximum rate u])ou any particular article, they will take very good care that they do it. That is the case, as you have seen in the evidence which has been given before the Committee to-day. There they knew that they had got practically the carriage of cotton in their own hands. Cotton, they say, is an article of SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 143 7 April 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. Mr. Caine — continued. of considerable value, and therefore they put it up to a considerable rate. The contention of the witness from lllackburn v/as that bales of cotton could be carried as cheaply as other goods prac- tically. We, wdth our chemicals, contend that they can be carried equally as cheaply as ii’on, and are as undamageable ; and I do not think the railway companies would be able to answer that. There is no doubt that it does not take more horse-power or more trouble to move a ton of chemicals than it does to move a ton of iron. The fact is that a ton by any other name or of any other material will weigh a ton; and all that you ought to take into consideration is the bulk which the goods occupy, the quantity that can be put fairly into a waggon, and the distance over which the goods are carried. Then there comes the question of insurance ; that, I think, is met by their having two rates. In our own case, even in chemicals, ive have brought it at last to this, that we "et certain rates at owners’ risk and certain rates at company’s risk. It is quite fair that the companies should be entitled, if they take the risk of carriage, to a' rather higher rate on goods of exceptional value and easily damageable. Those differences, it is quite clear, ought to be allowed for ; but all that I contend for is this, that whatever the charge, it ought to be charged on some fixed svstem. If you do not charge on some fixed system you may depend upon it that you can- not help but have these complaints of inequality of chai’ge and overcharge. I cannot believe that the railway companies deliberately evade their Acts of Parliament ; I believe in many cases they do not know until they are brought to book that they are overcharging-; but they want to try and arrange the rates; they want to be as free as traders. Now, railway companies are not only [ Continued. Mr. Caine — continued. traders, they have been given the monopoly of the carriage of this country, and it is the interest of tlie whole of England that the rates of carriage should be as low as possible ; and it is a remark- able thing that the other companies 3007. I think you are now rather expressing opinions than giving evidence. I should just like to complete your evidence in chief with a ques- tion or two, and then it will be ready for cross- examination, You made a statement in the earlier part of your evidence that you had to look through five or six Acts of Parliament before you could decide whether the rate in question was legal or not ? — That is so. 3008. Upon that let me ask you whether you think that railway companies, in applying to Parliament for additional powers, should be com- pelled to consolidate their Acts? — I am glad that you have called my attention to that point, as I had omitted it in my evidence. I think that would be very desirable, as the railway companies are continually coming to Parliament for additional powers. This year the London and North AYestern Company have a Bill, and other railway companies have also got Bills, ask- ing for additional powers ; very often they are asking for the power of charging for certain things other than the mere collection and de- livery. Now, I think that the Board of Trade and Parliament ought to see before they grant any further facilities or powers to the railway companies, that the companies should be asked to consolidate their Acts. 3009. I have only one other question to ask you ; do you think that Chambers of Commerce should be permitted a lociis standi before the Bailway Commissioners ?— Yes ; it is quite clear that that would be a very great advantage. That is another point raised in our memorial. 144 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Monday, 2nd May 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. l\Ir. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. jVIr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. ]Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulhollaud Mr. N. Nicholson. Mr. Phipps. J\Ir. O’Sullivan. jMr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuelson. iMr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. G. H. SiMMONDS, called in ; and Examined. Cliairman. 3010. You are Principal Assistant Clerk of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade? — I am. 3011. And you have been examining, during the past weeks, the rate-books from the stations of Newark, Huntingdon, and York ? — I have 3012. And you have prepared some tables for the information of the Committee ? — I have. 3013. Will you have the kindness to hand them in to the Committee? — I Avill. {The same were handed in.) 3014. First of all, there is a statement showing the class I’ates charged by the Great Northern Railway for the carriage of goods between York and the undermentioned stations in the list? — A'es, and there is the same for Newark and Huntingdon. 3015. The next table you have jirepared is a table showing the maximum rates authorised to Chairman — continued . be charged by the Great Northei’n Railway Company in their Acts generally ? — Yes. 3016. Put under their respective headings? — Yes, with the class to which they belong, ac- cording to the Clearing House classification. 3017. The next table is a table showing the coal rates, which I understand are not in the rate-book, but which have been supplied to you by the railway companies independently ? — AYs, but only from a few collieries to Newark and Huntingdon. 3018. Lastly, you have taken out a certain number of articles, such as cinders, dung, manure, iron, grain, corn, coal, cotton, and wool ; and you have jmt in the first column what are the charges authorised by their Acts, in tiie second column the rates charged under the com- jiany’s rate-books, and in the third column the difference ? — AYs. Air. Edmund K. AIuspratt, called in ; and further Examined. Sir Daniel Gooch. 3019. In your evidence on the last occasion you referred to the Neston Colliery dispute with the Great Northern and the London and North Western Railway Companies?— I did. 3020. Did 5 'ou personally go into that matter, and are you aware of all the facts and details of the case ? — I am aware, I should say, of nearly all the im])ortant facts. 3021. How did you arrive at them? — I arrived at them very simply by my connection ■with the Neston Colliery Company. I have inquired into the facts, and have obtained them from the directors, and from the secretary of the company. 3022. AYu arc a shareholder in the company, arc you not ? — I am a shareholder in the com- pany. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued, 3023. The Neston Colliery is not on the Bir- kenhead line proper, is it ? — No, it is not. 3024. It is at the end of a short branch, is it not ? — A’es. 3025. That is a ])rivate branch, is it not ; that is to say, it does not belong to the railway com- pany ? — That is so. 3026. Is the traffic on that branch worked by the railway company ? — I believe it is, but I un- derstand tlnit the Neston Colliery Company are quite Avilling to work it. 3027. I ask you, is the branch worked by the railway C()m])any ? — I think it is. 3028. Under an arrangement for woi'king ; do you know of the arrangement? — I do not know of any special arrangement. 3029. T’hcu you are not aware whether there is SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. 145 2 May 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. 'iContinued. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued, is a special arrangement or not? — I may say that I am informed by the directors that this question of that agreement, if there is an agree' ment, as to the working of that branch has nothing at all to do with the statement of facts which I made. 3030. Is there any obligation upon the rail- way company to work that branch ? — I do not know. 3031. You come here to state all the facts? — I am perfectly willing to state all the facts. I have stated to you that so far as the facts which I have put before the Committee are concerned, this question between the Neston Colliery Com- pany and the railway company, as to the working of that branch, has nothing at all to do with the matter. The chai’ges I am s})eaking of are from where the branch joins the railway. 3032. Still the railway company do a service in the working of that branch? — Those facts that I stated to the Committee concerned the tolls and the charges from the junction with that branch. 3033. That is not my question; I ask whether the railway company are working the traffic over that branch for the Neston Colliery Company? — I cannot say positively whether they do so or not from my own knowledge. 3034. You mentioned the question of tolls ; do you know what the tolls are under the Bir- kenhead Railway Act of 1852 ? — One penny a ton a mile. I have a copy of the toll clause. It says, “ That it shall be lawful for the company hereby incorporated to demand any tolls for the use of their railway not exceeding the following (that is to say), for all coals, bricks, iron, or other articles of merchandise per ton per mile not ex- ceeding one penny ; and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the company, an additional sum per ton per mile not exceeding one halfpenny.” 3035. And are there other tolls authorised by the Bill ? — You asked for the tolls : “ And with respect to the conveyance of horses, cattle, carriages, and goods, the maximum rates of charge, including the tolls for the use of the railway and waggons, or trucks, and locomo- tive power, and every expense incidental to such conveyance, except the loading and unloading of goods, shall not exceed the sums following : For all coals, bricks, iron, or other articles of merchandise, 1 d. per ton per mile.” 3036. You have not given the Committee the tolls? — I have given the maximum rates of charge. 3037. There is a toll for the use of the roads, a toll for the use of waggons, and a toll for the use of locomotive power? — But the clause says, “ The maximum rates ol‘ charge, including the tolls for the use of the railway and waggons, or trucks and locomotive power.” 3038. 'If you read the Act, you will find those three separate things set out in detail? — I read this clause : “ Including the tolls for the use of the railway, and waggons or trueks, and locomo- tive power, and every expense incidental to such conveyance, except the loading and unloading of goods, shall not exceed the sums following : for all coal, bricks, iron, or other articles of mer- chandise, 1 d. per ton per mile.” 3039. What is the rate for the road, the rate 0.54. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued, for the waggons, and the rate for the locomotive power by that Act? — I only say that the com- pany’s maximum rates of charge include all that ; I have not the slightest doubt that you, as a director of the company, may know the x\ct of Parliament off by heart, but I do not ; I only know that the maximum rates of charge, includ- ino; all those tolls for waggons and locomotive power, are 1 d. per ton per mile. 3040. Would you be surprised to hear that the toil for the use of the waggons is I- d. ; that the use of the road is Id., and locomotive power, I d. ?— I should not be surprised to hear it, if you say so. 3041. Will you tell the Committee what it was that the railway companies charged ? — I handed that in the other day ; I have no doubt I can find another copy of the figures ; I would like the Committee to have these figures, be- cause I have not the slightest doubt that the honourable Member will ask questions respecting certain charges ; but there are other charges to other stations which, of course, might tell much more strongly in favour of my contention. 3042. Take from Neston to Ledsham, what is the distance? — Six miles. 3043. What is the charge that is made b\^ the railway company ? — If your question refers to the charge demanded by the railway companies, which the Neston Collieiy Company refused to pay, that was dd . per ton per mile. 3044. Wiiat was the charge which the Neston Company wished to deduct for waggons ? — Threepence. 3045. What is the contention of the Neston Colliery Company? — The contention of the Nes- ton Colliery Company is, that the maximum rate of charge, including waggons, is 1 d. per ton per mile, or 6 d. for six miles, and that 3 d. per ton a mile is a fair charge to be deducted for waggons, in accordance with the decision of the Railway Commissioners, in the case of Watkinson r. the Wrexham, Mold, and Connah’s Quay Railway Comjtany, when it was decided that 3 d. per ton was a fair deduction to be made from the toll, when the railway companies failed to provide waggons, and where the distance was short. 3046. Deducting the 3d., that would leave how much for carrying the coal ? — Threepence. 3047. For carrying the coal how far? — Six miles. 3048. Who pays for the mileage for taking back the empty waggons ? — I presume you deliver the empty waggons back. 3049. That would be travelling 12 miles for 3 d. ? — Tes. 3050. Do you consider that a remunerative rate ? — I do not consider it a remunerative rate, but I did not put in the table because I thought the rates were remunerative or otherwise ; 1 put it in for this purpose, to show that, although the railway companies charged more than they were legally entitled to, they sought to force us to pay what I consider, as a trader, an illegal charge, by a notice which was given. That is the ] air- port of my evidence before the Committee. 3051. Where has the illegality of that charge which you contest been established? — The ille- gality is very clear. I have read the Act of Parliament, which says, that the rate shall be Id. T a ton 146 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 May 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. T Continued. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued. a ton a mile. I have deducted 3 d. a ton for the use of the waggons, according to the decision of tlie Railway Commissioners, and that leaves 3 d. a ton, which, according to the law, would be the maximum rate which you could charge. 3052. If you find locomotive power as well, you would, under the Act, be able to deduct 1 d. for that, would you not? — I say that the maxi- mum rate includes locomotive power and waggons. If it were practicable that we could go back to the old tolls, and that we should use locomotives, no doubt we should be generally, as traders, in a very much better way than we are at jiresent; that is to say. if we could provide the locomotive power and come under the toll clauses. 3053. But the railway comjiany offered you every facility for supplying locomotive power, and arranged times for the trains, did they not ? — I am not aware of that. 3054. Are you not aware that the railway company offered to provide the locomotives, and to fix the times at which the trains should run? — I think this is not the proper time and place to go into the details of the dispute between the Neston Colliery Company and the railway com- pany, and I will put it to the Committee whether they desire me to go into great detail upon this subject. 3055. You charge the railw'ay company with despotic conduct in one part of your evidence, and you charge them with gross misconduct in another ; surely you ought to be able to sub- stantiate those charges ? — I do substantiate them. I say that where there is a known and primd facie case of overcharge the railway company turns round upon the trader and refuses to carry goods. 0 ^ , 5056. But the trader refuses to pay anything, does he not ? — The trader did not refuse to pay anything. 3057. Would you supply chemicals to any- body who refused to pay for them ? — The Neston Colliery Company did not refuse the legal charge. 3058. According to your own view of the legal charge there was no decision upon the point, was there ? — The Neston Colliery Com- pany suggested that that matter should be re- ferred to arbitration. 3059. Was not there a proposal of the railway company which was refused ? — I am not certain ; at any rate if that was the case there is the more reason to show that the Neston Colliery Com- pany believed that their contention was within the law. 3060. You wrote to the Board of Trade, did you not, upon this matter Yes. '1 he Neston Colliery Company wrote to the Board ot Trade. 1 have the letter if the Committee ivish it to be put in. 3061. I have no objection to the whole corre- spondence going in, but not one letter only ; you have copies of the whole correspondence I have no doubt? — Yes, the corres2)ondence could be produced if it were necessary. Mr. Mot ley. 3062. Have you given an opinion with re- ference to the Railway Commissioners? — Yes, I Mr. Morley — continued. have given an opinion upon that point. I de- sired that the power of the Railway Com- missioners should be extended so that thev might be able to enforce obedience to the special Acts, wdiich they are not at present. 3063. You have no Avish to interfere with the inde})endent action of the railway directors any further than where they may be departing from the positive directions of the Acts under which they exist? — At present clearly, I think, that the railway companies are entitled to charge certain suras under their existing Acts, and I desire that the Railway Commissioners’ powers should be so extended that they may be able to enforce adhesion to the special Acts by the rail- way companies. At the same time, so far as the classification of goods is concerned and the equality of treatment of localities, as Avell as pei’sons, is concerned, I desire an amendment of the general law as regards railway companies. 31)64. It is advocated that the Raihvay Com- mission should cease : what you have said is that you desire that the Railway Commissioners should be continued and strengthened ; if it were to be removed altogether, would the public have any refuge in the event of complaint, except by expensive legal proceedings ? — Certainly not. I think that the institution of the Railway Com- mission has been of very great service to the trading community. Since the Railway Com- mission has been instituted, from my otvn expe- rience as a trader, we have found it very much easier to get fair treatment, or comparatively fair treatment, from the railway companies than formerly ; and I desire, therefore, that the power of the Railway Commissioners should be so ex- tended as to enable them to enforce the com- panies’ special Acts. If that tvere carried out, then such a special case as I brought forward in my leading evidence, of a decision in a court of law having been given in 1877, and the London and IS'orth Western Company persisting in an overcharge, persisting in asking for clerkage sixpence a ton three years after that, such a case as that, I say, would be impossible. Therefore, I say if there were some easy remedy by which the railway companies could be forced by a system of penalties to carry out their special Acts of Parliament, the traders Avould have a very great gain, and those overcharges would not be of common occurrence, Avhich they are at present. I refer to those charges beyond the lesal maximum. O 3065. With respect to their legal maximum, are you aAvare of any particular oversight in the interest of the public in the construction of the Acts under Avhich the raihvay companies act in reference to their poAver of toll ; I mean is there anyone appointed or existing Avho may be said to watch in the interest of the ])ublic those powers of charge by the raihvay company ? —I am not quite familiar Avith all the details of the connection betAveen the raihvay companies and the Board of Trade, but I understand that in the Board of Trade the Raihvay Department have poAver, and do })rofe&s to a certain extent to protect the public upon those points. 3066. You are not aware hoAV far they do their duty ? — I can only say. as far as I know, that the general impression is that the Hoard of Trade, SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWATS. 147 2 May 1881.] Mr. MUSPRATT. [^Continued. Mr. Morley — continued. Trade, if they have any powers of that kind, do not exercise them. Mr. Holton, 3067. You stated that the Neston Colliery Company was now getting its traffic carried by the Tiiilway company? — It is. 3068. At what rate? — Those rates are put in that memorandum which I have handed in to the Committee. 3069. Are they the rates which you de- manded? — No. I will read some of them. 3070. I do not know that it is necessary for you to do so ; you stated in your evidence the other day that the London and North Western Company refused to carry the Neston Colliery Company’s coal, and made what you considered a gross overcharge ; what is the foundation, or what is your ground, for making that statement ? — You have it all upon this papei'. I will read a few items from it. 3071. May I ask you whether that is merely your own opinion, or is it the result of any legal decision ? — It is not my own opinion, but it is the opinion of the Neston Colliery Company, and the grounds of that opinion have been laid before the Committee. 3072. There has been no legal decision war- ranting that statement, I believe ? — Clearly not. 3073. And that notice to which you have referred, which the railway companies issued on the 1st day of September, I think, was appli- cable, as I understand, to all traders upon the line, and not exclusively applicable to the Neston Colliery Company? — I will refer to the notice. 3074. I will put it in this way: the Neston Colliery Company was not the only colliery company that could be brought under the notice ; there were other collieries upon the line, and other traders upon the line? — It only referred to one class of goods. 3075. That was the reason I asked whether the notice was applicable solely to the Neston Colliery Company, or was applicable to other traders upon the line ? — My answer would be another question. Was it applied to other traders ? 3076. I asked you whether there were other traders upon the line to whom this notice would be applicable ? — Certainly. 3077. Then, does it not occur to you what possible cause the railway companies could have to refuse to take the traffic along a line which they may possibly have made, or undoubtedly have made, for the express purpose of carrying that traffic? — From my point of view the cause was that they wished to enforce an illegal over- charge from the Neston Colliery Company. 3078. But how could they enforce an illegal over-charge ? — It was quite open to the railway company to bring an action against the Neston Colliery Company for any amount of money that was owing to them. 3079. That you do not know? — To say that it was not open to the railway company to bring an action against the Neston Colliery Company would be a most extraordinary statement. 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. 3080. You mentioned in another portion of your evidence the case of coal rates ; you said, “ I may mention the case of the coal rates on a railway in our neighbourhood for shipment to Widnes ; coal can be shipped at Widnes, at l5. '2d., from whatever colliery it comes in the Lancashire district ” ? — On the Lancashire Union Kail way ; that is the Lancashire rate. 3081. Do you know the distances between those various collieries ? — They vary very largely. I do not know the distances accu- O J rately. I should say that the distances are from six miles to 30 miles. 3082. That is to say, the 30-mile rate would be Is. 2d., and the six-mile rate would be Is. 2d. 'I — Yes. I am speaking without book with reference to the distances, but the differences are considerable. 3083. Are you prepared to say that there is so short a distance as six miles ? — I would not like to say that positively ; I do not know what the collieries are exactly ; it is a long time since the Act was passed, and I cannot answer the question clearly. 3084. Are you prepared to say that, taking the shortest distance, this is an overcharge ? — I never said it was an overcharge ; all that I did was to make a complaint, that coal for export was charged at a lower rate than coal for home consumption ; that coal was carried past our works at Widnes for export, at a lower rate than coal would be carried into our works for use in our works, and I say that that is a bounty upon the export of coal. 3085. How does that injure you ? — It seems to me very easy and simple to see how it injures us as consumers of coal ; a bounty is given to our rivals in France and in Dublin, and in otlier places, where they receive the coal at this reduced export duty. If our rivals are not benefited by having that bounty, then I will admit that we are not injured. 3086. But is it not rather that the railway companies find that they get a fair average rate from those collieries ? — ^As to what the rail- way companies find or think they find, it does not signify to me at all, as a trader. I say that such rates as exist, the export rates being lower than the rates for home consumption, are injurious to the trade of this country, and unjust. 3087. In other words, you think that the ad- ditional rate from Widnes to the place of con- sumption of the coal is not a sufficient subsidy, if I may use the xvord. for the Lancashire manu- facturers ? — I say it is no more to the interest of this country that the railway companies should be allowed to give bounties upon the export of goods than it would be to the interest of this country that the Government should do it. 3088. Are you aware whether any guarantee was given or inducement was held out to the railway companies to induce them to come into this arrangement ? — I know the arrangement was come to, because the collieries opposed the Act, except for those clauses. 3089. There was no guarantee given to the railway companies by the collieries that traffic of that kind should amount to a certain quantity per annum ? — I daresay there may have been. 3090. You do not know that there was? — I T 2 think 148 MINUTES OF EVIOENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 Muij 1881 .] Mr. Muspratt. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. think it may have been very i)robable that there was, but it does not interfere with my argu- ment. 3091. You have suggested that some tribunal should be established for the purjiose of enabling a trader to get prompt redress in the event of railway companies making an overcharge ? — I have. 3092. You are not satisfied with the present tribunal in that respect. The traders, I may re- mind you, in the North of Scotland, recently got redress against the Great North of Scotland Railway Company for an overcharge ? — Before what tribunal? 3093. Before the Court of Session, for 600 1 . ? — I gave an instance where we did recover an overcharge in the county court. 3094. Why are you not satisfied with that tribunal ’—Because the railway companies con- tinue these overcharges, and there is no power to enforce obedience to the law. 3095. I think this decision has proved the contrary I — Not at all, because, although one trader may recover an overcharge on one ])artl- cular article, the railway companies will continue the charge upon another. Here is a case in point ; a trader obtained a recovery in the county court, but the railway company continued the overcharge all the same. 3096. The company defied the law, in fact ? — Yes, they did. 3097. Are they continuing the overcharge now? — Yes, decidedly, that is so. The London and North Western Company, altliough it has been decided in the court that they are not to charge clerkage, do continue, in short distances, to make illeoral charges. 3098. You say that some of your troubles have been easily settled by a ])ieeting of the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool? — They have been settled, but not to my satisfaction. A mere overcharge of a small kind is not of itself excessive to the ti'ader, and the consequence is that the trader does not care to be constantly bringing the railway companies to book in the county court for these small overcharges, and he allows them to go by. At the present moment the railway companies are charging me what I know to be overcharges, but I do not bring an action, because it is not worth the while of an individual trader to do so ; but I say it is to the interest of the country that the railway com- panies should be bound to keep within their Acts, and that some impartial ti'ibunal should have the power of enforcing obedience to those r\cts. 3099. You are not satisfied with the present tribunals ? — Certainly not. 3100. You stated in reference to two rates which w'ere quoted, “I could obtain no satis- faction till I mentioned publicly at the Council of the Chamber of Commerce that these over- (•harges had been made ; not until then did I obtain a reduction of the rate” ? — Yes, that is true. 3101. If you could obtain a reduction of the rate, simjdy by mentioning the matter at the Chamber of Commerce, surely you do not require an amendment of the tribunal? — Certainly w^e do. I do not want to be continually writing Mr. Bolton — continued. letters to the railway companies asking to specify what are the terminals, and w'hat is the rate of carriage every time that they overcharge me. I think you have no right to put that trouble upon traders. Sir Edicard Watkin. 3102. I think you stated in your previous evidence that you were in favour of equal mile- age rates? — I stated in my evidence that I thought there ought to be equal treatment of places as there is at present equal treatment of persons, or rather that that should be the law ; and that if that were adopted, together with a revised classification of rates, I thought the railway companies would, in order to keep within the lawq as amended, be obliged to base their charges on something that may be tersely and bi'iefly called equal mileage rates. 3103. Do you or do you not wdsh the Com- mittee to understand that you are in favour of an equal mileage charge for all traffic? — No. 3104. Then what are you in favour of? — I am in favour of equal treatment for places at equal distances under like conditions and for similar services. 3105. Would you state what you wish, and give an illustration to the Committee. For example, it is 31 miles between Liverpool and Manchester by the London and North Western Railway ; it is 38 miles between Liverpool and Manchester by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway ; it is 37 miles by the old Garston route, and it is 33 miles by the Cheshire lines ; how would you deal with those differing dis- tances with regard to fixing the rates betw'een Liverpool and Manchester ? — You would have to take the sliortest distance. 3106. Why? — On account of the competition. 3107. Then what you propose is, that there shall be an equal mileage rate calculated upon the shortest route? — Yes. 3108. Say the shortest route is 100 miles, and beyond that there is another route of 200 miles, and another of 300 miles ; would you charge twice as much for the 200 miles as for the 100 miles? — Certainly not. 3109. d'hen upon what principle do you think that the rate should be fixed ? — I think that the rate should be fixed in this way : I tliink that in the first place you ought to have a reasonable chai-ge for Avhat are called terminals, and a certain sum per ton per mile for, say, the first 50 miles ; that you should have a certain rate (something less) per ton per mile for a further distance beyond that, say for the next 50 miles, and that you should charge something less again i)er ton per mile for the third 50, according as it may be decided by experts that thei-e is a less expense in carrying the traffic a longer distance. 3110. Your modification would be rather upon the principle of zones than of distance? — Yes. 3111. You stated that you objected to giving a less rate for export traffic than for home con- sumption? — Yes, I do. 3112. Are you not aAvare that a large part of the chemical trade of this country is carried on by the mere fact of the rates for exjiort being lower than the rates for home consumjition ? — I am not aware of that ; 1 know, nevertheless, that we SELECT COiMMlTTEE OX RAILAVAYS. 149 2 May 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. [ Continued. Sir Edioard Watkin — continued. Ave do obtain favourable rates for export by Hull. NotAvithstanding that, I consider it is inimical to the benefit of the country at large that those rates should exist. .3113. i"ou Avant those rates to be AvithdraAvn? — I think it is undesirable in principle ; I gave my evidence upon the principle and not upon my particular article of manufacture. 3114. Is it not the fact that those rates have been fixed upon the solicitation of the chemical trades of the country to the raihvay companies ? — I do not think that the solicitation of the manufacturers Avould have had much eflfect if the raihvay companies thought that it Avas not to their interest to grant their reqnest. 3115. Will you kindly ansAver the question, yes or no ? — I knoAv that Ave have asked for loAver rates of carriage, but I never remember a case in Avhich the traders, as an association, have asked for loAver rates for export as against those for home consumption. 3116. I Avill take the Widnes manufacturers; is it not the fact that they have asked for special rates, to enable them to compete Avith the chemi- cal manufacturers in NeAvcastle, GlasgoAv, and other places ? — Certainly. 3117. Then you Avould put an end to that? — Certainly not. 3118. But you say you object to loAver rates being given to export traffic, and you object, as [ understand noAv, to loAver rates being given to enable you to compete Avith other manufacturing districts? — Not at all; I think under another system Ave should have loAver rates all round. 3119. Are you in favour of putting an end to the system of rates specially made at the solicitation of the Widnes and other chemical manufacturers in that district, in order to enable you to compete better Avith other chemical manu- facturers in England and Scotland ? — I deny that they are given for that purpose. The rates are given because the railway companies think that thereby they Avill get the traffic to go through Hull and not through Liverpool ; I do not myself, as a chemical manufacturer, desire the rates to be raised. 3120. You have said that you consider there ought to be a tribunal, I forget Avhether you said the Board of Trade or the Hallway Commis- sioners. to fix the rates for traffic? — I hardly said that. What I said Avas this : that there should be a neAv, or a revised classification of of goods, Avith maximum rates attached; that then the raihvay company should be bound to keep Avithin their Act, that is to say, not to charge beyond their legal charge; that is all 1 said, 1 Avould not leave it to the Railway Commissioners. 3121. Inasmuch as Ave are accustomed in this country to prefer to do our own Avork ourselves, I Avish to knoAV how far you Avould arm the Raihvay Commissioners Avith poAver to interfere between the public and the carriers ? — I AA'ould go a great Avay in the interest of the public ; I do not look upon raihvay companies as mere traders. 3122. In Avhat light do yon look upon them? — 1 look upon them as having been given the monopoly of the carriage of this country, and therefore they must act under certain restrictions to be jirovided by Parliament. 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 3123. We quite understand that, and so Ave assume that they are; I Avant to kncAv how far you Avould arm the Raihvay Commissioners with the poAver of fixing the price of the carriage between the customer and the carrier of the traffic ? — I Avould have a rev'ised classification, and I Avould have amended maximum rates of charges ajAplied to the new classification, and that should be decided upon, after hearing both sides, by an impartial tribunal, say by Parliament, and that then the raihvay companies should be bound to keep Avithin the amended rates of charge. 3124. Am I correct in assuming that what you recommend is, that the classification for goods and merchandise (and minerals too, I suppose) should be entirely revised and settled upon better prin- ciples, and that the maximum rates should be fixed and adapted to the classification? — Cer- tainly ; I think the present classification is perfectly ridiculous, and I gave various instances shoAving how it Avas so. 3125. I quite agree with you Avlth reference to the classification, though I do not agree Avith you as to Avho should fix it. Now you spoke about the Midland, and the Sheffield and Lincolnshire Companies ; Avould you give the Committee any instances of charges by either of those com 2 )anies which are outside their maximum rates ? — I did not say that those companies made any illegal overcharge. 3126. Have you any evidence of either of those tAvo companies in dealing Avith you as Mr. Mus- pratt, making an illegal charge ? — My statement AA^as, that as far as chemicals Avere concerned, it Avas the short distance charges that Avere overcharged. We send very small quantities of chemicals by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Rail- Avay ; therefore Ave have very little to complain of. 3127. The Sheffield Company made the branch connecting your Avorks Avith their line, did they not ? — Yes. 3128. Are you aAvare Avhat the amount of traffic Avhich you have sent over these expensive lines of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln- shire Company in the last three months has been? — I could not say Avhether it Avent by the Man- chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Raihvay, or the London and North Western. 3129. But those tAvo companies Avent to special expense to connect your Avorks Avith their rail- Avays ? — Yes, the ^Midland and Manchester and Sheffield Company did. 3130. Therefore, of course, any use of your Avorks to them Avould be to send traffic by that raihvay. I Avant to knoAV if you can tell the Committee how much traffic Avas sent over these expensive raihvays in the last three months? — I could not say that ; Ave send our traffic first one side, and then the other. 3131. Noav, do not you think that that is a case in Avhich the raihvay company ought to have some redress against the traders? — Certainly not. 3132. Supposing there has been a considei’able expense incurred by the raihvay companies, and you send no traffic over those expensive Avorks, do not you think in that case the raihvay com- pany should have redress against the tradex’s ? — Certainly not. 3133. Should you be surprised to hear that in T 3 the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 1 X t/O 2 May 1881.] Mr. MuSPRATT. ^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued, the six months ending March 1881, the total re- ceipts of traffic from your works have been 11/. 2 s. lid. for traffic not carted, and 1 /. 10 s. 10 d. for carted traffic; and for minerals 14 /. 11s. 11 d. ? — I am not prepared to give the figures ; but you must be quite wrong as to the total figures, because we do not pay the cai’riage on a great part of the goods that come by the Sheffield and Midland Railway. .3133*. Are you also aware that of traffic re- ceived, the totals are, not carted, 27 /. Is. 3d.; carted, 5 1. 5 s. 11 d.; and of minerals, limestone, coal, and slack, 856 /. 8 s. ? — I cannot say what the figures are. 3134. I ask you again, will you state that there is any single rate charged by ihe Midland Railway Company or the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company into your works, or out of your works, which is beyond the maxi- mum rate ? — I should not think that any rate is, because their rates were generally long distance rates. 3135. You complained of the classification for chemicals, and you recommended that the Rail- way Commissioners should have power to alter that classification so that chemicals should be classed with damageable and undamageable iron? —I did. 3136. Is it not the fact that Widnes chemicals are classed in the railway station books with iron damageable and undamageable? — That is what we asked for ; we want it to be the law. 3137. Is it not the fact that for neaily all traffic passing from Widnes the rates are in many cases less than the classification ? — I think it is so very often. 3138. Then would you kindly tell the Com- mittee uhat your complaint is ? — I have already stated the difficulty of getting redress when there is an overcharge; I have already said that the railway companies can, if they wish, class us with fur and feathers by law, and I do not like that, 3139. Rut you say you have no complaint of its being done? — It may be done at any time. 3140. But it has not been done? — Xo, it has not been done. Mr. O' Sullivaii. 3141. I think I understood you to say in your evidence that you knew some parties who had complaints against the railway companies who were afraid to prosecute those complaints for fear that the railway companies would retaliate upon them ? — I saicl it was on account of that fear that many actions were not brought ; traders do not like bringing actions. 3142. Do you know any cases in which per- sons could have brought actions, who did not bring them? — Yes, in our own case, for example, il we had wished, we could have brought an action. 3143. You stated that railway companies have continued to make overcharges notwithstanding the decision of the county courts to the con- trary ? — 'I'hat is so; J have given such a case. 3144. Woidd you object to railway com])anics having ])owcr to make reductions when goods are sent in large quantities? — No; I think that where it can be shoAvn that the cost of con- veyance would be less to a railway company, the raihvay company has a right to reduce its charges ; I think, therefore, that for large quan- Mr, O' Sullivan — continued, titles, such as Avaggon loads or train loads, there ought to be a smaller charge made by the rail- way companies, I think that fair ; but I would have the conditions defined upon Avhich they would carry the larger quantities. 3145. You Avould not leave it in the hands of the company to settle ? — Not in each individual case ; I Avould take out of the hands of the com- pany the poAver to make arrangements with each individual trader ; I think that leads to gross inequality. Mr. Craig. 3146. I understand you to say that the Neston Colliery Company have sustained a loss of some- thing like 2,000 /, a-year by those overcharges to AAffiich you referred? — I stated that the average overcharge was 6 d. a ton, and cal- culating that upon the output of the colliery, it Avould come to something like 2,000 /. a year. 3147. Where does that coal go to as a rule ? — Mainly to Birkenhead, and the surrounding stations. 3148. This is the avei’age overchai’ge of the Avhole colliei’y? — Yes, of the Avhole collieiy. 3149. Does the coal go to Birkenhead for shipment at all ? — Yes ; to Birkenhead the dif- ference is not so great ; to Birkenhead the dif- ference is only 2| d. and not 6 d. ; it is only a rough estimate ; I only pointed out that the averasre overcharjre Avas 6 d, 3150. Is your output of coal about 2,000 tons a Aveek ? — About that. 3151. And have you a less rate to Birkenhead for shipment than you have for home con- sumption? — No, I think not; there is only one rate doAvn here on my list. 3152. As a colliery owner, I suppose you are aAA’are that it is a very desirable thing to have as large an output as you can get? — Yes, certainly. 3153. And that it should be uniformly main- tained ? — Certainly. 3154. If you make the rates for export the same as the rates for inland consumption, Avould that not have a tendency to check the output? — I think not ; I admit the argument ; I think, however, taking it all round, that it would be better for all collieries that Ave should have equal rates and Ioav rates for home consumption, as well as for export. 3155. Have you considered the question with regard to foreign coalfields ; if so, have you not come to the conclusion that it would encourage development in other countries, and check the development of home resources? — I think any undue develo})mcr,t of any industry, Avhether by protection given by the Government or bounty given by the GoAernment, or by railway com- panies, is injurious to the country. I do not care Avhat form it takes. If it takes the form of jai'O- tection or bounty, it is injurious to the trade of the country. 3156. But Avliere the export rate is lower and does not interfere Avith the home trade, Avould you prohibit a company from carrying at a less price ? — IMy complaint is, that the companies carry at a less price for shipment to our rivals in trade. 3157. That may be so in some cases, but there are about 20,000,000 tons of coal Avhi.ch are ex- ported per year ; Avould not that cxi)ortation be materially chocked if yoti insisted u])on the rate for SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 151 2 May 1881.1 Mr. Muspratt. \ Continued. Mr. Craig— continued. for export being the same as the internal rates ? — No ; 1 think the railway companies would find it to their interest if they treated every place equally upon some system such as 1 have recom- mended. I believe that the rates would be lower generally, and the colliery projirietors’ interest would be better cared for. There is no doubt that if you increase the home consumption (and you do increase the consumption of the countr}' by low railway charges), the country would benefit. 3158. You would apply the principle to the raw material, would you not ? — 1 do so. 3159. You differ from Mr. Hunter in the respect that he would not prohibit low rates for export so long as they did not interfere with the home trader ? — That is a very great qualifi- cation. If you put it with that qualification, I might accept it. 3160. You are aware that an immense amount of corn comes from America to England, and that that is chiefly on account of the low rate of carriage at the present time. If that rate were higher v/ould it lessen tlie quantity of corn com- ing from America to England ? — Certainly. 3161. Would it not have the same effect upon coal and manufactured goods going out of Eng- land to America and other conntries ? — There is no doubt that if you take away this bounty from the export of coal and other goods, it will be injurious to that particular export trade. 3162. Suppose the railway company do not charge any inland trade above the maximum rate, but that they charge for export considerably less, still leaving a profit to themselves, would you object to them doing that ? — I only want to put the inland trader and the exporter upon equal terms ; provided the services are equal and provided the quantities are equal. 3163. But applying the same principle to your colliery, from which you say you are getting 2,000 tons a week, are you not compelled, in getting a sale for that coal, to take a less profit for some part of that coal than you receive for the other part ? — Yes, 3164. And would you not be a loser if it were insisted that you should take the same profit upon every ton that you sell ? — A colliery owner is different from a railway company ; a railway company is not only a trader. 3165. I asked you whether it would affect you adversely if you were required to take the same profit upon every ton of coal that you send away by causing you to reduce your output ? — Cer- tainly it would. 3166. Then would the same thing not apply to the railways ; I am quite aware that a railway is not a colliery, but quantity affects them in the same wav as it affects a colliery ; do you agree with that? — Clearly. 3167. Then just answer my next question ; if that be so, and you insisted upon the same rate for export as for home consumption ; if that les- sened their quantity, would it not be an evil to them as a railway company , and also to the whole country, in checking production? — Y ou have only put one side of the question. 3168. Please answer my question; I say it lessened the quantity? — If it lessened the quan- 0.54. Mr. Craig — continued. tity, yes ; but it does not follow that it does lessen the whole quantity. 3169. Supposing that it induced the develop- ment of the American coalfields, and the Prussian coalfields, and other coalfields, would it not require less to be sent out of our country in consequence of the increased development of those districts ? — But put it the other side ; the home trade would benefit, and would increase the home consump- tion of coal. 3170. Then the conclusion you arrive at is this, that you object altogether to exports ; is that so ? — No, unless there is a bounty put upon them ; I do not think it is advisable that a bounty should be put on the export of any article. 3171. The term “ bounty ” is a very indefinite term ; supposing you are raising 2,000 tons a week, and that by taking a less profit upon another 500 tons a week you could reduce the whole cost of your production, would it not be a wise and tradesmanlike operation to do it? — Cer- tainly. 3172. Take a railway company carrying to Birkenhead and that district for home consump- tion, if they choose to carry at half the profit for export, why should you object to their doing that, if you do it yourself as a trader ? — Because I am not only a colliery proprietor, but I am a chemi- cal works owner, and by this system of bounties upon the export of coal, I say that coal is carried to my rivals at a cheaper rate than it would otherwise be. 3173. But that is not an answer to the ques- tion ; you say that it would injure the home consumption to send for a less price for export ; let us see whether that is so or not. Suppose that that exjiort was cut off, would it not necessitate the railway companies increasing all the I’ates to the home consumer? — No. 3174. Why not? — Because I think the true interest of these railway companies would be to lessen the rates all round. 3175. But supposing they are upon the average getting five per cent., if you cut off that export traffic, and increase their cost of transit, would it not necessitate, in order to maintain that five per cent., an increase of all the home rates ? — No, that is just where we differ; my opinion is that the result would not be so. 3176. You differ from Mr. Hunter, because although he advocated uniform mileage I'ates, he would alter them according to quantity, distance, and gradients ; now you say that quantity does not affect the cost of transit? — I say that quantity does affect it ; I admit that it is cheaper to take a train-load of goods than a wagoon-load of goods. 3177. If you cut down all the exports, would it not necessitate, in order to maintain the same dividends as are now paid, an increase of all the home 1 ‘ates ? — That is to say, if by I’emoving this bounty upon the export ol’ coal, no coal would be exported ; that is what you are point- ing to. 3178. It would be lessened? — The effect in that case most likely w'ould be that the price of coal would be lowered to the consumers in this country, and the consumers would be better off'; they would produce articles at a cheaper T 4 rate. 152 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 May 1881.] Mu Muspratt. [ Continued. Mr. Craiy — continued. rate, and so the railway companies would be re- couped. 3179. That is not my opinion as a colliery proprietor ; if you lessen the output you increase the cost of production ; if you increase the cost, you must, to get the same profit, charge a higher price ; therefore the home consumer would have to pay ’ more ; but I will not pursue that any further. I understood you to state that you re- commended the appointment of a public prosecu- tor, in order to rectify any evils that arise be- tween the railway companies and the producers? —Yes, I did. 3180. You found it bore very heavily upon certain districts by preferential rates being siven? —Yes. Mr. Lowtlier. 3181. Did I understand you to say, or give it as your opinion, that a ton of anything should be carried at the same rate ? — I said that a ton of anything would still weigh a ton ; that all that the railway companies had a right to consider was the bulk which the goods occupied, and, therefore, I said that it -was perfectly legitimate to charge for waggons of four tons and upwards, a lower rate than for waggons of two tons and upwards. 3182. I see amongst the things which one rail- way company objected to carry were, sand, statuary, and round timber ; how is sand gene- rally carried ? — I do not know. 3183. You think that statuarv ought to be carried at the same price as stone ? — 1 would ask for a revised classification. 3184. But I am asking for your opinion ; do you consider that statuary ought to be carried at the same rate as blocks of marble ? — Ko, cer- tainly not; I think that only shows what a ridiculous classification there is in some Acts of Parliament. 3185. You alluded to the case of the Hendre Limestone Com 2 )any, near Mold, wdio are send- ing limestone from Khydymwyn to Widnes ; you have stated that you had to look through five Acts of Parliament to find out what the com- 2 )any were entitled to charge? — Yes. 3186. Was that because the London and North M estern Com])any had jmrchased or leased lines with special Acts of Parliament, which did not form j)art of the original scheme ? — 'I'hat is so. 3187. The limestone would ]iass over the Mold and Denbigh, and Chester and Holyhead, Chester to Buncorn, and the 8t. Helens Bail- ways ? — Yes. 3188. AVhat is the distance between the points, including the extra distance alloived for the Buncorn bridge ? — The distance, as a quota- tion in the rate-book, is 40 miles ; the actual distance is 33 ; therefore, there is seven miles for the bridge added ; the actual distance is 33, but the calculated distance, including the bridge, is 40 miles. 3189. Why is that? — Because there is a clause in the Act for making the Buncorn bridge, by which the company are entitled to charge for the Buncorn bridge as so many miles. 3190. Do you know what the tolls amount to per ton from Bhydymwyn to B idnes ? — The Mr. Lou'tker — continued. actual rate now is 3 s. 7 d. on lime, and 3 5. 1 rf. on limestone. 3191. And Avhat are th ey allowed to charge ; is that tlie maximum ? — That is the maximum ; they are allowed to charge i d. a ton for lime and limestone, as far as we can make out ; the maximum rate upon the Mold and Denbigh line is lie?.; under the IMold Bailway Act it is 1 d. a ton, and I presume it is 1 d. a ton on the London and North Western Bailway. 3192. Is the toll which they may charge 4 s. 8i 0 ?. ? — No ; I think the maximum rate from Bhydymwyn to Widnes is \d. per ton, or|e?. ; but the difference is so trifling, now' that we have got it reduced, that I do not comjffain of the dif- ference. 3193. The railway comjiany never did charge you 4 s. 8i d., did they, from Hendre to Widnes? — No. 3194. So that as far as the Hendre traffic is concerned, that has always been charged less than the com 2 )any had pow'er to charge you ? — Yes, we did not com^ffain that we were over- charged, but simiily that our competitors w'ere getting lower rates for greater distances. 3195. You alluded to some cases of over- charoe ujion some suljihur from Widnes to Lea Green, and some manganese from Widnes to Warrington ; was it exjilained to you that the charges in the first place were made as though the traffic had been handled by the company ? — No ; the railway comjianies made no exjilanation wdiatever ; I wrote to the railway co'.n 2 )any, as I usually do when I find what I consider an over- charge, and asked them how they made up the rate ; we wanted that information, but, as I stated to the Committee, as a rule, we do not get that information. 3196. As you stated to the Committee you were not satisfied, and you mentioned the matter to the Liveiqmol Chamber of Commerce? — Yes, I did. 3197. What happened iqionthat? — The rail- way com^iany came to me and said they were prejiared to discuss a rate. 3198. But the Liveiqiool Chamber of Com- mei'ce did nothing ? — No. 3199. No communications passed between the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and the rail- w'ay company U 2 ) 0 n the subject? — None what- ever. 3200. Then the reductions were made though the Chamber of Commerce did not have any communication with the raihvay comjianies I — The reductions have been made, but they are not dow'n even now' to Avhat I consider the legal charge. 3201. I said the reductions were made by the railway companies without any pressure from the Chamber of Commerce ? — They were. 3202. Have you ever had any difficulty in settling matters in disjmte with the railway com- panies beyond the matter of terminals, as to w'hich there appears to have been some difficulty with them ? — Personally, I may state that we have not found any very great difficulty in .settling when we came to the question. 3203. Have you found any difficulty at all in settling? — 1 have foimd this difficulty, that in all short distances we are overcharged, and I cannot SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 153 2 Maij 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. [ Continued. Mr. Lowther — continued, cannot get the railway companies to adhere to what I believe to be the short-distance charge legally without going to law. 3204. In your answer to Lord Randolph Churchill, in your previous examination, you stated that coal is carried from the Lancashire district to VVidnes and shipped at the rate of Is. 2rf. a ton, and that you might, for the same coal, have often to pay a higher rate to your own works at Widnes ; is it the fact that the fuel for your works is mainly obtained from one of the collieries for which the railway rate tc your works is Qd. ? — Yes, that is so. 3205. Under the existing arrangements with the company, has the Neston Colliery Company paid the amount due for carriage? — No, they have not. I presume you mean the amount that was in dispute ; they have not paid that. Mr. Dillwyn. 3206. I understand you to say that you con- tend that the coal ought to be sent from the Neston Colliery to Birkenhead at Qd. a ton altogether? — To Birkenhead we say that the coal ought to be carried at 8 d. and 9 d. 3207. How many miles is that? — To Grange- lane it is 11 miles ; to the Birkenhead Docks it is 12 miles. 3208. Bringing the empties back would reduce it half to the railway company ; as I understand, it w'ould leave no profit to the railway company at all to carry at that rate ? — I do not know any- thing about the profit of the railway company. 3209. Do you think it would pay ? — I am not a railway manager and therefore I cannot sav, but I have not the slightest doubt personally that it would pay. Mr. Barclay. 3210. Did you tell the Committee whether you had made any contract with the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company when it took that siding into your works at very con- siderable expense ? — None whatever. We sold them some land, and they put the siding upon it. 3211. Did you ask them to make the siding? — We asked them to make the siding, no doubt. 3212. Did you undertake to send any par- ticular quantity of goods over it ? — Not at all. 3213. 1 would ask whether Ave may take this as an example of the reckless expenditure of railway companies when they make sidings Avith- out receiving any guarantee of traffic ? — It might be so regarded. 3214. Do you affirm that some railways syste- matically put the law at defiance by charging- over their maximum rates, particularly for short distances ? — I do. 3215. And that, notAvlthstandlng that the laAv courts had clearly decided that those charges Avere overcharges ? — I do. 3216. Do you think that, under those circum- stances, it is necessary that there should be some poAver equal to the railway companies to see that they conform to the law ? — I do ; I think that is one of the most important things that could be done in the interests of the traders. 3217. Would you be in favour of the Board of 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. Trade examining into complaints made by traders and others against raihvay companies, and if they find them avcII founded, taking measures to see that the railway companies shall conform to the law? — I should. 3218.. You Avere asked a great many questions in reference to tolls and maximum rates ; has there come under your notice the decision of the Rail- way Commissioners in the case of the Aberdeen Railway Company against the Great North of Scotland Raihvay CompaiiA’ ? — 1 have seen it. 3219. Are you aAvare that in that case the railway company attempted to charge upon their tolls clauses, and not upon their maximum rate clauses ? — 1 understand so. 3220. And in that case the Raihvay Commis- sioners said they Avere not entitled to charge upon the tolls clauses, but must limit themselves to the maximum rate clauses ? — I understand that was the decision. 3221. You Avere asked some questions with regard to equal mileage rates; does that go to the extent of supposing that every raihvay company throughout the United Kingdom should charge equal mileage rates under the same circumstances? No ; I think that a railway company, in order to avoid inequality of treatment to places and to persons, must base their charges upon some system, and the simplest basis is that of mile- age. 3222. Do you think that each raihvay com- pany should settle its basis of rates for itself, and make all the rates upon the line have some re- lation to each other, measured by the cost of con- A'eyance ? — Measured by the cost of convevance, I do. 3223. Do you think it is material that the ex- port of chemicals from this country should be from Hull, or NeAvcastle, or Liverpool ? — I think as regax’ds the interests of the country, it is per- fectly immaterial Avhether the export goes from one port or another. As far as Ave are concerned, any rate that faA'ours us, Ave are very glad to accept. 3224. In any case, if the course you recommend should haA'e the effect of raising the rates on chemicals carried from the Lancashire district to Hull, you are prepared to submit to it? — Cer- tainly. 3225. I understand that your contention Avith regard to the Ioav rate charged for the export of coal is this, that the rate for home consumption might be someAvhat lowered, and the rate for export somewhat raised ; that the ])rinclple of free trade should be carried out upon the tAvo, and that the rates of both should be made someAvhat approximating to the cost of the conveyance, the result of AA'hlch Avould be generally for the benefit of the country ? — That is my opinion, 3226. And that if the effect of raising the export rate should be to loAver the quantity of coals exported in one particular case, the loAver rates for the home consumption Avould generally benefit the trade of the country, and that so the raihvay companies would l)e recouped ? — That is my contention. 3227. I suppose you find in discussing the question of free trade versus jirotectlon, that, in individual cases, a very strong case can be made out for protection ? — Certainly ; I could make U out 154 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 May 1881.] Mr. Musbratt. [ Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, out a very strong case for a bounty upon our own manufacture. 3228. But, taking general principles, you stand upon the principle of free trade ? — I do. 3229. And you hold that, upon the jirinciple of free trade, each i)arty, whether the goods are going to be exported, or to be consumed at home, should pay in proportion to the cost of the service rendered to them ? — That is my opinion. 3230. There is the question which has been raised also as to the dift'erent charges for different kinds of goods ; do you propose that all kinds of goods should be charged at the same rate, when you have this equal mileage rate that you speak of? — No; I think there must be a classification, and I take as the basis the Clearing Hemse classification, which has five classes. I think it quite right that certain goods should be sub- jected to a lower maximum rate than others- 3231. Would you agree with me in saying that the necessities of a certain article require that it should be caiT'ied at a lower rate, if it is carried at all ? — I do not know what you mean by ‘‘ the necessities of the article.” 3232. M hat I mean by the necessities of the article would be, that such an article as coal or ironstone must be carried, in consequence of various reasons, at a very low rate, if it is to be carried at all, and you would propose, would you not, to classify goods upon some general basis of the necessities of the articles to be carried at particular rates ? — I would. 3233. Then the point is, do you think that certain districts of country should have special rates in consequence of their necessities ; that is, their distance from the market ?— Certainly not, if you mean that because they are naturally under a disadvantage the railway companies should come in and give them an advantage which they do not naturally possess- 3234. You do not think that the railway com- panies ought to be authorised, or to have the power, to deprive any district of its natural ad- vantages ? — Certainly not. 3235. When goods are carried for a long distance at much lower rates in proportion to the cost of conveyance than for a short distance, that is a power which the companies ought not, in your opinion, to have ? — Clearly not. Mr. Sarnuehon. 3236. You spoke of a dispute between the Neston Colliery Company and one of the rail- way companies, and I think you said that in consequence of the action of the Neston Colliery Company in regard to that, the railway cora- pany gave notice that they Avould cease to be carriers of certain goods ? — I did. 3237. And you were asked whether that applied only to the Neston Comjtany or to all the collieries on the line? — I was. 3238. The other collieries were subjected to inconvenience by that notice, were they not ? — I personally do not know that. 1 do not know whether that notice w'as carried out as regards those other collieries. 3239. But if it had been carried out, it would have ])ut the other collieries to inconvenience, would it not? — Yes, certainly. Mr. Saynuelson — continued. 3240. In that case those collieries would have been put to inconvenience, because a railway company had a dispute with the Neston Colliery Company in which the other collieries were not concerned?^ — That is so. 3241. When the railway company took the course which they did, was it because no other remedy was open to them if they had been right? — Certainly not. They had a very simple remedy ; they could have sued the Neston Col- liery for the amount owing. 3242. Then with regard to the export rate on coal from Widnes ; that rate you stated was lower than the rate for a similar distance to your works ? — I stated that the shipping rate, which is the Lancasshire Union rate, of 1 s. 2 d. a, ton, is uniform for the collieries at various distances from Widnes or Garston, irrespective of distance, whereas we consumers, if we receive coal from those same collieries, have to pay a rate accord- ing to the distance, and generally that rate would be higher. 3243. Therefore, relatively you are at a disad- vantage ? — Yes, clearly. 3244. In the chemical trade you possess cer- tain natural advantages? — We do. 3245. And in exporting you are at certain natural disadvantages, such as having to carry your freight across the sea before you reach the place of consumption? — Yes. ; 246. Then if you are deprived by the rail- way company of the natural advantages of your position, you have no compensation given to you in reference to the disadvantages under which you are placed ? — No. 3247. You are deprived of your natural advan- tage, but your natural disadvantage continues ? — Clearly in that respect. 3248. The result of that would be that your trade would be lessened? — Certainly, so far as that element acts. 3249. The more cheaply you can get coal, the more cheaply you can produce your chemicals ? — Certainly. 3250. And the more cheaply you can produce your chemicals, the greater your export trade will be ? — N 0 doubt. 3251. If anything is done to place you at a disadvantage in that way, the tendency will be to diminish your trade ? — Clearly so. 3252. You stated that you were subjected to charges by the raihvay company which you con- sidered to be overcharges ; that you made repre sentations to them, and that those representations were not listened to? — I did. 3253. And then you made a complaint to the Liverjiool Chamber of Commerce, whereupon you got ])artial redress ? — I simply mentioned the fact publicly. 3254. d'hat was the fact ? — I hat was the fact. 3255. Upon that you were asked -whether the Chamber of Commerce had taken any action in the matter ? — I was asked that. 3256. And you stated that the Chamber of Commerce had taken no action ? — They have taken no action. 3257. But the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce, I suppose, were published in the newspapers ? — Yes. 3258. And SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 155 2 May 1881.] Muspratt. \^Continued. Mr. Samuelson — continued. 3258. And in that way publicity was given to your complaint? — Yes. 3259. When publicity was given to your com- plaint, you obtained partial redress, which your private application bef'oi’e had not enabled you to obtain ? — Yes. ISIr. Lowther. 3260. May I ask whether the proceedings of the Chamber of Commerce were published in the newspapers ? — Yes, they were actually pub- lished. Mr. JPaget. 3261. You stated in reply just now to a ques- tion put by Mr. Barclay, that in your opinion the principle of a railway rate should be based upon the cost of the service rendered by the company? — Upon the cost of conveyance. 3262. You subsequently stated that the basis of charge in the case of particular articles should be in proportion to the necessities of the article, which was explained by the honourable Mem- ber? — That was upon the question of classifica- tion ; in reply. I asked for an explanation of what the honourable Member meant by “ neces- sities I must say that I do not clearly under- stand what he means by the “ necessities of the article.” 3263. Is the principle that you would lay down of the necessities of the article as the basis of the charge to be an exception to your general principle, that the rate of charge should be in proportion to the cost to the company ? — My opinion is this, that in the classification of the goods you should place certain raw materials, which must of necessity be carried at a low price, in the lowest classification ; that afterwards you should place other goods in other classifications for certain reasons, but that when you came to apply the rate of conveyance of each article in any special class, that rate of conveyance should be fixed upon the basis of the cost of convey- ance. 3264. There is no exception to that principle that you would lay down ? — No. Sir Baldwyn Leighton. 3265. Might I first ask, to be quite clear, what you understand by the “ necessities of the article is it, for instance, the carriage of coal for the purpose of manufacture ? — I take it that the honourable Member meant by the “necessi- ties of the article,” that a high rate of carriage upon an article like coal would practically pro- hibit the use of coal to a great extent ; it would be a great Infliction upon the consumer. 3266. Or rather upon the producer? — Upon either the consumer or the producer ; but take the rate of charge upon silver-plate, for instance, which is an article of luxury ; it does not matter much whether that rate of charge is high or low. 1 give you those two extremes to signify what I understand by the necessity of the article. 3267. Would you include wheat, or cattle, or meat, under that classification ? — I would include wheat and cattle -as requiring to have a low rate of charge. 3268. Now, with regard to w'hat you stated about geographical position ; as regards being placed at a disadvantage you say that evervone 0.54. Sir Baldwyn Leighton — continued. ought to have the advantage of his geographical position, whether it is as between two j)roducer8 in this country, or as between a producer in this country and a foreign producer ; that was your contention ? — That was my contention. 3269. Now with regard to the disadvantage under which you or others within your cogni- zance are placed, is it the charge above the maximum rate, or is it the differential rate that you complain of ?-T complain of both; as regards Liverpool, the Liverpool case is clearly a case of both. We complain on two grounds ; we say that the rates are too high ; we also say that we are unfairly handicapped as against other places by the way in which the rates are arranged as against Liverpool. 3270. The question of maximum is to some extent defined ; the question of differential rate would be capable of some arrangement ; as for examjile, whether 100 tons might not be taken at a lower rate than 10 tons ? — I admit that you can carry 100 tons more cheajdy than 10 tons, therefore I admit that u])on principle a differential rate may be justified, and I say the rate ought to be lower so far as it can be shown that the cost of conveyance is lower, so far as the cost of the conveyance of 100 tons is lower than the rate for the conveyance of 10 tons, that would be an element for consideration. 3271. You think that the railway companies ought in their tariff to state that above a certain quantity they would charge a lower rate ; that is your contention ? — That is my contention. 3272. And you think that would make it comparatively fair ? — 1 do ; in fact, I would define in those rates what is equal treatment. 3273. But it should be applied to all alike? — To all alike. 3274. And whoever the person sending the traffic is, the rate should be applied to all alike ? — That is all that I ask for. 3275. I think you stated, in answer to a ques- tion, that as regards what a colliery proprietoi' might choose to do with his coal, and as regards what a railway company might choose to do with its traffic, they were not upon all fours, the rail- way company being a public company subject to Act of Parliament, the colliery proprietor being a private person trading as he likes ? — That is my contention. 3276. The I'ailway company being a monopolist, to a certain extent, subject to Acts and tariffs and rates? — Clearly. 3277. Have you ever had litigation upon these points. I do not mean personally, but have you ever been concerned either as representing the Chamber of Commerce or in any other way in litigating the subject of rates? — I have been concerned in opposing Railway Bills in Parlia- ment. 3278. I rather mean in going to the railway companies complaining of the rates, as regards not getting the rates lower ? — Frequently. 3279. Have you gone to law about that point? — Personally we have not gone to latv. 3280. Have you been as far as the Railway Commissioners ? — As interested with other people, I have. 3281. You liave had experience of makingap- plicatiou to the Railway Commissioners ? — There is a case pending in which I believe the Raihvay U 2 Commissioners 156 MINUTES OF EVIEENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. \^Coniinited. Sir Buldwyn Le'ujhton — continued. Commissioners are going to give an appeal to the House of Lords in which I am interested. 3282. Have you found the cost very consider- able of proceeding before the Railway Commis- sioners? — Yes, it is considerable, certainly. 3283. That is to say, it w'ould not answer, unless a large question were involved, for a pi'ivate trader to go before them ? — Ko, that is a case in point. I do not think a private trader, and particularly for small amounts, has redress. A large company, or peo 2 :)le uniting together can get redress. 3284. Have you ever attempted to make ap- plication to the Board of Trade upon this subject ? — The Neston Colliery Company had a long correspondence with the Board of Trade upon this question. 3285. They did not succeed in obtaining any satisfactory settlement, did they ? — I am afraid not, as the railway companies still continued what we considered overcharo:es. 3286. I suppose there was no great expense involved in applying to the Board of Trade ? — Only the expense of the letter. 3287. AVhat sort of expense have you been in- volved in collectively in taking this case to which you have referred before the Railway Commis- sioners ? — ^ye subscribed a considerable sum of money ; I know we took pretty good care to get the money in hand before we tackled the rail- way company. !Mr. Gregory. 3288. I understand that the gist of your com- plaint, or rather your principal complaint is, that the railway companies carry past your door coals for export at a lower rate than they deliver them to you at? — Y^es, that is 2 >art of my com- plaint upon that point. 3289. And that you consider, I do not say wrongly, a bounty upon the foreign con- sumers ? — Yes. 3290. I presume the converse would hold good, that if they carried the goods of a foreign pro- ducer past the door of an intermediate producer, between him and the market they would also be giving a bounty to the foreign producer? — If as 1 understand the companies carry foreign corn cheaper than they carry English corn, I think it is wrong ; quite as wrong as the cariuage of coal. 3291. Is it your ojnnlon that public advantage is the inducement to a railway company to fix those rates? — No; I understand that the rail- Avay companies fix those I’ates that you are speak- ing of, the coal rates, with the colliery owners iqion this Lancashire Union line. 3292. I am speaking of it as a general jn-in- ciple whether in carrying the corn or the coal, it was the interest of the public which induced the railway companies to fix those rates ? — Certainly not ; I do not think that entered into their cal- culation at all. 3293. YTnx have spoken of the power of the Board of Trade with respect to railway rates ; have they any ])ower with respect to them ? — I do not know that they have ; I understand that Mr. Hunter gave some evidence upon that point. 3294. Their power, I believe, is a jtower of Mr. Gregory — continued, recommending to a Committee of the House ; they may recommend certain rates, or they may call attention to certain rates, but they have no power whatever of limiting the rates themselves? — If that is so, it is a further reason for the amendment of the law'. 3295. Have you ever yourself appeared before a Committee for the purj)ose of procuj'ing an alteration in the rates ? — Personally not, but the lYidnes Traders’ Association have attended. 3296. Have you appeared or have you had objection taken to your locos stancli‘1 — Nearly always an objection is taken to our locus standi. Mr. Callan. 3297. You have given your evidence before this Committee, I believe, as a chemical manu- facturer and as a colliery projirietor ? — And as representing the Chamber of Commerce at Liverpool. 3298. But personally as a colliery proprietor and as a chemical manufacturer? — Yes. 3299. At Flint, Liverpool, and "VVidnes? — YYs. 3300. Have you any manufactory at Liver- pool ? — YYs. 3301. AndatWidnes? — Yes. 3302. And at Flint? — Yes. 3303. In the course of your evidence, when I came into the room, I heard you say that a bounty is given to your rivals ; now, where is the principal seat of the chemical manufacture in this country ; Newcastle is one, is it not ? — New- castle and Glasgow, and the districts around Liverpool. 3304. And you made reference to Dublin ? — I referred to the Dublin people being favoured by this bounty on coals. 3305. You stated that a bounty was given to your rivals in this country and to foreign rivals in France and Dublin ; what did you mean by your rivals “in this country;” did you include Dublin in “this country”? — I did not. 3306. Then I suppose you looked upon us as aliens ? — No, I looked upon it that there w'as this streak of sea between us and thei’efore it was the shipping rate that was charged. 3307. There are chemical manufactories in Dublin, are there not ? — There are. 3308. And you object to coal being sent to Dublin at a cheaper rate than you can get it at your manufactory ? — I object to a bounty being given upon the export of coal. 3309. That is to say, what you call a bounty ? — YYs. 3310. Then if the railway company makes an arrangement with a steam collier company for the carriage of coals, and they carry to Dublin at a cheajier rate than they do to lYidnes, you call that a bounty. What other people would call a facility to the less favoured locality, you call a bounty ? — I call it a bounty, but I have not the slightest desire to insist upon the name. 3311. And the carriage of goods at a cheaper rate for export than for home consumption, you state is, in your ojiinion, injurious to this country ? — Yes. 3312. And you, therefore, consider that the carriage of goods at a cheaper rate to Dublin, which is a foreign port, than for home consump- tion, SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. 157 2 May 1881.] Mr. Muspratt. [ Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. lion, is injurious to the interest of this country ? — I do not regard Dublin as a foreign port. 3313. Now, take your favoured I’ates by Hull ; having admitted to Sir Edward Watkin that you have favoured rates by Hull, you stated that any form of bounty, whether by Government or by railway rates, is injurious to this country ? — Certainly. 3314. You would favour equal mileage rates for all articles, would you? — Not for all articles, but equal mileage rates for all articles under a new classification. 3315. If you got low rates for your chemicals to Hull, Avould you still object to a low rate for coals to Dublin ? — I do not object to a low rate for coals to Dublin at all. 3316. What do you mean? — What I object to is the differential rate, not to a low rate. I put Dublin upon the same footing as any place in England or anv where else. I consider that a differential rate is wrong. 3317. Is not your objection to this low rate for the carriage of coal, in a large degree, conse- quent upon the fact that a high rate for the raw material, and a low rate for the manufactured article would be in your own personal interest? — Certainly not. 3318. Would not a high rate upon the raw material, coal, and a low rate ution the manufac- tured article tend to your benefit as manufac- turers ? — Certainly not. 3319. You stated that you are favourably situated in the business as a chemical manufac- turer ? — I have already stated that I am. 3320. And you object to railways endeavour- ing to place others less favourably situated in a jjosition to compete with you in your manu- facture? — I do object to that. 3321. Though it would be for the general good ? — No, not though it would be for the general good ; it would not be for the general good. 3322. Except for yourself; you object to a IMr. Callan — continued. chemical manufacturer in Dublin having his coals conveyed at a lower rate than your own ; supposing you were charged 2 5. 6 d. a ton for your coal, do you object to coal being conveyed to Dublin by a through rate for 3 5. ? — That is to say that the sea carriage should be only 6 d. a ton. 3323. It is quite immaterial what the sea carriage is ; if the railway company contracts to deliver to you at 2 5. 6 d., you object to the rail- way company contracting to deliver to your rival in Dublin at an increased charge of 6 d. ? — 1 do not object if the cost of conveyance by sea is 6 d. a ton. 3324. Apart from the expense of carriage by sea, apart from any contract price, or any arrange- ment for through rates entered into between a railway company and a steamboat company ; do you object to coal being delivered to you at 2 5. 6 d., and delivered in Dublin at 3 s. ? — Cer- tainly not, if the carriage is fixed upon a proper basis. 3325. And what is the proper basis? — I have explained what I consider the proper basis. 3326. What is it ? — A mileage rate. 3327. By sea? — No, not by sea. Chair matt. 3328. Taking your view of the geographical advantages of every place being preserved for it, if that principle were carried out in other matters, how should we ever have had the penny postage ? — I'here is no doubt that upon the first blush, it would seem that that would be an answer to my proposition ; l)ut you must remember that you cannot compare the postage of lettei’s with the carriage of goods ; the difference between the cost of the carriage of letters a long and a short distance is so small that it is desirable to have a uniform penny postage. Sir Rowland Hill showed that himself ; that was the ground upon which the penny post was introduced. Hr. John Taylor, called in ; and Examined. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3329. You are a Grocer in the town of Swan- sea, I believe ? — I am. * 3330. Both wholesale and retail? — No ; only retail. 3331. Have you a large business ; is it as large as any in that part of South Wales ? — It is larger than any other similar business, I thinK. 3332. How many shops have you? — Five. 3333. Have you any near Swansea? — Four; one is at Ilfracombe. 3334. How long have you lived at Swansea ? — Sixteen years this month. 3335. How many railways supplied Swansea from London when you first began business ? — One. 3336. How many are there now ? — Three. 3337. Which was the one that was there originally? — The Great Western Railway. 3338. Which are the three? — The Great Western, the London and North Western, and the Midland. 0.54—8. Lord Randolph Ch.irchill — continued. 3339. How many railways communicated be- tween Swansea and Liverpool when you first knew Swansea ? — One. 3340. How many communicate now ? — Three. 3341. The same three which you have men- tioned before ? — Yes; the same three. 3342. With regard to the rates for goods, have they increased or decreased ? — I think on the whole they have increased. 3343. Would that apply to large quantities ag well as to small quantities ? — No. 3344. More as regards the small quantities than tlie large quantities ; the rates on the small quantities have increased, you say ? — Decidedly ; very considerably. 3345. What facilities do you enjoy now from having three railways coming from London to Swansea which you did not enjoy before when you only had one ? — The goods come quicker. 3346. Are there any other facilities afforded ? u 3 — No; 15 ? MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 May 1881.] Mr. Taylor. [ Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. — No; we have a two ton rate which we did not have at that time. 3347. What is that ? — That is that if you oi’der a two ton load of goods, all of the same sort, which happen to be at a particular wharf or warehouse, you get them at a less rate. 3348. Is it necessary in order to enjoy the advantages of this two ton rate, that your goods should all be purchased at the same place, and be packed together in the same cases ? — They must not only be purchased at the same place, but they must be lying at the same wharves- 3349. Must the goods be of the same quality? — That question never arose with me. 3350. So that if you bought goods to the amount of two tons which were what I may call, collected goods, from ditt'erent parts, you would not enjoy the two ton rate? — No. 3351. Therefore T suppose the two ton rate does not give you the advantage which it ought to give you, because many of your goods would be bought at dilferent places? — That is so; for instance, if w^e bought two tons of currants, or two tons of tea the same day at the same house, it would be ten to one that they did not lie at the same wharf, and then "we should not get the benefit of tbe two ton rate. 3352. Are your rates the same upon all three routes ? — Yes, they are all the same. 3353. You cannot get your goods cheaper by one railway than by another ? — No, they are all exactly the same. 3354. Can you tell me the distance from London to Swansea? — By the Great Western Railway it is 216 miles. 3355. And by the Midland Railway? — I do not know, but it is very much further. 3356. What is the distance by the London and North Western Railway? — That is further too ; I shoidd think 50 or 60 miles ; but it is merely guess-work. 3357. Then if you send your goods by the London and North Western Railway, you pay exactly the same as you would pay if you send them by the Great Western Railway, though they have to go 50 or 60 miles further? — Yes. 3358. Does the same observation ajiply to Liverpool ? — Yes. 3359. What is the distance from Swansea to Liverpool ? — It is about 200 miles. 3360. Which is the shortest route ? — The London and North Western Railway. 3361. Is that shorter than the other routes? — I think there is a considerable saving, but I do not know what it is. 3362. Are the rates the same bv each line ? — Yes. 3363. Are you awai’e whether the rates wdiich you pay are within the maximum rates which the companies are authorised to levy? — I do not know that. 3364. Have you ever endeavoured to as- certain the facts ? — I once asked to see the rate- book. 3365. What took jdace upon that; was it shown to you? — No, the company said they did not show it. 3366. That the rate-book was not shown to the ]mblic ? — That it wuis not shown at all. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3367. Which company was that ? — I do not want to say. 3368. Why would you rather not say ? — Be- cause one does not want to bring one company up more than another. Chairman.^ It is important to know this. 3369. Lord Randolph Churchill Which com- pany w'as it ? — It Avas the Midland Company. 3370. The Midland Company refused to show you their rate book on the ground that they did not show it to the public? — But the same thing would apply to the other companies. When I first went to SAvansea I Avrote to the Great Western Railway Company, and asked them to give me the rates, but they never replied to my letter. Some three months after I saw the mana- ger, and asked him Avhy he had not replied to my letter, and he said that they did not give any general rates, but that any particular rate that I Avanted they Avould give me. 3371. When did that affair with the Great Western Raihvay take place ? — About three months after I Avent to Swansea. 3372. But Avhen did your application to the Midland Company take place ^ — About two or three years ago. 3373. Is it not more than three years ago? — No, it Avas almost when they first began to cater for the London traffic. 3374. What rate do you pay for tea from London ? — F or tea Ave pay 45 s. a ton ; unless there is a ton in one consignment, and then we pay 35 s. 3375. The rate is 45 s. for any quantity under a ton ? — Over 500 lbs. and under a ton it is. 3376. And it is 35 s., if you take more than a ton ? — Yes. 3377. Is there any reduction if you take three or four tons '< — i\c. 3378. Do you know Avhat rate is charged for tea from London to Exeter? — Thirty-three shillings and four pence, I believe. 3379. What is the distance betAveen London and Exeter ?— I think it is about the same as be- tAveen London and SAvansea; I have alAA-ays understood the distance to be about the same. 3380. What rates are charged from London to Plymouth? — TAventy-four shillings and tAvo pence. 3381. What is the distance betAveen London and Plymouth? — I suppose it 40 or 50 miles further than it is to SAvansea. 3382. Those rates that you have just been giving ajiph’’ to the Great Western Railwa\' ? — Yes. 3383. What are the markets at Avhich the goods that you buy in your business are chiefly imported ? — I'he best market is unquestionably London for almost everything. 3384. You buA' A-our goods there, do vou not? — Yes, as many as Ave can. 3385. Do you buy all your goods there ? — No, not all. 3386. ^Vhat goods do you not buy in London? — Sugar, of course, Ave buy in Bristol, and soap Ave buv a great deal of in Bristol ; that is a. manufactured SELECT CO-MMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 159 2 May 1881.] Taylor. ^Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, manufactured thing ; and fruit we very often buy in Bristol. Those are the principal things. 3387. Do you buy those goods in Bristol, be- cause you can get them better in Bristol? — No. 3388. Why do you buy them in Bristol?-- Because the market happens to suit us for the time beinw owino- to the excessive London car- O? O riage rate. 3389. Do you mean to say that the excessive London carriage rate upon the goods that you have mentioned, practically prevents you from getting them in London ? — It practically ex- cludes us from the London market. 3390. And you are obliged to go to Bristol for those articles? — Yes. 3391. Is Bristol, therefoi’e, theonly marketyou have to go to for those goods to supply Swansea ? — It is the principal one, 3392. What is the effect, do you suppose, upon the Swansea consumers of being confined to one market for those goods ? — The effect is that they frequently have to pay more for their goods than they otherwise need do. 3393. How is that ? — For instance, if a cargo of lump sugar is imported into Bristol, and one into London, we have no chance of getting the London quotation, because the excess of carriage is 35 s. a ton, and, of course, the London mer- chant cannot sell 35 &. a ton under the Bristol merchant. 3394. What is the rate per ton on sugar from Bristol to Swansea ? — Ten shillings. 3395. What is the rate per ton on sugar from London to Swansea ? — Thirty-two shillings and sixpence. 3396. What is the distance from Bristol to Swansea? — I am given to understand that the distance by which the goods would be sent would be something like 140 miles. 3397. And from London to Swansea ? — Two hundred and sixteen miles. 3398. So that for an extra distance of 76 miles there is an increased charge of nearly 25 s. ? — Of 22 s. 6 d. ; but in the case of lump sugar the in- creased charge is 35 s. for the 76 miles, because the rate on lump sugar is 45 s. a ton from London to Swansea. 3399. It is only raw sugar that is charged 32 s. 6 d., is it ? — Yes, 32 s. 6 d. 3400. So that the 76 miles upon lump sugar makes a difference of 35 s. a ton ? — Yes. 3401. I suppose that practically cuts out the London sugar market? — It closes it; if the Bristol market were very bare of Demerara sugar, we should be obliged to come to London, but in die ordinary way if the rates were any way proportionate, much of our sugar might come from London ; at any rate, we should have the option of the market at the time when it suited us 3402. Then it comes to this,, that for the distance between London and Swansea, which is greater by 50 per cent, than the distance between Bristol and Swansea, the charge for the goods carried by railway is 350 per cent, higher ; they make a difference of 350 per cent, higher charge for the extra distance of 50 per cent. ? — The dif- ference is 10 s. against 45 s. 0.54, Mr, Mulholland. 3403. What are the charges on raw and h.inp sugar ? — -The charges on raw and lump sugar are just the same from Bristol to Swansea. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3404. Then assuming, as we may assume, that the rate from Bristol to Swansea is a remunera- tive rate to the Company, we will take 10 5, a ton on raw sugar, do you consider the rate from London to Swansea out of all proportion? — Decidedly. 3405. The result of that disproportionate rate is that you have only one market to buy in ? — Yes, it practically closes the London market to us. 3406- The market you are forced to go to is a very limited market, is it not ? — It is very limited compared with London. 3407. And the London market, which you are unable to go to, is unlimited ? — No doubt. 3408. Does it ever happen that when you re- quire a certain article in Bristol, you cannot get it ? — When vessels have been unable to get in I have known the market practically bare of lump sugar in first hands. 3409. How many lines of railway are there between Bristol and Swansea ? — There is only one by which we can get goods. 3410. Which is that? — The Great Western. 3411. Is there any other line? — The Mid- land Company have a line, but I believe there is an understanding that no goods shall go be- tween Bristol and Swansea by the Midland Railway ; I remember ordering cheese from Shep- ton Mallet which came by the Great Western Railway, and I had oi’dered them by the Midland Railway, and when I asked why they had not come by the Midland as I had ordered the goods to come by them, the officials said that the Great Western Company would have the money for the goods if the Midland Company brought them. 3412. At all events all your goods come by the Great Western Railway, and never by the Midland Railway ? — Yes, they always come by the Great W^esteru Railway. 3413. Although the Midland Railway have a connection ? — I believe they have a connection. 3414. Is there any sea competition between Bristol and Swansea which will compete with the railway ? — Yes. 3415. What is the difference between the steamer and the railway, with regard to the rate of carriage ? — The sea carriage is about 2 s. a ton less than the railway carriage. 3416. Does that steamer go every day ? — No ; about two days a week. 3417. Is that certain? — I have known the goods not to come to a day, but practically it is certain. 3418. Why do you not bring all your goods by sea ? — Because the steamer does not sail every day, for one reason. 3419. Do you get them as quick by sea as by rail? — Thei’e is no difference, I think, in the time. 3420. There is the uncertainty, is that the reason? — We like to keep the two accounts open. U 4 3421. "What 160 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 May 1881. J Mr. Taylor. \ Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3421. What accounts do you mean? — An ac- count with the steamer and an account witli the railway. 3422. Now there are certain classes of goods, are there not, which you only buy in London? — Yes, there are some goods. 3423. What are those goods ; will you give the Committee a few of the leading articles ? — Tea, coffee, seeds, arrowroot, oranges, jams, maccaroni, sago, and things of that sort, which you only buy in first hands in London. 3424. Will you take those things and give the Committee the rates per ton all round ? — Our goods, as far as we are concerned, are in five classifications : first, second, third, fourth, and fifth. 3425. Is that the Clearing House classifica- tion? — I suppose so. The first class is 32.«. %d, 3426. what would come under that class ? — Ale and porter, bath bricks, coffee, colza oil, dog biscuits, saltpetre, linseed meal, syrup, &c. The second class, of which the price is 36 s. 8 c?., in- cludes biscuits, mineral waters, oranges, chicory, chocolate, and cocoa, bacon, nuts, sardines, and things of that sort. 3427. Now, take the third class, what is the rate by that ? — Forty-five shillings. 3428. What does that include ? — Aerated waters, arrowroot, baking powder, carbonate of soda, canary seed, semolina, tea, and lump sugar. 3429. Did you say that saltpetre was in the first class ? — Yes. 3430. But they put carbonate of soda in the third class? — Yes. 3431. Now, will you give the Committee the fourth class ? — The rate in the fourth class is 52s. 6c?., that includes Joi’dan almonds, French plums, macaroni, nutmegs, and tobacco ; and that sort of thing. 3432. Now, take the fifth class, what will be the rate there ? — The fifth class is 85 s. 3433. What articles come in that class? — Butter, in crocks, that is to say, in earthenware pans, cigars, cinnamon, perfumery, and those sort of things. 3434. Would mixed goods come iu that class ? — No, mixed goods come in the third class, I think. 3435. Do boxes which you may have sent down come in that class ? — The principal thing in which that class affects us is perfumery, cigars, and butter ; sometimes it affects us in that class. 3436. Is it not the case in your trade that a box is frequently sent ? — If a box is sent with- out any description, it is charged in the fifth class. 3437. If a box contains various articles, so that you could not describe it as of one class, what class would it come in then ? — It ivould come as ])acked grocery. 3438. And under what class ? — The third class. 3439. Can you tell the Committee what per- centage those rates are upon the net ci^st of the article; take a few of them? — The per-centage upon rice is from 10 to 15 per cent.; on sago it is 12i j)er cent. 3440. Those are the per centages which the railway rates add to the net cost? — Tes. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3441. Macaroni, 10 per cent., and oatmeal from 13 to 15 per cent.? — Yes; jams 8j per cent.; hemp seed, 171 per cent.; and oranges from 10 to 20 per cent., according to the season. 3442. How do you explain that variation? — Because when oranges come in at first they are cheaper, but towards the end of the season they are dearer, and according to the cost of the article the per-centage rises or falls. 3443. What net value do you take ? — The per- centage on the net cost of the goods before car- riage. 3444. Do you consider that an excessive per- centage ? — Yes. 3445. Do you consider that the exce.ssive per- centage arises from a defective classification ? — Yes. 3446. Do you find anything in that classifica- tion which is anomalous ? — I find the carriage of canaiy seed a very excessive affair. 3447. Is that an article that you sell a good deal of? — Yes. 3448. How does the carriage affect you in respect of that article as compared with others ? — The addition to the net cost of canary seed is 22J per cent. On dog biscuits, an article of large consumption, it is 11;^ per cent.; on lump sugar from London it would be 8 per cent., but from Bristol it is only Igrds, the difference being 6|i’d per cent. 3449. Did you not state that in that classi- fication coffee was put in the first or cheapest class ? — Yes. 3450. And that chicory was put in the second class ? — Yes. 3451. Which is the most valuable article as comparing coffee and chicory ? — Coffee, by many times. 3452. Y’ou are perfectly certain that you are right in putting coffee into the first class? — I am perfectly certain that I am right in doing so. 3453. On that you are only charged in the first class ? — I am only charged in the first class for it. 1 believe I have some bills with me, yes, in one of the bills I find it charged at 32 s. 6 d. 3454. Have you a bill for the chicory ? — 1 have not a bill for the chicory, because the makers always send that carriage ])aid. 3455. Is there any more difficulty to the rail- way company in carrying chicory than in carry- ing coffee ? — It is just tlie same. 3456. And yet they charge you 36.e company know Avhat it is, and charge you according to the scale, and the other they do not, it being a mixed parcel ? — But the nutmegs are very Avell packed ; they are packed in strong boxes. 3540. It is not the fault of the railway com- pany that you are not charged the full price for the nutmegs in the hamper, but because they do not knoAv that it contains nutmegs? — Yes, that is so. 3541. You advocate being alloAved to take your OAvn small parcels to the station, and bring them back ? — Yes, I do. 3542. Has it occurred to you that it Avould be almost impracticable at the railway stations if every trader was to collect his OAvn small par- cels ? — They might have the option of doing so. 3543. They might have the option, but Avould it not interfere very much Avlth the delivery of parcels to the public at large ? — Not at all, as far as I can see. 3544. JV'ly impression Avas, that if you had a railway station yard full of carts to fetch these trifling matters aAvay it Avould not ansAver as a matter of convenience ? — But it might be allowed on special application ; it Avould not pay unless one had a large number of them. 3545. You think that only those who had a large quantity of “ smalls ” would be likely to avail themselves of it ? — That is all. 3546. And they would be few in any one toAvn? — Yes, only a few. Mr. Bolton. 3547. I think there are three lines of railAvay between Swansea and London, are there not ? — Yes. 3548. The Midland, the Great Western, and the London and Northwestern? — Yes. 3549. Between Swansea and Bristol there is only one line of railw ay ? — There are tAvo, but only one Avith running poAvers ; that is the Great Western. 3550. Can you afford the Committee any sug- gestion at all to account for the fact, that that company, the Great Western Company, competes Mr. Bolton — continued. W'lth Itself in a very unfaA'Ourable way in taking sugar from Bristol to Swansea at 10 s., Avhile they adhere to the rate of 32 s. 6 d. and 45 s. for sugar from London ? — I do not think the com- pany have given the matter sufficient considera- tion as to the amount of traffic Avhich might be induced from London. 3551. Sugar brought from Bristol to Sivansea gives the company 10 s., whereas, if it were bought in London it Avould afford them 32 s. 6 d. for the same quantity ; can you explain that anomaly as to their pratically refusing the lai’ger sum, and not giving themselves the preference ? — I do not think the directors have given the matter sufficient consideration. 3552. But the managers must be aware of the fact? — At one time the Great Western traffic betAveen SAvansea and Bristol w'as a mere nothing ; then, to comi^ete Avith the steamers running be- tween Swansea and Bristol, they said aa'c will give a low rate, and they did so, of 10 s. ; then they got a large traffic from SAvansea- to Bristol, but they do not seem to have given the same consideration, nor think that the traffic Avould increase proportionately if they did the same be- tAveen London and Swansea. 3553. Is there any steam communication betAveen London and Swansea? — There has been, but there is not noAv. 3554. Was the steamer rate much loAver than the railway rate? — Yes, less than half; I think I can give the difference. I find a pai’cel of goods came by steamer, including delivery and dock dues, and collecting in London, inclusive, charges for 1 8 . 9 . 9 d. 3555. For Avhat articles? — For different arti- cles ; the raihvay charge Avould have been IZ. 18s. Ad. for the same things; the Aveight Avould be about 13 CAvt., I think, in this case ; I am taking these figures from some of my OAvn bills. 3556. Can you account for the fact of the steamers ceasing to run ? — I belicA C the steamers at that time could get full cargoes of tin plates back again, and as soon as they were not able to get cargoes back, it did not pay them to run empty one Avay. 3557. What was the time taken up in the passage ? — The steamer did not go direct ; it had to call at other places. 3558. It took a long Avhile to go? — It took some days, and that Avas the reason Ave did not get the goods by them. 3559. You did not support the steamer then ? — W'^e did Avhat Ave could. 3560. “ What you could,” would be a com- paratively small amount, I presume? — It w’as comparatively small. 3561. Would there be a larger traffic if there Avere more facilities ? — I think there Avould. 3562. If it were a direct passage what Avould be the time taken ? — If the steamer came direct I believe it AA'Ould be about three days. 3563. Is not 18 5. Q d. for 13 CAvt. a very high freight by steamer ? — It is, no doubt. 3564. i^ou are aAvare that steamers carry goods from Liverpool to Calcutta at 30 s. a ton ? — I have heard that tea costs less coming from China to London than it does from London to Swmnsea, but it Avill be recollected that this charge includes collection SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 165 5 iWay 1881.] Mr. Taylor. f Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. collection in London, and there are the harbour dues in Swansea and the delivery in this 18 s. 9 c?.; the freight itself only comes to 13 s. 4 d. 3565. That is 1 s. a cwt. ? — Yes. 3566. That would be 1 /. a ton ; even 1 Z. a ton for a three days’ passage, allowing for the return empty, three days, would that not be a very high rate for a steamer ? — There was only one steamer running, and that was the rate the owner chose to charge. 3567. That does not seem to have been suffi- cient to keep the steamer upon the line? — That was because she could not get a back cargo. 3568. If the steamer went back empty she would make one voyage a week ; you tell us that you could have had your traffic at 13 s. 4 cZ. for 13 cwt., or I will call it 20 s. a ton ; that would be 1 Z. a week freight for a steamer ; now 1 do not know any trade in the world where the freights are so high as that ?— Only that the stearnei’s would never answer the purpose of small buyers like the railway does. For instance, if it sails one day a week perhaps the goods are delivered at the wharf one day late, and consequently there is a week’s delay. 3569. Then for these extra facilities you do not think it fair to have to pay a higher rate ? — Not so much higher. 3670. Y^ou spoke of the advantage that it would be to you if the collection and delivery were left in the hands of the traders ? — Yes. 3571. Is there anything to prevent you ; are you prevented from receiving and delivei’ing ? — There are no facilities given sufficiently to In- duce us to do it. 3572. Such as what? — If we fetch things from the station ourselves, which we sometimes do if they are wanted directly, we never get any re- bate ; of course we do not ask for it. 3573. What facilities do you ask for which you do not possess at present; you have the op- tion now of fetching the goods ? — If you apply to the railway company for a rate, they will give you a rate at so much a ton delivered; they do not give you an optional rate the other way; we have never had it except in the case of two tons of goods. 3574. You have never demanded it, and been refused, have you ? — No. 3575. Y'ou say you are charged a high rate upon the “ smalls,” whereas if the “ smalls” were put in one parcel they would come at the low rate ? — They would not come at the low rate, but at the ton rate. 3576. That is a lower I’ate ? — YTes ; a lower rate. 3-577. Is there anything to prevent you col- lecting those parcels yourself, and packing them irito one parcel, and sending them at the ton rate? — We should not require to pack them in one parcel, but then they would be lying at differ- ent wharves. 3578. Is there anything to prevent you pack- ing those goods ? — But they would be lying at different wharves, and they might not be col- lected the same day. 3579. Could you not get some one to collect them in London ? — Yes, w'e might. 3580. Is not that what you can do ? — I do not think so. 3581. Y'ou want the railway companies to iVIr. Bolton — continued. undertake the extra trouble of collecting those parcels, and you want them to keep them till they have enough to send them at the ton rate ; is that so ? — No ; but if I have a lot of tea lying at two wharves, I should like the railway com- pany to be able to collect it for me, and send it on at the ton rate, but they would not do that. 3582. W ould it not be more expensive to the railway company to have to collect the goods in that way ? — I think that they are collecting at most wharves every day. 3583. If you took a store here and collected parcels to send them off at the ton rate, it would be a considerable additional expense to you, would it not ? — No doubt. 3584. But you want the railway companies to do that without any additional charge ? — Not at all. 3585. You spoke of blacking, and it being sent by a peculiar route from London to Swansea ; you say it is sent from London to Liverpool by sea, and from Liverpool to Swansea also by sea ; the rate on blacking I think is 32 s. 6 cZ. ? — Thirty-six shillings and eightpence ; it goes at the second-class rate. 3586. What is the rate from Liverpool to London by sea ? — I do not know. 3587. What is the rate from Swansea by sea? — I think it is 10 s. 3588. If you are ignorant of the rate of freight from London to Liverpool, how do you get your blacking? — The senders pay the carriage. 3589. Why should they send the blacking to Liverpool ; why not send it from London to Bristol by steamer? — It answers their purpose better to send it from London to Liverpool ; it is their arrangement. 3590. At all events you are not InjYired by it; you get the blacking soon enough ? — Yes, I get it scon enough. 3591. How are you injured by that, or do you mention it as an injury to the public ? — I men- tion it as showing one of the anomalies of the classification. 3592. You advocate the appointment of some sort of standing prosecutor, do you not? — No, I do not. 3593. What do you advocate? — I think that when a town like Swansea has to pay double the rate that Plymouth has, a matter of that sort should be brought before the Board of Trade or some other board. 3594. But there is nothing to prevent the ti’aders binding together to prosecute the railway companies? — But all these things involve a deal of trouble, which we do not want. 3595. Do you want a sort of standing prose- cutor ? — No. 3596. What do you desire? — If cases of that kind were explained to the Board of Trade, and they were asked to look into them, I think that would meet the difficulty. 3597. You would make the Board of Trade the standing prosecutor ? — Not the standing prose- cutor of necessity, but I would bring the case before them. 3598. AVhy should the traders, especially, be relieved from the necessity of maintaining their own position at their own expense ? — It is a matter that affects the public generally. X 3 3599. But 166 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. Tatloe. \_Coniinued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 3599. But the public are not relieved from the necessity of prosecuting their own cases? — For that reason a great many prosecutions fall through. 3600. Is not that very much to the advantage of the public generally? — That I do not know. Sir Edward Watkin. 3601. I think you stated that you have several shops in Swansea? — Yes. 3602. You do a very large retail trade, do you not ? — A pretty good sized one. 3603. The trade has not diminished then in any year 1 - — I do not know that it has. 3604. It is a progressive trade ? — My trade has altered altogether, because some years ago I did a large wholesale trade ; my retail trade is now larger than ever it was ; my wholesale trade is given up. 3605. Now with regard to this question of the rates by water, I suppose there is plenty of sea competition between Bristol and London ? — I do not know that. 3606. Then, again, as I understand, the traders of Sw'ansea did not support the steamer from Swansea to London, which charged, as you say, half the price of the railway, and therefore the steamer ceased to carry ? — Because London is not really the market now that it should be for us. 3607. Still you had a steamer for some time, as you stated to the Committee, which charged half the price which the railway companies, according to you, are charging ? — It ceased running. 3608. That is to say, there was no traffic for it? — No, that does not of necessity follow ; every- thing takes time to form a connection ; the small buyers of Swansea do not look upon London as the market for them ; they buy very few things in London, but the very small traders help to fill up a cargo whether by train or by any other mode of conveyance. 3609. Is it not the fair answer that Bristol is the market for Swansea more than London ever could he ? — I do not think so, decidedly. 5610. You mean to tell the Committee that the trade between London and Swansea has seriously diminished in amount, in consequence of the high rates charged by railway fx'om London? — That is my opinion. 3611. With regard to the rates charged to Liverpool, do you agree with me that with the exception of London there is coasting communi- cation between Swansea and your principal markets ? — There is between Swansea and Livei- pool, and Swansea and Bristol. 3612. Bristol being the point of exchange, that is to say, steamers bring commodities to Bristol, and take from Bristol those which are brought to Bristol from other places? — There are two steamers running between Bristol and Swansea constantly ; two or more. 3613. You spoke of the railway rates; I think you gave the Loudon rates upon a number of articles, rice, sugar, oatmeal, hemp seeds, jams, canary seed, dog biscuit, and lump sugar; I think you told the Committee that the railway rates come upon those articles from 10 per cent, to nearly 30 per cent. ; I think you said that the Sir Edward Watkin — continued. rate on rice was from 10 to 15 per cent., and that on canary seed it was 22 1 per cent. ? — Yes, I think that was so. 3614. Now, what would be the percentage upon the retail prices which you get from the public ? — But it is the percentage upon the ori- ginal cost that we calculate. 3615. But we must really have this a little more in detail ; you have told us that the per- centage upon the original cost of the article before adding carriage or anything, comes to so much, which seems very excessive ; I want to know what the percentage of the railway charge would be upon the retail piice of the article ? — I should have to make the calculation, and I have not done so. 3616. You do not sell all those articles at the same percentage of profit, do you ? — Practically we do. 3617. Do you sell sugar at the same profit as tea?- There is not so much difference now. 3618. Now, passing from that point, you com- plain about the scale of charge adopted in the case of packages not exceeding 500 lbs. weight? — Yes. 3619. You are aware that every railway company, I believe, has the power of charging any reasonable sum they please upon weights under a quarter of a ton ? — I am not aware that they have the power, but I know they do it. 3620. It is about three years since that the 500 lbs. scale was adopted, was it not? — Yes. 3621. Was not it the fact that when that scale was adopted, the charges of parcels under 1 cwt. were reduced ? — No doubt they were, but the bulk of the traffic comes over 1 cwt. and under 5 cwt. 3622. I am right in saying that when the 500 lbs. scale was adopted about three years ago, the rates for weights of 1 cwt. and under were reduced ? — That was so. 3623. You spoke about being able to collect your own goods, and so being able to make one consignment and have them at the ton rate ; you are aware that there are companies, such as the Globe and others, which collect parcels for trades- men ? — That is “ smalls.” 3624. If there is a grievance about those “ smalls ” being charged separately ; you are aware that there are companies which now collect those parcels for traders, and -send them on at the ton rate ? — Not such as Suttons’; they would not compete for the traffic that I name. I am speaking of parcels of four or five cwt. which they might collect and send at the ton rate. I think that by a proper organization of that kind, by which all tea used at Swansea was collected and sent down at that rate, great charges might be saved. 3625. Then you were asked whether you were aware that the Railway Commissioners do not insist upon the employment of counsel ; perhaps that does not affect you ? — I have no thoughts of going into litigation of that sort. Mr. Barnes. 3626. I understood you to say that the com- panies refused to allow you to collect your own goods ? — I said that the companies did not give any facilities for collecting. 3627. Do SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 167 5 Mmj 1881.] Mr. Taylor. \_C(mtinued. Mr. Barnes — continued. 3627. Do you mean to say that if you had oarts of your own, and took those goods to the station, the companies would refuse to receive them ? — They would not give any reduction. Mr. Dillwyn. 3628. I understand you to say that an equal rate ought to be charged from Swansea and from Bristol to London ? — About the same propor- tion. 3629. You stated also that thei-e was a great monopoly of the traffic to Swansea in the hands of the railway companies? — Practically they monopolise the carting and the delivery. 3630. Do you mean by the railway companies the Midland, the Great Western, and the Lon- don and North Western? — They are all the same, and we cannot take advantage of the ton rates, and the two ton rates in the proportion that we should do, because they do their own collecting. 3631. Are there not many things that you get from London that you might get equally from Bristol ?— No ; I do not think so. 3632. What is the difference in distance be- ween Bristol and Swansea ? — I have understood that the railway have to bring the goods about 150 miles. 3633. It is 216 miles between Swansea and London, and 150 by the Midland to Swansea via Gloucester, and partly over the Great Wes- tern? — 1 believe so. 3634. The sea would take all the traffic there may be between Swansea and Bristol, unless the Gi’eat Western Company keep -down their I’ates? — Yes, they did previously. 3635. The company cut them down to a very low rate indeed, did they not? — Yes. 3636. In order to secure some part of the trade between London and Swansea, you think that the same proportionate rates ought to be charged as between Bristol and Swansea ? — I think that the London traffic would become a very important traffic in that event. Mr. iScla ter- Booth. 3637. I wish to ask you some questions in ex- planation of an answer which you gave when you were first examined ; will you refer to Question 3352; you make it a ground of complaint in your answer that the rates are the same to you whether you make use of cither one of the three great companies ? — I do not make it a ground of com- plaint ; I only state it as a matter of fact. 3638. As a matter of fact then, do you mean to imply from that that you have not had the ad- vantage of a fair competition for the traffic between those three companies; that the rate, for instance, which you have to pay is regulated by the longest distance, and not by the shortest? — I cannot say how that may be ; the rate is the same either way. 3639. The result is that you say that it is the same rate ; what reason have you for saying that the rate has not been arrived at by the natural competition of the shortest route. Do you argue that the railway which takes the goods by the shortest route has raised its charges to the level of the railway which takes its goods by the longest route ? — Not at all. When I first went 0.54. Mr. Sclater-Bonth — continued, to Swansea there was only the Great Western Railway, and the rates are the same with the ex- ception of “ smalls.” 3640. Have you had the advantage of com- petition in breaking down the rates which you now have to pay ? — No, they are the same. 3641. Do you say, or do you not say, that the existence of three railways has done you no good ? — No good at all in the matter of charges. 3642. You mean to say that the railway which takes the goods by the shortest route has a bonus of the difference of mileage in the distance it takes the goods, as compared with the distance which the railway having the longest route takes them ? — Yes, that is so. Mr. Barclay. 3643. You said, I think, that you had not examined whether the railway companies were charging you over the maximum rates or not ? — I have not examined into that. 3644. Are you aware that the Great Western Railway Company has about 84 Acts fixing its rates ? — I do not know anything at all about that. 3645. You said that for certain goods you had to pay 85 s. a ton from London to Swansea, in- cluding collecting and delivery ; is that on quan- tities of over 500 lbs. ? — That is so. 3646. You told the Committee, I think, that the distance between London and Swansea was 216 miles? — Yes. 3647. i find by the returns of the Great Western Railway Company as to their power of charging, that they are entitled to charge upon their main line at the rate of 3 rf. a ton a mile as their maximum rate. Taking 114 miles, the distance to Gloucester, would you just see what that comes to ? — It comes to 28 s. 6 d. 3648. And then for the balance of the journey from Gloucester to Swansea, 102 miles, the maximum rate is 4 d. ? — That works to 34 s. 3649. Those two added together give the maximum rate that might be charged from London to Swansea ; would you tell the Committee what that comes to ? — It comes to 62 s. 6 d. 3650. Whereas the company charge you 85 s. ? — Yes. 3651. Charging the maximum rate that the company can possibly do as between London and Swansea, assuming that the figures I have put to you are correct, the maximum mileage rate which they are entitled to charge you from London to Swansea is 62 s. 6 d., therefore ? — Yes. 3652. Which would leave a sum of 22 s. 6 d. for collection and delivery? — Yes. 3653. Does the competition of the railways between Bristol and Swansea have the effect of reducing the steamer’s rates? — I should think so. 3654. You have more than one line of steamers between Bristol and Swansea, have you not ? — ■ We have two. 3655. Do those steamers compete with each other in ordinary times ? — Yes. 3656. And do you think that the railway com- petition from Bristol to Swansea still further reduces the rate that would be charged by the steamers ? — Yes, I think it does ; I think we X 4 were 168 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. Taylor. {Cmiiinued, Mr. Barclay — continued. were paying 10 s. before the Great Western Company made their concession to 10 s., and then the rate by the steamer came to 8 s,, I think. Sir Edicard Wutkin, 3657. For what article? — For any article, almost, the freight is 8 s. a ton. iSIr. Barclay. 3658. Could you tell me the route by which goods are carried between Swansea and Bristol ? —It is via Gloucester, I understand. 3659. If the Great Western carries it the whole route, can you tell me how it goes? — Via, Gloucester and through Cardiff and Newport. 3660. Do you know the distance that way ? — It is 150 miles, I understand. 3661. It would be considerably shorter if they went part of the way b_v the Midland, would it not ? — I understand it does go part of the way by the Midland now. 3662. Then you cannot tell me for certain whether the goods go all the way on the Great Western Railway, or whether they go part of the way on the Midland and part of the way on the Great Western? — They uo partly over the Midland, I believe, but I do not know that of my own knowledge. 3663. Do you think it reasonable to ask as low a rate between London and Swansea as they charge between Bristol and Swansea? — As low a rate proportionately. 3664 You mean as low a rate per ton per mile ? — Y es, as low a rate per ton per mile. 3665. Upon what grounds do you ask for that reduction ? — That if it pays the company to carry from Bristol to Swansea at a certain rate, it would pay them to carry from London to Swansea at the same proportionate rate ; it is only a question of mileage : the terminals are about the same. The Lf)ndon and North Western Company and the Midland Company bring traffic at about the same rate. 3666. You think the companies ought to adopt the same principle as you do in selling your goods, that is, adding about the same per- centage of profit all over ? — I should think so. 3667. Is that understood to be the modern princi2)le of carrying on business ? — I think it is. 3668. It used to be considerably different 20 or 25 years ago, I think ? — Yes, it was. 3669. Was it the custom then to put on as much as you could get? — We used to have to make a larger margin for bad debts than we do now ; we have not so much to allow for now. 3670. You used to put on a greater margin of profit on some articles than upon others, 20 or 25 years ago? — Yes, that was the practice. 3671. The modern system introduced into business is to put a more or less equal per- centage of profit upon all articles ? — That is the modern system. 3672. Have you asked the railway company for rates at any time ? — Yes, I have asked for rates at different times. 3673. Have ymu ever asked for station to station rates? — No, except in quantities of two tons ; they always quote station to station rates for that quantity. Mr. Barclay — continued. 3674. For high-class goods ? — No. 3675. For what class of goods? — For such things as soap, sugar, and rice, and things of that sort. 3676. When you asked them they quoted a station to station rate for such articles ? — Y^es. 3677. Do you know what difference that makes ? — I think the rate is 20 s. upon a two ton lot from London to Swansea, but I am not sure whether it is 20 s. or 25 s. at station to station rates. 3678. YVhat class article Is sugar? — Sugar is first class. 3679. Do you think it desirable that the rail- ways should be required to quote in their rate books, which are open to the public, station to station rates, as well as collection and delivery- rates ? — I think so, and then we should knoAV what we were paying for carriage, and what for cartage. 3680. And if you thought you -were over- charged for collection, you would be prepared to make arrangements to collect your own goods ? — Y"es. 3681. And at the same time to take the de- livery into your own hands ? — Y"es. 3682. Do you know what the rates are from London to Bristol ? — No, I do not. 3683. YY)u have not had an opportunity of knowing ? — No. 3684. Or the rate from London to Gloucester? — I do not know that. 3685. Do you think that the railway companies should charge a somewhat similar percentage of profit over all kinds of traffic ? — I think the classification should be looked into ; I think the classification is very unfair at present. 3686. Hut that is not precisely the point I asked you ; I ask whether you think the railway- companies should add an ajiproximately uniform percentage of profit upon all the traffic, and not carry some at a very small margin of a profit and others at an excessive profit ? — Certainly ; I do not think that they ought to take tea to Ply- mouth at 24 s. 2d. a ton, and charge 45 s. to Swansea, which is 50 miles less distance. 3687. Do the Plymouth traders compete with you ? — No. 3688. But you think that if the railway com- pany charged a reasonable rate to Plymouth, they would be able to charge you a lower rate, and what you would consider a more reasonable rate ? — Certainly. 3689. Are you persuaded that a sensible re- duction in the rates would develop a very large amount of traffic between London and Swansea? — I am sure of it. 3690. Did you refer to that case of blacking coming to Swansea by way of Liverpool, as an illustration of how the traffic might be developed if you had reasonable rates ? — I referred to that as a matter of fact. 3691. Y^ou referred to that as one article at any rate that would come by rail, if the charge for it were what you considered reasonable ? — Yes. 3692. Did you say that the Midland Company had a short route from Bristol to Swansea ? — I did not say a short route ; I said they had a route, but that it was not used. 3693. Are SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 169 5 May 1881.] Mr. Taylor. yCnniinued. ChoArman. Chairman — coiitinued. 3693. Are the traders in your neighbourhood permitted to take copies or extracts from the rate books for use at home ? — I never but once asked to see the rate book, and I was refused. 3694. You cannot speak as to whether it is a general subject of complaint in your neighbour- hood that the rate books are inaccessible or not ? — I do not know that it is. 3695. Have you in your own experience, and as your own case or that of your neighbours, had difficulty previously in ascertaining what you would have to pay for any trade transaction ? — IVe frequently buy a thing before we know what the railway carriage is. 3696. Is that because you have some difficulty in ascertaining it, or because you rather postpone it; is it your own desire not to look into it, or because you find practical difficulties in the way ? — 1 can hardly answer that question. 3697. It is an important matter to know whether it is your own fault or the fault of the railway companies? — I daresay it is our own fault, practically. 3698. You cannot tell us any case in which you have desired information and failed to get it? — I told the Committee that when I first went to Swansea I wrote to the Great Western Railway Company and asked them to give me the rates on goods to Swansea. Two or three months after- wards I saw the manager, and I said I had had no reply to the letter, and he said, “ W e do not give any general rates of that kind, but if you will put down on paper a list of the articles you require the rates for, we will give them to you.” Sir Daniel Gooch. 3699. That was thirteen years ago, was it not? —Yes. Chairman. 3700. What I want to get at is, whether you, as a trader, come here and say that practically since then you have had any difficulty in ascer- taining beforehand, before the transaction of your business, what rates you have to pay? — No, because if we want to know the rate upon a particular thing, we send to the station and ask, and the information is given. 3701. Have you ever desired to see the Clearing House classification ? — Yes. 3702. Has it been shown to you ? — Yes. 3703. What would you suiigest as to the authority which should draw up a new classifica- tion if it were thought desirable to have one ; that is to say, to whom would you leave the power of drawing up a new classification to be obligatory upon the companies ? — I have not thought of that. 3704. Would you be content to leave it to the railway companies themselves ? — It would depend upon how they did their work ; if it was a better classification, I would not mind who did it. 3705. You would not mind leaving it to the Railway Commissioners to do it, would you ? — I have not thought the subject over. 3706. Now with reference to what you want the Board of Trade to do ; you say you do not like the trouble of combining together to defend yourselves ; you want to leave it to the Board of 0.54. Trade, but I suppose you are aware that con- siderable trouble would have to be taken by any body of traders who wanted to set in motion a public department — you would have to get up the case and the evidence, and then to lay it before the department before they could be set in motion or make up their minds whether they thought it sufficiently important to take it up ? — Yes, that would be so, no doubt. 3707. Still, you think it important that an individual trader who had a grievance should be able to go before the Board of 'I'rade, and I sup- pose to urge that it was a 2 Miblic grievance as well as his own ? — If I had a case of that kind, and the organization was complete, I think it Avould be better to £jo before the Chamber of Commerce, and ask the Chamber of Commerce to go before the Board of Trade. 3708. In that case it would be simpler to give the Chamber of Commerce a locus standi at once before the Railway Commissioners, instead of going yourself to the Chamber of Commerce and getting them to go to the Board of Trade. It is, however, suggested to me that the Chambers of Commerce have no funds ; are you aw'are of that ? — I am not aware of that. 3709. I am obliged to ask you these questions, because of course until the knowledge of a wit- ness ujion this matter is tested your opinion might be held to have the same weight as Professor Hunter’s. Noav you say you want the Railway Commissioners to have more power in this matter ; would you Avish the Railway Commissioners to have jAOwer over the charges of the railway com- panies, putting aside the legal restrictions. Sup- posing, for examjjle, the chai’ges from London were excessive, would you Avish the Railway Com- missioners to be given poAver to reduce those charges? — I think so, if they Avere proved to be excessive. 3710. To the satisfaction of the RallAA'ay Com- missioners? — Yes, I think so. Sir Edward Watkin. 3711. (Through the Chairman.) We have it on the notes that the rate by direct steamer from Bristol to SAA'ansea is 8 s. a ton for general mer- chandise, but Ave have not heard Avhat the rate from London is by the direct steamer ; could you tell the Committee what the rate for tea is by the direct steamer from London to Bristol ? — I do not knoAv what it is. Mr. Caine. 3712. Is there a steamer from SAvansea to London ? — Not now. 3713. How is it, Avhen you have such very great grievances against the Railway Comiianies for excessive rates, that you do not combine to have a steamer from SAvansea to London ?- — I have already explained that. Sir Daniel Gooch. 3714. I think you have explained that the time when you Avere unable to get this rate fVom the Great Western Company was 13 years ago? — That is so. 3715. You have stated that you have not the same complaint noAV ? — Not the slightest. Y 3716. You no MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. Taylor. S^Contimied. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued. 3716. You stated, also, that the distance from London to Swansea was 216 miles? — Yes. 3717. You compared the Sw.ansea rates with the rates to Exeter, which- you said was about the same distance, but do you know that that is not so ? — I understood it was about the same dis- tance. 3718. Let me tell you that the distance is 194 miles against 216 ; do you also know that there are two routes to Exetei’, as well as three routes from Swansea to London ? — There are three routes from Swansea to London, and two routes to Exeter. 3719. Do you know the distance by the South Western Kail way to Exeter? — No. 3720. Would it not be fairer to compare the shorte.«t distance between London and Exeter with the distance between London and Swansea; you gave the Committee Exeter ; are you aware what the distance is there by the shortest route ? — But the South Western Company carry at a cheaper rate than the Great Western Company to Exeter; they give a four ton rate at 25 x., which I am informed the Great Western Com- pany do not. 3721. "Idle distaiKie by the South Western line is 172 miles; therefore the distance from Exeter as compared with Swansea would be 172 as against 216? — The difference would be 44 miles. 3722. Is there not steamboat competition be- tween London and Plymouth ? — I presume there is, but I do not know it of my own knowledge. 3723. You spoke of the rate of carriage on canary seed as being very excessive ; how many tons of canary seed do you get down at a time ? — Not any tons, because it would go mitey. 3724. What quantity of canary seed do you get as a rule ? — One quarter or two quarters. 3725. Hoiv much does that weigh ? — One quarter weighs 4 cwt. 14 lbs. 3726. You say it is the custom of your busi- ness to charge everything with the same per- centage of profit ; is that so ; I am told by grocers that they get a very small profit upon sugar, and that in some cases they get no profit upon sugar at all? — It depends upon the class of trade. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued. 3727. Do grocers make any profit upon sugar? — 1 think we do ; J think we make 10 per cent. 3728. How much would you get upon carra- way seed ? — It would be practically the same thing; we get 10 per cent, upon all this sort of thing. 3729. Therefore, practically, you do charge every article about the same profit? — I think we do. 3730. Is that so generally ? — I think it is so generally under the jiresent system of cash trading. 3731. If the railway companies did the same thing, u'ould you like them to raise the rate from Sxvansea to Bristol to the same propoi-tion as from Swansea to London ? — If they did we should go back to the steamer. 3732. Then why do you pay 10 s. by railway instead of 8 s. by steamer ? — Because the railway runs every day. 3733. You do not wish the rate to be raised I presume? — -No, not at all ; we do not wish it to be raised, but I should be glad if the rate to London were charged in the same proportion. Mr. Bolton. 3734. I think you complained of the rate from London to Swansea as being unfair, because goods were carried (I think you said) to Ply- mouth at a lower rate ; the reason for that of course is the sea competition? — Yes. 3735. And you also replied to Mr. Barclay that if they raised the rate to Plymouth some- what, they might be able to reduce the rate somewhat to you, did you not? — I did not say that ; I said that if the goods were being carried at a loss, to Plymouth, it was no reason why we should pay any part of the Plymouth loss. 3736. And if the goods are not being carried at a loss, what then ? — "fhen they can carry to Swansea at the same rate. 3737. A"ou spoke of the profit on sugar being 10 per cent ; do you know any of the railways in your neighbourhood which pay 10 per cent. ^ — T"es, a good deal more, seeing that I have not deducted our working expenses. Mr. James Brown, called in ; and Examined. Lord Randol'ph Churchill. 3738. Where do you live ? — At Newport. 3739. Are you in business? — No. 3740. Have you been in business? — I have been very largely in business in iron, coal, and tinplates in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire. 3741. Have you directed your attention to the railway charges? — Very much so. 37^2. On what lines principally ? — I was -the first to send coals to Liverpool from Monmouth- shire, from the Ebbw collieries, and to London from Aberdare. 3743. Over what railways principally? — The Great Western Railway; it would be first brought down the Vale of Neath to Neath, and then proceed by the Great Western Railway. 3744. Have you had reason to complain of overcharges by the raihvay companies ? — Yes, we have certainly ; but I may say this, that the rail- Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, way rates I think upon coals now are very fair and satisfactory to Liverpool and London. 3745. Have you ever bad any action with the railway companies about overcharges? — A man must be very chai’y in bringing an action against a railway company ; they are very formidable opponents and very powerful. 3746. Have you any s^iecial case to bring before the Committee ? — T"es, I have many cases with regard to the trade of Newport itself. Evi- dence with reference to Swansea has been given by itself, and evidence with regard to Merthyr Tydfil will be given by itself, so therefore I con- fine myself to Newport and that locality, Mon- mouihshire. 3747. Is your evidence as to excessive rates, that they operate unfavourably upon the trade of New})ort ? — Yes. 3748. Is SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 171 5 May 1881.] Mr. Brown. '^Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3748. Is Newport a town on the sea? — It is within four miles of the sea ; we have a very fine navigable river and splendid docks. 3749. Is it a large port for coal and iron? — Yes, our docks alone do about 2,000,000 tons a year, besides a large river trade. 3750. How many railways are there that run into Newport? — We are substantially now in the hands of the Great Western Railway Company ; the Great West'ern Company have taken up the Monmouthshire Railway, and they work jointly in some cases with the London and North West- ern Company in going to Liverpool, and so on. 3751. Does the South Wales Railway run into Newport? — Yes, from Gloucester to Milford. 3752. Can you give me the rates charged by the company from London to Newport, Including collection and delivery, on drapery goods ? — Yes, I can. 3753. What is the rate charged by the com- pany? — There are two or three different rates ; for instance, I give you mixed drapery, haber- dashery, and woollen goods; those are 45s. each per ton. 3754. What is the maximum rate which the company is entitled to charge for those goods ? — Thirty-three shillings and eightpence ; therefore that leaves an excess of 11s. Ad., or 25 per cent. 3755. That is to say, they charge 25 per cent, over the maximum rates ? — Yes. 3756. That includes, of course, collection and delivery? — Yes, it includes collection and de- livery. 3757. What do you suppose ought to be a fair charge for collection and delivery upon goods of that kind ? — I believe the fair charges at both ends, Newport and London, would be 4 s. a ton. 3758. Whereas the excess of charge is 11s. Ad. a ton ? — Y^es. 3759. What are the rates from London to Newport upon heavy goods and hardware ? — The rate for heavy goods, hardware, floor cloth, and carpets, is 35 s. a ton ; the maximum rate is 26 s. 9 d. for heavy goods and hardware, and for floor cloths and carpets, 33 s. 8 d. 3760. What is the excess in that case? — On the heavy goods and hardware it is 8 s. 3 d., or 23^ per cent,, while on the other goods it is a mere trifle. 3761. What would be a fair charge for collec- tion and delivery upon those goods? — I have given the 4 s. upon all classes of goods. 3762. You think that 4 s. ought to cover all classes ? — Yes. 3763. What do the Company charge you on goods between London and Newport, such as furnishing furniture, or straw goods, or fur goods, or laces and silk ? — Taking those five, they are charged at 70s. per ton each. 3764. What is the maximum rate? — The maximum rate is 38 s. 8 d. per ton. 3765. How much excess is that ? — Thirty-one shillings and four-pence, or 44f per cent. 3766. You put the charge for collection and delivery upon all those goods at 4 s. a ton, and you say that covers everything, in your opinion ? — Yes. 3767; The actual excess upon this last class of 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, goods, including the 4s., is 31s. Ad., making an actual illegal excess of about 27 s. ? — Yes. 3768. Have you got those maximum rates out of the Acts ? — Yes, I have taken the maximum rates out of the' Acts. 3769. And how do you get the charges of the companies; from the books? — From the books ; the books are always open at the goods station, so that any man can go in and see them. 3770. Do the people who get those goods pay any extra charge when they insure them ? — Y'^es ; in the case of valuable goods, such as silk and lace, as to which there is considerable risk of • damage, or anything of that sort, if the shop- keeper, or the haberdasher, desires to insure his goods he writes to the company, and they charge him 20 per cent, extra upon the rate I have given. 3771. So that supposing you were having lace sent to you from London to Newport, and you wished the company to Insure it, what would you pay } — I should pay 14 s. a ton extra. 3772. You would, first of all, have to pay an excess charge over the maximum rate of 31 s. Ad., and 14 s. a ton in addition ? — Yes. 3773. Which would be about 45 s. in excess over, the maximum rate ? — That would be it. 3774. Are you acquainted with the maximum rates charged from Manchester to Newport? — Yes. 3775. Including collection and delivery? — Yes, quite so. 3776. What are the rates on drapery, haber- dashery, and woollen goods? — Mixed drapery, haberdashery, and woollen goods all come at 65 s. a ton. 3777. What should the maximum rate be? — Forty shillings. 3778. There must be a good many railways from Manchester to Newport ; are there not two or thi'ee ? — It is extremely difficult to say where a railway begins and where it ends. For instance, from Manchester to Newport, the London and North Western Company are mixed up, and perhaps the Midland are also ; but those are the maximum rates taken out from the Acts. 3779. From the Acts of the London and North Western Company ? — The Acts of the lines coming from Manchester to Newport ; they come by way of Shrewsbui'y, by Shrewsbury and Here- ford, and from Hereford to Abergavenny. 3780. You say that the maximum rate upon those three classes of goods is 40 s.? — Yes. 3781. And what excess does the Company’s charge make over that; is it 15s. ? — It is 15 s., or 27 per cent. 3782. Upon heavy goods and hardware what do the companies charge ? — Upon heavy goods, hardware, carpets, and floor-cloths, taking them together, the rate is 43 s. Ad., and the maximum rate upon the first two items is 37 s. 6 d., showing an excess of 5 s. 10 d., or 13 per cent. Mr. Barclay. 3783. Do I understand when you speak of the maximum rates that the Company is entitled to charge, you have added to the mileage rate 4 s. a ton for collection and delivery ? — Four shillings would be 2 s. at each end. Y 2 3784. Do 172 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. Brown. [ Continued. 5 May 1881.] Mr. Barclay — continued. 3784. Do I understand that after calculating out the mileage rates you add 4 s. a ton for col- lection and delivery ? — I give you the charge of the railway com])anies, the railway companies remunei’ating themselves for 'collection and delivery also. 3785. Have you added that to what you call the maximum rate Avhich the Company is entitled to charge? — I will give you a short Illustration. Tomkins writes to his house in Manchester, and says, “Send me so many tons of goods;” he receives those goods ; the railway company go and fetch those goods ; the railway company deliver them into Tomkins’ shop at Newport, and they ask Tomkins to pay them 55 s. and upwards for those services. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3786. And the maximum rate authoi’ised by the Act would be 40 s. ? — Yes. ^ Mr. Bolton. 3787. That would be from station to station? — Yes. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3788. So that there is an excess of 15 5. over and above the maximum rate? — Yes. 3789. You say that out of that 15 s., 4 s. would cover the cost of collection and delivery amply ? — Yes. 3790. So that there is an excess of 1 1 s., which, in your opinion, is an illegal charge ? — Yes. 3791. Let us now go to the fourth classof goods, namely, straw goods, fur trimmings, furnishing furniture ; what is the actual charge made by the Company per ton for them? — Sixty-five shillings. 3792. What do you state is the maximum rate? — Forty-two shillings and sixpence. 3793. What is the excess? — Twenty-two shillings and sixpence, or 34 1 per cent. 3794. I suppose to get at the fair excess you ought to deduct 4 5. a ton from the 22 s. 6 d. ? — Yes, that would ])ut it in the most favourable light for the railway company. 3795. Making an excess charge of 18 5. 6 d. ? — Yes ; then I ought also to mention that for these, goods there is a charge of 20 per cent, extra from Manchester in case you insure. 3796. Is it the case or not that when the com- panies are charging their full maximum rate they are by law bound to carry at their own risk ? — The charge for insurance is wholly illegal ; the companies have no right to charge it. 3797. Does the maximum rate which the com- pany is authorised to charge include by law the insurance of the goods ? — Yes, so I say. 3798. So that the company charge over their maximum rate, and, in addition to that, they de- mand 20 per cent, for insurance ? — Yes. 3799. What do you pay if you get furniture from London to Newport? — Furniture comes under a different category : the upholsterer in London delivers it to the station; it is more con- venient for him to deliver articles such as furni- ture at the station, therefore the rate I am now going to give the Committee is the station to sta- tion rate. 3800. What do the Company charge ? — Seventy shillings per ton. Lord Randolph Clmr chill — continued. 3801. AVdiat is the maximum rate authorised by the Act? — The maximum rate should be 385. 8f/. 3802. What is the excess there ? — The excess there is 315. Ad., which is equal to 44| per cent. 3803. And there is no deduction to be made there for collection and delivery? — No, the upholsterer in London delivers, and the furniture broker at the other end sends his own vans to fetch it. 3804. Does this rate include insurance? — No, of course you pay 14 s. more if you insure ; you pay 20 per cent, more for insurance if you do in- sure. Chairman. 3805. When you talk of Insurance, I suppose you mean an insurance whereby the railway company guarantees the payment of the value or a portion of the value if a loss arises to the con- signor from whatever cause ? — Yes. 3806. But you know that a common carrier by law is merely responsible for his own so-called negligence ? — That is so. 3807. If it is an insurance which insures the goods against all risks it would not be an illegal charge, because the common carrier is only liable for his own negligence ; is that so ? — I cannot draw any distinction between a common cai'rier being liable in carrying goods, smd a railway- company carrying me as a passenger ; they are liable for any neglect on their part ; the carriage may not be well covered over, and the goods may suffer by rain, for example. 3808. But the railway company is a common carrier and they are liable for their neglect, but, as 1 understand, the insurance to which you are alludin" insures the e'oods from loss from what- O O ever cause ? — I cannot follow the distinction. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3809. You do not know, in fact, whether the in- surance for which you pay 20 per cent, extra is meant to insure against all loss, or whether it is meant to insure only against neglect by the com- pany ? — Quite so ; suppose a haberdasher sends some lace and silks, and they have not been pro- perly covered up, and in the course of transit they are damaged by rain and water, then the company would be liable Avithout being paid for insurance. 3810. What are the rates from Birmingham to Newport on copper? — Birmingham is heavy business altogether ; springs, copper sheathing, and hardware, are charged from station to sta- tion. 3811. What is the rate? — Twenty-five shillings is the station to station rate. 3812. What is the maximum rate? — Twenty shillings. 3813. That is an excess of 25 per cent, is it not? — Yes ; then presses Avould be charged 35 s., and tools 50 s. 3814. What are presses? — Heavy presses for bending iron, and so on. 3815. Those are station to station rates? — Yes. 3816. What is the maximum rate for presses? — It should be 28 s. 1 d. 3817. Whereas the company charge 35 s.? — Yes. 3818. What SELECT COMMITTEE ON RxlILWAYS. 173 5 May 1881.] Mr. Brown. [ Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3818. What Is the maximum rate for tools? — That should be the same, namely, 28 s. 1 d. 3819. What do the companies actually charge? — They charge 50 s., station to station. 3820. Will you hand in that table? — I will deliver the table. ( The same was handed in.) 3821. I think you have the station to station rates, have you not, on the Monmouthshire Rail- way ? — Yes. 3822. In this table do the company divide the goods into six classes ? — They do. 3823. I see os., Is.Qd., JOs. lOd., 11s. 8 <7., 13s. 4t?., and 16s. %d. ? — Yes. 3824. Is that the classification from Newport to Ebbw Vale ? — Yes. 3825. Is that a distance of 23 miles? — Yes. 3826. Then the lowest classification is 5 s. a ton ? — Y^es. 3827. Do you make out that the maximum rate authorised by the i^ct is 5 s. 6 c?. ? — Yes. 3828. Whereas the highest charge for goods from Newport to Ebbw Vale is 16s. 8c/.? — That is the railway charge. 3829. Take one more station a little farther distant; how much is the distance from Newport to Ponty])ool ; is it 11 miles ? — Yes. 3830. From Newport to Pontypool what is the charge by the company upon the lowest classifi- cation ? — Three shillings and fourpence. 3831. What is the maximum rate ? — The maxi- mum rate is 2 s. 9 d. 3832. So that the lowest classification is in excess of the maximum rate? — Yes. 3833. What in the highest classification is the charge made by the company ?• — Two shillings and nlnepence is the maximum rate of charge ; but 155. is what the company charge on the highest class. 3834. That shows an excess of 12 s. 3 d. ? — The dlfierence between 2 5. 9 c?. and 15 s. is 12 s. Zd.-, those are station to station rates also. 3835. Will you give the Committee some instances upon the South Wales line ; take New- port, to any station upon the South Wales line ? — YYu may take Newport to Gloueester, which is 45 miles. 3836. What is the charge made by the com- pany upon the lowest classification ? — There they charge 6 5. 8 rf. 3837. What is the maximum rate? — Fifteen shillings. 3838. What is the charge made by them upon the highest classification? — Forty shillings. 3839. Is that a station to station rate? — Yes. 3840. Will you give us an instance from New- port to some station upon the Sirhowy Railway ? — It is 23 miles from Newport to SirhoAvy. 3841. What charge do the company make upon their lowest classification ? — Six shillings and eightpence. 3842. What is the maximum rate authorised by the Act? — Five shillings and ninepence. 3843. So that their charge upon the lowest classification is in excess of the maximum rate ? — It is. 3844. What charge do they make upon their highest classification ? — Eighteen shillings and fourpence. 3845. Will you hand in that table? — I will. ( The same was handed in.) 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 3846. Is there any other point which you wish to call attention to ? — I wish to call attention to the charges on Avines and spirits and stable manure ; those Avill be found in the next table. Then again there is a very large business done in South Wales, in the Carmarthenshire district, in the way of cattle; cattle are carried by the truck load, so much a truck ; you take a truck and put as many cattle or sheejA in as you like ; they run along the South Wales Raihvay from Carmarthen to NcAvport, Avhich is 88 miles, and then to TIerelbrd, their destination, 40 miles in addition. For the 128 miles they they charge you 2 /. 6 s. per truck, but if you take a truck load ifom Carmarthen, and stop at Newport, and dis- charge it there, they charge you 3 Z. 2 s. 3 d. ; but not content Avith that, a man must go in charge, and the man’s fare is chariied, if he goes to Hereford, 128 miles, at Is. 6 rZ., but if he stops at NeAvport, at the end of the 88 miles, he is charged 85 . 1 1 (Z. ; in addition to that, during the rinderpest that Ave had some time ago, the company put on an extra charge, Avhich has never been taken off since, of 1 5., for Avhat they called cleaning the trucks. 3847. Will you hand in a Table shoAving the charges you have now been referring to ? — I Avill. {The Table was handed in.) 3848. Are there any general observations you would Avish lo make? — I Avish to trouble the Committee very shortly Avith my views of Avhat the public require ; Ave require an equality of charges for an equality of services as a sound principle to go upon, restraining railway com- panies I’rom grossly' violating every principle of equity and fairness. I have shoAvn that the railway companies have long acted most v'exa- tlously and capriciously, relying for their over- charges on the ignorance, as Avell as the helpless- ness of the public. A general equalisation of charges for both merchandise and jAassenger at reasonable rates is quite practicable, and this done there Avould be a safeguard against excessive charges. With the multitude of RaiEva}' Acts they all bristle Avith pains and penalties, even to imprisonment as against the public, but noAvhere do you find a penalty imposed upon companies for the many Avrongs daily committed against the public interests. Penalties should be imposed upon raihvay eompanies acting Avrongfully In the Avay in Avhich penalties are imposed upon clerks of the peace, clerks to magistrates, &c., to be recovered by summary process, and if need be payable to the county treasurer. With reference to the Raihvay Commissioners, they form a tribunal highly esteemed. Their judgments are given in full accord Avith good plain common sense and law, and at a cost that enables men, like myself, of limited means, to obtain redress of grievances which could not be hoped for prior to its establishment. Their poAvers are, however, too prescribed ; they require extension, and for the protection of the poor suitor but one appeal should be allotted. My OAvn experience in litiga- tion Avith railway companies is that they have no regard for the right or Avrong of a case. Their first resort is to avail themselves to the utmost of the laAv’s delay, set out every possible postpone- ment, wholly regardless of costs to themselves, Y 3 and 174 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. Brown. \Coniinued. Lord liandolph Churchill — continued, and so weary out their assailants, and this system is now so well understood that large numbers put up with gross injustice rather than enter a court of law, beset by so many terrors ; hence I am strongly in favour of a continuance of the Bail- way Commissioners with greatly enlarged powers, and thus attain protection against the present, in too many cases, tyrannical conduct of railway companies. Sir Daniel Gooch. 3849. By uhlch Act of Parliament do you calculate the rates as between Newport and London ; how many Acts of Parliament are there existing upon that route? — There are multitu- dinous Acts of Parliament. Lord Skelmers- dale’s Eeturn is my guide for the maximum rates. Mr. Phipps. •3850. What is the distance from London to Newport? — One hundred and fifty-eight miles. 3851. And what is the distance from Man- cnester to Newport? — I think 145 miles. 3852. And what from Birmingham to New- port? — Birmingham I should think would be about 106 or 107 miles. 3853. Do you think that 4 s. a ton is enough for miscellaneous goods being collected in Lon- don, and delivered in Newport? — Yes, I do ; I believe the trade consider it so too. 3854. You said that the railway companies also charged 20 per cent, more than they were entitled to do for insurance, because the insurance was included in the maximum rates ? — That is what I think. 3855. Are you quite clear that that is so? — I put it forward as I believe it to be. 3856. But of course a railway company would always be liable for its own laches if goods were lost by the negligence of the company, or by the insecurity of the covering, or anything of that kind ; but supposing they were stolen, do you mean that they should be responsible then ? — Yes, if the goods are delivered to you for safe custody, you must deliver them. 3857. But if there were no negligence proved on the part of the railway company? — You put the case, if I understand you rightly, thus : sup- posing vans were robbed on the way, in that case I take it the company would be clearly liable. Supposing there was a small bale which happened to be a very valuable one, of lace, and that were carried away, certainly the company would be liable for that. 3858. But is it not the case that a railway com- pany would only be responsible if the goods were not insured up to a certain amount ? — 1 believe that is so, but I cannot speak myself as to that. I believe there is a limit to the liability of rail- way companies ; for instance, you may send a packet of lace that is worth 200 1 . or 300 1 . I do not think it would be quite right that you should sue the railway company for so large an amount as that. 3859. One other priucqial cause of complaint against this railway company was that cattle were charged more from Carmarthenshire if left at Newport, which would be 40 miles short, than if they were taken on to Hereford? — Yes. Mr. Phipps — continued. 3860. That is so, is it? — Yes, and the reason is this : that there is a small line of railway, I think it is called the Mid-Wales, which goes off to Craven Arms, that is north of Hereford, and then they come right down south into Hereford, and that line of railway is not in the hands or within the power of the Great Western Railway Company ; the other is the Great Western Com- pany’s line proper. 3861. Then the line froral Newport to Here- ford is in the hands of what company ? — I be- lieve it is jointly between the London and North Western and the Great Western. Mr. Bolton. 3862. You I tliink expressed a favourable opinion, with which I think most of us would be inclined to agree, of the Railway Commissioners ? — Yes, I think very highly of them. 3863. And you added that redress and justice could be obtained in their court at a very mode- rate rate ? — Yes, that was why the Commission was constituted, to protect the poor trader. 3864. Redress can, in your opinion, be obtained there at a moderate cost ? — Their jurisdiction is not quite so wide and extended as I should wish to see it ; I wish to see their powers extended. 3865. You have given the Committee a very long list of enormous overcharges according to your view ; can you tell the Committee why an application has not been made to the Railway Commissioners for redress to these wrongs ? — It would be for the individual ; for the tradesman and the shopkeeper to do it ; those are not a class of men who can take up and fight a battle of that sort. Mr. Lowther. 3866. Is it your opinion that the British pub- lic are helpless and ignorant, as a rule ? — No, not in the way that you are putting it. 3867. It is the way that you put it? — In this way, that they are ignorant of the responsibilities of the railway companies to themselves ; that is to say, they do not understand the whole bearings of the case. 3868. And you think that the Railway Com- missioners are therefore the protection of the poor trader? — I think you will find that in the recom- mendations upon which the legislation followed. 3869. And did you as a poor trader, ot did anybody in Newport as a poor trader, apply to the Railway Commissioners when they found that those charges were made ? — I do not know of any case ; I do not think there has been such a case. 3870. Why not? — For the very reason that I have stated ; law, even from our cheapest courts, is costly enough, and it does not suit a tradesman to get into hostilities with a railway comjiany. The railway company can annoy him in his trade and his business in many various ways, and there- Ibre he had better put up with the evils that he endures. 3871. You stated that there was an extra charge made by the railway companies for clean- ing trucks for cattle ; is that charge made by the railway company ? — If I want a truck to carry my cattle I am charged I s. for the cleansing of the truck. 3872. But SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 175 5 May 1881.] Mr. Brown. [ Continued. Mr. Lowther — continued. 3872. But do you know that that charge is made by the railway companies, or is it made by the Board of Trade ? — I do not know that at all ; I know I have to pay it. 3873. And you therefore conclude that it is charged by the railway company ; it is not charged by Act of Parliament, is it? — It is a charge upon me. 3874. But you do not know why the railway company charge it ? — It is for the purpose of cleansing the truck. 3875. But you do not know that they are obliged to clean the truck by Act of Parliament, do you ? — I think so ; I think I have read of cases in which railway companies have been punished for not doing it, for neglecting to do it. 3876. I am sure you would wish to correct a statement you have made ; you said you take a truck and put as many cattle in it as you like ; that is not so, is it? — It is so. 3877. And your opinion is that the charge for insurance is wholly illegal? — It is wholly illegal. Sir Edward Watkin. 3878. With regard to insurance, you are aw'are that there was a Committee of this House rvhich sat upon the question of railway insurance two or three years ago ? — Yes. 3879. And it was quite admitted that it W’as legal to charge insurance within certain limits ; are you aware of that? — I cannot speak to that. 3880. In dealing with what you call the maxi- mum rate of the companies, you have taken 4 s., I see, as between London and Newport, for cartage ? — Yes. 3881. Hoav much is that for London and how much for Newport? — Two shillings for each. 3882. Do you consider 2 s. a fair charge for cartage in London ?— Yes, I believe it is con- sidered so. 3883. Have you included in your calculations anything for the use of warehouses belonging to the companies ?— No, we do not want a ware- house. 3884. Have you included anything for sidings ? — No, we do not want the use of sidings ; we deliver our goods into your stations, and put them into your trucks. 3885. The waggons have to be shunted, have they not? — The waggons have to be shunted for the purpose of making up the trains. 3886. Sometimes for miles ; the same waggon Mr. Edward Watkin — continued, for a mile or two ? — I do not know about “ miles; ” I do not know about a mile even. 3887. Have you allowed anything for the waggons coming back ? — Iron and coal waggons pay upon that w'hich they take laden, and they are returned empty. 3888. But you rightly or wrongly have allowed nothing for empty waggons ; you are aware that if a waggon goes to Newport empty and comes back full, it goes two miles for one? — That is so. 3889. Have you taken anything for that ? — I say the waggons are included in the maximum rate to be paid for the conveyance of goods. 3890. You have taken nothing for that? — No, I have taken nothing either for locomotive power or for waggons ; they are all included. 3891. You have given the rates between Manchester and Newport ; I think there are four lines which make up the route between Manchester and Newport? — Yes. 3892. Have you looked at all their Acts of Parliament to get the figures which you have given to the Committee ? — As far as I could search. 3893. You will not pledge yourself that the figures which you -have given are accurate? — No, but I will pledge myself to this extent, that I have endeavoured to get at the truth in all the figures I have given. 3894. Then you said something about furni- ture ; when you speak of the insurance of furniture, is it not because it is not packed in cases, so as to be less liable to damage, that the insurance is required? — I do not know about that. 3895. Will you take it from me that the furniture that is insured is that which is not packed, but is sent loose for the convenience of the sender? — No doubt. Lord Randolph Churchill. 3896. I suppose your calculation of 4 s. a ton for the 'expenses of collecting and delivery, is not a calculation wdiich Avas meant to apply accurately to one particular class of goods more than an- other, but is an average calculation applying all round ? — I have so stated it. Sir Edward Watkin. 3897. Are you aware that the allowance be- tween company and company, for the carted London terminal, is 8 s. G d. ? — 1 do not know what your Clearing-house arrangements are ; I do not know anything about them. Mr. Charles King, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Barclay. 3898. You are a corn factor, cari-ying on business in Mark-lane ? — I am. 3899. And you go to the country, principally to the county of Surrey, to buy grain for the London market ? — I do, and to sell it also. 3900. You are here to complain of the in- equalities of rate charged by the railway com- panies in Surrey, for the conveyance of grain, are you not? — I am. 3901. Will you give the Committee some illus- trations of the inequalities of the rates of which 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. you complain? — Yes; I will take the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway first. 3902. The rates you are going to quote are station to station rates? — Yes. 3903. And for the canlage of grain? — Yes. The South Coast Railway go to Guildford, which is 56 miles, and they charge 4 s. The same to Bramley, 53 miles, simply because they compete with Shalford on the South Eastern Railway ; they charge 5 s. 5 c?. to Cranleigh, which is 48 miles, and they charge 4 s. 1 1 c?. to Y 4 Rudgwick 176 MINUTES or EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. King. \ Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. Riulgwick, which is 44 miles ; they charge 4 5 d. to Horsham, which is 37 miles, and they charge 3 s. 9 d. to Ked Hill, Avhich is 20 miles, all upon the same route, or only 3 d. a ton less for carrying less than half the distance to Guild- ford. 3904. Do they make any difference in the charges upon grain from the country up to London, and from London down to the country ? —No. 3905. Will you now give the Committee some other examples of which you complain ? — Taking the South Eastern, their rates are more than the Brighton Company’s ; the rate to Guildford is the sa,me as by the other company, but they charge from Merstham 3,'t. Ad., going only 19 miles, and they charge from Croydon to Merst- ham, which is only 10 miles, 3 s. 9 d., over the same route. 3906. How much is that a mile? — It is about A\d. I am not comparing this as against the Act of Parliament rates, but as against the pro- ducer and the dealei-. Then to lied Hill, a distance of 12 miles from Croydon, the company charge 3 s. 4 d. 3907. How much is that a ton a mile } — Three- pence farthing, and to Shalford and Chilworlh they charge 6 s. S d., a distance of 31 miles and 21 miles respectively from Croydon. 3908. Do you know any of the rates upon the London and South Western Railway of a similar character? — Thinking they would fall back upon the ground of com})etition with the South Eastern, I took one rate, that is the AVoking rate ; Wok- ing is 23 miles from London ; all three railways go to Guildford, and the rate of each is the same. 3909. Is the A¥oking an intermediate station between London and Guildford? — Tes. 3910. AVhat do you make out that the South AVestern Company charge to AVoking? — Four shillings and five pence. 3911. That is 5 rZ. more for the less distance than for the longer distance? — Yes {the Table was handed in). 3912. How does this affect you in your busi- ness ?— Simply that it often stops the removal of grain. 3913. Just such a little difference as that affects the route or the destination of the goods — It must stop the moving of it, because you will see that where a 4 s, rate is charged from London to a great centre, and for somewhere in between 6 s. 8 d., that must be against the producer, and also against the man who attempts to move the grain. 3914. We may see it in an abstract way, but I ask you whether these differential rates do affect the conduct of your business ? — Un- doubtedly ; they stop it at times. 3915. A'ou find that these irregular and dif- ferential rates do interfere with the course of your business? — They do. 3916. Do you desire to have some uniformity in the rates? — Yes, it is only fair to the traders and to the producers that it should be so. 3917. That would give you facilities in the conduct of your business? — A"es, and to all others. 3918. Is there a general complaint in the trade Mr. Barclay — continued. about these irregularities ? — A."es, except where they have preferential rates. 3919. The man who has preferential rates does not complain? — No; that is how this ques- tion has been so badly represented to you ; it ought to have been represented very much more strongly than it has. 3920. Certain parties get advantageous rates, and they do not therefore desire to say anything against the railway companies, lest they should be deprived of those advantageous terms ? — That is so, 3921. Do you say so of your own knowledge? — Yes, I do. 3922. Do you know of any ])arties that get more favourable terms than you ? — Perhaps if I had applied for them I should have got them, but I know some parties get more favourable rates than I do, but the companies in those cases da put this ])roviso in, that they carry at the owners’ risk ; 1 have never been able to find out what the owners’ risk was. I know a case in which 100 sacks Avere carried, and the company de- livered only 99 ; the matter was taken before the county court judge, and he ruled in faA'our of the company, and the consignors did not get an allowance for the sack, 3923. A"ou think it an improper thing for a rail- way company to acknowledge the receipt of a cer- tain quantity, and then protect themselves from de- livering short by any clause in their contract? — I think it is an unfair thing. 3924. A"ou complain of preferential rales being gi'anted to certain individuals as Avell as differ- ential and irregular rates charged over different portions of the line ? — I do. 3925. Did I understand you aright as saying, that you knew of cases where certain trader's got advantages over others under the same circum- stances? — I do not know about “under the same circumstances,” but I know several traders who have preferential rates. I believe most of them (I did not put the question to them all) were at owners’ risk, but inasmuch as I have proof from one of the general managers here, I believe it is so, that the goods are carried at owners’ risk. 3926. Are you aware whether your OAvn goods are carried at oivners’ risk ? — I know they are not. 3927. A^ou insist upon their being carried at the risk of the company ? — A"es, certainly. 3928. A"ou haA'e not inquired Avhether the railway company is exceeding its maximum i-ate in the charges they make against you ? — I know they are, in some instances ; but, m a great many, I believe they are really less than the rates in the Act of Parliament, 3929. AYhy do you believe that? — The cal- culation tells me ; for instance, 1 know that the South Coast Company have reduced their rates some months since, which has drawn the sting, as against them, I admit in a great measure. 3930. Do you contend that the Brighton Company are noAV within their maximum rates? — Very nearly they are, except as regards those intermediate stations. 3931. I ask yon upon what ground you say that the London and Brighton Company has now come Avithin its maximum rates ? — Taking one with the other, I believe it is so. 3932. Have SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. 177 5 Maij 1881.] Mr. King. {Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 3932. Have you examined tlie Acts of Par- liament to ascertain the facts ? — I have. Chairman. 3933. It is veiy little consolation to a trader ■who is paying over the maximum rales allowed to know that somebody else, who is at another part of the line, is paying a little less, and that, taking the average, makes it come out right ?— Perhaps so ; but with regard to the dealers it makes very little difference. Mr. Fa yet. 3934. You complain that those rates interfere with your business ; what would be the effect upon your business if the rates xvere arranged in a reasonable and fair manner ? — That we should be able to move more. 3935. Would that have the effect of reducing the price of the goods that you are able to sell ? — I think that it would have the effect of giving the producers more money. 3936. M^ithout increasing the to the consumer? — Without increasing the price to the consumer. 3937. Do you mean to say that there are pro- ducers who are pi-evented from sending their goods to those particular places by those unequal rates of which you now complain ? — Yes. Mr. Dillwyn. 3938. Do not you think it essential that there should be some reduction made when the owner takes the risk? — The argument I use against it is this, that, if you are a large trader, and you have, say 20, 40, or 100 consignments and more, you can afford to be your own insurer, but if you do not consign so frequently you cannot. 3939. If you were a railway manager, do not you think that you would be willing to make a reduction to people who were willing to take the risk ? — That may be a fair argument, but I take my objection to it on public grounds. Mr. Craiy. 3940. Do you understand the oxvner’s wish to extend as far as loss of quantity ? — P do not ; I should like to see the matter settled. 3941. You would not extend the risk to ab- straction? — The companies call upon you to prove the neglect ; that is the difficulty. 3942. You could not by any possibility cal- culate an insurance amount to cover that ? — I think not. 3943. But you might, I suppose, make a cal- culation to cover damage upon a large trade ? — A large trade I might, but 1 do not think a small trade I could. 3944. So that this increase, if it is in con- sideration of the risk at all, ought not to extend beyond damage to the property itself? — Cer- tainly not. Sir Edward Watkin. 3945. You "ave the Committee the rate of O the London and Brighton Company to Guild- ford, a distanee of 56 miles, at 4 s. I under- stand that your complaint is, not that the railway companies that you mentioned are carrying above their maximum power, but tliat they are charging irregularly ? — Yes. 0.54. Sir Edioard Watkin — continued. 3946. Is it your recommendation to the Com- mittee that they should charge by an equal mileage divisional rate? — Yes. 3947. Irrespeetive of distance ? — Yes. 3948. So that if one market is 100 miles from London, and another, 10 miles, you think the company should charge 10 times as much from one as from the other? — Yes, but with any re- duction you like for long distances, provided it does not make the rate less than for those stations you pass through. 3949. You think that xvould develop trade ? — Yes ; I will not take the large towns, but take the intermediate places, 3950. But that is what you would contend for, viz., equal mileatje rates irrespective of distance? — Yes, with the proviso above. 3951. You said there was no difference in the charge for grain, up and down ? — That is so. 3952. If it was 4 s. up, it would be 4 s. down between the same jdaces ? — That is so. 3953. You have no complaint upon that ground ? — No. 3954. You say these rates being irregular, interfere with the conduct of your business? — They interfere with all traders’ business. 3955. Do you think that for a railway com- pany to send waggons to Guildford for grain, and to bring the grain back again, and to do the terminal services at each end, there is any profit at all out of the 4 s. ? — No, I do not think there is ; that is not the ground 1 take, but I do not think they should rob the intermediate places for the sake of the two ends. Take Shalford which is 31 miles from Croydon, and Croydon to Chil- worth, which is 21 miles, they charge 6 s. S d. in each case, whereas they only eharge 4 s. for carrying 42 miles to Guildford, and go through both places. 3956. You say the railways were made for the public good? — Yes. 3957. 1 suppose there are such people as shareholders in railways, are there not? — Yes. 3958. Do you think they ought to have a dividend ? — Yes, certainly. 3959. And you do not want the railway com- panies to carry at a loss ? — Certainly not. 3960. You said there was a general eomplalnt about the rates over those distances except where pi’eferential rates were given ? — Y’^es. 3961. Y^ou stated that you knew of cases in which prefei’ential rates were given? — I do. 3962. Will you name one? — I am not at liberty to uive any names, although I know several, but I ean produce a letter which will prove my statement {the same teas handed to the Chairman'). 3963. \Yas that a letter in which a statement of the quantity was intended to affect the rate ? — I think the quantity is named there. 3964. Do you call it a preferential rate, if a dealer like yourself goes to a railway company and says, I can send so much larger a quantity if I get so mueh less a rate, and that in order to enable him to get the order, the company quote a certain rate, do you call that a preferential rate? — Y^es, I do. 3965. The circumstances differ you will ad- mit? — It is a question of quantity whether you have one truck or 40. Z 3966. And 178 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Mr. King. {Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 3966. And that you can do a lai’ger business at a less profit than a small one? — Yes, that I admit, of course. 3967. Now I want to know whether this rate is a rate to enable business to be done, which would not be done otherwise, or whether it is an attemj)t to purposely place one customer upon a better footing than another? — It actually does the latter ; I do not know Avhether the intention is to do it or not. 3968. M'ould you object to railway companies being allowed to quote rates for a large quantity, or to obtain the sale of a particular lot of wheat? — Yes, I think you have the maximum rate and the minimum rate, and you ought to stick to that. 3969. You think that business would be pro- moted by their refusing to give these concessions to customers for special purposes ? — I do not say that business would be promoted. 3970. What effect would it have? — In some cases it would give the producer more money, as I have just stated. 3971. How would it give the producer more money ? — It Avould enable him to move more grain. 3972. How would it enable him to move more grain if the company did not reduce the rate? — At the intermediate stations it would give the producer the chance of moving goods, which he cannot do now. 3973. IMay I ask whether you do a large business with the three railway companies of which you have spoken ? — I will not call it a large business, but I do a fair one. Mr. Gregory. 3974. Do you use the lines in the north of London? — No; I do very little business there. 3975. And you do not do in foreign corn, do you ? — It is principally in foreign coim that I do. I send more down than I get up. 3976. I think you said that the charge from Croydon to Merstham was at the rate of 4i c?. a mile ? — It is 3 s. 9 d. a ton. 3977. Is that within the maximum rates? — No, it is beyond the maximum rates, I think. 3978. Are there any other of those charges which are beyond the maximum rates ? — I do not know that there are many. 3979. Shalford and Chil worth, for example ? — They are in excess. 3980. Three shillings and fourpence is the rate which you have given the Committee from Red Hill to Croydon by the London and Brighton Railway? — Yes. 3981. The rate by the London and South W estern I think you gave as 4 s. 5 d., to Woking ? — Yes. 3982. And all stations intermediate ? — No ; only W oking. 3983. Could you give the Committee the rates for any of the intermediate stations? — No, I did not take the trouble to go into them, because the other two companies would say they competed with the South Western Railway. 3984. Do you consider that the rate to Woking is beyond the maximum? — Yes. 3985. With regard to the preferential rates which are given to other parties, have you ever Mr. Gregory — continued. been advised as to the illegality of them ? — I have been advised that they are illegal. Chuirman. 3986. I have examined your letter, and it appears to me to be rather a special rate than a preferential rate ; there is no evidence that the same rate would have been refused to other parties than the applicants under tlie same cir- cumstances ? — No, I do not profess that there is, in that sense ; but having to move goods there is not time to write for special rates. Mr. Barclay. 3987. Your evidence would go to this, that they should place rates in the rate-book which should be the same to all jiarties ? — Yes, pre- cisely. Chairman. 3988. You would deprive railway companies of the power of giving a special rate to any per- son ? — Yes, certainly. 3989. Do you think that would be to the ad- vantage of anybody ? — Yes, certainly, to the ad- vantage of those who do not have them. Mr. Gregory. 3990. The goods must be delivered within a certain date, must they not? — Yes, within a week in London, or buyers have the option of refusino; them. Chairman. 3991. You are aware, are you not, that the Railway Commissioners have a complete autho- rity now to deal with what they call preference ? — Yes; but you know what a deal of trouble it is to apj)ly to a body like that. 3992. Let me put it in this way : you, having ascertained that this dealer has been given this rate, what difficulty would there be for eight, or 10, or 12 other dealers in the district to go befoi’e the Railway Commissioners, giving evidence, which they could, from these documents of that rate having been granted to this man A., and claiming it for themselves, which the Railway Commissioners could order at once ? — There is a proviso that goods are carried at the owner’s risk ; if your goods are carried without any spe- cification as to owner’s risk, they are carried at the railway company’s risk. 3993. Has that distinction between the owner’s risk and the company’s risk ever been raised before the Railway Commissioners? — Not to my knowledge. 3994. There is one case I can quote to you, viz., the case of the Festiniog Railway, in which case the railwa}' company had made an arrange- ment with one body of traders to charge a smaller siun than the usual rate on condition that the Avhole of the slate was to be seiit down by their line, whereupon the whole of the other traders in the district went before the Railway Commissioners, and the Railway Commissioners oi'dered the railway company to carry at fhe same price from all the other slate owners? — But you know that what is everybody’s business is nobody’s business. 3995. Assuming SELECT COMMITTEE OJI RAILWAYS, 1-9 5 J/av 1881.] Mr. King. [Continued. Sir Edward Wathin. 3995. Assuming, iu a barley district, that there has been a bad season, and the barley has been considerably damaged, and a dealer in the district says, I cannot send my goods to market unless you make me a concession in the rate ; say that the railway company most rigidly adhere to the full rate, though the trade could not be done without some reduction to meet special circumstances, which is constantly hap- pening in bad seasons ; what wmuld you say to that? — It should he posted at the station that the rate for removing barley should be such and such. 3996. Still some men’s barley might be in good condition and some in bad ? — The question would be, who is to be judge — one of the rail- way company’s servants ? — You would hardly trust the dealers to say whether it Avas good barley or bad, and the dealer certainly would not trust you. 3997. Would you send down the Railway Commissioners to inspect the barley ?— Consi- derable difficulty would be certain to arise out of it. Mr. Bolldn. 3998. You advocate a hard-and-fast line of a maximum rate and a minimum rate, and would give nothing between, that is two hard-and-fast lines? — I did not mean to put it in that way. Chairman. 3999. What you said pointed to a hard-and- fast line applicable to each station ; in ansAver to Sir EdAvard Watkin you said you Avould not object to a reduction on account of damaged barley, but that you would have it put up in the station, so that you Avould give liberty to the ralhvay companies to loAver the rate, that Avould not be adhering to a hard-and-fast line ? — Pro- vided they make it fair to all parties I Avould not object. Mr. Bolton. 4000. What did you mean by a minimum rate ; is there a minimum rate in any Act of Parlia- ment ? — No, notin any Act of Parliament; but 1 am speaking of the practice of the raihvay com- panies. Mr. Barclay. 4001. Do railway companies in your experi- ence often make reduction in rates for the carriage of damaged grain ? — No, not in my ex- perience, simply because mine is not a damaged trade, therefore I am perhaps hardly an authority upon that point. 4002. Are you aAvare of any reduction of the rate by the railway companies in recent years, in consequence of bad harvests and the grain being damaged? — I am not. 4003. Do you think that if such a proposal as was suggested to you, that a lower rate for damaged grain Avere to be introduced, it could be practically carried out ? — 1 do not see hoAv it could be. 4004. In fact, the degrees of good and bad in barley, and all kinds of damaged grain are so close together, that it Avould be impossible to lay doAvn a hard-and-fast line as to Avhat Avas damaged grain and what Avas not ? — No, the degrees are Avldely different ; you may have double the value in two samples. 4005. The degrees of quality shade in from one to the other, and it Avould be difficult to tell what is damaged and Avhat is not in some cases ? — That is the very reason you would not know Avhom to trust ; you could not trust the railway company and the raihvay company Avould not trust you. 4006. Your business, I presume, occupies all your time, and you Avould not have time to run after the railway companies to haggle about the rate betAveen this station and that station ? — I have no time whatever for the purpose. 4007. And still less Avould you have any' time to go before the Raihvay Commissioners? — No time Avhatever. Mr. J . C. Marsh, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 4008. Will you tell the Committee Avhat is your business, and wffiei’e you reside ? — I am the representative of the Dalehall Brick and Tile Company in Burslem, North Staffordshire. 4009. First of all, you have, I believe, some- thing to state as to the effect of the charges and exorbitant railway rates upon the commerce of the country? — I have several very distinct points that I wish to state to the Committee. I have a letter here from a firm in Croydon, Messrs. Hall and Company', Avho Avrote me upon the 16th of March last, that they wanted some firebricks to be sent to the station of the High Level Crystal Palace Raihvay, and the rate that Avas noted to them by the railway company was 20 s. per ton from Deepfields, Staffordshire. 4010. What line Avould those goods be carried over ? — That Avould be with the London and North Western and the London, Chatham, and 0.54. Chairman- —continued. Dover Raihvays. Immediately upon receiving this letter, I took train and called upon Mr. Chapman, the goods manager at Victoria Sta- tion. I handed him this letter, and I Avas told that they would see Avhat they could do during the day to get a loAver rate for me. During the day I received a telegram from Mr. Chap- man, saying that they had arranged a rate, and lo AVer ed it from 20 a-. per ton to 11 a. 8 and confirmed the telegram by letter the next morn- ing ; but I Avish it to be understood that bricks coming from the same district to London are charged at 6 a. 8 <7. a ton ; that is from Tipton, Greatbridge, Swan Village, AVest BroniAvich, and Spon-lane. 4011. AVhat is the distance? — I think it is 123 miles. Bricks and tiles are charged at 6 a. 8 a. a ton to London, and all stations north of the Thames. z 2 4012. But 180 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881. J Mr- .Marsh. \Continued, Mr. Bolton. 4012. But not to the Ci’ystal Palace? — No ; whereas, for bricks coining from Deepfields to the Crystal Palace, they asked 20 5 . a ton. Chairman. 4013. Then what you argue is, that you want a uniform tariff without regard to any particular conditions ; is that so ? — I contend that the rate for bricks from the same district as Tijiton, Great- bridge, Swan Village, West Bromwich, and Spon-lane, is in excess of what they ought to charge, because the charge upon bricks from that district to London is 6 5. 8 d. a ton, wdiereas the charge from Deepfields, which is alongside of Tip- ton, is 11 5. 8 d., and that is the minimum and reduced rate. 4014. Do I make out from what you say that there is a distinction between fire-bricks and ordinary bricks ? — Yes. 4015. Because what the parties came to you about was fire-bricks ? — Yes ; but then we are to take a minimum truck of four tons, and not at the company’s risk, but at owner’s risk ; conse- quently if I put in four tons of fire bricks, or four tons of stable bricks, it is nothing to the company. Chairman. 4016. I see in the Clearing House classifica- tion books that common bricks and fire-bricks are put in the same class ? — That is so. 4017. But according to you there is a very great difference betw'cen the one and the other ? — That is wTat I object to. Mr. Craig. 4018. Do I understand that the 6 s. % d. ap- plies only to London, and the 11s. 8 r/. to the Crystal Palace? — The London and North YVestern Company agree to deliver bricks from the district I have named, namely, from 'i'ipton. Great Bridge, Swan Village, West Bromwich, and Spon-lane to all stations north of the Thames at 6 s. 8 d. a ton. From Dee})fields, where these fire-bricks come from, which is aloiigsideof Tipton, they charge 20 s. a ton. Mr. Cross. 4019. But that is to the Crystal Palace, is it not? — It does not matter where they go, or where they come from. Vlr. Craig. 4020. I understand that the 20 s. w'as asked, but was not charged ? — The company conceded the difference between that and 11s. 8 d. 4021. So that in })oint of fact we are dealing wdth 1 1 s. 8d., as against 6 s. 8 (/. : one is for stations north of the Thames, and the other the Crystal Palace? — That is so. Then again, a few weeks ago I went toYVindsor; I called u])onone merchant and he gave me a good order, and the freight which he ])aid was 2W. 3 s. 4fZ. ; he asked me what the rate was from our district, say from Burslem, and I told him 12 s. 6 d. ; but when his goods were delivered the company charged him 16 s. 8 d. ; the Great YVestern Company only charge 12 s. 6 rf. Tl>e next time I called upon the firm they said we will not have anything more to do with you, because you imposed upon us by Mr. Craig — continued. telling us that the rate was 12 s. 6cZ., whereas avc have been charged 16 s. Sd. 4022. YVho charged them the 16 s. 8rf.? — The South Western Company. I have had a great deal of correspondence wuth them; but as one of the witnesses has already remarked, my time is too valuable to run after the railway companies to get these cori’ections made. Mr. Paget. 4023. YVhat reason had you for announcing the rate as 12 s. 6 '/. in the first instance ? — Because the Great YVestern Bailway were charging it. 4024. And you assumed that the South Western Company would charge the same ? — Yes. Chairman. 4025. I understand that you have something to say with reference to classification of the Staffordshire goods ? — If you will refer to the rate-books of any of the railway companies in London, you will find that they have two classifications from the Pottery districts; they say “ common bricks, and tiles,” so much per ton to London ; in the next classification they say “ ridge, roofing, and paving tiles ” so much per ton ; here is an invoice from a railway which claims for tiles 21 /. 3 s. 4^/., which was paid. 1 contend that a tile is a tile, and a brick is a brick. 4026. Do you mean that they ought all to be charged as one class ? — I contend they should be charged according to the classification ; they say “ common bricks and tiles.” Now, of course, there are roofing tiles, paving tiles, tiles for lining walls, and a variety of tiles; here are 25 tons, 8 cwt., and the company have charged 16 5. 8 c?. for carrying the tiles. Mr. Barclay. 4027. And what should the company have charged ? — Twelve shillings and sixpence. 4028. Are you speaking of YY^indsor still ? — I am. Ylr. Craig. 4029. When you quoted 12 s. 6 d. as the rate, had you made inc^uiry of that railway company of what the rate was ? — Yes. 4030. Of the company who charged 16 s. 8 c?.? — Y es. Mr. Barclay. 4031. Then, if I follow you, they charged according to a different classification from what you understood the goods would come by ? — Y^es. 4032. They have one classification of tiles at 12 s. 6 d. ? — Yes. 4033. And you expected that the tiles which you sent to YVindsor would come under this clas- sification ? — Y es. 4034. YVere they tiles of a different descrip- tion, so as to be charged under a different classi- fication ? — No, they were ordinary tiles ; roofing tiles ; I have asked them time and again to ex- plain to me what they mean by their classification, and not one of them has been able to explain it to me. 4035. YVhat SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILAV^AYS. 181 Mr. Maksh. [ Continued. 5 May 1881.] Chairman. 4035. What is the next point that you come to^ — With regard to the rates, they ai’e now being revised. I have a case now in Gipsy Hill, and a case in the Camberwell New-road. I Avas only told of it yesterday ; a large firm there, George Featherby and Company, were charged 15 s. a ton on stable bricks from Spon-lane to Camberwell New-road ; that is on the London Chatham and Dover Hailway. Mr. Barclay. 4036. What do that firm think they should have been charged ? — A maximum rate of not more than 10 s. ; the rate to London is but 6 . 9 . 8 d. The result is, that I have a letter from that firm, threatening to sever their connection Avith me unless they get the same rate as another large firm have agreed to deliver at the Camber- well New-road. 4037. Upon Avhat ground do you say they should to be charged IO 5 . ? — Simply because the London and North Western Railway Company charge to King’s Cross 65 . 8 d. for those bricks, and to the Camberwell New Road It should not be more than 10 s, Mr. Caine. 4038. Do you pay the carriage yourself? — No. 4039. Is it part of your business as a manu- facturer, to find out Avhat are the rates your customers pay? — It is not, but I have too much to do in that direction. Mr. Barclay. 4040. Do you contend that these people in the Camberwell New-road should only have been charged 10. 9 , for their goods, because the rate to London is 6 s. 8 c?., and that 3 s. 4 d. Avould have been a sufficient charge for the additional dis- tance ? — Yes; Avould you alloAv me to explain the matter more fully. There is a large firm near West Bromwich now, making a speciality of stable bricks ; they have been offering to deliver to that firm I have referred to, stable- bricks at 10 s. a ton, at the Camberwell New- road. 4041. How is this other firm able to offer at a loAver rate than you; do you suppose that they have gone and made a bargain with the railway company? — I do not know anything about tliat ; I only kn(nv that George Featherby and Company had paid 15 s. a ton for bricks upon Avhich they only ought to have paid 10 s. Mr. Featherby wrote me, upon the 19th of last month, declaring that they Avould take from me the business, unless I could do it at the game rate. Mr. Craig. 4042. The 15 s. was for bricks from Spon- lane ? — Yes. 4043. Have you ascertained that the maximum rate was only 10 s., by reference to the rate- book? — Yes. 4044. Your works are in Burslem, a consider- able distance from Spon-lane ? — I represent firms in Newcastle and in South Staffordshire, and in North Staffordshire. 0.54. Mr. Crazy— -continued. 4045. Your complaint is that the 15 s. ought to have been 10 s. ?— Yes, it ought to have been 10 s.; I Avas recently informed that they were bringing bricks from Rotterdam at less than they charge for sending from Hanley to London. Mr. Paget. 4046. You say that this rate to the Crystal Palace Avas first given you as 20 s., Avhich was afterwards reduced to 11s. 8 rf. ? — Yes. 4047. Was any explanation afforded to you? — No, I simply got a telegram, confirmed by letter, that the company had arranged the rate at 1 1 s. 8 d., for Avhich they had first asked me 20 s. Mr. Lowther. 4048. Do you suppose that the company had ever been asked for that rate before ? — Yes, and I can mention firms that have paid that rate of 20 s. per ton from the same district. Sir Edward Watkin. 4049. To the High Level Station at the Crystal Palace ? — Yes. Mr. Dillwyn. 4050. In this case there were two companies were there not ? — YYs, the Great Northern Com- pany from North Staffordshire and the Chatham and Dover. 4051. Probably after your letter the one com- pany had made some arrangement Avith the other company ? — I do not think there Avas time to do that, Mr. Lowther. 4052. You have compared bricks from Deep- fields to London with bricks from Deepfields to Croydon ; what would the bricks from Deepfields to London cost ? — The rate from that district is but 6 s. 8 d. a ton. 4053. What did the bricks from Deepfields to Croydon cost? — Thirteen shillings and four- pence. 4054. Would they have to go across London? — No, they would first go to King’s Cross, and then by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway. 4055. I thought you said they came by the London and North Western Railway? — To cer- tain points. 4056. Is Deepfields upon the London and North Western Railway? — YYs. 4057. Then Avhere would they come to? — To the London and North Western Station. 4058. We Avill call that Euston ? — But at Euston, you must remember, they have no siding. 4059. I Avant to know how they get across London ? — That is no business of mine. 4060. You do not know over how many rail- Avays the bricks would go betAveen Deepfields and Croydon ? — Yes, I do ; tAvo. 4061. Which two? — They Avould go by the London and North Western, and then be trans- ferred to the London, Lrighton, and South Coast Raihvay. 4062. Where Avould they be transferred ? — That I do not knoAv, z 3 4063. I think 182 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOEE THE 5 1881.] Mr. Marsh. {^Continued. Sir Edward Wathin. 4063. I tliink you stated that the rate from Tipton and other plaees of whieh you gave the names was 6.'!. 8 d, ? — It is 6 s. 8 d. on bricks from Tipton to London. 4064. The distance is about 123 miles ? — Yes. 4065. Do you know what the London and North \Vestern Company have power to charge upon that traffic ? — I do not know what their power is. 4066. Is it not a good deal more than double the ainoiint that they are actually charging ; is not their maximum power without terminals Sir Edward Wathin — continued. 13 s. 10 d., and they are onl}^ charging 6 s. 8 c?.? — That may be so. 4067. Are you in favour of fixing rates by equal mileage according to distance? — That is what I have advocated all along. 4068. You think that if one of the brickfields is 100 miles from London, and the other 200 miles, the brickfield twice as far should pay twice as much ? — Yes, I do. 4069. Then you would get the benefit of your natural position by being nearer London than your competitor ? — That is my contention. Professor William Alexander Hunter, called in ; and further Examined. Mr. Barclay. 4070. Y’ou have caused the rate hooks to be examined upon the Great Eastern Raihvay at a certain number of their stations, and made up Tables as to the rates they are charging, and the maximum rates they are authorised to charge ? — I have. 4071. Will you tell the Committee the stations which you have taken ? — Chelmsford, Thetford, and Norwich. 4072. Will you tell the Committee, in the first place, what terminals you consider the Great Eastern Company are authorised to charge ? — They are entitled to charge for loading and un- loading. covering, warehousing, wharfage, collec- tion, and delivery. 4073. Are you going to deal with station to station rates, or with collection and delivery rates? — The rates are partly station to station rates, and they are partly collection and delivery rates, and 1 have prepared these Tables upon this princii)le. At some of the stations they have no means of carting, and, of course, at those stations, therefore, they cannot charge for carting. Then, as regards the price to he allowed for carting, that is fixed by the Great Easteim Company them- selves : they allow' a rebate of Is. 6 c?. a ton on classes 4 and 5 when the carting is not done by the company. 4074. Is that for carting at both ends or only at one end? — At one end, and they allow 1 s. a ton for carting on classes 1, 2, and 3 ; they follow the Railway Clearing Elouse classification. Then for loading and unloading, the only case that I know' of is one that w'as decided by the Railway Commissioners, w'here they allowed 4^ d. a ton for loading and unloading timber, and deals, and staves for making barrels ; that w'ould be 9 (7. a ton for loading and unloading, and 3 (7. a ton I'or covering ; that would be altogether 1 s. a ton for loading and unloading and covering. Upon the Chelmsford Rate-hook, making all these allow- ances, I may state, broadly, the result. I have taken all the articles Avhich are enumerated in their special Act ; there is a very exhaustive enumeration comjtared Avlth most railways, in the case of the Great Eastern Raihvay. Taking the groujjs in their order, as reiiards artificial manure, unground bones in bulk, salt for agricultural pur- jmses and curing fish, whieh all go in the gi’oup of under two ton loads, they overcharge to every station ; the least overcharge is 4 s. 2 d., and the Mr. Barclay — continued. greatest overcharge in that group is 10 s. 6 <7. a ton. 4075. Y^ou have not, I believe, w'orked out the percentage of excess or overcharge ? — No ; I have given the maximum and the minimum in each group. 4076. Y^ou state that in artificial manures, and that grou^i of under two tons, the Illegal charge in that view of the case varies from 4s. 2d. to 10s. 6r7. atou? — That is so, from the Chelms- ford rate-book. 4077. These are station to station rates? — They are station to station rates in this w'ay, that they are in what are called the Sjiecial Class. In quantities of two ton loads they are station to station rates, but in under two ton loads they are carried at the first-class rales. 4078. Have you, in estimating the rates at W'hich they are authorised to charge upon this class of goods, included 1 s. as being what they are allowed for loading and unloading, and cover- ing ? — YYs. 4079. Could you tell the Committee the ex- treme distances you have taken from Chelmsford Station ? — I have not got the mileage worked out, but about 100 miles is the highest, varying from six miles up to 100. 4080. Up to 100 miles the overcharges con- tinue ? — YYs. Now, in the same way, I have taken the Thetford rate-book, taking stations going as far as Ijiswich on the one side, and Hertford on the other. In the Thetford case on the first group of articles in less than tw'o ton loads, I may say that upon every article they overcharge to all the stations. 4081. That is to say, upon quantities under two ton loads, the raihvay company overcharges to every station out of Thetford ? — Yes, to every station, that is to say, out of about 29 stations that I had sent up to me. 4082. Were those 29 stations specially selected as the w'orst? — No, they were taken as being at different stations ; some near, and some about 100 miles aw'ay. 4083. For the purpose of estimating the charges at different distances, and not picked out as pro- bably the worst? — No, those were all the stations that w'ere supplied, and they were taken at random . 4084. What do the overcharges from Thetford amount SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 183 5 il/ay 1881.] Professor Hunter. \^Conlinued. Mr. Barclay — continued, amount to ? — The overcharges from Thetford vary from 7 d. up to 13 s. 9 d. a ton, according to the class of goods. Mr. Craig. 4085. I understand that you are quoting now the rates actually charged, and the maximum rates ? — No ; in addition to their maximum rates I have allowed the company terminals. Mr. Barclay. 4086. In addition to the maximum mileage rates, you allow them for loading, unloading, and covering 1 s. a ton, and for collection and delivery at each end, in the higher class, Is. 6d., and in the lower class, 1 s. a ton, which are the sums the company allow in rebate to traders if they do these services themselves ? — Yes, there is no question about the cost of carting in the case of the Great Eastern Railway, because that is their own rebate. Then as to the Norwich rates, I may take one case alone ; I take as one illustra- tion the class of goods including bacon, hops, flax, leather, hides, hardware in packages or cases, cotton wool, and linen cloth packed, and wine and spirit in casks. 4087. Are those articles specified in the com- pany’s private Act ? — Every article that is given here is specified in the company’s private Act, and classified. Now, on that class, the least overcharge that I see is 5 s. 5 d. a ton, and the greatest overcharge I see is lls. 7d. a ton. The overcharge e.xtends from six miles up to 104 miles. 4088. How many stations have been taken in the case of Norwich? — In the case of Norwich 29 stations have been taken. Now I have also the Harwich rates. In this case I have 18 stations, varying from six miles up to 109 miles upon tlie collected and delivered rates, that is, the five classes ; there are only three stations to which there is not an overcharge. Take, for example, the same cla.ss of goods as I took last time ; they overcharge on the same goods, bacon, leather, and so on. The least overcharge, I see, is 5 s. 7 c?. a ton, and the greatest is 12 s. lid. 4089. Could you conveniently tell the Com- mittee the overcharge on artificial manures? — On artificial manures under two tons, the overcharge (I have networked out the per-centage of excess) varies from about 3 s. or 4 s. to about 7 s. a ton. 4090. Have you an abstract of the result of the first three stations ? — Yes, I will put the ab- stracts in. 4091. How many groups of rates are there in the first three stations? — In the first three stations there are 1,040 groups of rates, and out of those 1,040 there are only 19 that are within the maxi- mum where the quantities sent are under two tons. 4092. Does the Railway Companies Act make any difference as between two tons and larger quantities? — None whatever, 4093. The only quantities referred to in the .Act are the parcels rate and quantities above 500 lbs. ? — That is so. 4094. 'I he two classes of quantities referred to in the Private Act are 500 lbs. and under, and 500 lbs. and above? — Yes, anything above 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued, 500 lbs. they must carry at the tonnage rate. ( The Tables were handed in . ) 4095. You have had an opportunity of making yourself acquainted with the powers, the work- ing, and the duties of what are called the Rail- road Commissioners of Illinois, in the United States of America? — Yes, I have here the last report of the Illinois Railroad Commission. 4096. They exist, and have their power, I think, under two Acts? — Yes, but I should be glad to state the j^urport of the Act under which they act ; I have here the Act governing the rates. I am quoting from the Report of 1880 of the Railroad Commissioners of Illinois in the United States; they act under an Act which came in force upon 1st July 1873, and it relates to offences committed by railways. The first section defines what they call extortion; it there says ; if a railway company shall charge more than a fair and reasonable rate. 4097. Will you tell the Committee in the first place whether the railway company in Illinois, at that time, had any maximum rates fixed under their private Acts ? — No, they have no maximum rates at all ; then the first section provided that to take more than a reasonable amount would be extortion. Section 8 provides, “ Tlie Railroad and Warehouse Commissioners are hereby di- rected to make for each of the railroad corpo- rations doing business in this state as soon as practicable, a schedule of reasonable maximum rates of charges for the transportation of pas- sengers and freight, and cars on each of the said railroads ; and said schedule shall in all suits brought against any such railroad corporations wherein is in any way involved the charges of any such railroad corporation for the transporta- tion of any passenger or freight, or cars or unjust discrimination in relation thereto be deemed and taken in all courts of this State as yrimd facie evidence that the rates therein fixed are reason- able maximum rates of charges.” Then if a company disagrees with the commission as to a “ reason.ible rate,” they have the right to go be- fore a jury, but if it is found that the company have asked an unreasonable rate, they must be fined a minimum of 1,000 dollars or a maximum of 5,000 dollars for the first offence, and for a second offence an increased sum. 4098. Then do I understand that if the rail- way company disputes the decision of the railway commissioners, they appeal to a jury, and if the jury find the railway company wrong, they are fined 1,000 dollar's for the offence? — Yes, and after a third conviction it is 5,000 dollars each time ; I may add that other States have also adopted similar legislation. 4099. Will you tell us what the Commis- sioners say as to their seven years’ exjierience of the working of the laws? — They say as to the reduction of the rates, that passenger rates have been reduced from 3^ and 5 cents per mile nj)on all the leading railroads in that State; and that there has been a large increase of passenger traffic consequent upon the lower rate, and that the increased earnings upon this account will more than compensate for the decreased rate. They also give a table showing that the average rate for the carriage of goods per ton has been steadily decreased during the last five years. In z 4 1876 184 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 5 May 1881.] Professor Hunter. [^Continued. Mr. Barclay— continued. 1876 the average was 1”81 cents per mile ; in 1877 it was 1‘53, and the same in 1878 ; in 1879, 1*40; and in 1880, 1‘23. Mr. Boll, on, 4100. Do the Commissioners give their own salaries in that report ? — No, but they are very small. Then they say that “ Since our report for 1879 all the railroads in the first group have ac- cepted the Commissioners schedules for passenger rates, and are now charging but three cents per mile. Many of the roads have also readjusted their freight rates, so as to conform to said sche- dules, and the Commissioners have reason to be- lieve that with the issuance of the new schedules all the roads in the State looking to an amicable adjustment of differences between them and the people, and the advantages of a uniform classifi- cation will cheerfully adopt them.” Mr. Barclay. 4101. Can you tell the Committee, for the report I think mentions it, whether the divi- dends upon those railways in Illinois had in- creased in 1873, under the operation, or at least while this railroad commission was in operation ? — There is a table showing it. 4102. Will you also put in the table of the Mr. Barclay — continued, mileage of the railway in Illinois, and also the quantity of tons carried? — Yes, Chairman. 4103. I think, in consequence of questions that were put to you when you were being examined before as to your legal opinions with reference to Clause 6 of the Canal Traffic Act of 1873, you have examined into that subse- quently ? — Yes. 4104. Are you prepared to give an opinion now as to what the power of the Board of Trade might be under that section? — Yes, under this section provision is made for two classes of per- sons, first, the person aggrieved, and, secondly, a person appointed by the Board of Trade on that behalf. I consider that that means a person acting for the Board of Trade, and that, there- fore, it would not apply to a Chamber of Com- merce ; that it means the representative of the Board of Trade. 4105. Then, in fact, the practice and the law are in harmony, and nobody has been appointed ? — That is so. 4106. You understand the section as autho- rising the Board of Trade to appoint some one to represent them in the public interest in any case where they consider there is a public necessity ? — It is an amendment of the original Act. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 185 Monday, 9th May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Cal Ian. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Samuelson. Sir Edward Watkin. TnE Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. T. H. P. Dennis, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 4107. I BELIEVE you are President of the Ironmongers’ Association? — I am. 4108. Where is the head quarters of that association? — In Mansion House Buildings, Queen Victoria-street. 4109. You wish to lay before the Committee your views with regard principally, I think first of all, to the classification of goods now in use amongst railway companies ? — That is my main subject, and also with reference to the rates. 4110. Will you mention the classification, and say what are the grievances which you as traders have to complain of, and then afterwards what remedy you would propose ? — In the first place, we have a very great difficulty in knowing what our money is going for. We have, I think, as the paying public a perfect right when we pur- chase anything to ask what is the price of it ; it is perfectly true that we have the power of asking the railway companies wdiat is the price of the carriage, but we have no power whatever of checking that price. The classification book adopted by the companies is a sealed book to the general public as is well known, and I may call it, I think, an arbitrary action for any public company taking the money of one portion of the public to conceal from them what I think is their just due ; they should have an opportunity of knowing whether the rates are properly charged or not. We frequently from the sending station have to accept either the judgment or impres- sion of the official at the local station, which is frequently incorrect ; I have frequently found it to be incorrect. I have instances in which there are three classes under which the same goods may be classed, and I think that we should also have an opportunity of forming our judgment upon the matter as well as themselves. For that reason I think it is most desirable and just that we should have published in some form, so that we can purchase it, a classification of general 0.54. Chairman — continued. goods. I have thought the matter over most carefully, and I have penned a little brief system, which with the permission of the Committee I will bring before them, which shows the amend- ment I would suggest in the classification. 4111. Would you mention, as a practical man, the difficulty you experience in ascertaining under what class your goods are going to be charged before you send them off? — As a rule, we do not get the information at all ; if we apply for the rate at the station, we get it without reference to the class the goods ai-e going under, unless we apply specially for that. 4112. You have no difficulty in seeing the rate- book, I presume ? — No, that we can all see. 4113. But that does not give you the informa- tion you require? — No, it does not give the classification. Mr. Caine. 41 14. Have you ever asked to see the classifica- tion? — Many a time I have tried to get one. 4115. But you have been able to see it? — I have looked into its pages, I do not deny that ; but so far as we are concerned, for practical pur- poses, it is a sealed book; 4116. But we should be glad to have upon the notes what the rate-book tells you ; the rate-book tells you, first of all, the distance from one station to the other, then it puts the charge per ton under each class or denomination, but there is nothing in the rate-book to indicate to you under what class your goods ought to be put ; is not that so ? — That is exactly the point ; there is not. In answer to the honourable Member’s previous question, I stated that I could not deny that I had seen the classification book. 4117. Have you gone to any railway company’s office, asking to see the book, and found you could not see it? — I have been to the railway company’s office to see the book, but it has been A A told 186 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOEE THE 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. IConUnucd. Mr. Came — continued. told me that it was denied to the public; what I have seen has been the classification of certain goods which has been pointed out to me. 1 have teen the book in another 2 )ersou’s hand. Chairman. 4118. Is there, as a matter of fact, a copy of the classification book kept at each station for the information of anybody who wishes to see it? — I can only say that it has been denied to me. INIr. Barclay. 4119. Have you been allowed to see the rate- book with the figures, and not the classification book ? — Yes. 4120. They have shown you, as a matter of right, the rate-book with the figures in it charged according to the several heads of classification, but they have refused to show you the classifica- tion book, shoAving in which classes goods are arranged? — I do not think that 1 can honestly say that if I asked for a classification they would refuse to give it me, but they certainly would not give the book into my own hands. 4121. Practically, if the railway companies will not give the classification book into your OAvn hands to examine it, it is not open to the jjublic or to you? — No. Mr. Caine. 4122. Have you ever tried to copy the book or make extracts from it ? — I have never tried ; I should expect a refusal directly if I xvere to make such an application. Chairman. 4123. Will you ju’oceed from where you were interrupted ; you were going to make a sugges- tion as to Avhat you thought ought to be the future arrangement as to classification? — For your consideration of the question which you have had very largely put before you, I Avill beg to say this, that 1 think the difficulty of the re- quirement of the public can be met in a very simple and unobjectionable manner by the raihvay companies ; I do not see that they can in any way object to any customer of theirs knoAving at Avhat rate the goods are to be sent, or Avliat he is to i)ay for the service done for him, and I propose to meet it in this AA'ay. I hat raihvay companies be required to submit a classification of all goods to the liaihvay Commissiouers,and Avhen approved by them to be published ; opportunity to be given to the public to appeal to the Raihvay Commissioners against unfair classification. The next jioiiit is the rates : “ To publish in the same book rates from every goods station to every other goods station in that system of railway, and append a list of through-rates Avherever the same have been fixed. The book to be sold to the jAublic at a nominal price, say 1 to 2 .v. 6 d. The rates should be from station to station, and in eiich case the extra charge for collection, deli- very, or terminals, &c., should be clearly and separately given. It should also give the charges for emjAties. The book to contain a copy of so much of the Acts of Parliament authorising the construction of the raihvays, as refers to rates of carriage.” That, I think, Avould meet the want that is felt by the Britisli paying public. Chairman — continued. 4124. So that for the expenditure of 1 5 . 6d. or 2 s. the public should be able to knoAv clearly what each raihvay company is charging them, and could also form their own judgment as to the proper rate being charged according to the classi- fication of the goods so sent ? — Precisely so. 4125. IVith respect to Avhat you mentioned about empties, you Avere talking about the carriage of emjAty crates ? — I suggest that Ave should know likeAvdse what Ave should have to pay for them. 4126. I think you also have a complaint to make about this discretionary charge on parcels under 500 pounds Aveight ; Avould you shortly say Avhat your grievance is about that ? — 1 have something to say about it, but it is perhaps rather a larger question than you expected me to give evidence upon. Why I Avish to refer to thi.s par- ticularly is, that this small rate affects a very great bulk of the population ; tlie great manu- facturer does not feel it, but the small manufac- turers, Avho number thousands against hundreds, feel it very acutely ; it is a A'ery big charge made for small purposes. To put it forcibly, I may take it in this way : if I Avere to charge you 10 1 . for a ton of nails, and you required only a hun- dredweight of those nails, if I Avere to multiply that by 6 (which is AAdiat the raihvay comnanies are doing for those small packages), you Avould think it a very extraordinary charge. For that reason I think that some of the charges Avant revising. Such companies as Sutton’s and Fos- ter’s, Avho carry things 50 per cent, at least beloAv the charges of the raihvay companies, manage to exist and get a very good profit out of their business ; but if I were manamuff the affairs of the railway companies 1 Avould not alloAv them to exist. It Avould pay me, on behalf of the com- pany, better to carry them separately at a loAver rate of charoe than it would pay Messrs. Foster’s, or any one like them, to carry them in bulk. 4127. You propose that ihere should be some limitation in respect of that right of charging upon parcels beloAV 500 lbs. ? — I Avould prefer not to go into detail ; but I think the princijile should be dealt Avith. Mr. Barclay. 4128. Do I understand you to aatsIi that empties should be carried at a cheaper rate than they are noAv carried at per ton ? — I think the trade would be quite satisfied if the Raihvay Commissioners settled the price ; the price has been increased some 50 per cent., I think, on many railways Avithin the last few years. 4129. Can you tell the Committee AA'hat is the ]u-actice of the railway companies Avith regard to empties ? — It is a charge per CAvt. for conA-eyance throughout. I think in my case, I am speaking locally noAA', it is 1 5. per CAvt. or per packet. I think if the other arrangement is made it would be as Avell to deal Avith that also, although it is only a minor thing. 4130. Your complaint, as I understand, is, that the public do not know Avhether they are paying a proper charge or not by any information they can get from any of the raihvay companies? — Yes. Of course the complaint has already been put before you in great volume that Ave are over- charged considerably ; that is the first complaint. 4131. Is SELECT COJIMITTEE ON RAILWAYS, 187 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. \_Conlinued. Mr. Barclay — continued. 4131. Is that only a suspicion, or have you anything more to go by?— It is far beyond a suspicion, 4132. But they are overcharging you beyond the rates they legally can charge — I think it is a great deal more than suspicion. 4133. Canyon adduce any evidence in support of that statement? — I will give you a case directly : from Congreves to London is 120 miles. Mr. Bolton. 4134. What line is that on ? — It is just beyond Birmingham. I am not certain as to the line, but I think it is the .Midland ; the authorised charge for bar iron to London is 1 rf. a ton a mile ; but Chelmsford, Avhich is 30 miles further than London, the rate they charge us for iron from Congreves is 17 s. 6 d. Mr. Barclay. 4135. You have satisfied yourself that the maximum rate which the company can charge for bar iron from Congreves to London is 1 <7, a ton a mile, and the distance is 120 miles, and which would give you a maximum rate of 10 5. a ton? —Yes. 4136. What is the charge made to London ? — I cannot tell you ; I am taking the through rate to Chelmsford. 4137. And the charge for the 150 miles, which is the distance from Congreves to Chelmsford, is 17 5. 6 (7. a ton ? — That is the railway charge. 4138. Then you say that the maximum rate is how much ? — One penny a ton from Congreves to London, and 2d. a ton from London to Chelmsford. 4139. How much does that make? — Fifteen shillings ; so that the excess is 2 s. 6 (7. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4140. Is that a station to station rate ? — Yes. 4141. Is the railway company authorised to charge for loading and unloading ? — I believe in all those cases. ' Mr. Bolton. 4142. Does the 17 s. Qd. include the loading and unloading? — No, it is a station to station rate. Mr. Barclay. 4143. According to the station to station rate do you load and unload the goods? — Yes, or if we do not we pay for having those services per- formed. 4144. Then your contention is with regard to this through rate for 150 miles from Congreves to Chelmsford, by way of London, that the rail- way companies concerned are overcharging you 2 s. 6 (7. a ton on bar iron? — Yes, I do contend that. 4145. Have you any other case to mention to the Committee ? — No, I have not ; I purposely desired to avoid statistics, as I wished to confine myself to the principle of the matter. 4146. Do you think it would be a better policy of the railway companies to make lower rates for small parcels than they do at present? — If I were managing the business for my own self, I should 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued, most unquestionably make it my first aim to keep out all competition. 4147. And you think that Messrs. Sutton & Company, and these other carriers of small parcels, are coming between the public anti the railway companies, and deriving very consider- able profit which might be very properly divided between the public and the railway companies? — That is my view of the matter. 4148. Can you give the Committee any general idea as to what would be the average weight of those parcels to which you refer; would the great bulk of them be from 10 lbs. to 100 lbs. in weight ? — It would be very various. 4149. Yon could not give the Committee an idea of what the average weight would be of the small parcels ? — The weights would vary from 2 lbs. up to anything, say 500 lbs. ; I could not give you an idea as to that. 4150. Have you looked into the Railway Com- panies’ Act to see the maximum rate at which they are allowed to treat the small parcels ? — I have. 4151. In contrasting the policy which the railway companies adopt and that which you re- commend, docs it seem similar to the policy which the Post Office adopted before the intro- duction of the penny postage stamp, and the policy introduced by the adoption of the penny postage stamp ? — No, I do not think it is a parallel case ; in the first place, I do not think it could be expected that the railway companies should carry at one uniform rate. 4152. You would not be prepared to say that they should carry all small j marcels under 500 lbs. at one uniform rate, but I understand you to re- commend a very large reduction in the rates that are at present charged? — I think it would be to their policy, as well as to our interest, that tliey should do so. Mr. Barnes. 4153. I suppose you have many competitors in your trade in your own town ? — Yes, we have. 4154. Do you know what rates they are paying alongside of you? — No, I do not. 4155. And your coutenlion is from the other evidence which you have given that you should be all treated alike, that you should all have access to one book of classification and rates? — I have tried to look at this matter from an outside point of view, and not from a personal point of view ; I am not prepared to deal with the last ciuestion at present, but it is so important that I am glad to have been questioned upon it, as I think it affects every class of the rate-jiaying public. 4156. Your desire is to know that your com- petitors also pay those rates, and that you are all treated alike, doine; the same trade? — That is all we ask ; we should be quite satisfied ' with the Railway Commissioners deciding what the rates should be, but I think we have the right to know what it is charged upon. Mr. Dillwyn. 4157. I understand you to say that you think a book should be published, and sold by the railway companies at I.5., or some- A A 2 thing 188 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. [^Ccntinued. Mr. Dillwyn — continued, thing of that sort? — Yes, I named the sum of from D. to 2s. 6d., tliat it may not be a pro- hibitory price, but that everyone may possess it, a small trader as well as a large one. 4158. What would that book show the rates where? — My proposal is that that book should be published by every railway company, showing the rate from every station to every other station upon their system. 4159. Those would require to be separate books? — Yes, sejiarate books. 4160. Have you any idea what they would cost ? — There is no doubt that it would be a very voluminous affair, but when once prepared 1 believe the cost would not be great afterwards. 4161. You would then have a maximum rate, and unalterable rate, would you? — I am not pre- prepared to de.al with that point. 4162. Would not the publication of such a book as that involve the understanding that it was to be a permanent rate? — No, not more than the present one ; we have already the information in part before us, but it is not in so clear a form as we have the right to expect. I am perfectly willing in my business with the public to give the price of my article, and I contend that the rail- way companies ought to give to the public the rate I'or their articles. 4163. To every little station, to which there is hardly a package in a year, you think that the rates should be published ? — Of the goods rates, the great public benefit would be indescribable. 4164. You do not think it matters what the publication of the book costs to the railway com- jianles ? — I would leave the jtrice to the Railway Commissioners. 4165. Do not you think that it would have a tendency to prevent changes of rates if this book were published ? — I do not think it would ; we have the tolls and rates already fixed as the maxi- mum rate, and the companies would have just the same right to reduce them if they thought fit, as they have now. 4166. But that would involve the publication of a new set of books at an enormous expense, would it not? — No doubt. Chairman. ‘1167. Would it not be possible for the railway companies to have these books in groups ; to divide their system into groups, and not to have a separate book for every station ? — That might be possible. 4168. Might not that prevent the necessity for the republicatiou of a number of the books ? — 1 do not presume to say how it should be done; I only throw out the principle. 4169. Are you aware that at this moment the through rates to Scotland are adjusted by groups of rates, and not individually? — 1 was not aware of that. hlr. Lowther. 4170. I Avant just to clear up this matter about the rate-books which you Avould have ])ublished ; some time a big railway company ac([uires a small line, then that may alter all the rates along the railway, you still would have them continually altering the books, would you ? — It does not seem to me that it Avould operate in that way. Mr. Lowther — continued. 4171. Are you aware that the railway com- panies are continually altering the rates noAV ? — I take my stand upon this, that the Raihvay' Comissioner.s Avould settle for a definite period the rates Avhich the raihvay company should be alloAved to charge the public. 4172. And that they should not alter those rates? — No, until they have the sanction of the Raihvay Commissioners to do so. 4173. Supposing a company Avished to reduce the rates at a station, they Avould not be able to do so until they got the sanction of the Railway Commissioners ? — No, that is not at all so. My point is that the maximum rate should be fixed by the Raihvay Commissioners, but if the raihvay companies find that it Avas not paying them, they should be alloAved on appeal to have it altered, but they' might at any time charge under the published rate. 4174. If the railway comjAany Avanted to alter the rates, they might not do so until sanctioned by the Raihvay' Commissioners, and then have them published in a book ? — No, not at all ; but that the maximum rate being fixed, the raihvay companies Avould have the o])tlon of reducing the charge beloAV that rate. 4175. But if they reduced the rate, the public Avould like to have it knoAvn that it Avas reduced? — I do not think it is possible to meet that. 4176. Do not you think that it is possible to meet it if ymu Avere to say that the rates shall be published in a book, and that that book is not tp be altered Avithin six months ?— Not Avithout the consent of the Raihvay Commissioners. 4177. And you think that Avould be for the benefit of the public? — Undoubtedly; the sys- tem is in existence noAv to a certain extent; the companies haA C no right to charge beyond the rate AA'hlch the Raihvay Commissioners alloAV them. 4178. But I am afraid you are always looking at the higher rate ; I am talking of Avhat is very uften done, viz., reducing the rates ; iioav a re- duction of a rate Avould not be made knoAvn for six months, and could not be brought into jjractice Avithout the consent of the Raihvay Commissioners according to your plan ? — I think you misunderstand me ; I simply want to prevent raihvay companies from charging these exorbitant prices. 4179. But do you Avant to prevent raihvay comj)anies from charging loAvcr prices ? — No. 4180. According to your plan, I think you Avould do so ? — I do not think so. 4181. because you say' the Raihvay' Commis- sioners are to sanction certain books, and tho.se books are not to be altered Avith regard to either raising or loAvering Avithin a certain time? — That I do not mean ; 1 Avill repeat my vieAV ; my' vieAV is, that railway' com])anies shall be alloAved to charge certain rates, those rates being maximum rates the same as uoav ; that is Avhat I believe they are permitted to do iioav. 4182. Do you think that small parcels shall be carried at the same rate as larger parcels ? — I do not go so far as that. 4183. But in propoi'tion ? — In a more equit- able ])ro})ortion than at iiresent. 4184. Is there not a fixed charge for empties? — I am SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. 189 9 Mai/ 1881.] Mr. Dennis. [ Continued. Mr. LowiJier — continued. — I am not aware of any authorized charge ; it is a fixed charge made by the companies them- selves. 4185. But the rate is not published ? — I think not 4186. Are you talking of any particular rail- way with regard to empties ? — It is complained generally that empties are charged too highly. 4187. I do not ask as to their being charged too highly ; I say, are there not regulations with regard to empties ? — I really could not answer you upon that point. 4188. Are you not charged upon empties sent by passenger trains, and also by goods trains ? — Yes, but it is comparatively an unimportant part of the public question ; I simply name it in order that the whole system, if it is improved at all, should be made complete. I do not attach any importance to the charge for empties, but I desire that it should not be left out. 4189. Are you prepared to say that there are no fixed charges for empties sent by railways ? — I do not know that. Mr. Caine. 4190. You were complaining a good deal of the extra charge which the trades you represent suffer with regard to small packages ; I think you took nails as an illustration ; I will take the same ; you stated that small packages, that is to say, jiarcels under 500 lbs. weight, were charged about six times as much proportionately as larger quantities? — Yes, but I did not instance nails as an example. 4191. Supposing, for instance, you get a two ton rate for your nails at 10s.; four cwt, Avould at 10s. be 2s. ; but if they are charged six times as much in proportion, it would be 12 s. ? — I must go a great deal lower than that to bring in my extreme rate. 4192. One cwt. would be charged Qd. if a ton was charged 10s. ; do you think that the charge for one cwt. would be too much if it were charged 3 s. ? — Undoubtedly I do. 4193. You know the ironmongery trade pretty well ; an ironmonger would be very well content with 10 s. a ton profit upon a ton of nails, would he not? — I should think he would. 4194. But he would not like to sell one cwt. of nails under much less than 2 s. or 2 s. Qd. profit ? — I think he would. 4195. Do you think it would pay an Ironmonger to carry on a retail trade for under 25 or 30 per cent, profit ? — Undoubtedly it would. 4196. Do you think that it would bo a desir- able thing in the interest of the trade at large that a joiner should be able to buy one cwt. of nails at an exceedingly low rate from a manufuc- turer, and have them delivered into his place at a very low rate ? — I do not ; in the first place a manufacturer would not supply the quantity. 4197. I am not sure about that? — A man of any repute would not supply him ; it would not answer his purpose. 4198. I wish to ask you what proportion you think one cwt. should bear to the two-ton rate ? — Perhaps if I say a “remunerative proportion ” it will be the best way of answering the question ; 0.54. Mr. Caine — continued. it is hardly for me to say what rate should be fixed by the companies. 4199. But you think the rate miiiht be fixed at very much less than at present ? — Yes, I think it might be fixed at very much less than it is at present. M^e will say that a ton now costs 6 5. 8 (?, ; if you divide that ton into seven pound parcels, you will find the extra charge enormous, but if you put the seven pound parcels into the hands of carriers who send their goods in bulk by railway then the thing comes back again to- wards the ton rate. 4200. Cannot an ironmonger in London buy two tons of nails and bring them to the station, and then the railway company will carry them at the two-ton rate and distribute them in hundred- weight bags in London to the small buyers? — I do not know that. 4201. Would it not very much meet the diffi- culty if the railway companies would adoi)t the plan of carrying up to a certain rate, and deliver- ing in London in boxes or bags ? — I do not see how it is to be arranged. 4202. You must see that every small parcel requires just as many entries in the railway com- panies’ books, and is just as much trouble as a large ])arcel ; it is merely a question of the cost of carriage. The expenses of the railway com- panies are very largely made up by a large staff of servants, everyone of whom is employed in making the entries, and in handling the stuff? — It really seems to me hardly a parallel case ; it seems to be departing from the general principle I have suggested and laid down to you : I cannot see that it bears upon the principle at all. 4203. Now, passing from that, I wish to clear up a matter about the rate from Congreves to (dielmsford ; do you know that iron comes through London when going from Congreves to Chelmsford? — It goes in through trucks. 4204. Whatever railway there is which takes it to London, there is no actual connection between Chelmsford and Congreves, or any of the rail- ways upon which Congreves is situated ? — Yes, there is by transfer. 4205. How does the iion go from the Great Western to the Great Eastern terminus in London? — I cannot say at present. 4206. Are you quite sure that the iron does not go through Peterborough instead of through London ? — I cannot say. 4207. You give the mileage rate for a certain distance from Congreves to London, and a certain distance from London to Clemsford, from which we may naturally infer that the goods go through London to Chelmsford? — Ido not think that is so ; but it is the interest of the railway companies to get the goods over their own line as far as possible, except that they might wish to ease the block of traffic at any jiarticular terminus. Mr. O’ Sullivan. 4208. You stated that the charge for empties was rather high ; do you recollect the time when the railway companies carided empties for nothing ? — I do. 4209. They carry them at a very excessive rate now, do they not? — During the last three A A 3 years 190 MIKUXES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. S^Continne.d. Mr. O' Sullivan — continued. years the companies have put on 50 per cent upon empties. 4210. Do you know cases in which empties have not been of the value of the carriage? — I think it is very often so. 4211. Have you heard of cases in which empties liave been left unredeemed at railway stations as beino; not worth the carrias:e ? — I have no doubt that often happens. 4212. If there were a uniform parcels rate up to 7 lbs. weight, would the Post Office, do you think, get as much of the trade in parcels as they get at present ? — I am afraid that it is out- side my province to give an opinion upon that point. 4213. As a business man, which would you rather send a parcel by ; by a railway, with the security it affords, or by the Post Office, if they were taken at a unform rate? — We are very much restricted in sending by the post, and we have no security, so that beyond a little article of that kind we do not think of sending by post. 4214. If the railway companies would charge at a, uniform rate, would you not prefer send- ing by railway? — I do not think the Post Office could come in competition with the railways at all. I do not think the one wmuld affect the other 4215. But do you think that if the railway companies wdthin 100 miles from Loudon, had a uniform rate for parcels, they would not get a large amount of the present Post Office pared traffic?— I think not, because the Post Office has a much more rapid dis[)atch than the rail- way companies, and as regards the security, we do not often send parcels of value, except we register them. Sir Edward Watkin. 4216. Are you an ironmonger in a large way of business ? — Yes. 4217. And you are a member of the Council of the Ironmonger's Association, are you not ? — I am President of the Association. 4218. And. you speak their general opinion? — I think so. 4219. What is your general complaint as re- presenting the Ironmonger’s Association, with regard to the rate you are charged for your goods ; leaving the 500 lbs. question out of view for the present ? — That they are charged above the rates authorised to be charged by Act of Parliament. 4220. Will you give the Committee some in- stances in which that occurs? — I stated at the outset that I was not pre])ared with statistics. I come unarmed with statistics entirely. 4221. A general complaint that the charges are too high is worthless ; the question is upon v/hat particular article and between what parti- cular places do you complain of overcharge ? — I really must say that I am unpre})ared to give you statistics. 4222. You gave the Committee from Con- greves to Chelmsford ; you do not know whether that traffic comes by the route of the Great ^Vestern and is carted from the Great Western goods station to the Great Eastern Com'jiany’s goods station, or how it is sent? — I do not know Sir Edward Watliiu — continued, that, but there is no doubt that it comes in a through truck. 4223. Where is the junction in London be- tween the Great Eastern and the Great Western Bailways ? — I do not know that. 4224. Supposing it came round by Peter- borough, the distance would be much longer than the distance you have given, would it not? — It W'ould. 4225. If it came by that route the rate you have mentioned would be less than the maximum, would it not? — I believe the railway companies have no power to charge you more than the ac- tual distance from the sending place to the conveying ])lace. 4226. That is to say, if you send traffic be- tween point A and point B, a distance of 200 miles, and if there is a shorter line of 150 miles, you can only charge as for 150; is tliat your con- tention; that the company are to charge not for the actual distance travelled, but by the shortest distance which may exist ; or, as the Americans call it, by the “ bee line ”? — I do not know how it cuts by the minimum ; I know how it cuts by the maximum, but I think the calculation would be made upon the minimum number of miles be- tween the two places. 4227. Supposing I have a railway 150 miles long, and somebody else has a railway 100 miles long betw'een the same places, you say that I can only charge as for 100 miles ? — That is my opinion. 4228. You stated that a classification should be made out of all rates between all stations, and submitted to the Hallway Commissioners for ap- proval ? — Yes, I did, 4229. And that it should remain in force with- out the power of alteration, except for the purpose of reduction, for a period of years ? — Subject to the control of the Bailway Commissioners. 4230. That is to say, you would let the railway companies charge what the Bailway Commis- sioners allowed, and not charge any more ? — Precisely, as they have now. 4231. Do you know that to Liverpool alone, within the last five years, upon the London and North Western Line, theie have been at least 10,000 alterations of rates? — I was not aware of that. With respect to that, I do not think that would affect the question any more than it is affected at present. There is a maximum rate fixed now by Parliament that the railway com- panies should not exceed, and I ask no moi’e. 4232. It was upon that question that you sug- gested that the classification of all these articles should be settled, revised, and approved by the Bailwa}^ Commissioners ; that the maximum rate should be fixed to each article, and that this maximum rate and of this classification should subsist for a period of years, and then I was desiring to get from you whether you wei’e aware of the enormous amount of detail that would in- volve ? — I think you must have misunderstood me ; I do not propose to tax the railway com- panies by anything that they have not at present. As I understand, the Bailway Commissioners have permitted them to charge a certain maximum rate, and they must not go beyond that. 4233. Now, with regard to the charge upon less than 5001b, parcels, you stated, without SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWATS. 191 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. \^C,ontinued. Sir Edward Watldn — continued, giving any detailed instances of complaint that the railway companies charged more than the proper legal maximum rate ; are you aware that with regard to parcels of under 500 lbs. that they are allowed to charge what they please ? — I know that they have almost unlimited power in that respect. 4234. And that they do not exercise their power to the full ? — No doubt they do not to the full. 4235. Are you aware, that five years ago, the scale for parcels under 500 lbs. was revised with a view to the reduction of the charge on such parcels? — The charge was reduced. 4236. That was a step in the right direction? —Yes. 4237. Now, upon the question of parcels under 500 lbs. in weight, let us assume that a person sent a parcel of nails weighing 500 lbs. from Congreves to Chelmsford, I suppose if a small or a large blacksmith at Chelmsford writes to Con- greves to order 500 lbs. of nails, the railway com- pany are bound to send them when they are delivered to them ? — Yes, no doubt. 4238. And if at the same time they had no other consignment to Chelmsford, they would be obliged to send that 5C0 Ibs.In a waggon, which might, if there were other lots, carry eight tons? — Yes, no doubt. 4239. Do you suppose it is fair that for a waggon carrying 500 lbs. going that distance, the railway comj)any should charge no more than yro rata of two tons ? — I do not ask for that ; I only ask for a fair rate, and 1 desire to show that the railway companies could benefit themselves as well as the public by further equalising the rate. 4240. You do not complain of the railway companies charging more in proportion for the small })arcels than for the large ones? — No; the one is the wholesale and the -other the retail trade ; let them by all means have a fair propor- tion of the profit. 4241. You do not object at all to the fact that for a small consignment there should be a larger rate than for a larger consignment? — That is o O quite just. 4242. Then with regard to middle men acting as carriers ; you would abolish them, as I under- stand ? — I would make the competition so severe that they could not live. 4243. You would run them off the road, in fact? — Yes, I would run them off the road. 4244. Would you kindly take that book in your hand {liunding a book to the Witness) and read the title of it ? — “ Railway Clearing House. General Classification of Goods by Merchandise Trains on Railways.” 4245. Are you prepared to tell the Committee that that book is not to be found in every station in England, and is as much open to the inspection as is the rate book of any customer who applies to see it? — I can only give you one instance from my own experience, and that was an appli- cation to the Great Eastern Company some time ago. 4246. Plow long ago was that? — Certainly four years, or it might be five years. I applied to the traffic manager at Chelmsford and he told me 0.54. ' Sir Edward fVutkin — continued. in plain language that the classification book Avas not to be had by the public. 4247. But are you atvare that since Parlia- ment decided that railway companies should produce their rate books to the carrying public, that classification book has been in every station in England, producible and capable of being seen by anybody ?■ — I do not think it is understood to be so ; it is generally accepted by the public that it Is not to be seen. 4248. You do not know that It is to be seen ? — I take it from you now that it is to be seen ; I had taken it for granted that it was not to be seen. Mr. Monk. 4249. I understood you to say that you Avould recommend that the rate books at each station should be printed, in order to be sold to the public, is that so ? — I put it rather differently; that the rate books should comprise the rates from one station to any other station upon the same system of railways, so that rve may, upon pur- chasing this book, have an opportunity of seeing what the rates are, just as we can the fare for travelling. 4250. Do you think that the books should contain not only the legal rates chargeable by the railway companies, but the actual rates that they charge, so that the public might know Avhat are the charges by railway ? — I do not propose to burden them by doing more than printing the actual maximum rates which they are allowed to charge by Parliament. 4251. Do you not think it would be desirable in the interest of the public that the actual charges from one station to all the other stations on the line should also be published ? — If it could be done, but Sir Edward Watkin has given some figures which seem to show that it would be im- possible to do it. 4252. You have made a suggestion that the rates should be sanctioned by the Railway Com- missioners ? — I did. 4253. That Would require further legislation I think ; the Railway Commissioners have not, at present that power, have they ? — I understand that the Railway Commissioners have, at present, sanctioned a maximum rate which the railways should not exceed. 4254. Are you not aware that the maximum rate which the railway companies cannot legally exceed is contained in the different Acts of the railway companies themselves ? — I am aware that it is. 4255. So that it really does not rest at all with the Railway Commissioners to sanction the maxi- mum rates, they being contained in the various Acts of Parliament ? — My great point is not so much about the rates (which might possibly be accepted, even as they are now), but as to the classification of the rates, and the publication of the classification of the rates. 4256. Would you desire that greater facilities should be given to the public to come before the Railway Commissioners so as to arrange the rates AAdiich should receive their sanction ? — Only in cases of unfair classification. I do not think it would be necessary beyond that. A A 4 4257. Have 192 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 May 1881.] Mr. Dennis. [ Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. 4257. Have you liad any experience of bring- ing a case before the Kailway Commissioners ? — I have not. 4258. Do you know whether it is considered to be an expensive tribunal or not? — I believe it is considered as an expensive and a very trouble- some mode of procedure. 4259. Can you tell me in what way it is an expensive tril)unal? — I cannot. 4260. Are you aware that the Raihvay Com- missioners do not require counsel to appear before them; that any advocate may appear there? — I was not aware of that, and I do not think the general public are. 4261. Do not you think it desirable that the public should be aware of it if that is the fact ? — I think it is very desirable that they should know it ; I do not think they know it. Mr. Bolton . 4262. To clear up this matter, if we possibly can ; I do not think it is a change in the rates you desire as much as a more complete classifica- tion and a more equitable classification of the goods? — You are quite right, in common w'ith my fellow traders "we do not complain of the rates that are allowed by Parliament. I think the rates that are allowed are, in most cases, fair, and we do not object to them, but when those rates be- gin to be unfair, then we begin to object to them. Chairman. 4263. Are you alluding to all classes of goods? Yes, to all classes of goods. Mr. Bolton. 4264. Then the power which ycu would giv® to the Hallway Commissioners is, as I understandj the power to supersede the existing Acts of Par- liament under which the railways have been con- structed ? — I think not. 4265. Are you aware that every Railway Act contains a schedule of rates which the railway com- panies are entitled to charge ? — I understand so. 4266. Would you give the Railway Commis- sioners power to alter those rates ? — I did not propose touching upon that point. 4267. Is not that Avhat you propose ? — That is not my point. 4268. Then yon spoke of the Railway Com- missioners having ])ower to fix a rate for a certain term ? — R o, 1 should not go so far as that. I should propose that the Railway Commissioners simply receive from the railway companies the rates that they Avould charge, and when they approve them tlien they should be published, and not before. 4269. It is not the maximum rates that you are speaking about iit all now ; it is the rates that the railway comj)anies were determined to charge ; those rates being within their maximum? —Yes. 4270. Then suj)posing they fixed their maxi- mum rates ; in other words, supposing that Avhicli they submit to the Railway Commissioners, is simply an extract I'roni their Acts of Parlia- ment? — That is precisely Avhat I contend. 4271. Why should they be compelled to sub- mit to the Railway Commissioners extracts from their Acts of Parliament? — But my point is that the public should have better access, and freer Mr. Bolton. access, than they have at present to the rates, and that they should have access to the classifi- cation. 4272. But the public have that already, as you have shown to the Committee ? — But the general public have not access to the terminal charges, and we have no means whatever, as I have understood, of checking them. What I want to have shown is whether we cannot have put before us the station to station rates in all cases, and whether we cannot have the charges for collection and delivery, cartage, and terminals in each case separately. 4273. Have you been able to shoAv the Com- mittee any cases from your own knowledge in Avhich the railway companies were making an overcharge? — I have stated one, but I have come, as 1 have stated, not prepared with details; I simply come to state the principle. 4274. Your evidence goes to the length of generally charging the raihvay companies ivith making overcharges, but you have not been de- sirous of naming particular instances ? — I referred to one. 4275. You referred to the case from Con- greves to Chelmsfoi'd ? — Y"es. 4276. Y^ou were unable to tell the Committee what was the railway that carried the article from Congreves to Chelmsford ? — I am not prepared with statistics of any kind. 4277. YYu take the route as being through London ? — 1 think that was tvrong ; I did not say- so ; it was suggested to me. 4278. YYu stated that the distance from Con- greves to London tvas 120 miles, and that from London to Chelmsford it was 30 miles further, and that upon the distance from London to Con- greves the company tvere entitled to charge 1 d. a ton a mile, which made the rate up to 10 s., and from Loudon to Chelmsford 2 d. a ton per mile ? — Y^es, I did. 4279. Consequently you did take it as being from Congreves to London, and fi-om Loudon to Chelmsford? — No doubt. 4280. How is that traflSc carried from London to Chelmsford ? — I believe it comes by Peter- borough entirely, and not through London. 4281. But you must recollect that you are making, what I consider to be, a grave accusa- tion of overcharge ? — I think that I may be allowed to say that I did not make such an ac- cusation. The honourable Chairman asked me to give the Committee an instance. Chairman. 4282. I did not ask for an instance ; I asked you this, “Have you come here to go into the question of overcharges, or have you come here simply to go into the question of the publica- tion of the classification of rates.” The question to which you refer Avas asked you in cross- examination by the hon. Member for Forfar. 1 did not ask yon any questions Avith reference to overcharges? — May I be alloAved to submit to the Committee my impression. Before coming here, 1 felt that yon had had such an enormous number of these charges before you already, that I should be simply trespassing upon your time if 1 brought forward any more ; I only received my summons yesterday morning to appear SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 193 9 May 1881.1 • Mr. Dennis. S^Continaed. CViflirmara— continued. appear before the Committee, so that I had no time, even if I had any desire to bring forward details. Mr. Bolton. 4283. How did you get your knowledge of the charge from Congreves to Chelmsford ? — By actually paying it. 4284. You have made some remai’ks with reference to the greatly increased charge for one cwt. of nails as compared with a ton of nails ; and you have admitted that for carrying a small package the railway company is entitled to a somewhat higher percentage of chai'ge ; what would you consider to be a fair addition; taking a ton of nails at 10 s., Avhat would you consider to be a fair rate for a cwt: ? — I think it would be presumption of me to give an opinion ; it is their business and not mine. If it were my own business I could give it you straight off. 4285. You do not consider it presumptuous to say that the charge at present is far too high ? — I stated that, but I do not think I ought to be asked to fix the remunerative profits of another business man. 4286. Do you consider that if the rate were 10s. a ton, 1 s. per cwt. would be too high? — Yes; it would be far too high. 4287. How much would you consider would be right ; is 11 <7. too much? — Yes, undoubtedly, it would be too much for a thing of that kind ; it is a great deal too much. I am treating it as an ordinary matter of business ; I put it as between the retail way of doing business and the whole- sale way. 4288. Supposing you were buying an article at 10 s., what would you consider a fair price to sell it at? — Possibly at the rate of from 11s. to 11s. 6 c?. 4289. Even for two cwt. what would you make it? — I do not know that we should make any great difference. 4290. I suppose you would admit that while you, in your place of business, would not be put to any expense in selling a cwt. as against a ton ; a railway company, on the other hand, is put to greater expense, inasmuch as they have to send a man with a lorry or a cart, possibly for the cwt., for' which the whole receipt of the company would be 6 c?. I suppose you would admit that for his service the railway company would be en- titled to something more than that? — I do not admit that. 4291. But still you admit that your own charge would be 11 s. 6 d., which would be nearly 20 per cent. ? — It would be less 20 per cent, profit. Mr. Alfred Hickman, Mr. Craig. 4302. You are an Ironmaster in South Staf- fordshire ? — -I am. 4303. Will you state to the Committee where your blast furnaces are, and in what particular branch of the iron trade you are engaged? — I am a manufacturer of pig iron. 4304. Where is your manufactory of pig-iron 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. 4292. Are you aware that the charge for two cwt. upon that very article, at 10 s. per ton, would be 1 s. 3 d. ? — I did not wish to specify the article ; I only wished the principle upon which the small parcels are charged to be brought out. Mr. Gregory. 4293. You use all the railways nut of London as I understand, for the purpose of your busi- ness ? — My goods come from many parts, 4294. Are you aware whether there has been any revision of the rates of those railways out of London, or any of them? — I am not made ac- quainted with it, unless I find it out. 4295. I mean any revision of those rates by either railway company ? — We are not acquainted with it ; the information is not sent to us. 4296. You do not know whether there has been any in recent years? — I am aware that there have been many alterations and very many changes, but as to what those alterations and changes have been, I am not thoroughly posted "P- 4297. Do you think it desirable that there should be a periodical revision by Parliament of the rates of railways ? — I do not think that we require so much as that ; of course with the times we are now living in, alterations from time to time may seem desirable. No doubt when this original rate and toll was sanctioned by Parlia- ment, it was all sufficient. At the time it existed there were canals, and all means of transit of which the public could avail themselves to com- pete with the railway companies ; but since that time the railway companies have bought up all those channels of conveyance, and we have no other means of transit. 4298. You think, from those circumstances, that the tolls should be revised when the oppor- tunity offered itself? — That they should be considered. 4299. Then you are aware, I dare say, that the railway companies are continually coming before Parliament for an extension of .their powers ? — Yes. 4300. Do you think that advantage should be taken of those applications for revision of the tolls ? — That is really outside my province ; I do not go so far as to ask for any burden to be placed upon the railway companies ; I only ask that we, as the paying public, should be made thoroughly acquainted with the rates and the authorised charges that the company can make upon us. 4301. You are content, are you, with the present maximum tolls as they stand? — I think they are not much to be complained of as they stand. called in ; and Examined. Mr. continued. situated ? — My furnaces are situated near to the Deepfields Station of the London and North Western Railway. 4305. That is near Bilston, is it not? — Yes. 4306. How long have you been there? — I have been there 15 years. 4307. You have had acquaintance with the B B iron 1P4 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 Maij 1881.] Mr. Hickman. '^Continued. M r. Craiq — continued. iron trade of South Staffordshire for a longer period than that, have yow not ? — Yes, I have for the last 30 years. 4308. So that during 30 years you know its past and its present condition ? — Yes. 4309. Is the pig-iron trade of South Stafford- shire in a declining stage ? — The pig-iron trade is very rapidly becoming defunct. 4310. To what do you attribute that? — 1 attribute it to the excessive railway rates on the material. 4311. Do you mean on the raw material ? — Yes. 4312. Do you mean entirely on the raw material, or is there also an excessive railway rate on the pig-iron ? — Some of the railway rates on j)ig-iron are excessive, but they are of small importance compared with the excess on the raw material, 4313. Can you give the Committee some de- scription of the trade during the past and the pre- sent time, as you know it yourself from your own knowledge? — The number of blast furnaces in blast in 1862 was 110 ; in 1872 there were 102, and now there are only 41. 4313*. And of the same capacity? — Of similar capacity ; some of them may have increased of late. The tendency in blast furnaces has been to increase in size. 4314. So the number has dwindled down from 110 to 41 ?— Yes. 4315. Is the trade as at present carried on very pi'ofi table ? — I have good reason for saying that most of the blast furnaces are carried on either with no profit or with some loss. 4316. Are your blast furnaces in South Staf- fordshire well situated with regard to the iron- stone fields? — I consider they are very well situated. 4317. They lie between the Northamptonshire ironfields and the North Staffordshire ? — Yes. 4318. What proportion is brought from North- amptonshire and what from Nurth Staffordshire compared with what is raised in South Stafford- shire'? — I consider the quantity of ironstone brought into South Staffordshire exceeds that produced there by the proportion of 10 to 1. 4319. That is to say, you have 10 tons of foreign ore to every ton that is raised in the district ? — Yes. Sir Edward Wathin. 4320. Does that include hematite ? — It in- cludes hematite. Mr. Craig. 4321. I suppose you use your own fuel chiefly ?— Yes. 4322. What proportion of foreign fuel would come in ? — 1 should say a sixth or a seventh. 4323. That is to say, about a ton of foreign fuel for every six tons of home fuel ? — Yes. 4324. That would be coke, would it not ? — Yes. 4325. The principal fuel In your district is the thick coal, is it not? — Yes; will you allow me to explain that I am referring to the pig-iron trade alone. 4326. That thick coal in South Staffordshire is Mr. Craig — continued. a very fine coal for iron making, is it not ? — It is a very superior coal. 4327. What is the situation of your furnaces in relation to the thick coal district in South Staffordshire ? — The furnaces were originally built in the thick coal basin, but the thick coal surrounding the furnaces is now for the most part Avorked out, and subsequent discoveries upon the other side, that is the western side of Dudley, show that the district there contains a large quantity of thick coal of very superior quality ; but on that side the furnaces are few in number. 4328. What may be the average distance be- tween the coal field and the furnaces ? — About six miles. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4329. Is it not, as it were, on two sides of a hill, the furnaces upon one side, and the coal upon the other? — Yes. Mr. Craig. 4330. The ])ig iron is made of a mixture of the North Staffordshire, the South Staffordshire, and the Northamptonshire ore, is it not? — Yes ; exactly. 4331. Wliere is your produce of pig iron sent to generally ? — It is used in the district almost entirely ; the proportion that is sent out is very small. 4332. Does it supply the home consumption ? — Not nearly. 4333. Where does the other come from ? — From Shropshire, Lancashire, Derbyshire, and the Cleveland district; in fact, all the iron pro- ducing districts send iron into South Stafford- shire. 4334. If you had lower rates upon the raw material, Avould the pig iron trade increase in South Staffordshire ? — Undoubtedly. 4335. And the trade would be carried on pro- fitably ? — It Avould, no doubt. I believe pig iron can be made as cheaply in South Stafford- shire as anywhere in the world, if Ave had fair raihvay rates upon the material. 4336. Will you state what the rate upon the coal is from the thick coal basin to the furnaces ? — The present through rate from Round Oak to Deepfields, the distance being 6 miles 51 chains (the coal has to travel, I should tell you, upon both the Great Western and London and North Western Companies’ lines), is Is. 10(7. a ton for the 6 miles 51 chains, 4337. Does that include wagon hire? — No ; it does not include Avagon hire ; it is exclusive of Avagons. 4338. Have you ex'cr made an application to the raihvay company for a reduction of their rates ? — I have. 4339. Have you succeeded in obtaining one ? — On apjAlying to the raihvay companies Avho Avere interested, I Avas told (hat there was a pri- vate arrangement between the London and North AVestern and the Great AYestern Com- panies, Avhereby the discharging company should take 1 s. a ton, Avhatever distance the company might cany the material, that is to say, that the discharging company', if it only carried the ma- terial 100 yards, Avould have 1 s. a ton for it ; and that SELECT COiMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 195 9 May 1881.] Mr. HiCKMAN. [^Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. that being so, we could not get the rate reduced because the discharging company taking 1 s., the Great Western Company were not willing to take less than 10 rf. 4340. Do you actually pay that 1 s. 10 d. ? — • No ; I found that the London and North Wes- tern Railway have a local rate of 9 d. from Dudley, which is the point of junction, and so by consigning the coal to Dudley, and re-con- signing it from Dudley to Deepfields, we got the Great Western Company’s rate of 10 c/., and the London and North Western Company’s rate of 9 d., making Is. Id. instead of 1 s. 10 c?. 4341. So that you pay really two rates, which together amount to 1 s. 7 d., instead of the quoted through rate of 1 s. 10 cf. ? — 1 hat is so. 4342. blave you ascertained from the Act of Parliament tvhat is the maximum rate ? — The maximum rate upon the Stour Valley Railway, which is the part of the London and North Western Company’s Railway that the traffic runs over, is 1 d. a ton a mile. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4343. Is that in large quantities ? — In truck- loads. Mr. Craig. 4344. What distance does that apply to ? — That applies to four miles two chains. 4345. Is there a six-mile clause in that Act? — I believe not. 4346. You have the Act of Parliament, I sup- pose ? — I have not the Stour Valley Act of Parliament, but I have the London and North Western Company’s Act; the London and North Western Company’s minimum rate is 1| d. Mr. Edioard Watkm. 4347. What is the date of that Act ? — The London and North Western Company’s Act 1 am referring to, is dated the 16th of July 1846. 4348. That is what we call the Amalgamation Act ? — It is. Mr. Craig. 4349. Does that Act state that the charge should be 1^ d. a ton a mile, including wagons ? — It does include wagons. 4350. That would be 7j d. in your district? — Yes. 4351. What is the charge when the railway company find the wagons? — They always refused to find wagons. Twenty-three years ago when the W est Midland Company was first started they found wagons, and the charge was 1 s., in- cluding wagons, being 6 d. for carriage and 6 d. for wagons. 4352. Would you be kind enough to tell the Committee how many tons of coal it takes to make a ton of iron ? — Of course it varies a little, but you may take it that on the average it takes about 2^ tons of coal and slack altogether. Sir Edward Wathin. 4353. You say you add on to the 1 s. 7 d., 6 d. for wagons, which makes 2 s. 1 rf. ; is that for the six miles ? — Y es. Mr. Craig. 4354. Then the overcharge above the maxi- mum, assuming that to be the maximum throughout, 0.54. Mr. Craig — continued, would be 3 5. 6 d. per ton upon a ton of pig-iron. Would it not ? — It would. 4355. Two-and-a-half tons is the amount re- quired for heating and calcining? — Yes, the amount required, including heating and calcining. 4356. So that- that overcharge of rates would amount to about 10 per cent. ? — Yes, upon the price of the pig. 4357. Now, with regard to ironstone, would you tell us where you get the ironstone from in North Staffordshire? — One of the central posi- tions is Chatterley ; you may take that as being the central place. Then there is another place where we get it from in North Staffordshire, and that is Froghall. 4358. That is the hydrous ore? — Yes. 4359. What is the rate from Chatterley to Deepfields ? — Three and tenpence, without wagons. 4360. And wdiat would be the charge Including wagons? — Four shillings and sixpence. 4361. What is the distance? — Thirty-nine miles fifty-two chains. 4362. What is the rate from Froghall to Deep- fields ? — Five shillings. 4363. Exclusive of wagons ? — Exclusive of wagons, and with wagons 5 s. 8 d. 4364. What is the distance? — Forty-seven miles. 4365. Now taking Thrapstone, in Leicester- shire, you get a good deal of ironstone fron there I think ? — Yes. 4366. What is the rate from that ironstone field? — The rate from Thrapstone is 3s. 3c?.; that is without wagons ; that is the rate by the London and North Western Railway. 4367. What would be the charge with wagons? — They never supply wagons in that district. 4368. Will you just state whether you find wagons or not? — For the Northamptonshire traffic, always. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4369. Who does find the wagons? — The owner; the railway company never find the wagons for that traffic, but it is very common in the North Staffordshire district for the railway company to find wagons. Mr. Craig. 4370. Would you, for the purpose of com- parison, state what the 3 s. 3 c?. would be with wagon hire, it being 3 s. 3 d. without ? — If you add the same as the North Staffordshire rate for wagons it would be 3 s. 11c?. 4371. What Is the distance? — Eighty-five miles 62 chains. 4372. What does that come to per ton per mile? — Without wagon hire it comes to •45c?., that is to say, ’5 less than a halfpenny. 4373. Now referring to the North Stafford- shire district again, I suppose that traffic would come upon the London and North Western and the North Staffordshire Railways ? — Yes. 4374. What is the distance upon each com- pany’s line ? — It is about equal, supposing the traffic were exchanged at Stafford. 4375. Now if you apply the London and North W estern Company’s maximum rate to the whole district, that is for North Staffordshire as well as B B 2 . for 196 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 Mmj 1881.] Mr. Hickman. \_Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. for the London and Xorth Western line, what would that amount to? — The maximum legal charge would be 3s. 8,j d. 4376. Including wagons ? — Yes. 4377. And the rate actually charged Is 4 s. 6d. ? -Yes. 4378. So that that would make a difference of how much ? — Of 9| d. upon a ton of ironstone. 4379. It is calcined I believe? — It Is cal- cined. 4380. What quantity of calcined North Staf- fordshire ore would it require to make a ton of pig-iron ? — You may take it at two tons. 4381. So you may take the I’ate as Is. 7d. upon a ton of j)ig-iron ? — Yes. 4382. Now from Froghali, what woidd be tlie rate, taking the maximum rates by the London and North Western Hallway ? — It would be in excess of the maximum rate by Is. 3(7. 4383. How many tons does it take of that to make a ton of pig-iron ? — It takes 2^ tons of that ; we are now speaking of the ironstone not of the limestone. 4384. That would amount to 3 s. l^d. ? — Yes. 4385. We have compared the rates actually charged upon the stone Irom North Staffordsliire with the maximum rates as given in the London and North Western Company’s Local Act. Will you compare it with the Northamptonshire rate, which you actually pay from Thrapstone to South Staffordshire; what is the rate? — Sup- posing the same rate per ton per mile were charged from Cliatterley as from Thrapstone it would be about 2 s. 2 d. less than it is ; that is to say, the 3 s. 10 <7. rate is in excess of the Thrap- stone rate by 2 s. 2 d. 4386. That is to say, if you paid the same rate upon North Staffordshire ore as you are paying upon Thrapstone ore, you would have a reduction in the rate of 2 s. 2 d. ? — That is so. 4387. 'fhen that would amount to 4 s. 4 d. upon a ton of Cliatterley pig ? — It would. 4388. What is the price of a ton of Cliatterley pig ? — About 21.2 s. 6 d. 4389. What would the price per ton be for Froghali hydrate pig? — About 3 7. 2 s. 6 d. 4390. When you work that out upon the ton of pig-iron it amounts to about 10 percent.? — In the case of Chatterley pig It comes to about 10 per cent., but in the case of the Froghali pig, it comes to rather more than that, but you have not yet carried out the Froghali calculation. 4391. The Froghali calculation shows a differ- ence of how much ? — The excess that is charged for Froghali above the Thrapstone rate comes to 3 s. 3 d. a ton ; that woidd amount to 8 s. 1 d. per ton of iron. 4392. That is to say, upon a ton of hydrate pig? — Yes, about 12^ per cent. 4393. Then it comes to this : it would apjiear that you are paying 10 per cent, upon the price of the pig-iron owing to the excessive rates charged upon coal, and over 10 per cent, for ex- cessive rates charged ujion your ironstone? — 'That is so. Sir Edward IVatkiii. 4394. Making 20 per cent, altogether; 10 per cent, on the fuel and 10 percent, upon the stone ? —Yes. Mr. Craig. 4395. The 10 per cent, upon the coal is In excess of maximum rates, and the 10 per cent, upon the stone is the excess above the North- amptonshire rates? — Yes. 4396. Have you ever had that material carried for less in that district, in your rocollection ? — Twenty-three years ago the Great Western Com- pany carried coal for me from Hound Oak to Bilston, about the same distance, for 6 d. a ton. 4397. So that that would be l^d. a ton less than what we find the maximum rate to be ? — It is l^d. a ton less than the maximum rate. 4398. Then this disadvantage at which you are placed, amounting to 20 per cent., is crushing that industry out of existence, is it not ? — En- tirely. 4399. What do you propose as a remedy for that state of things ? — It appears to me that we want in the first place a new classification of goods ; that we want the materials for iron- making, that is to say, the coal, coke, limestone, iron ore, and ironstone, put in a class by them- selves ; they are all dealt ivith by the railway companies in very large quantities, and there- fore can be carried cheaply. For the most part they are taken from siding to siding without any tei’minal expenses upon them ; they are taken for the most part in train loads, or something like it, and can be dealt with at very cheap rates. 4400. Would you recommend any revision of the maximum rates? — I think at present the rates on materials are absurdly too high ; they are the same in many Acts of Parliament, as on manufactured iron, and there are no cases, taking the country at large, that I am aware of, except just these few in South StaflTordshire, where any- thing like that rate Is being paid. 4401. You are aware, are you not, that rail- Avay companies do sometimes carry raw matei’ial at a less rate than the maximum rate ? — They do everywhere. 44u2. In view of tiiat, do you i-ecoramend a reduction and revision of the maximum rates ? — I think the maximum rates should be brought down to something like what, in practice, it is found the railway companies can afford to carry the article at. 4403. Why do you think that compulsory re- vision is necessary ? — Because when we find we are charged more than the maximum legal rate, and we go to the railway companies for redress, they, say. Oh ! it is true we are charging you above the legal rate upon this article, but there are other articles upon which we are charging you less, and if you 2n’ess this upon us, we shall raise all our rates to the legal rate. 4404. So that they use their jiower as a sort of scourge to prevent you from getting a remedy for overcharges ? — Yes. 4405. And you Avould deprive them of that power by a reduction of rates ? — By bringing them down to a reasonable limit, a limit above what they could aftbrd to carry at, but giving some reasonable reduction. 4406. What would you recommend as a remedy? — It appears to me that the subject naturally divides itself into two parts. 4407. Would you recommend a uniform mile- age rate ? — I would recommend a uniform maximum SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 197 9 May 1881.] Mr. Hickman. [ Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. maximum mileage rate certainly. The rate next, naturally, divides itself into three parts ; there is the expense of dispatching, hauling, and dis- charging. The expense of dispatching ^ and discharging, I think, should be fixed quantities. It is easy to ascertain what the expense is of dispatching and discharging, and those shoubl be fixed quantities over all distances ; and I think also it is very easy to ascertain what the expense of hauling is ; the expense of hauling does not vary with the distance. Of course, if you come to a question of per ton per mile, the expense of dispatching varies according to the rate per ton per mile ; but if you have a fixed rate for dispatching and discharging, and a fixed rate per mile for hauling, you get at a fair rate which %yould be applicable to all distances. 4408. Have you any knowledge of what the cost of dispatching and discharging would lie in your district for your class of goods ? — I have the authority of the local manager of the London and North Westei'n Railway Company for the statement that their expenses at their principal discharging station in our district, that is Bloom- field Basin, amounted to something less than 2 d. a ton. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4409. And would the dispatching charges be about the same ? — They would not be more, at any rate. ’ Mr. Craig. 4410. You would double that, I suppose ? — To be well within the mark, I would say double that, and put down ^d. 4411. Will you give the Committee your idea with regard to the cost of haulage ? — In the case of from Thrapstone to Deepfields they carry there at a fraction less than | rf. a ton. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4412. You are referring to coal, are you not? — No, I am referring to ironstone. Now, from Durham to London the charge is, or was lately, 9 s. 3 ig-iron maker. 4441. So that Avhat Avould apply to you, AA'Ould apply Avith greater force to the smaller manu- facturers? — Yes, no doubt. Mr. Craig. 4442. Do you find that the raihvay companies make jirivate arrangements amongst themselves for the regulation of rates? — Yes. 4443. Do you find any inconvenience aidslng from that ? — Yes, the greatest inconvenience; if Mr. Craig — continued. Ave have only one company to deal with, and if we can show that a revision of the rate is advi- sable, Ave may get it, but now we are met with this combination, and we are told “ Ave Avould be glad to do it, but Ave have to do Avlth the Great Western” or the “ Midland ” or whatever corn- pan}’ it may be, and “ Ave cannot do it.” 4444. So that it amounts very much to Avhat an authorised amalgamation between the companies would amount to ? — I think it is Avorse. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4445. Is it what in America they Avould call a “ ring ” ? — Precisely. Mr. Craig. 4446. In making this private arrangement amongst themselves, have you reason to believe that the companies pay regard to the public in- terest ? — I think not ; there is a very strong in- stance of the force of this virtual amalgamation in the case of the Midland RailAvay Avho lately have made a connection Avith Wolverhampton upon their main line. Mr. Allport, Avho was examined before a Committee of this House was asked this question. “ I see the Committee in tlie other House put this question to you. ‘ The pi-omoters and ironmasters Avho gave evidence for them say (and it is no good mincing matters), that if you get to Walsall, they will have a reduction of rates. What is your opinion about that? Shall I read you Avhat you said?’ (A) ‘Yes.’ ‘Your ansAver is this : I have ahvays been of opinion that the rates from the South Staffordshire dis- trict are too high, but Ave have had no control over them. ’ ” Sir Edward Watkin. 4447. That meant the Midland Railway ? — Yes; the continuation of Mr. Allport’s ansAver is, “ The London and North Western Company are the people who have fixed the rates, but they are too high. I have no hesitation in saying that, looking at other iron districts in the country the South Staffordshire rates are too high”; and then the learned counsel asked, “ Do you maintain that opinion?” {A.) “1 do.” Then again he was asked, “ It will be a permanent re- duction of rates,” and his ansAver was, “ I should think so.” (Q.) “Is that your conviction?” (A.) “ It is a very rare thing that rates are advanced ; sometimes they are. I have no doubt they Avill be reduced. Staffordshire is labouring under very great difficulties, and has been for some years, in consequence of very cheap water communication from Cleveland and Middles- borough, and Staffordshire being an inland com- munication to all parts has laboured under great disadvantages. The great thing is that they have a capital expended upon the Avorks, and that capital must be utilised in the best way it can.” Tlien Mr. Allport is asked if he will give a pledge that there shall be a reduction of rates if the line is granted, and he says, “ If the South Staffordshire rates remain as they are now, as compared Avlth the rates from other iron dis- tricts to Avhich the hi id land Company carries, I have no hesitation in saying that there Avill be a rednetion in the South Staffordshire rates.” Upon this evidence, as soon as the connection Avas completed, we went to Mr. Allport, and re- minded SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 199 9 May 1881.] Mr. Hickman. [^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. minded him of what he had said ; he said, “ Oh, I should be very glad, indeed, to make you any reduction, but we cannot act without the other companies.” Ml’. Craig. 4448. So that Mr. Allport, knowing the cir- cumstances, was of opinion that a change should be made, but he did not feel himself at liberty to make it in consequence of private arrangements with other companies '? — Yes, that I presume was the case. Lord Randolph Churt'hill. 4449. 1 suppose that evidence was given when the railway company was before the House of Commons asking for the Bill, and it was upon that evidence that the Committee was influenced? — No doubt. IMr. Paget, 4450. When was the Midland connexion made to Wolverhampton ? — It is about two years ago. Mr. Craig. 4451. Directing your attention now to the carriage of pig-iron, will you state to the Com- mittee what occhrs to you with regard to that? — The carriage of pig-iron is of very much less im- portance than of materials ; the materials are a question of vital importance, but I would just illustrate the way in which railway companies treat us by giving you a few instances ; from Deepfields to Birmingham, Monument Lane Station, the distance is nine miles two chains, and the rate is 2 s. 6 d. a ton for pig-iron ; the maxi- mum legal charge would be 1 s. 3| d., so that we pay 1 s. d. above the legal rate. 4452. Do you send much to Birmingham? — Y^es, a good deal of iron goes to Bii’iningham ; Then from Deepfields to Brettell-lane, which is on the West Midland system, a distance of seven miles 72 chains, the charge is 2 5. lid., that is 1 5. 9 d. in excess of the legal rate, the legal being 1 5. 2 d. Mr. Caine. 4453. That is carried over two lines of railway, is it not ? — Yes. Mr. Bolton. 4454. The one being the London and North Westei’n line, and the other the Midland ? — The London and North Western and the Great Western; then to Dudley, which is all North W estern, a distance of four miles two chains, the Aite is 2 5. 6 d., whereas it should be 7 d., the excess being 1 5. 1 1 d. Mr. Craig. 4455. Those are stations to which you send a very large quantity are they not. — Yes ; then to illustrate the apparent perversity of railway com- panies, I will just mention the rate for pig-iron into the district ; now, from Dowlais in South Wales, the London and North Western Com- pany carry pig-iron, and their first station in the South Staffordshire district is Wolverhampton, the rate to which is 9 5. 2 d. a ton. Mr. Paget. 4456. How far is that ? — I do not know the distance. For the purpose of this argument it 0.54. Mr. Paget — continued. will not be necessary to state the distance. The next station they go to is Bloomfield. From Dowlais to Bloomfield tlie rate is 8 5. 4 d. They come to Wolverhampton for 9 s. 2 d. ; but they go through Wolverhampton to Bloomfield, and there they charge 8 s. 4 d., reducing the rate, although they carry the goods to a station beyond. When they get to Bloomfield their line sto])S ; they do not go any further than Bloomfield, but they deliver at Stourbridge, to gefto which place they tranship the iron and boat it, and they charge to Stourbridge 7 5. 6 d. 4457. After having transhipped it and boated it ? — Yes.. Sir Edward Watkin. 4458. That is including the boatage ? — Yes. Mr. Craig. 4459. So that the rate, althouah the distance is greater, is less than it is to Wolverhampton? — Yes ; they boat it and take it on from Bloomfield to Stourbridge, and they charge less than they do to W olverhampton. 4460. To what do you attribute that? — To competition ; they have the Great Western Rail- way Company to deal with. The Great Western Company comes in the other way. The first station upon the Great Western line is Stourbridge, the next Bloomfield, and the last Wolverhampton. 4461. Taking the charges upon coal, ironstone, and pig-iron as you have stated them, have you worked it out to show what the proportion is upon the price of the pig-iron? — Yes, the extra cost on coals above the legal maximum is 3 5. 8 d. per ton of pig-iron. 4462. This coal is entirely in the district ; within six miles? — Y^es. Then on ironstone, taking half from Chatterley and half from Frog- hall, the excess above the legal maximum charge is 2 5. 4 d. on a ton of pig-iron ; then I take the delivery of the pig-iron at 1 s. 9 d. If you take the figures together, you will find that the total overcharge on a ton of pig-iron amounts to 7 5. 9 d. a ton above the legal rate. 4463. That is in comparison with the maxi- mum rates ; now wdl you compare the actual rates paid with the reasonable rate ? — Then the overcharge comes to 1 1 5. 7 d. Sir Edward Watkin. 4464. That is to say if you stick to what it is above what you say the maximum rate is, you say it is 7 5. 9 d. over that ; but if you stick to your view of what a reasonable rate would be, it would be 11 5. 7 d. over that? — Yes. Mr. Craig. 4465. Would you say what the excess of the rate is upon the ironstone alone in that point of view? — Six shillings and twopence. 4466. And then the 3.?. 8 d. and the 1 5. 9d. as before? — Yes. 4467. What does that amount to upon the present price of pig-iron? — Pig-iron is sold in South Staffordshire at 35 s. a ton. Mr. Caine. 4468. That is cinder pig? — Yes, but it would be unfair to take it upon cinder pig, so I take it as 25 per cent. B B 4 4469. Unon 200 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 Mmj 1881.] Mr. Hickman. ^Continued. Mr. Craig. 4469. Upon a fair average quality of pig in South Staffordtshire you are paying 25 per cent, excessive rates? — Yes. 4470. You spoke of the classification, and said that in your opinion it was necessary to revise that, and you said something about manufactured iron ; can you tell the Committee the price per ton for carrying manufactured iron, compared with raw material ? — The price varies very much in the different Acts, but the difference is very slight indeed, about one-eighth of a penny per ton. 4471. That is to say, for ironstone they chai’ge •within one-eighth of a penny per ton of what they -^vould charge for manufactured iron? — Yes, in some disti'icts it is the same. 4472. How would you account for that? — I think it is to be accounted for in this way. When these Acts were passed, South Staflbrd- shire was a self-supplied and self-producing dis- trict; it was of less importance to South Stafford- shire then that materials should be carried cheaply because the materials were always car- ried by canal inside the district, whereas now Ave are dependent upon materials from distant dis- tricts, and of course the question of the carriage of them becomes of vital importance. Mr. Sanmelson. 4473. You did not Avatch it at the time the Acts Avere got? — No, Ave never expected to be obliged to depend upon foreign supplies. Mr. Craig. 4474. In fact the ironmasters at that time Avould keep a sharp eye upon Avhat Avas carried out of the district; and noAV that the circum- stances have changed it is equally necessary that there should be a revision of the rates upon the articles used in the district ? — It is even more necessary. 4475. W ill you hand in the Table Avhich you have prepared? — I Avill. (^The same teas handed in, see Apj)endix.) Mr. Morley. 4476. Have you ever had occasion to appeal to the Railway Comissioners ? — I have often had occasion to do so, but I have never done so, as I have been afraid. 4477. Why have you been afraid? — Because the railway company could hamper my trade if I came to open rupture Avith tli»em. 4478. So the result has been that you haA'e not resisted any unjust demand ; you have preferred to suffer ? — Yes. 4479. Have you any opinion to give to the Committee Avith reference to the continuance of the llailAvay Cominis-sioners ? — I think it is most desirable that they should continue to exist, and that their poAvers should be extended. I further think it very desirable also to have an official of the Board of Trade, Avho should take up the case of a Aveak man Avho is not able to go before the Railway Commissioners. There is no single man Avho can deal Avith a raihvay company ; they can refuse him facilities Avhich are absolutely neces- sary for him, and still keep Avithin the law. Mr. Morley — continued. 4480. But that course of action would be vin- dictive, would It not ? — It Avould. 4481. Do you think they would do that? — I have no doubt of it ; I have knoAvn a case in Avhich they did do it, namely, the case of the Chatterley Iron Corripany. The Chatterley Iron Company took the North Stafford Rail- Avay Company before the Raihvay Commis- sioners and obtained a decision in their favour. Upon Avhich the railway company refused to carry for them at all. Then the Chatterley Company Avent to the Raihvay Commissioners upon that, and the Commissioners said the railway company should pay 50 1. a day, I think it Avas, Avhile they refused. Being obliged to carry the stuff they then sent the trains at inconvenient times, or allowed the trucks to accumulate ; and then the Chatterley Company had to cross the line Avith a bx’idge; but the North Stafford Company gave the company notice to take it doAvn. In fact the Chat- terley C(xnipany Avere so hampered Avith these vexa- tious proceedings that they Avere obliged to com- promise the matter. I Avould have somebody to Avhom Ave could appeal, if Ave could show a really hard case, Avho should take up the case as a sort of public ])rosecutor. 4482. You are not saying this with any idea of interfering Avith the independence of the com- panies, but in the interest of the public, to have a centre Avhere there could be either an arbitra- tion, or some clear decision, in cases of dispute? — Decidedly. 4483. You feel strongly upon that point, do you not ? — Very strongly. Mr. Monk. 4484. Can you give any instances in Avblch the railway companies have admitted that they have charged more than their maximum rate ?• — -Yes. 4485. Have you done so to-day? — Yes, I have. Mr. Bolton. 4486. Do I understand you to say you can give instances in Avhich the railway companies have admitted that they Avere charging above their maximum rates? — Of course the railway officials argue that they have rights as to ter- minals, and all sorts of things. 4487. But I think you stated just now, in an- SAver to an honourable Member, that you could give many Instances ? — I am not quite clear about the admissions ; the railway companies are very chary about making admissions. 4488. But you stated to the honourable Member that you could give many instances in Avhich the railAvay companies had avowed, or admitted that they had charged in excess of the maximum rates ? — It depends upon how a'Ou put it ; it is quite clear that in many cases the charges are in excess, and the answer Avhen Ave talk about the Railway Commission is that Ave had better be quiet. I Avill gRe the Committee an instance : A dejnitation of the Ironmaster’s Association went to Mr. Moon, the Cli airman of the London and North Western Railway Company, and ]tointed out that the rates Avere in excess of the legal charges. I do not say that Mr. IMoon admitted SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 201 9 May 1881.1 Mr. Hickman. {Contivued. Mr. Bolton — continued. admitted anything, but he said, Supposing y on in- sist upon these things being reduced to the legal maximum, we shall raise other things which are be- low the legal maximum to what you say is the legal maximum, and you will be worse off.” If you call that an admission, that was his admission. 4489. Is that the only case you can recollect? — That is a notable case, as taking place with the chairman. 4490. How long ago w'as that ? — It would be about two years ago. 4491. Is that the only case you can call to mind ? — It is the most notable case, but we have had a great many informal conversations which I do not care to specify with great minuteness. I have had these discussions with the officials often. 4492. Have you had clear admissions from them that they have been charging over the maximum rates ? — I do not say that they have said “we have charged illegally^,” but they say, “if we have, what of it.” 449.3. You based a part of your recommenda- tion of a reduction in the rate of carriage upon iron materials, upon the ground that the railway company do charge you considerably less in the case of Northamptonshire ore ? — Yes, that is so. 4494. Is there any particular reason why the company charge you a low rate for the Northamp- tonshire ore ? — It is a low quality^. 4495. And if it were a high charge you could not do with it ? — No. 4496. If you did not get the Northamptonshire ore, I suppose it would materially cripple your operations ? — It would. 4497. It would put an end to your trade, in fact ? — Yes, it would to some extent. 4498. And that may be some reason why the company cany that stuff practically at a loss, in order that thev may have in other respects a larger trade from you ? — Possibly. 4499. I think that your other suggestions have been applicable to iron-making materials ? — Exclusively. 4500. You stated that the rates on materials were absurdly high, as compared with the rates on the manufactured article ? — Yes. 4501. Are the Committee to understand that in your opinion it is desirable that the value of an article should have some influence upon the rate of carriage ? — No doubt. 4502. You think that it should? — Unquestion- ably ; there is an important reason why the mateiials ought to be carried cheaper than the manufactured iron, and that is because they are carried in much larger bulk. Materials are largely carried in train loads, and it is obvious that they can be carried much cheaper than where you have a waggon to deliver in one town and one in another ; they have to shunt and marshal them more than if you had 20 waggons, to which you put a locomotive, and send it oft’ to one siding? 4.503-4. You advocate a uniform rate, do you not? — I advocate a uniform maximum rate for materials for iron making. 4505. And I think you arrive at it by allowing a certain sum per ton for what you call discharg- ing, and a certain sum per ton for what you call 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. dispatching, and then a certain sum per ton for haulage ? — Yes, precisely so. 4506. And you argue that that should be the same everywhere as respects iron-making materials ? — I would not say that should be so in London. 4507. They do not make iron in London, you know ? — But they use coal and coke, and I in- cluded in my .suggestions coal and coke as being iron-makino; materials. 4508. I understood your evidence to be with- out exception ; do you wish to except London ? — I think it would be reasonable to charge higher terminals in London. 4509. And the same in districts where the cost of making the line is considerably greater than in others ? — I should not think it would be so to such an extent as to make that necessary. 4510. Do not you know that there are many cases in which towns now exist that were begun and started from the establishment of an iron manufactory, where there was actually no town in existence before the iron manufactory was started ? — That may be so in some places. 4511. Do you know anything about Scotland; take Coatbridge, for examjile? — No, I do not know Scotland. 4512. My experience is that the iron furnaces there were the beginning of the town ; if that were the case, do not you think that any exten- sion of the railway or additional works for the purpose of this iron making, would involve greater expense than the original cost of the line ? — I do not apprehend that the company would make alterations unless it suited their purpose. 4513. If you limited them to what you call a fair profit, a fair profit at one town might be a loss at another? — I do not think a halfpenny a ton a mile would be a loss anywhere. 4514. Do not you think that it might be a fair price to-day, but it might be a loss a year hence ? — I think the price should be large enough to give a reasonable margin. 4515. Do you bind yourself then to the half- penny a ton ? — I think it would be ample in all cases. 4516. If the company can now charge a high rate according to your view, and if they do not now reduce sufficiently to meet your view, why do you suppose that when tliey were tied down to a very low rate they would reduce the rate still further to suit the views of others ? — I do not see how the fixing of the maximum would be an evil in that case. 4517. The non-reduction in the maximum would be a disadvantage to the competing iron- masters, and would it not be also disadvan- tageous to the public ? — Of course it is a dis- advantage to the public if the rate is not as low as possible. 4518. You spoke of an appeal to the Railway Commissioners being a desirable thing ; have you not an appeal just now in cases such as you have instanced, where the Midland Railway Company have replied to your demand, that the London and North Western Company stands in your way ? — Yes. 4519. And have not the Midland Railway C C Company 202 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 May 1881.] Mr. Hickman. \Conlinued. Mr. Bolton — continued. (.'ompany an appeal to the Railway Commis- sioners; cannot they fix the rate and allow the London and North Western Railway Company to take the Midland Railway Company before the Railway Commissioners? — 1 know why I have not done so. 4520. It is the railway company who have the power, and not yourself?—! suppose they fell into the combinations very ivillingly. 4521. Then 1 think the tenor of your evi- dence goes to prove that you are opposed to competition on railways ; on the other hand, in one case I think you said that competition had been of some use ? — I do not think it has been of any use. I think it is a gross case where com- petition has acted, but has acted unfairly. I do not give that case as being of any use. 4522. You do not think competition between railways leads to a reduced state ? — Unless you can prevent combination ; then competition would be valuable, but, as things are at present, I do not think competition is of any use. 4523. Do not you think that the ranltiplica- tion of railways between various points is more due to the action of the traders, who have pro- moted these additional railways in the expecta- tion of getting reduced rates, than to any other cause. I think what you quoted from Mr. Allport’s evidence goes to show that ? — I do not know that any of our railways have been pro- moted by traders. 4524. I think, generally speaking, traders are always in favour of additional railways ? — I think so, as a rule. 4525. And you conceive that that is a disad- vantage to the public generally? — No, I do not think that additional railways are a disadvan- tage. 4526. Suppose you take any large district supplied by two or three railways, do not you think that if there were only one railway in that district, the one railway would be able, if so dis- posed, or if tied down by Parliamentary obliga- tions, to work the traffic at a lower rate, having the whole of the traffic to carry, than it is now able to work at, seeing that the traffic is divided between the two or three? — No doubt it would be so where the traffic was limited, but in our district the railway companies have ample traffic for their original lines, and are contemplating doubling their lines. The London and NoxTh Western Company, down to Crewe, have already ])ut down a double line. 4527. Is there much competition in Noi'th Staffordshire? — I know vei-y little of North Staf- fordshire ; my district is South Staffordshire. . 4528. Is thei’e much competition in South Staffordshire? — The competition is set aside by combination ; they have all agreed to be bound by certain fixed regulations which they all cai-ry out, and never dejxai’t fi'om. 4529. Practically, that disapjioints the trader ? — Entii-ely. 4530. One railway would have served you better in fact ; you gave evidence that you could deal better with one i-ailway than with sevei’al ? — Yes, no doubt in some cases we can deal with one. 4531. I want to know whether you think that Mr. Jiolton — continued. the multiplication of I’ailways has been a benefit in yonr ])articular case, or not ? — That is an ab- stract ({uestion to which it is difficult to give a direct answer. I think if all the railways were in the hands of one management; if for instance they were in the hands of the Government, we should be far better off. 4532. You think the railway would be more cheajdy managed ? — Yes. 4533. MTiere there are thi’ee managements there must be three sets of expenses ? — Yes. 4534. So that the public have not been bene- fited by the competition between the railways to the extent they should have been? — I do not think that the comjxetition has been much in the interest of the public. 4535. In giving the charge which in your o])inion should be made by the I’ailway companies, you saiil '2d. a ton for dischai'ging, '2d. for dispatching, a ton for haulage ; what do you mean the haulage to include ? — The locomotive ^ o dragging the traffic from point to point. 4536. And what about the cost of the railway itself? — The cost of haulage would include that. 4537. The haulage is intended to include the tolls for the I’ailway ? — Yes. 4538. It is intended to include the whole cost of the railway? — Yes. 4539. And whether the cost be high or low it would be ^d. as an inflexible rule? — Yes, I think that would be sufficient. 4540. M'^hat have you to say about the i-eturn of the empties; would that be included in the one charge? — Yes. 4541. So that taking a consignment over 10 miles the engine would run 20 miles, and di'ag the waggons that distance, but only be paid for 10 miles ? — Yes. 4542. You spoke of South Staffoi’dshire, and you stated that the ironmasters, when some changes were making, or I’ather when the railways were made, did not anticipate the exhaustion of the materials, or that they would have to go abroad for their materials ?— Yes, that was so. 4543. In other words, you mean the iron- mastei’s did not look far enough ahead? — I assumed that w;is so. 4544. Do not you think it may be just pos- sible that in endeavouring to force upon the rail- way companies a rate which you choose to tei’m fair, the ironmasters may also now not be looking far enough ahead, but may be ruining and ci'ush- ing railway entei’pi'ise ? — It is quite clear that unless something is adopted of that sort, the rail- way rates will crush the ii’on trade of South Staffordshire 4545. Do you think that is true ? — I think the railway companies are acting conti’ary to their intex’ests. 4546. But you have not been able to show them that fact? — I have tiled to do that, but have not been able. 4547. M^hat does the North Stafford Company pay? — Tlii-ee per cent., I think. 4548. That does not seem to show great con- dition of prosperity ? — But the London and North Western Company are a more flouilshing insti- tution. 4549. Is SELECT COMMITTEE ON ItAILAVAYS. 203 9 May 1881.] * Mr. Hickman. ^Continued. Mr. Phipps. 4.549. Is the limestone used in South Stafford- shire found in the locality or not ? — It is brought from different districts: North Wales, North Staffordshire, and elsewhere. 4550. Is that carried cheaply ? — I thought it better not to complicate my evidence by going too much into details, but have confined myself to illustrating the pressure of the rates upon materials generally, and keeping more particu- larly to the coal and ironstone. I thought it would be better not to deal with the question of limestone ; but everything I have said as to coal and iron-stone applies to limestone equally. 4551. You say that your remarks with regard to the coals and the ironstone as raw materials for making pig-iron would also apply to lime- stone ' — Yes. 4552. And therefore to that extent make an addition to the complaints you have urged against the railway companies? — Yes. 4553. I think that you say where traders have their own sidings the despatching charges ought to cease? — Yes. 4554. And of course wherever they have sidings, and receive the waggons into their own sidings, the charge for discharging ought to cease? — I think some small charge ought to be made in such a case, but it should be a very small charge. 4555. Not equal to 2 d. a ton? — Not equal to 2 d. ton. 4556. Passing from that point, have you ever known companies combine together to prevent a trader going before the Pailway Commissioners ? — No, I have not. 4557. Have you ever gone into the matter of the comparison of railway charges in other coun- tries upon raw’ materials, say in Belgium ?— -No, I have not. 4558. You knoAv nothing about that? — No, I do not. Sir JEdward Wathin. 4559. I think you stated you were the largest manufacturer of pig-iron in South Staffordshire? —Yes. 4560. Is your trade a falling off trade ? — I am about stationary. 4561. You are not progressing ? — No. 4562. But your trade is not falling off? — No; I cannot say that it is. 4563. You stated that if the rates were fixed at Avhat you considered a fair amount. South Staffordshire could produced j)ig-iron as cheaply as any part of the world ? — Yes, I think so. 4564. What is the total reduction you want in order to bring about that state of thinsis? — This I I s. 7 d., which I have worked out before you. 4565. You think that if the total of the rates were reduced by an amount equal to 11 5 . 7 d, upon a ton of pig-iron. South Staffordshire could produce pig-iron as cheaply as any part of the world ? — I do. 4566. You told the Committee that of this stone and ore 10 lbs. out of every 1 1 lbs. came from foreign districts ?— Yes, about that propor- tion. 4567. What reason have you for saying that ? — My reason is that the stone of the district has 0.54. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. been worked out to a very great exte?it ; and, moreover, the operation of the Mines Regulation Act, the limitations as regards young persons, and the hours of working, has been to increase the cost of getting the ironstone of the district (which is a very thin measure) in which boy’s labour could be used very advantageously. All those things combined have operated ; in fact the best of the stone has been worked out, and the worst, which remains, is not Avorkable at a profit. 4568. That is to say, the district is gettiug rapidly worked out as regards its local resources ? — It is getting rapidly worked out as regards materials. 4569. But there is plenty of coal ? — Yes, plenty of coal. 4570. Now is it not the fact that the London and North Western Company, many years ago, made these excessively low rates to Northampton- shire entirely, or almost entirely, to preserve the South Staffordshire iron-making district? — I think very likely it was so. 4571. There may be something, therefore, in what you say Mr. Moon stated, namely, that if he was overcharging you in minor details, though he did not admit that he was, he was charging you a price for the ore from Northamptonshire (without which you could not live at all) very much less than the maximum Parliament allowed him to charge? — The Northamptonshire rate i.< below the maximum undoubtedly. 4572. It is about half the maximum, is it not ? — It is about half the maximum. 4573. Then at all events the London and North Western Company, as regards that par- ticular thing, are doing the best they can to assist you ? — I think they are acting very fairly. 4574. Then do you not think it very hard, if the London and North Western Company are doing their very best with regard to this raw material, to endeavour to screw them with regard to other matters ? — I do not admit that it is an excessively low rate ; it is not an excessively low rate as compared with what the Midland or Great Northern Company are doing in other districts. 4575. Do you know any case in which these companies are carrying ironstone at 1 d. per ton a mile ? — But I am speaking of coal ; they can carry ironstone as cheaply as they can coal. 4576. Your proposal is this, that wherever a company like the London and North Western Company have an excessively low rate '! — I do not admit that it is an excessively low rate. 4577. Or a low rate ? — I do not admit that it is a low rate. 4578. 'I'hen I will say a fair rate i* — I will admit that. 4579. That wherever they make a fair rate from one district, they ought to apply that very fair rate to every other district ? — I do not say that. I prove, by a comparison of various rates, that h d. a ton a mile is a fair rate, and that that fair rate is applicable to other conditions with a reasonable allowance for sto{)ping and starting. 4580. But you have not favoured the Com- mittee with your views Avhy the d. a ton a mile is a fair rate ; why, for instance, if you carry a ton for six miles, '6d. would be a fair rate ? — I put it that the cost of haulage and the cost of toll C C 2 uj)on 204 MINUTES OP EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 9 1881.] Mr. Hickman. • {^Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. upon a line is a fixed quantity per ton per mile ; that it will cost the same, practically, per mile in engine power to draw a train 100 miles as to draw it 20 miles. 4581. If the engine has only to draw a truck load six miles distance, you will get as much work out of it as if it went on for 100 miles right oft’? — It u ould go backwards and forwards ; but if this suggestion of mine were carried out, there ■would be much more than one engine could do. 4582. You told the Committee that in 1862 there were 110 furnaces in blast, 102 in 1872, while in 1880 there were only 41 ; I interrupted you to ask whether the capacity of those furnaces was the same? — They have increased; the capacity is not the same. 4583. What would have been the production of iron by the 110 furnaces in 1862, and what would be the production by the 41 furnaces in 1880? — I am not able to answer the question accurately, but I think probably the increase of capacity would amount to nearly 50 per cent. 4584. Then, in point of fact, the 41 furnaces would do about as much work as 60 previously would have done ? — Yes. 4585. So you would say that the production of the iron had decreased about one-half? — Yes. 4586. So that if the furnaces of 1862 repre- sented 110,000 tons, the present 41 furnaces represent 60,000 tons? — Yes; but I ought to have said, that while South Staflbrdshire has been going down, other districts have been going up to an enormous extent; in 1862 the South Staf- fordshire made a sixth of the whole pig-iron of the kingdom, where it does not make a sixteenth now ; during the time it has been increasing in other parts of the country, it has been decreasing in Staftbrdshire. 4587. Is it not the fact that your great com- petitor is the Cleveland iron manufacture? — Yes. 4588. The discovery of that great Cleveland field has been one of the causes which has led to your diminished trade ? — It is one of the causes. 4589. And you would contend, that because that district has been developed, and has become a great competitor with you, your rates should be lowered ? — I would say that we ought to be charged fairly under the same circumstances ; we are not charged the same rate that the Cleveland district have to pay under the same circum- stances ; we are charged higher rates in fact than such materials are charged throughout the country generally. 4590. Could you give a statement generally of the amount for railway carriage upon the articles which are- the constituted elements of a ton of iron made In Middlesboro’, and the rates made with regard to your iron upon the same articles ? — I could not give it now ; I should be glad to furnish it upon a future occasion. Mr. Caine. 4591. Can you give me approximately infor- mation as to what is the price at the mine of stone at Froghall, Chatterley, and Thrapstone? — At Froghall it is about 10 s. 4592. And Chatterley ? — Chatterley is about 6 s. 6d. Mr. Caine — continued. 4593. And Thrapstone ? — Thrapstone is about 3 s. 3 d. to 3 s. 6 d. 4594. Is there a lai-ger per-centage of metallic iron in the Froghall stone than there is in the Thrapstone ? — No ; but it is a very superior quality. 4595. Then the Thrapstone is the worst quality of the three ? — The Thrapstone contains less iron than the Chatterley. 4596. It is the worst quality of the three? — It is not worse than Chatterley in quality of ii’on, but it contains mucli less iron in quantity. 4597. If you did not get the 3 s. 3d. rate, you would not buy it? — No, of course not. 4598. Supposing the rates were raised from Thrapstone to Deepfields, it would simply shut out the Thrapstone stone from your works, would it not? — Yes, no doubt. 4599. Have you water conveyance for the Thrapstone stone to your works? — Yes, but the canals are in the hands of the railway, so that there is no competition. 4600. You could get a similar ore by the canal ? — Yes. 4601. As a matter of fact, are the canals coming into your works in the hands of the rail- way company ? — Yes, entirely. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4602. When you say there is no corapetitioiij do you mean it is not cheaper to go by water than by rail? — Theraihvay company keep up the tolls on the canal, so as to make the one balance the other. Mr. Caine. 4603. You may take it for granted that if the company buys a competing canal they buy it with the view of charging tlie same rates over it ? — Yes, I should presume so. 4604. I think you expressed your oiiinion that traffic should be hauled at equal maximum mileage rates, whatever the distance might be ? — Yes, equal maximum mileage rates, the company being at liberty to reduce below the maximum for long distances, if they pleased. 4605. They might reduce them? — Ad libitum. 4606. You state that if the rates were reduced to a maximum of ^ a ton a mile, you could pro- duce iron in South Staftbrdshire as cheaply as any part of the world? — I do. 4607. Do you think you could produce it as cheaply as Cleveland? — Yes, cheaper. 4608. Would not the effect of the maximum rate being reduced to ^ d., and that an equal mileage rate, be to shut out the Cleveland iron- stone from the district altogether ? — No doubt. 4609. And would it not enable you to make more money ? — No doubt. 4610. By means of the lower railway rates, would not the South Staffordshire ironmasters be getting a larger profit by shutting out the Cleve- land competition, and being able to raise the price of iron to the consumer in Staffordshire ? — No ; being enabled to make their iron clieaper they would reduce the price. The Cleveland compe- tition would always exist ; but by reducing our cost we should be able to shut them out and un- dersell them, reducing the cost to the consumer. 4611. What SELECT COMMITTEE ON llAILWAYS. 20.5 9 Mat/ 1881.] Mr. Hickman. [ Continued. Mr. Cattle — continued. 4611. What do you charj^e for good foundry pigs ? — Common foundry pigs are worth from 37 s. 6 6?, to 2 Z. a ton. 4612. Would you consider that pig-iron equal to the Middlesboro’ ? — No, not quite. 4613. Do you produce a pig-iron that you con- sider equal to the Middlesboro’ iron ? — I produce a pig-iron that is worse, and one that is better. 4614. But still there is a large amount of foundry pig used in South Staffordshire? — Yes. 4615. As an exanc.ple, what is the price of Middlesboro’ pig iron at the works? — About 38 5., I think. 4616. And the rate of carriage? — About 12 s., I tliink. 4617. In spite of your being able to produce a foundry jiig at 37 s. 6 d., Middlesboro’ manages to send a pig into the district ? — There used to be a good many come into the district, but not so much of late. 4618. You were asked by Mr. Bolton whether you knew of any admitted cases of overcharge above the maximum rate ? — Yes. 4619. In your evidence you gave several cases of charge over the maximum rate, as, for instance, coal from Durham to Deepfields ? — Yes. 4620. Is not the act itself an admission ? — I should say so. 4621. You recommended, to put it plainly, the appointment of a public prosecutor ? — Precisely. 4622. Do not you think it would answer the purpose sufficiently well if the Chamber of Com- merce had a locus standi before the Raihvay Commissioners? — I think it would be a great advantage. 4623. Do not you think that would be suffi- cient ? — I do not think it would. 4624. If Chambers of Commerce had a locus standi before the Commissioners, do not you think they could combine? — No, and I will tell you why I do not think they could. In my case it would answer my purpose very well to go to the London and North Western Company, and com- pel them to come down to their legal maximum, defying them to raise all their rates to the legal maximum if they liked; because they are so much above their legal maximum on the articles that affect me, that raising all the others up to the maximum would not hurt me, if they reduce those which are in excess ; but it would hurt the district generally. There are other things which I do not make which they might raise up to the legal maximum rate, and it might affect the general body of traders ; in fact, our Ironmasters’ Association went to Mr. Moon, and we found that on the whole we should not be much better off by getting everything put to the legal standard ; 1 individually should be very much better off by putting everything to the legal standard, while many other persons in my district would not be so well off. 4625. On the whole, you think it would pay you to pa}^ the maximum rates for everything you take? — Yes. Air. O' Sullivan. 4626. I understand you to say that you think ^ d. a mile would pay the company ? — Yes. Air. O' Sullivan — continued. 4627. Did you go into the question and see what the expense would be ? — No. 4628. How did you satisfy yourself that g fl. a mile would pay them ? — Because I apprehend they would not fix such rates in other parts unless J d. would pay them. 4629. Do you include the expense of discharg- ing and dispatch ? — No, that would be in addi- tion. 4630. But are you quite satisfied that haul- age at g rZ. would be a fair price, and leave a profit ? — Yes. Mr. Barnes. 4631. Tou stated that the distance was six miles from Round Oak to Deepfields ? — Yes, the Great Western Company’s part is 2 miles 49 chains, and the London and North Western Com- pany, four miles two chains. 4632. If you had been in the hands of one of those companies, what would have been your po- sition then? — We should have been charged about 10 d., 1 think. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4633. AVhat are you paying now? — One shil“ ling and sevenpence. Air. Barnes. 4634. Do not you think that is a case in which the Board of Trade should interfere ? — Yes, pre- cisely. 4635. Is it not a case in which you would wish the Board of Trade to interfere ? — T^es, pre- cisely. 4636. You stated that they charged 1 s. for ter- minals? — The through rate was 1 5. lO.iZ. ; this is made up of two rates, 10 d. and 1 s. ; this 1 s. is not a terminal ; it is tlie rate received by the discharging company. 4637. Did you ever ask them under what Act they charged you ? — It is not an Act ; it is an agreement between themselves. 4638. Is that for train loads? — No, It is not for train loads, but for large quantities. 4639. What do you call large quantities? — One hundred tons or 200 tons In a load. 4640. Do you know what a train load is ? — I do not know, but I apprehend it would be more than 100 tons. 4641. Do you know that a train load is 35 tons ] — I do not know that. 4642. Would they charge any less ifitwerein train loads? — No, it Is in train loads practically. 4643. With regard to the h d. a ton, you spoke of the marshalling and shunting? — ATes. 4644. Would you not call 2 d. a very high rate for marshalling and shunting? — I think it would be a high rate. 4645. AYhat do they do for that? — They simply hang-to and go offj but still I think there should be something for short distances, and the signalmen, and things of that sort ; I think we could stand a rate of 2 d. 4646. Nov.q with regard to the Board of Trade, you are aware, of course, that private persons, it is said, cannot get redress? — Yes. 4647. Because they dare not? — Exactly. C C 3 4648. Then 206 minutes of evidence taken before the 9 Mny 1881.] Mr. Hickman. [^Continued. Mr. Barnes — continued. 4048. Then if they get redress in one case legally, they would be starved to death in a score of other cases? — I quite think so. 4649. What you are asking for, as far as the Board of Trade is concerned, is that they should be bound not only to hear the complaints, but should be bound to prosecute those complaints afterwards, in the public interest ? — Exactly. 4650. You stated that some of the rates were above, and some were below, the legal maximum; have you known that to he so in other cases bc.Mdes your own ; that if they gave you the benefit in one case they would raise your rate in another? — That is what Mr. Moon stated to the dejmtation that went to him from the Iron- masters’ Association. 4651. Have you not found a very great diffi- culty in finding out what the rates are ; I mean when you come to run long distances over lines under various Acts of Parliament? — It is very complicated indeed, and vei’y difficult to ascer- tain. 4652. Are you aware how many Acts the London and North Western Company have? — I do not know that. 4653. Are you aware that they have between 60 and 70 ?— I do not know that. 4654. I suppose you have found out that in the long run, although two railroads may eome to your district, practically there is no competition? — No. 4655. That practically the companies form a ring ? — Yes. 4656. As far as the South Staffordshire dis- trict was concerned, were not you better off with- out railways altogether ; that is to say, you had the market with canals altogether to yourselves ? — Yes, in some respects profits were larger. 4657. Have you the same benefits that other districts have? — No. 4658. The railroads have come to you ; whereas in the other case the ironworks have gone to the railways ? — Exactly. 4659. Therefore you are not in the same posi- tion as new districts are, like Cleveland ? — No. 4660. That is a very important difierence, I think, in the making of iron ? — A very important difference. 4661. You have always found, I daresay, that in all matters in which you have had to do with them, the railways are very well able to take care of themselves ? — Undoubtedly. 4662. And they are not at all likely to be crushed? — Not at all. Mr. Barnes — continued. 4663. Now with regard to the Cleveland dis- trict, you stated the various quantities required to make, a ton of iron; what is your distance on the average, roughly speaking, of the coal from the furnaces? — About six miles. 4664. And what is it in the Cleveland dis- trict? — I do not know. 4665. You do not know whether it is 25 there or 30 ? — I do not know ; but it takes more than ‘1\ tons of Cleveland stone to make a ton of iron. 4666. Are you aware that Cleveland stone is on the average from 10 to 15 miles from the furnaces ? — I think it is. 4667. Which is the cheapest, to bring the coal to the furnaces or the stone to the furnaces?— I do not know ; there is very little difference, I think, in that respect. 4668. If you take the Durham furnaces, how are they fixed? — I know very little about the trade in Durham. 4669. Take the South Wales furnaces? — I knoAv very little about South Wales. 4670. I am asking these questions with the view to compare your districts, which have fallen off, as you say, so enormously, with the new dis- tricts ? — I cannot answer that question. 4671. With regard to these waggons ; do they work your waggons properly? — Fairly well, I think. 4672. The railway company do not shunt and leave them? — They do sometimes. 4673. \\ ould they work better if they found you the tvaggons ? — They would look after the waggons better, no doubt, if they found them themselves. 4674. Do you think, in the interest of the public, that they should find the waggons them- selves? — I do not think they can do it so cheaply as we can do it. 4675. You say you reminded Mr. Allport of the evidence he gave, and that he only replied by a sbrug of the shoulders ? — He said that it was the fault of the other companies. 4676. So that you are no better off by the con- struction of the line ? — Not a bit. 4677. In that case, as in many others, you con- sider the private amalgamation of the railway companies is a very great evil? — Yes, a great evil. 4678. And that the public get no benefit what- ever from its construction ? — No. SJiLECX COMMITTEE OX UAILWAYS. 207 Thursday, \2th May 188 ]. MEMBEKS present: Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Cross. Mr, Dillwyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Alexander Copland, re-called ; and further Examined, Mr. Barclay. 4679. When you were here on a previous occasion you gave evidence about a case which you had against the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, which you carried before the Railway Commissioners, obtaining a decision in your favour? — I did; the case was also carried, on appeal to the Court of Session, and the Inner Division gave a decision unanimously in our favour confirming the decision of the Railway Commissioners. 4680. You informed the Committee that you believed the Great North of Scotland Railway Company were now conforming to the decision which the Railway Commissioners had given, and had ceased to make the charges which the Railway Commissioners had declared to be illegal ? — I did. 4681. Have you had reason to alter your belief since you were here before? — Yes. 4682. When you gave the Committee your previous evidence you had in your mind your own experience at the main station of the line at Aberdeen ? — I had examined the rate-books at Aberdeen before coming here, and found the rates correct as regarded our traffic. 4683. Have you since had occasion to investi- gate what the rate-books are at country stations of the Great North of Scotland Railway? — Yes. In consequence of having got an account over- charged, and the explanations regarding it not being satisfactory, I requested one of our agents to copy the rate-books at the various stations. 4684. At how many stations did your clerk examine the rate-books ? — At seven stations. 4685. What was the result of this examination ? — The result was that upon 119 rates out of 150, there were overcharges varying from 5 d. to 3 s. 2d. per ton. 4686. Upon the charges for manui*e ? — Ye.s, 4687. In short the railway companies at their country stations seem to have entirely disre- garded the decision of the Railway Commis- 0.54. • Ml’. Barclay — continued. sioners, and to be making the same illegal charges as they did previously to that decision ? — That is so ; they apparently have never altered the rate-books at those country stations since the decision was given. 4688. You have made up a table of those ex- cessive rates, have you not, and the illegal charges ? — I have ; I will put in the tables {handing in the same). From Arnage to Insch, a distance of 38 miles, the overcharge is 2s. lie?. 4689. Was this examination of the rate-book made recently ? — That rate-book was examined upon the 5th of May ; some others were exa- mined upon that day, and some of them were examined upon the 30th of Api’il last. 4690. Was your clerk refused access to the rate-book at any of the stations? — Yes, he was re- fused access to the rate-book at Inverurie, and I may read a letter he wrote me regarding it, show- ing how the public are treated occasionally when they apply for information. This letter is dated the 30th of April, and it is as tollows : “ Dear Sir, 1 enclose herewith copies of the railway com- pany’s rates for manures, copied by me to-day from their rate-books. I also enclose rates from Inverurie station, as supplied by the goods clerk here, he having refused to allow me to see the rate-book, but offered to give me any information I required. As 1 understand, we are entitled to examine the rate-book ourselves. 1 told him so, and insisted upon seeing it ; he, however, refused, and said he had instructions not to show it ; I then said I should return with witnesses to hear him refuse to let me have it, which in a few minutes 1 did ; when I again, in their pre- sence, asked if he still refused to allow me to examine his rate-book. He again repeated that he would not allow me. Their rates from Old Melclrum and Kintore all appear to be illegal with the exception of one or two. From In- verurie to stations on the main line they appear correct, but on the Buchan line it is evident they c c 4 arc 208 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 May 1881.] Mr. Copland. [ Continued. Mr. Barclay — continued, are overcharging.” The clerk’s name is James Diack, and the witnesses were Alexander Duncan, warehouseman, John Clark, carter, George Law, and James Still, raihvay porters at Inverurie. Mr. Bolton. 4691. Is there much manure carried from Arnage to Insch ? — There is not much carried by us, but I cannot say what others may do, because there are local agents. 4692. Have you carried any at ail? — I could not state where we have carried it to, because we have so many thousands of parcels of manure carried to the stations. 4693. Is there a manufactory at Arnage ? — No, but there is in the immediate neighbour- hood. 4694. Arnage is the station for the manufac- tory ? — Arnage was the station whieh I gave you, but Arnage is not the station where the manure is manufactured ; it is manufactured at Ellon, which is within a few miles of that station. 4695. They do not send from that station ? — They send from Ellon to Insch. 4696. Is it the fact that manure is sent from Arnage to other stations in any quantity at all where it is an article of regular traffic ? — It was from the carriage of three tons of manure from Arnage to Auchnagatt, 3| miles, that this matter was discovered ; we were charged 1 s. 3 d. over- charge for the distance, and that led me to write the manager of the railway to explain the charge, and I got a letter from the goods manager, saying that the charge for the three tons was 3 s., and the difference would be refunded ; that was all the answer I got. 4697. Therefore, so far as your experience has gone they are not overcharging from the Arnage ? — They Avere in this instance. 4698. But they refunded the money ? — They refunded it, no doubt, but 1 asked them to ex- plain it, because it appeared to me that they were exceeding their maximum rates in the Company’s Act; there Avas no doubt of it, and I got the money back, but had I not got it back I should have fbi’ced it. 4699. But you did get it back, immediately on application? — A few days aftei'Avards. Mr. Barclay. 4700. The rate-book, I belieA'e, shoAved that the clerk Avas charging Avhat he Avas instructed to charge from the rate- book ? — There is no doubt that the clerk at Arnage was charging according to his rate-book. Mr. Bolton. 4701. That is the only eonsignment of manure Mr. Bolton — continued. you had sent from Arnage? — Within a short time ; could not say for other seasons, or for any lengthened period. 4702. But during the last season that is the only one ? — I cannot remember every transaction of that description. 4703. You cannot remember any other trans- action, can you ? — I cannot remember any other transaetion at the moment. 4704. The clerk at Inverurie refused your agent permission to inspect the rate-book ? — He did. 4705. Did you apply to the superior officials, and make a complaint ? — I did not in this case ; the raihvay clerk Avent to the station agent for instructions, and he refused after oetting; his in- structions from the agent. 4706. The superior official did not refuse the information, but simply the clerk, and you have not taken any further steps in the matter? — I did not think it necessary to take any further steps in the matter. ■ Lord Randolph Churchill. 4707. Was there any other official at the station that your clerk could haA'e applied to? — He could liaA’c applied to the station agent. 4708. He did not apply to him? — No, but I Avish again to state that at Huntly the same thing occurred, Avhere the same agent applied to the station agent there for the rate-book, and he refused to give it him, but some time afterAvards he came to him and told him he AA'ould now let him see it. Mr. Barclay. 4709. I want to bring it out clearly that the agent at Inverurie was applied to for the rate- book and he refused to shoAV it ? — The clerk A\'ho Avas applied to there did so. Sir Edward Wathin. 4710. You have no personal knowledge of the circumstances, I believe ? — I gave my agent in- structions to do this. 4711. Why did you do so? — Because I had been overcharged ; I knew there Avas something Avrong from circumstances coiineeted Avith it, and I was determined to see Avhat the practice Avas at other stations. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4712. Did you disco A'er tiltimately that there had been an overeharge? — Tes, I got the money back. 4713. The agent Avas acting under your orders? — Yes, he was. Mr. Isaac Banks, called in ; .and Examined, Mr, O'Sullivan. 4714. I BELIEVE you are manager for the Clyde Shipping Company in Cork ? — Yes, I am. 4715. That company have steamers running from Cork to Waterford, Dublin, Belfast, Glas- goAv, and Greenock ? — Yes. 4716. Have you also a line of steamers running Mr. O'Sullivan — eontinued. ^ from Cork to the Avest coast of Ireland, Kerry ? — Yes, to the south-Avest coast of Cork and Kerry. 4717. You Avere recently employed at Cork as local agent for the Great Western Comi)any of England, Avere you not? — Yes, I Avas Avhen that company started a service of steamers betAveen Milford and Cork. 4718. Before SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 209 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks. [ Continued. Mr. O'Sullivan — continued. 4718. Before you acted for the Great Western Company, how were you engaged? — I was 21 years connected with the traffic department of the Watei’ford and Limerick Railway. 4719. Then you understand all railway ques- tions, we may assume ? — I commenced as a boy, and I was traffic manager of the line when I left them. 4720. Did you on several oceasions try to examine some of the books of the different com- panies going into Cork, and have you experienced any difliculty in getting access to the railway rate-books at those stations ? — I have ; in one case I applied at the Cork and Bandon goods depot to allow me to inspect their goods rate- book ; the goods agent, Mr. Rafferty, told me that he had instructions from the traffic manager not to allow the books to be Inspected, and that he could not give me any information on the subject that I was inquiring for. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4721. That was at the Cork station? — Yes, the Cork station of the Cork and Bandon Railway. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4722. Did you tipply at any other stations? — I then wrote to the traffic manager, Mr. Gordon, complaining of this, and was informed that any rate I would ajiply for by letter 1 could obtain, but that I would not be allow^ed to see the rate-books. 4723. When was that ? — That was in Januaiy 1880 ; in December 1880 I also tried to get the rate-books for inspection at the Cork station of the Bandon Railway, and the same result followed. On 1st April last I again applied at the goods depot, and was referred to Mr. Gordon, whom 1 informed that 1 required the rates for this Committee ; he then gave me all the required information. I asked why he had not the Company’s list of tolls posted at the stations, and he said he did not think it was necessary, but handed me a spare copy which he had in his office. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4724. I suppose you Avent to the same line ? — Yes. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4725. Did you try upon the Great Southern and Western Railway to examine the rate-books ? —I did. 4726. With what result? — On the 3rd Januaiy last I applied at the Cork goods office for some rates, and permission to see the rate-book, and the manager in charge of the depot informed me that it was contrary to the railway company’s regulations to allow me to inspect them. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4727. Was that the head manager? — Yes, that was the head manager at the goods department. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4728. How were you able to get the rates? — I then sent an assistant from my office with a copy of the Railw'ay and Canal Traffic Act, so that the manager might see that he was acting 0.54. Mr. O' Sullivan — continued. Illegally in withholding the information ; even after that I could not get the rate-books for in- spection. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4729. He declines still? — Yes, my Lord. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4730. Notwithstanding that you referred the manager to the Act ? — Notwithstanding that I produced the Act of Parliament for his inspec- tion. • 4731. Did you try to examine any of the rate- books upon the Waterford and Limerick Rail- Avay ? — No. I have a copy of the rates of the Waterford and Limerick Railway since I was their traffic manager, so that it was unnecessary in any case. I do not wish to give evidence about that line. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4732. What year was it that you left them ? — In the year 1873. 4733. The rates may have been altered since then? — There have been slight alterations, but no general alterations. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4734. Do the railways running into Cork en- courage or develope the trade of that port? — It is quite the contrary. 4735. WTll you give the Committee any proof of that, if you are able to do so ? — For the last 20 years I know that the train arrangements, fares, and rates, are all fixed with the view of diverting the traffic to and from the south of Ire- land to the port of Dublin. Last week a petition to that effect was unanimously adopted by the mayor and corporation of Cork, and another by the Cork Harbour Commissioners (of which board I am a member at present), for presentation to the Committee now dealing with the Macroom and Kenmare Railway Bill. In the case of butter, Cork is the largest market in the south of Ireland. The number of casks passing through it for the last six years was as follows : The year ends upon the 16th April, and in 1876 there were 431,796 firkins passed ; in 1877, 390,500 firkins; in 1878, 434,239; and in 1879 the number was 410,560. In that year the I’ariners commenced packing small kegs of butter, and the kegs would be included Avlth the firkins that season. In 1880 there Avere 369,842 ; and in the year ending the 16th April last, 352,155 firkins, including kegs, passed. The Great Southern and Western Com- pany’s rates for butter coming to Cork are, per firkin, from the local stations and to cross channel stations, via Dublin, per ton of 27 firkins. The rate from Tralee to Cork, 83 miles upon their OAvn line, is 10 d. per firkin, or 22 s. 6 d. per ton ; that is for butter coming to the Cork market, Avhile the rate from Tralee to Liverpool, via Dublin, a dis- tance of 345 miles, is 30 s. lOi?. per ton. Both rates, I should say, include delivery at the ter- minal station. Mr. Jioltori. 4736. How much of the carriage from Tralee to Liverpool is railway carriage? — During my time the cross channel rates Avere diA'ided by D D mileage 210 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 il/oT/ 1881.] Mr. Banks. [^Continued. Mr. Holton — continued. mileage and terminals, and I believe they are still divided in the same way. For Irish stations 4 s. per ton is allowed on carted traffic, and 2 s. on non-carted traffic. The Great Southern and Western Railway get 1 s. 6 d. a ton as a terminal at Dublin on all traffic. The cartage agent for bringing it from the railway station to the steamer gets 2 s. Q d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4737. Is that the company’s agent; is he one of the company’s servants ? — It is o])en to any steam company to carry the traffic. The steam companies at Dublin get 3 s. per ton for loading and terminal allowance. The Liverpool dues and cartage are 2 s. S d. a ton, and the residue is divided by the actual mileage. The distance from Tralee to Dublin is 207 miles; that is upon the Great Southern and Western; and from Dublin to Liverpool, by sea, 138 miles ; so that after deducting terminals, 13 s. 3 d. per ton, there remains a sum of 16 s. 9 rf. to be divided, which would give the Great Southern and Western Company as their proportion about 10 s. per ton ; from Tralee to Dublin, a distance of 207 miles as aualnst 22 s. 6 d. from Tralee to Cork, a dis- O , tance of 83 miles. 4738. Do you know what terminals come off the 22s. 6 d. from Tralee to Cork? — About one penny farthing per firkin comes off for delivery and tolls to the Cork Corporation, but nothing at Tralee; from Limerick to Cork, a distance of 62 miles, the rate is 17 s. 9 d. per ton, or 8 d. per firkin ; from Limerick to Liverpool, via Chaide- ville and Dublin, a distance of 292 miles, the rate is only 29 s. 2 d. per ton. 4739. How mucli does that come to per firkin ? — The local rate is 8 d., and the through rate to Liver])Ool is about Is. 1 d. per firkin. The Great Southern and Western Company’s propor- tion for 154 miles to Dublin would be about 8 s. per ton, against their rate of 17 s. 9 d. for 62 miles to Cork. I have taken a station on each branch off the main line running into Cork, as an examjile. From Fermoy, on the Lismore branch, to Cork, a distance of 38 miles, they charge 15 s. 6 c?. a ton, or 7 d. per firkin. Mr. Caine. 4740. How are they generally charged ? — For the Cork market the butter is charged by the firkin, and the rates work out at so much a ton. Mr. Nicholson. 4741. You stated that the butter manufacturers are now ])utting up butter in kegs as well as firkins ; do you think the company charge them as firkins? — I am not aware that the company have made any rate for the kegs as yet ; from Fermoy to Liverpool, a distance of 299 miles, via Dublin, the rate is 33 s. 4 d. per ton. , Mr. Bolton. 4742. Of that the railway is hoAV mucli? The railway distance is 161 miles, for which tbe company get about 10 5. 6 d. per ton for the carriage of the butter, as against 15 s. 6 c?. for Mr. Bolton — continued. the 38 miles from Fermoy to Cork; from Kil- mallock to Cork, a distance of 41 miles, the rate is 15 s, 6 (?. a ton, or 7 d. a firkin ; from Kil- mallock to Liverpool, a distance of 262 miles, the rate is 30 s. per ton ; the railway company get about 7 s. 11 d. for 124 miles, as against 15 s. 6 d. to Cork, a distance of 41 miles. Mr. O'Sullivan. 4743. Do I understand that upon the English traffic for 124 miles they get only 7s. 11 d., while they get 15 s. 6d. upon the 41 miles to Cork? — Yes, that is so. 4744. Is this butter the principal article that is manufactured there by the farmers ? — It is. The counties of Limerick and Tipperary, and a great portion of the county of Cork, are almost entirely dependent upon the production of butter. 4745. That must injuriously affect the local interests ? — I attribute the falling off in the quantity of butter sent to the Cork mai’ket to tlie rates charged by the Great Southern and W estern Railway Company. Chairman. 4746. You have given the Committee no ex- port rates from Cork ; is butter not exported from Cork? — llutter is exported by the cross channel boats from Cork to Liverpool, and to other places direct. I cannot give the rates, but I know tliat the local rates from Cork, combined with the Great Southern and Western rates to Cork, w’ould be much in excess of the rates by Dublin, because the Great Southern and Western Company are charging so much for the carriage of the butter to the port of Cork. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4747. AVhat are the rates from Cork to Liver- pool by sea ? — Seven-pence a firkin by sea. 4748- How much is that by the ton ? — About 15 s. dd. 4749. Then it follows from that, that you can send butter from Cork cheaper by sea to Liver- pool than you can from Dublin to Liverpool? — But you have to add on the tolls and cartage in Cork, and the dues and cartage in Liverpool. 4750. AVhat do they, come to? — The tolls and cartage in Cork would be about 3s. Qd., and the same charge would be made at Liverpool as if it went by Dublin, making altogether, say, 5 s. 9 <7. 4751. That w'ould make altogether 21,s. 6(?. ? — Yes, adding those two together, 21 s. 6 (/. 4752. You have said that the charge from Fermoy to Liverpool was 33s. 4c?. a ton? — Y’es. 4753. And that out of that the company re- ceived for the railway 10 s. 6 c?.? — YYs, after after deducting terminals. 4754. Taking 10s. 6c?. from 33s. 4c?., that leaves how much? — 22s. 10c?. 4755. Then I take that 22 s. 10 c?. as being the cost of butter from Kingsbridge to Liverpool? — That is so, less the Fermoy tei’ininal and the Great Southern and Western Companies’ pro- portion. 4756. Then SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 211 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks, \_Conlinued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 4756. Then what I want to know Is this : if it costs 22 s. 10 d. to go from Kingsbridge to Liver- pool, how much does it cost to take butter from Cork station by sea to Liverpool ? — About 22 s. 4757. Then it comes to this, that you can send butter cheaper by sea from Cork to Liverpool than you can from Dublin to Liverpool? — But I am speaking of butter coming from the interior towns of Ireland to Coi'k, and of butter booked through from the same stations, via Dublin. 4758. But the honourable Chairman’s question was intended to show that the rates from the harbour of Cork v/ere more prohibitive rates than from Dublin harbour ? — I did not draw that inference from it ; I am speaking of through rates ; I know that the local rates from Dublin are less than from Cork. 4759. Would it be a distinct advantage to the ti’ade to send their butter from Cork to Liver- pool instead of by Dublin to Liverpool? — If the charges were lower ; they cannot do it under the existing circumstances, because there ai'e no through rates from Inland towns. Mr. Sullivan. 4760. Have they a through rate from most of the stations upon the Great Southern and West- ern Kailway via Dublin, and have they any via Cork ? — They have no through rates upon the Great Southern and Western Railway via Cork to any of the stations in England. 4761. Are they not, as a matter of fact, giving a preferential rate via Dublin, as compared with Cork ; that is to say, giving a through rate vid Dublin, and refusing it vid Cork ? — 'I hat is so. Chairman. 4762. Is it your idea that the reason of that is, because the Great Southern and Western Rail- way have what you may call a longer lead to Dublin than they have to Cork, that is to say, that their apportionment of the rate is larger in running to Dublin than it would be to Cork ? — The company get less out of the through rate for carrying the traffic the longer clistince to Dublin than they get for carrying it the shorter distance to Cork without a through rate. 4763. It would be quite competent to them to make a thi’ough rate upon the same or a lower basis through Cork, as they now do through Dublin, but in that case would they receive so large an apportionment of the rate as they get by Dublin ? — They have been urged by the Great Western Railway Company of England and other companies to make through rates with them vid Cork, as the Great Western Railway Company are very anxious to develope the trade of the South of Ireland, but the Great Southern and Western Company could never be got to make reasonable arrangements with them for through booking. I believe the reason is because they are anxious to encourage the Port of Dublin in connection with the London and North Western Railway Company as against the Port of Cork, and, in fact, against all ports in the south of Ireland. 0.54. Chairman — continued. 4764. You think the reason is a preference to the Port of Dublin over the Port of Cork ? — Yes. Mr, O’ Sullivan. 4765. Is It not the general opinion in Ireland that there is a desire to give encouragement to Dublin as compared with other ports ? — It is, and it works very detrimental to the ports in the south of Ireland with which the Great Western and other companies are trying to develope a trade, 4766. Do those arrangements of the Great Southern and lYestern tend in any way to encourage the Irish manufacturers as compared with those of England? — It Is quite the con- trary. 4767. WTiat are the particular manufactures you have in your mind ? — They carry ale and porter from Burton vid Dublin to Cork, a distance of 490 miles, for 2.5 5 . 10 d. a ton, 4768. And what do the company get out of that? — The Great Southern and Western Com- pany’s proportion out of that, after deducting terminals, that is, from Dublin to Cork, is about 6 5 . 6 rf. a ton on 165 miles, while the charge on the same article manufactured by the Dublin brewers, from Dublin to Kilinallock, 124 miles, and from Dublin to Cork, 165 miles, is 15 5 . j^er ton. 4769. I hey only get 65 . 6 d. out of the Burton beer for 164 miles, while they charge 15 5. for 124 miles upon the Dublin manufactured beer ? — Yes, about that. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4770. Is that Guinness’s beer? — Guinness^ Manders, and others ; and for the same article manufactured in Cork, the rate to Faranfore, the next station to Killarney, a distance of 72 miles, is 10 5. 10 d,, and from Cork to Patrickswell, a distance of 55 miles, is 11 5 . S d., so that they carry a ton of English ale or porter 165 miles for 65 . 6 d., while they charge 11 5. Sd . for a ton of the same article manufactured in Cork, over a distance of 55 miles. Mr. Bolton. 4771. Are those rates for large or small quan- tities ? — I'he local rate is for any quantity, and so is the Burton rate. 4772. Is that the rate for a single barrel? — No ; I think a single barrel would come under what is called the minimum rate ; my quotations would apply to anything over 5 cwt. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4773 . Have you any idea what difference fhere is in quantity between the English beer which goes to Cork and the Dublin beer? — I should think there is a great deal more of the Dublin beer ; 10 times as much as of the English beer. 4774. So that the cc mpany have not the excuse of having a larger quantity upon which they would make a lower charge? — Nothing of the sort. L> D 2 H- 212 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 Mmj 1881.] Mr. Banks. [^Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. \_The Witness handed in the following Paper : — ] Rates charged by the Great Southern and Western Company for Irish Culm and Coal, and English and Welsh. Irish Culm and Coal. Stations. Distance. Rate per Ton. s. d. Kanturk to Mallow - . 12 miles 2 6 Kanturk to Fermoy - - 28 „ 3 - Munster to Tipperary - - 24 „ 5 6 Munster to Kilmallock - - 37 „ 3 9 Munster to Charleville • “ 42 „ 4 - English and Welsh Culm and Coal. Stations. Distance. Rate per Ton. Cork to Mallow . - - - 22 miles s. d. 2 6 Cork to Youghal 27 „ 2 6 Cork to Limerick Junction - 57 „ 5 - Cork to Lombardstown 28 „ 2 6 Cork to Charleville ... 37 „ 3 3 Cork to Bruree - - - - 42 3 9 The above figures will show that this company, instead of encouraging Irish mining enterprise, charge higher rates in the culm and coal that in the imported article. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4775. Will you give the Committee some idea as to the charges on other articles ? — Here I would observe that the system of classifying goods is also prejudicial to the interest of the Irish manufacturers, as many articles manufac- tured in Ireland are entered in a much lower class in the English classification than in the Irish, and as the through rates are govex'ned by the English classification, English manufacturers get the benefit of the reduced rates. For in- stance, leather undressed in the Irish classifica- tion is fourth class, and in the English elassifica- tion it is second class. Mr. Bolton. 4776. And the through rates from Ireland are governed by the Irish classification ; is that so ? — No, but the local rates in Ireland are governed by the Irish classification. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4777. All the through rates are governed by the English classification, are they not? — That is so. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4778. Are there any other articles manufac- tured in Cork?— We have large foundries in Cork for casting pots, ovens, and pans, and the rate in the Irish classification is fifth class for hollow castings, whereas the rate in the English and Scotch classification is second class. 4779. Uo you know what is the difference generally between the second and the fifth class ? Mr. O'Sullivan — continued. There would be a very large difference between the two classes. 4780. What would it be upon the average ? — I should say that the one would be three times as much as the other. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4781. How many classes have they? — They have six classes upon the Great Southern and Western Railway, and they have since the 1st of January added a seventh. 4782. Do you mean to say that the company charge castings in the fifth class? — Hollow cast- ings they do ; ale and porter in easks are in the third class in the Irish classification, and first class in the English. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4783. Ale and porter are manufactured very largely in Dublin and Cork, are they not? — Very largely ; hides and skins are fourth class in the Irish classification, and first in the English : we have large tanneries in Ireland, and, of course, they are affected in the working of their trade in consequence of that difference. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4784. Do those classifications apply to all the Irish lines, or only to the Great Southern and Western? — I may say that all the Irish railways, with the exception of one or two, are governed by the Irish classification. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4785. What would be those exceptions ? — The Cork and Macroom Railway is not governed by it, but all the large railways are members of the Clearing House in Ireland, and are governed by that classification. Now, cured herrings and dried fish are third class in the Irish classification and first in the English, and the fisheries on our coast are interfered with in consequence of that arrangement, people having to jiay higher rates than they would have to pay in districts in England for the conveyance of the fish ; flax seed is fourth in the Irish classification, and it is the special or very lowest class in England. 4786. Are you aware that there is a large take of fish in Kinsale just now ? — Yes. 4787. If fish were conveyed to Cork at the special class, do you think it would come in larger quantities than it does ? — I believe they have a special rate for it, mackerel, because it comes in very large quantities. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4788. What is the rate for salmon ? — That is in the fifth class ; also salmon kippered. 4789. What is the rate for it in England? — It is fourth in boxes, and kippered third class. Then oil-cake, which is used largely for feeding purposes in Ireland, is second class ; in England it is special or lowest class, and is carried at the cheapest rate. Mr. O'Sullivan. 4790. Will you name some of the castings you speak of as being second class ; in the English classification ? — Ovens, pots, and pans. 4791. I see SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 213 12 May 1881,] Banks. \_Conlinued. Mr. Bolton. 4791. I see pots in the English classification are special ? — That is lower still. Chairman. 4792. Is your evidence to this effect, that you would like to see the Irish classification assimilated to the English? — Yes. 4793. You think the English classification a better classification than the Irish? j.es, tery much so. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4794. Do you mean to say that positively ? — I do ; I think our classification is absolutely injurious. Chairman. 4795. You would prefer the English classifica- tion, but you would not be prepared to pay that the English classification was as good as it might be ?— Certainly not. Before I go from the subject Qp manufacture, I wish to read a statement that has been sent to me from Messrs. Mahoney Brothers, of Blarney, who are large _ manu- facturers of woollen goods j the subject is rates for coal between Cork and Blarney stations upon the Great Southern and Western Railway. Mr. O'Sullivan. 4796. Blarney is on the Great Southern and Western Railw^ay, is it not ; is there not complaint of want of sidings for goods at that station ? Yes; the statement is as folloivs : “ A correspond- ence extending from 15th May 1880 to 1st July 1880, took place between this firm and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company relative to the granting of a siding at Blarney Station for coals, &c. ; we guaranteed 1,500 tons as a minimum yearly, and stated that others in the neighbourhood (Sir George Colthurst and Mr. Barker) would contribute to the traffic, as they had promised us. \Ye had, previous to this correspondence, offered la. 6c?. per ton for carriage of coals from Cork to Blarney (6 miles), we to'load and unload, demurrage on waggons to be subject to usual rules. On 26th May 1880, the railway company refused to afford the desired accommodation at the rate above stated (1 s. 6 d. per ton), and declined to make the siding. The following is the extract from the company’s schedule of tolls (exposed in Blarney Station) bearing on. the rate for coals : ‘For all coals, coke, culm, charcoal, and cinders . • . per ton per mile, not exceeding one penny halfpenny, and if conveyed in carriages belonging to the company, an additional sum per ton per mile, not exceeding one halfpenny. And it is also enacted that the tolls which the company may demand for the use of engines or other power for propell- ing carriages on the railway, shall not exceed one penny per mile . . . for each ton of goods in addition to the several other tolls by this Act authorised to be taken.’ ” It is contended that that last clause only applies to the hauling of other companies’ trucks. Chairman. 4797. You would know enough about railway business to answer this. In a return that we have before us here, given to the House of Lords, the maximum allowed for coal to the Great Southern and Western Railway is IJ c?. ; but do 0.54. Chairman — continued. you imagine that that is a toll clause, or a maxi- mum rate clause ? — I consider that it is a toll clause. 4798. Then that extra charge for locomotion and waggons is, to a certain extent, permissible? — I think that would apply to waggons hauled belonging to other parties, and not to their own waggons. 4799. But you see there that the companies make a charge for their own waggons besides ? — They do ; but that is included in the rate of 1 ^ J. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4800. What do you make the three figures come to ? — One penny halfpenny a ton, ^ d. for the waggons and 1 d. for the locomotive power ; there is another clause in the Act, allow- ing a charge of 1 s. per ton for the use of engine power; but it is thought that it has reference, not to the company’s waggons, but to those belonging; to others. O O Mr. Bolton. 4801. In fact, they offered the maximum rate? — Yes. Then the statement of Messrs. Mahoney continues : “ As shoxvn in schedule of tolls, 2 d. is all the company can charge per ton per mile for coals in their own trucks^ or 1 s. per ton for the six miles, Cork to Blarney. Unless, indeed, they are allowed to charge 1 d. per ton jier mile for hauling their oxvn trucks (which we do not con- sider they can do), and even in this case 3 d. per ton per mile, or 1 s. 6 d. per ton from Cork to Blarney, is all they can charge, and this in our correspondence we offered them.” They offer them the full rates according to the tolls. Is. Q d. a ton for the conveyance of the coals. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4802. Are you axvare that Sir George Colt- hurst offered the company land for sidings for nothing? — I have heard Sir George Colthurst state that himself, and I believe he is prepared to come here and give that in evidence. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4803. Do you knoxv what they charge for coal on that line ; for instance, xvhere does Limerick get its coals from ? — It imports them direct ; the charge is about 1 d. a ton a mile, if the distance exceeds 40 miles. Sir Edward Watkin. 4804. May I ask what reason was given for this refusal to put in a siding and work an apparently profitable traffic ? — I am not certain, but I think the Great Southern and Western Company urged the expense of working the coal from the Cork station up the steep gradient to Blarney. There is a steep gradient there, and it would be inconvenient for them to put a siding down at the end of the tunnel, but I have also heard that the company offered to lay it down if they got 2 a. a ton. There are some copies of letters which passed between the firm and the Great Southern and Western Company on the subject, which I could read if the Committee desire it. Chairman. 4805. Is there anything further that you wish to state than what you have alre ady done ? — D D 3 There 214 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks. [^Continued. Chairman — continued. There is one matter about wool, which I think the Committee would like to hear. This is a copy of a letter addressed to the Directors of the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, at Kingsbridge, by Mahony and Brothers, of Blai'- ney ; die sum charged for wool from Middleton to Cork is 6 s. 6 t/. a ton. Mr. O'Sullivan. 4806. What is the distance? — I think that would be al)out 13 miles, but I am not suie about the actual distance. 4807. Does the 6 s. 6 J. include all charges ? — Yes, all charges ; six bags fill a truck, and, say there are 5 cwt. in each bag, that would be 9 s. 9 d. a truck. They show here a comparison between the wool I'ate and the coal rate that they proposed to pay the Great Southern and Western Railway Company. These letters have been only just handed to me as I came into the room, and I have not had an o})portunity of reading them. 4808. Are you aware that any of the com- jianies going into the south of Ireland charge more for short than they do for long distances? — Yes, I am. 4809. Can you give the Committee aiiy instances of that?— The Cork and Bandon Rail- way Company charge for sugars, ale and porter, and hoop iron, from Cork to Drinioleague, a distance of 45 miles, 12 .s. Q d. per ton, and from Cork to Skibbereen, 53| miles, only 10. d., and 4 d. 4832. That is to say, more than in the first two cases ? — Yes. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4833. Have the Great Southern and Western Company made any alteration in their goods rates or the special rates lately ? — Yes, the Great Southern and Western made some alteration upon the 1st of January last. Lord Randolph Churchill. 48.34. In which direction ? — Over their railway generally. 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 4835. How did that effect trade generally ? — The company professed to grant a concession to the public, but the large grain merchants of Cork inform me that the old system was better in some cases, as they are now compelled to send two men Avith each load to the station to put the grain in the trucks, and consignees have to unload it the same way at the receiving station. Last year the loadinof and unloading^ was done by the com- pany ; in point of fact they nave made a special class to assimilate their rates to the English clas- sification. 4836. What was the charge last year Avlth the loading and unloading? — In some cases I believe it was equal to what it is now ; in some, more. 4837. So that the concession the company has made has been a very valueless one.? — In some cases it has, in others it has been a benefit. Taking it all through the extra labour Avould more than counterbalance the reduction of the rate. Sir Edward Watkin. 4838. JMay I ask if this change that the rail- way company has made, was in this sense, that whereas before they did the labourage, now they comjiel the merchant or the sender to do the labourage; do they give him the option of doing it if he likes? — For all special and first-class goods they expect the owner to do the loading and unloading, and they have other classes in which they charge goods a much higher rate, and they do the loading themselves. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4839. In the case of grain they will not do the loading and unloading ? — They will not if it is carried under the special rates. 4840. When did they make the change? — On the 1st of January 1881, and it is generally be- lieved that that change, and others Avere made in anticipation of this inquiry coming on. 4841. Was it in ansAver to any apjdication from the grain merchants ? — I am not aAvare that it Avas. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4842. Have not the grain merchants of Cork been complaining for many years about the ac- commodation as Avell as the rates? — It has been a matter of frequent complaint on the part of the Cork grain merchants that there is no ade- quate Avaggon accommodation or siding accommo- dation. 4843. You have heard them complain of it? — Frequently ; there is scarcely a half-yearly meeting of the Great Southern and Western Raihvay Company at Avhich some of the Cork merchants are not complaining of the Avant of ac- commodation. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4844. The Great Southern and Western have not sufficient rolling stock, have they ? — I am not certain about that : if worked to advantage I think they have sufficient. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4845. Did you ever hear it complained that tlie Great Southern and Western had at one time D D 4 lune 216 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks. \Continued. Mr. O' Sullivan — contijjuecl. nine or ten porters employed in keeping traffic out of the station ? — It was commonly reported before I went to live at Cork that they had men at ‘the station gates preventing the carts going in with the traffic. Chairman. 4846. - Ireland is a great place for common reports you know ? — I know that, but I am firmly convinced that this is a true one, as several Cork merchants have told me so. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4847. Are you aware that in the last few years they have had to procure a large number of waggons which they were short of previously to that time? — They had. Before the Railway Commissioners Court was established there was very little accommodation to be had from the rail- railway companies in Ireland ; immediately that Commission was established the railway com- panies all commenced adding to the rolling stock and engine power to obviate or prevent com- plaints ; I believe the circumstance that you referred to just now occurred before the establishment of the Railway Commissioners. Chairman. 4848. "Was not there a case between two Irish railway companies last Session before the Rail- way Commissioners? — Yes, that case was about the Limerick Junction. 4849. And one of the companies said they had not waggons enough to carry on the traffic? — That was the Great Southern and Western Company. 4850. And they wanted to make the consignors run their own waggons, and for the other com- jiany to make an allowance ? — I know they wanted to shut out the Waterford and Limerick Company altogether. Mr. O'Sullivan. 4851. Can you give the Committee any in- formation about the goods rates in the south of Ireland being in excess of the charges allowed in the companies difierent Acts? — Yes, I have prepared a list showing cases in which the com- pany have been charging over the Parliamentary powers according to the list of tolls, they are called tolls; there is only one of the Acts that I have come across ; that is the Cork and Macroom, in which “ maximum rates ” are mentioned. Lord Randolph Churchill. 4852. The Great Southern and Western Rail- way Company’s Act of the 8th and 9th Victoria does not contain any clauses relating to tolls at all, does it? — Yes, I think it does ; the clause is Wo. 37, limiting the charge on conveyance of goods and cattle. Chairman. 4853. There is a distinction between tolls and rates, as you arc aware? — Yes, but if you will kindly refer to the Cork and Macroom Railway Act, of which this is a copy {handiny the same to the Committee), the tolls and rates are referred to in it. I am speaking as to what they charge for the traffic, and what they put upon their toll boards, whether they are called “ tolls ” or Chairman — continued. rates.” The goods rates from Cork to Bandon, a distance of 20 miles, are according to the Irish classification as follows : fiirst, 3 s. 8 d. ; second, 5s. ; third, 6 s. ; fourth, 8 s. 9 d. ; fifth, 14 s. 9 d. ; and sixth, 25 s. For manure, for instance, they charge that under the second-class rate, 5 s. for a distance of 20 miles. Mr. Bolton. 4854. What is the authorised charge ? — The actual charge is 5 s. and the authorised charge is 2 s. 6 d., the excess charge being 50 per cent. 4855. Does that include delivery ? — It does not include delivery ; it is a station to station rate. Tiles for roofs and drains are charged 5 s., whereas the maximum rate is 4 s. 2 d., showing an over-charge of 10 d. ; hoop-iron is charged 6 s., and on all fifth and sixth-class goods which embrace fresh fish, agricultural implements, boots and shoes, chinaware, confectionery, flax, loose fleshings, furniture, haberdashery, thresh- ing machines, and various other articles ; the rate is for fifth-class 14 s. 2 d. for the 20 miles, or 8 s. 4 d. in excess of the maximum rates, and for the sixth-class rates it is 25 s., or 19 s. 2 d. in excess. Mr. O' Sullivan. 4856. What would be the maximum rate? — The maxmum rate would be 3.1 d. a ton per mile ; that shows an overcharge of 8 s. 4 d. per ton upon all fifth-class, and 19s. 2d. ujion all sixth- class goods. ' Mr. Cross. 4857. Have you deducted anything for termi- nals in this case ? — I have not ; but as a matter of fact, the traffic from Cork is generally put in the Irucks direct, as the carts are backed up to the trucks, and the goods shot in directly. 4858. How are the goods delivered ? — They are delivered either to the carts direct from the trucks, or from the goods warehouse ; it would be only the loading or unloading that would be taken into account. ( The Table urns handed in.) Mr. O' Sullivan. 4859. Could you give the Committee the charges upon other railways in the south of Ireland ; take the South Southern and Western ? — The Great Southern and Western charge for manure in bags, 22 miles, 4 5. 2d. a ton; the maximum rate would be 2 s. 9 d., showing an overcharge of 1 s. 5 d. on manure. For butter from Fermoy to Cork, 38 miles, they charge 15.5. 6 d. Their maximum rates would be 12 5. 8 d., showing an overcharge of 2 5. 10 d. 4860. Now, with regard to the traffic in cattle in the south of Ireland, will you give the Com- mittee some instances of the rates for cattle upon the different southern railways going into Cork? — I have known cattle to be sent by road from stations frequently from want of Avaggons. Cattle intended for Cork, the dealers have informed me from time to time, arc often unreasonably delayed at stations on fair days until the stock for the Dublin end of the line are first provided for ; that is to say, the Cork cattle are detained at the local station until the Dublin cattle are all sent away. I have the lists of rates of three of the raihrays SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILM'AYS. 217 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks. [^Continued. Mr. O' Sullivan — continued, railways for cattle, namely, the Great Southern and Western, the Midland, Great Western of Ireland, and the Waterford and Limerick. 4861. Will you give the Committee a few sam- ples of those rates ?— Taking a distance of from 64 to 66 miles, the Great Southern and Western Company’s rate for horned cattle and sheep is 36 s. 6 c?. per wagon, and 18 s. 6 ou think that your railway friends are good judges of what develops traffic in a dis- trict ? — They ought to be. 5095. The managers have more to do with that than the directors, I presume ? — On many of the Irish lines, unfortunately, the managers have very little to say to it ; it is the directors who principally manage the traffic arrangements. 5096. Now, one word as to the peat; is it not the fact that the turf is getting very much ex- hausted in some parts of Ireland ? — In some parts it is, but there is an enormous quantity of it there still. 5097. Then that would be rather the more reason for the thing being cheaply carried, as it could be carried from those parts where it is plentiful to others where it is exhausted ? — That is so. 5098. I suppose you are aware that AAuth such nice points as must necessarily arise before a new tribunal such as the Railway Commission, until the law on the question is settled you can- not avoid expense in preparing a case for the Railway Commissioners ? — It is so at present under existino; arranp^ements. 5099. You complained that you had to go to great expense to get counsel’s opinion ? — Yes. 5100. Do you suppose that this inspector who you propose should come over to Ireland, unless he is a very eminent laAvyer, would be able to you an authoritative opinion as to whether you had a good case, or not ? — I think he would be able to submit his information to the Railway Commissioners, and they would be able to decide whether it was reasonable, or not ; and if they considered the complaint reasonable, they would write to the railway company for an explana- tion, and if they did not consider the ex- 0.54. Chairman — continued. planatlon satisfactory they could compel the company to do what was right, without compel- ling the trader in Ireland to go to that expensive procedure. 5101. In fact the Railway Commissioners ought to seek out causes of grievance, and not stand waiting until people come and lay their case be- fore them ? — It should be in that direction. Mr. Nicholson. 5102. I wish to ask you another question with regard to the carriage of peat ? — I suppose you know our coke trucks, with high latticed sides ? — Our cattle trucks would be more like them ; we carry very little coke in Ireland. 5103. You are aware that the gravity of coke is very similar to that of peat ? — It Avould be much about the same thing, I should say. 5104. Could not one of your Irish cattle trucks carry something like five tons of peat ? — I do not think that any Irish cattle truck would carry more than four tons of peat; they are not as large as the English trucks. Lord Randolph Churchill. 5105. You were connected Avith the Waterford and Limerick Raihvay for some years, Avere you not? — Yes, I Avas. 5106. Was not there an agreement betAveen the Waterford and Limerick, the Great Southern and Western, and the London and North West- ern Raihvay Companies, that no through rates should be granted from any stations upon the Waterford and Limerick Line to England, except via Dublin and Holyhead ? — No ; the agreement allowed the traffic to floAv either through the port of Liverpool, or through Holyhead. 5107. I ask is it not the case that from stations upon the Waterford and Limerick Line, if you wanted to send your articles to England, you could not get a through rate, except via Holy- head ? — There are through rates via Waterford from most stations, and from Tipperary and Limerick only via Dublin and Holyhead and Liverpool. 5108. It is stated in evidence, before the Duke of Devonshire’s Commission, that that Avas the case ; are you aware of it ? — I know it was at one time the case that the ^through rates from the Waterford and Limerick system to English sta- tions enabled parties to send through Waterford via Liverpool, but the greater facilities for sending the traffic out of the port of Dublin, with six or eight steamers a day, enabled the London and North Western Company, and the Great Southern and Western Company, to take the greater proportion of the traffic through that route. 5109. Has the effect of the management of the Great Southern and Western and the Lime- rick and Waterford been similar upon the port of Waterford to that of the Great Southern and Western upon the port of Cork? — The policy of the Great Southern and Western Company has been precisely the same against each port ; it has always been their anxiety to damage both of them. r F 2 5110. Would 228 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 May 1881.] . Mr. Banks. S^Continned. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 5110. Would you be in favour of a compulsory amalgamation of the Irish railways under one management? — I think it would be a great bless- ing to the country, either under the control of commissioners, or in some other way under Go- vernment control. 5111. You would not be against the purchase of the Irish rallwa 3 's by the State ? — I am veiy much in favour of it. I think it would be the best thing that ever happened to the country. 5112. Do you think that would be the opinion of the mercantile community generally? — The mercantile community would be all in favour of it. Sir Edward Watkin. 5113. As you have stated that the mercantile community are almost all in favour either of the compulsory amalgamation of the Irish railways or tlieir purchase or acquirement by the State, 1 would ask in what way the Irish commercial com- munity propose to manage this 36,000,000 Z. of capital and this 2,500 miles of railway ; what would be their scheme of executive management? — I have not heard of their scheme yet. 5114. Do you think that the system of rail- ways could possibly be worse managed than it is now ? — I consider it could be very much better managed than it is noM\ Mr. Bolton. 5115. Has the Great Southern and Western Kailway Company any agreed through rate with your company to England? — We have from Glasgow to several stations in the south of Ire- land, and we have to pay them very nearly their local rates as their proportion out of the through, in order to get the facilities of through booking arrangements. The through rate is very nearly equal to the local rate ; within a small per-cen- tage, I should say. 5116. And your company has no through rates to England? — Not from Cork. 5117. Your company has agreed through rates with the north of Ireland? — I think so; but I do not know positively about that ; each agency has to manage its own business. Mr. O' Sullivan. 5118. Mr. Bolton has'asked you about the dif- ferent rates of goods from Dublin to Cork, and also the rates for the same goods to Kilmallock and Limerick junction ; is not Kilmallock upon the same line as that upon which goods must pass for Cork ? — Yes. 5119. Yet they bring them further on for from 5s. to 10s. less rate? — Yes, and the class rates are the same from Kilmallock as to Cork. 5120. Your complaint is that they charge too much for turf per waggon, and not too much per ton? — They charge too much in both ways. :Mr. Pell. 5121. I thought I understood you to say that you had no through rates from Cork into Eng- land ? — Our company have not, but the City of Cork Steam Packet Company have boats trading Mr. Pell — continued. from there, and the Great Western Railway who have a good service from there have through rates. 5122. Goods from the Cork market are shipped direct, are they not, without the intervention of any railway ?— Yes ; but there are a great quan- tity sent via Dublin in consequence of the low rates which the Great Southern and Western Company give. 5123. You said that you thought the trade of Cork had suffered by this railway ai’rangement ; the staple trade of Cork is butter, is it not? — It is the principle article we have ; butter out, and grain in. 5124. Do you contend that the traffic in butter through Cork is less than it was ? — I do ; I have given figures to show that. 5125. Is that due to American import, do you imagine? — There is very little American butter coming into Cork. 5126. To what do you think this decrease is attributable? — 1 attribute it to two causes: one is that the make has been less, and the other is that there has been a great quantity diverted from Cork to Dublin in consequence of the low rates by that route. 5127. You think that tends to reduce the quantity of butter ? — It tends to reduce the quantity sent to Cork for sale. 5128. You said that cattle were frequently unable to be moved upon the railway for want of trucks? — 1 hey are. 5129. Is that after due notice lias been given? — No, it is on fair days ; the railway companies know the fair days, and they could provide suffi- cient accommodation if they wished to do so. Mr. O' Sullivan. 5130. You told the Committee that at the time of the large increase in the price of iron and coal a considerable increase in the rates of carriage was made by the Gi’eat Southern and Western Railway Company ? — A general revision of rates took place all over Ireland at that time. 5131. Are you aware that when the reduction in the price of iron and coals took place there was any ^reduction in the rates ?— There were some exceptional reductions made, but no general reductions. Mr. Bolton. 5132. Are the Committee to understand your statement to be that the trade of Cork has actually decreased in butter ; that there is less butter passing through Cork now than at a former period ? — 'I'hat is so. 5133. Do you mean through Cork itself? — I have not the figures to say that ; but I think there is less. 5134. But there is a good deal of butter passing through Cork now which does not pass through the Cork market, is there not ? — There is. Mr. Pell. 5135. How does the butter get the Cork brand on it ? — It does not get the brand unless it passes through the market. 5136. There SELECT COMMITTEE 071 RAILWAYS. 229 12 May 1881.] Mr. Banks. {^Conthmed. Sir Daniel Gooch. 5136. There has been a new brand in the county. The Coi-k and Macroom line has a brand, has it not? — Yes. Mr. Bolton. 5137. The export of butter from the port of Cork has not decreased, has it? — I think it has. 5138. But the figures you have given do not include all the butter that passes out of the port of Cork ? — Not in any year. Mr. Pell. 5139. You say that there are other markets established, via the Cork line, besides the old market ; is there any market officer there who inspects the butter? — No, the farmers bring their butter into the town, and it is sold to the mer- chants at a price per firkin, just as a pig or a sheep would be sold in the market, and I am told that the cheap rates charged by the Great Southern and Western Company through Dublin have tended to increase these country dealings to the detriment of the Cork market. Mr. Mulholland. 5140. Do I understand you to have complained that the rates of the Great Southern and Western Bailway are in excess of their maximum rates? — I have. 5141. I thought the evidence you gave was only Avith regard to the Cork and Bantlon Rail- way? — I gave evidence Avith regard to the Great Southern and Western Railway, that the rates of the fifth and sixth class are in excess of the maximum rates. 5142. Were those I’ates you gave by the Cork and Bandon Raihvay by goods or passenger trains ? — By goods trains. I should say that they also work a portion of their goods traffic by passenger trains i they run trucks by every train, but they are practically goods train rates. 5143. Do you complain that the Great South- ern and Western Railway Company are noAV short of Avaggons ? — At several of the fairs in the country they have been short of them from time to time. 5144. Do you believe, generally speaking, that their stock of Avaggons is not sufficient for the traffic ? — Generally speaking I believe that is so, for at the last half-yearly meeting the coal mer- chants made serious complaints about the Avant of trucks at the Cork station. Mr. MtdhoUand — continued. 5145. You gave an explanation of that, that the trade they might get with an increased rolling stock would not be so productive as the trade they already have; but it would be a trade in addition to what they have? — Yes, no doubt of it. _ 5146. Are you aAA are that they could raise any money they liked at 4 per cent. ? — \ es, I believe they could. 5147. Then if the traffic they got Avould pay them anything over 4 per cent., can yon account for their action?— I cannot account for their action in not developing tlic traffic. 5148 . Hoav were they so anxious to get the suaar trade from Glasgow that came by Dublin, so that they took it almost at a nominal rate from Dublin to Cork, if they have not the Avaggons sufficient for the present traffic ?— The only Avay I can account for it is their continual anxiety to damage the port of Cork by carrying through traffic at a low rate ; I cannot see what other object they can have had. 5149. Is not Cork the second tOAvn upon their system ? — Yes. 5150. It does not appear very wise that they should endeavour to injure the ti’ade ? — Not- Avithstanding that, it is the fact. 5151. Have you ever read the Report of the Commission on Irish Railways that the Chairman alluded to? — -I believe that I ha\"e read it, but I do not remember it noAv. 5152. Are yon aAvare that the Commission on Irish Railways went fully into the question of the amalgamation of the Irish lines and the various difficulties attendant upon that? — I am aware of that ; but since then many of the small lines have been absorbed by the larger ones. Mr. O' Sullivan. 5153. With regard to Avaggons, is it not the fact that there are more Avaggons generally to spare at the Dublin end of the line than there are at the Cork end ? — That is so. 5154. It is at the Cork end that you have the complaints arising ? — It is at the Cork end that most complaints are made. Mr. Bolton. 5155. That is an additional disadvantage Avhich Cork suffers in consequence of the company sup- porting Dublin in lieu of Cork ? — That is so. Mr. George O’Malley, q.c., called In; and Examined. Mr. O' Sullivan. •'5156. You are a Queen’s Counsel, I believe ? — I am. 5157. And your practice is at the Irish bar? — Yes. 5158. Are you aware of the system of managing goods traffic upon any of the Irish railways ? — Yes ; I have had some experience of the goods traffic upon the Midland Great Western, and 0.54. Mr. O’ continued, particularly upon that portion which extends from Athlone to Foxford and Castlebar. 5159. What evidence can you give the Com- mittee with regard to the management of the Mid- land Great Western Railway Company ? — For about 12 to 15 years I ha\’e been in the habit of getting goods to the Avest of Ireland, consisting of manure, furniture, and other articles in connec- F F 3 tion 230 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 12 May 1881.] Mr. O’Malley, q.c. {Continued. Mr. O' Sullivan — continued. tlon with the cultivation of some land which I have in the west of Ireland in my own hands, and also building materials. 5160. Are you aware that the company are charging more than their maximum rates in any of those cases ? — I cannot say that they are charging more than their maximum rates, but their maximum rates are very high, as acertained by the Acts of Parliament which I have before me, but I am aware of this, that the charges made by them where goods are taken at the owner’s risk appear to be very exorbitant, even more so than if they charged the maximum rate pre- scribed under their Act of Parliament. I have a very recent instance of that in connection with some furniture which I was iietting up from the country to Dublin. This was in the shape of returned furniture which had gone down before by the Midland line it- self. I was getting up a horse also which had also gone down before, and the company re- quired a special agreement to be signed by me, setting forth the terms in which they propose to carry this furniture and horse. The furniture was about two tons in weight ; it occupied in space somewhat less than one waggon, and when I pro- posed to have this furniture and horse brought to Dublin it was sussested that I should sign an agreement, and also that I should attach an adhe- sive stamp to the agreement for the purpose of covering its terms. I found out afterwards that a 6 any. 5346. And successfully ? — Successfully as far as a reduclion of the rates is concerned, but un- successfully for any general benefit. 5347. They got their remedy, you say, with reference to the illegal charges? — They got a decision, but they did not get a remedy. 5348. Did they get a reduction ? — No, they did not. 5349. Did they not get a reduction to the proper legal amount ? — No, they did not. 5350. Did not the Hail way Commissioners order it ? — 'I’he Commissioners ordered it, but the railway company refused it afterwards. 5351. Then it comes to this, that there must be something wrong in the power of the Railway Commissioners ? — No, the powei's of the Com- missioners are all right, but the railway com])any so hampered the Chatterley Company that they were obliged to pay more than the Railway Com- missioners said they ought to pay. 5352. You have failed to show me why, under the Board of Trade action, all these indirect con- sequences should not equally follow? — I think it is perfectly clear that the action of the Board of Trade would be followed by very different re- sults from those which would follow upon the action of an individual trader. Supposing half- a-dozen little men went to the Railway Commis- sioners, and laid their case before them and said, “ 4'his company is charging us illegal rates ; here is the Act then this official takes the case up for these half-dozen people, and gets a decision upon it. 5353. Does not a good deal of your evidence go to show that, in your ojiinion, the railway companies do not know their own interests ? — I do think that most decidedly. 5354. That they do not know how to make the largest sum out of their business? — I do Chairman — continued. think that most decidedly ; I am sure that is the case in South Staffordshire. 5355. 1 suppose you would say that the Com- pany Avould carry a larger amount for you if they lowered their rate? — I am sure they would. 5356. And that the total result would be a larger profit to the Company? — I am sure it would. 5357. Would not another argument of yours be this, that the railway company should be compelled to make an equal profit upon all branches of their business ; that they should not be allowed to make a larger profit on one, and a smaller profit on the other branch of their business? — I could not say ; I could not go into such details as that. 5358. You have stated that this Northampton- shire ore is carried at a very low rate for your benefit ? — I do not agree to its being a very low rate. 5359. But a fair rate ? — It is a fair rate ; it is under a halfpenny ; but it is not lower than the Belgian and the United States, and the raihvays in other distiicts charge; and it is clearly not low, as compared with vyhat they "can carry at, as shown from their own published reports of what the costs are. 5360. You base upon that rate, of course, an argument for the reduction of your own rate? — Yes, I do. 5361. Although, as I suppose, the fact is, if the company did not charge that low rate for the Northamptonshire ore, it would not come at all? — It would not. 5362. And you have already told the Com- mittee that that would be a serious loss to you ? — It would. 5363. Do you think that railway companies ever take less than their maximum I'ate on mere abstract ideas, or do they, as a rule, take the highest they can get, and, if they do take a rate much below their maximum, that it is because if they did not take it, they would not get the traffic at all ? — I assume that to be so. 5364. Now, one question with reference to the extinction of trade in South Staffordshire ; you say the trade wants relief, but it appears to me that you put down the depreciation of trade en- tirely to the railway charges ? — I do. 5365. Do not you take into account other cir- cumstances ; as, for example, other centres springing up ? — No doubt, if no other iron had been made in other districts, we should be able to raise our price and still make iron in spite of the railway companies ; but, taking things as they are, we should be able to hold our own if we had reasonable rates, the same as other districts have got ; as it is, not having fair railway rates, we are simply being quietly pressed out of ex- istence. 5366. I only want to put vou into this di- lemma, that you are being quietly pressed out of existence, and yet you consider it is not worth while to come forward and incur the ill feeling and ill will of railway companies to get your rates lowered? — “ Sufferance is the badge of all our tribe,” no doubt. 5367. It seems to me that if I had the remedy in my own hands, I should certainly endeavour to SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 241 16 May 1881.] Mr. Hickman. IQmtinued. Chairman — continued. to see what redress I could procure by applying it ? — The inducement would be very considerable no doubt. 5368. If you are being pressed out of ex- istence by these railway companies, it seems to me that the common sense view would be to incur any disagreeableness or annoyance to save your- selves from utter extincti<,)n, before you came to a Government department to induce^ them to protect you? — We have been suffering it quietly so far ; we have not been sufficiently spirited to take action, I suppose. Mr. Caine. 5369. Do you know anybody Avho has been pressed out of existence in consequence of action taken against railway companies? — No. 5370. Or in consequence of the enormous rates charged? — Certainly ; I could give many instances. 5371. If you had the time you could mention a case where some iron master has failed in your district in consequence entirely of the high charges made by the railway companies? — We had four firms fail this year, and I think if Ave had reasonable rates those firms would have been able to go on. Mr. Lowther. 5372. When you were examined on the last occasion you handed to the Committee a Table shewing the rate.s you complained of. In estima- ting the company’s charges have you allowed anything for the use of the company’s sidings or for any services they have rendered ? — Yes. 5373. You gave the Committee the sum of the tAvo local rates on coal from Round Oak to Deep- fields as 1 s. 7 d., and the estimated excess of charge as f s. 5.^ d. a-ton? — Yes. 5374. But you consider that the tAVO companies are entitled to claim from you 1 ^ fi?. a-ton for tlie Avhole distance of 6 miles 51 chains? — I put it at 1^ d. 5375. The charge made for Avaggon hire is a charge made by the colliery OAvners, is it not, or is it made by the raihvay company? —Practically the railway company refuse to find waggons for coal traffic, but Avhen they did find the Avaggons they charged 6 d. a-ton. 5376. But it is actually charged by the colliery OAvner? — The colliery uAvner as a rule finds the Avago'ons. 5377. The companies do not find the Avaggons for the carriage of the coal, do they ? — They do not, but the charge for Avaggons Avould be in- cluded in their legal maximum rate, according to the Act of Parliament in the \^d,, the charge for Avaggons is included. 5378. Your excess of rate for ironstone from Chatterley to Deepfields, is hoAV much? — It is charged at 4 s. 6 d , and the excess is 9| d. above the legal maximum rate. 5379. Eight-pence a-ton- is charged for waggon hire ? — ^Yes. 5380. I should like clearly to understand from you Avhether the amount of 3 s. 8i d. is your view of the total maximum legal charge ? — It is. 0.54. Mr. Lowther — continued. 5381. And you complain of the rate for iron- stone from Froghall to Deepfields? — Y^es. 5382. The rate being 5 s. a-ton ? — Y"es. 5383. That also in the OAvners’ Avaggons? — exactly. 5384. The distance you have given is 47 miles, is not that the distance via Uttoxeter and Stafford ?■ — That is the distance supplied me by the London and North Western Company’s Manager at Wolverhampton, 5385. You are aAvare that if the traffic came that Avay the tolls alone Avould amount to 7 s. 2 d. a-ton ? — 1 do not know what the tolls Avould be, nor Avhlch way it Avould come, but this is the Table supplied me by the London and North Western Manager at Wolverhampton. 5386. Y"ou give the rate for pig iron from Deepfields to Brettell Lane as 2 s. 11 <7. a-ton ? — YYs. 5387. And from Deepfields to Dudley as 2s. 6(7. a-ton ? — Yes. 5388. Are you quite sure that the rate to Brettell Lane is 2 s. -Hi/. ? — Yes, that is Avhat the rates are q noted at. 5389. And to Dudley 2 s. 6(7.? — Yes, I can give you the raihvay company’s OAvn quotation, I think. 5390. With regard to the deputation of iron- masters Avhich Avaited upon Mr. Moon, Avere you present at that interview ? — I Avas not. 5391. The meeting took place in 1875,1 think? — Y"es; I believe so. 5392. Were the Chairmen of the Midland and Great Western Companies present? — Yes, I think they Avere. 5393. And you have to-day corrected some- Avhat Avhat you stated as to that meeting ?— Yes, 1 have. 5394. Y'ou stated, moreover, that if the rates Avere raised it could only be for the nuriiose of annoyance ; do not you think that it is in the interest of the raihvays that you should live as well as that they should live? — YYs, no doubt. 5395. They live by you ? — YYs, undoubtedly. 5396. But still you are of opinion that if you Aven'c against them the rates Avould be raised against you for the purpose of annoyance ? — That question Avas asked Avith regard to another mat- ter, namely, raising one rate and lowering the others to the legal maximum rate. 5397. You Avere asked the question Avhether, if the rates Avere raised, it Avould be for the purpose of annoyance ? — The inference Avas put to me in a question in this Avay : that if the rates Avere raised it could not be for the purpose of profit, and therefore must be for the purpose of annoy- ance, a jn’oposition to which I assented generally, Avithout any very lively faith in it. 5398. Noav Avith regard to the sidings, are they made at the expense of the railway companies? — They are made at the expense of private people, as far as my experience goes, entirely. 5399. Have they to come to Parliament for power to make sidings ? — No, not at all. Mr. Bolton. 5400. YYu have given the Committee some rather interesting figures as to the production of iron in 1855, and the production of iron in 1880, H II showing 242 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 Mny 1881.] Mr. Hickman. f Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. showing a great falling off in the production of iron in South Staffordshire ? — No doubt. 5401. Do you know the present price of iron ? —Yes. 5402. Is it very low ?— It is. 540.3. Abnormally low? — Very low Indeed. 5404. During that interval it has been enor- mously high, has it not? — Yes. 5405. Abnormally high? — Yes, abnormally high. 5406. When it was so abnormally high, did the ironmasters adopt the principles you recom- mend for the railways ; did they take less than they could get for their iron ? — No. 5407. Then the principle you would recom- mend the railway companies to adopt, is not one that you would consider favourable to your own business? — I think the position of railway com- panies and private traders is very different. 5408. I ask the question again ; you do not think that the principle you recommend the rail- way companies to adopt, of taking less than they could get, would be a favourable principle for yourself? — I think we should have been better off if we had not run up the price so high, but the buyers insisted upon buying more than we had to sell, so w e w'ere obliged to put up the price. 5409. Therefore the principle that you suggest for the railway company’s adoption, is not a princijde that you would consider it desirable to adopt in you own business? — You may put it so. 5410. is it the fact that the production of iron is in excess of the consumption ? — I do not think that the stocks are increasing in Stafford- shire. 5411. Are they increasing in the kingdom generally ? — They are. 5412. So that the production of iron is in ex- cess of the consumption ? — It is. 5413. That is not an indication that the rates for iron are too high ? — I am not complaining of the rates throughout the kingdom, but of the rates in South Staffordshire. 5414. You have given it as your opinion that \d. ton a mile would be the proper rate to charge upon the raw material for iron-making ? — Exactly. 5415. I think in support of that proposal, you have given the Committee the average rates in Belgium, in France, in Germany, in Luxem- bourg, and in the United States ? — Yes. 5416. Have you made any calculation, or can ’ you give the Committee any information as to the comparative cost of the railways in those different countries ? — 1 cannot. 5417. Then upon what ground do you base this statement, that because the rates are so low in those countries they should also be equally low in this country ? — Of course it is not a con- clusive argument, but it is an argument as far as it goes. 5418. It is rather an argument as far as this, that if the rates were lower it would be better for you ? — That is the sum of it. 5419. You have given figures with reference to the working expenses of the London and North Western and" the Great Western Kailway Com- panies? — Yes, I have. 5420. I think it is the North Staffordshire Railway Company that you are principally op- Mr. Bolton — continued. pressed by, is it not? — No doubt the North Staf- fordshire Company is the worst. 5421. What are the gross receipts upon the North Staffordshire Railway per train mile ? — I do not know ; we come in contact only with the London and North Western and the Great Western Companies ; we only get to the North Staffordshire over the North Western line. 5422. You told the Committee that you were practically excluded in South Staffordshire from the trade ; that you were being gradually elbowed out of the trade in consequence of the hio-h rates charged to South Staffordshire com- paratively with other places? — Yes. 5423. And you instanced the Cleveland dis- trict, as one district ; is it not the fact that the minerals in South Staffordshire are getting ex- hausted ? — The ironstone, not the coal. 5424. Whereas in the Cleveland district the minerals are not exhausted, nor anything like it? — That is so. 5425. Is it not possible that the decrease in the production of South Staffordshire is owing to other circumstances than that of the high rates by railway ? — I think not. 5426. You think that with the equal mileage rate which you have alluded to, or which you have recommended, you could still live in South Staffordshire ? — I do. Sir Edicard Wathin. 5427. You gave the average of the working of the London and North Western Railway, do you assume for the purpose of your calculation of the working expenses that the average weight of the train is 240 tons ? — No, I do not assume anything of the kind ; 1 simply take the mileage. 5428. Pardon me, you have done so; you have assumed that a train of 240 tons is to be worked for 2 s. ?>d., the price of the London and North Western, or 2 s. 2 d., the price of the Great Western ? — I have taken the total cost for 1880, and added the items all together, and then I have divided that by the number of miles run. 5429. Do not you know that the number of miles run, as stated upon the account, are miles with light trains, Avith empty trains, with mixed trains, and with every kind of difference of Aveight ? — Undoubtedly. 5430. It includes empties too ; you understand that? — Yes, undoubtedly. 5431. Therefore, your calculation to be au- thentically sound, it assumes that the average Aveight of a train is 240 tons ? — No, not at all, for the calculation of the Aveight of the trains, I assume that the dispatched train should be 240 tons, always full, and that the return train should be entirely empty. 5432. But for the information of the Com- mittee you have added an imaginary I'ate to the supposititious load you gave us of 240 tons? — Not at all. 5433. What is it ?---The total expenses of the London and North Western Company for 1880, amount to 2,154,000?., and the amount of miles run, 19,000,000 odd; that gives you 2 s. 3 d. a mile ; there is no 240 tons assumed in that. 5434. You stated to the Committee, did you not SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 243 16 May 1881.] Mr. Hicknan. ^Continued. Sir Edioard Watlnn — continued. Mr. Paget continued. not, that upon that number of millions of miles, the trains were of an average weight of 240 tons? — I did not at all. In explanation, I would say that the cost per train mile given is what the trains actually cost according to the best returns of the two companies. The load of 240 tons is only assumed in order to show what a train load would produce at the rate advocated as maximum. 5435. Do you think that they are half of that average? — I do not think they are. 5436. Then with regard to the North Stafford- shire Company’s Bill of last year, do you know that the ironmasters and others interested in the iron trade of Staffordshire, met together, and by agreement amongst themselves and with the company, assisted the passing of the Act which has been spoken of, that is to say, that whatever was in the Bill of last year, was the outcome of an agreement and arrangement between the North Staffordshire ironmasters and the railway companies ? — I believe not. 5437. Then with regard to foreign rates, I will ask you whether each of the Governments in which States the railways you have quoted are, have not largely contributed in subsidy or other- wise to the making of the railways ? — I cannot give any definite evidence on that point. [Since this evidence was given I am advised that the rate for pig-iron from Duffield to Dudley was lowered in 1877 to 1 s. 6 d. i was charged 2 s. 9ei. in 1876, and had not been advised of any alteration, and owing to the excessive I'ate, had not sent any iron by rail to Dudley,] Mr. Dillwyn. 5438. {Through the Committee). You stated that you thought a penalty ought to be imposed upon railway companies in case of overchai'ging ; may I be imformed what tribunal that penalty should be imposed? — The point was suggested to me by a question in which I was asked whether I concurred in such a proposition ; 1 gave a general concurrence in reply, but it was no susffestlon of mine at all, DO Mr. Paget. 5439. {Through the Committee). With regard Mr. Benjamin Hingley, Lord Randolph Churchill. 5445. You are Chairman of the Ironmasters’ Association of South Staffordshire, I believe ? — I am. 5446. Are you the owner of any works in South Staffordshire? — Yes; I am the owner of ironworks and collieries, of coal mines and of ironstone mines. 5447. Whereabouts are they situated? — At Dudley. 5448. How many years have you be,en en- gaged in the iron trade? — For nearly 40 years, and my father before me. 5449. What kind of trade is yours ; is it manufactured iron ? — Manufactured iron, heavy bar iron, and also manufactured goods, such as cables and anchors, 5450. What you call heavy manufactures ? — Yes, heavy manufactures. 0.54. to your evidence given upon the last occasion, I understood you to complain that the South Staf- fordshire trade was injuriously affected by the excessive rates ; I think you led the Committee to understand that the original formation of the railway was through a self-supjilying country, and therefore it was no particular object to the ironmasters to take care of the introduction of a low rate into the Bill of the day ? — Exactly. 5440. Have you compared the rates of which you complain with the rates of any other district, so as to establish the fact that South Stafford- shire is exceptionally treated? — Yes, I think I have done so abundantly to-day. 5441. You gave many Instances of the rates being in your opinion in excess of the legal maxi- mum rate ; if the rates were reduced to the legal maximum rate stated in the Act would that be sufficifent to satisfy you, or would you desire to contend for a still further reduction ? — I contend that the legal maximum rates are themselves excessive, because the legal maximum rates are the same for coal and ironstone as they are for the manufactured iron. 5442. You also complained when you were examined iqvon the first occasion that there was a difference of only ^ d. a ton between the rate for the raw material and for the manufactured iron, are you aware of instances in which those rates actually exist, establishing your contention of the difference between the two rates of \ d.? — The Acts of Parliament show that they exist ; when comparing the two rates that you referred to, I was referi’ing to the Act of Parliament. ' According lo the London and North Western Company’s Act they are entitled to charge Ijrf, for minerals and 1| d. for iron, so that the difference of rate as between iron and minerals is only ^ d. K ton a mile. 5443. Would that difference represent the dif- ference between the ravv material and the manu- factured article ? — Not at all. 5444. You contend that the manufactured article should be charged a higher rate propor- tionately than it now is ? — Exactly ; a very much higher rate proportionately. called in ; and Examined. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 5451. When you began your business what was the railway station nearest to your works and collieries ? — The nearest station was at Wed- nesfield Heath, near Wolverhampton. 5452. Is that upon the London and North Western Railway? — Upon the Grand Junction, as it was then. 5453. Is that now North Western? -Yes, it is now North Western ; it has been amalgamated. 5454. How far was it from you ? — That was seven miles from Dudley. 5455. What was the station to station rate in those days from Wednesfield Heath to Liver- pool for undamageable iron? — It was 7.9. 6c?., and at one time Qs. 6 d. Mr. Bolton. 5456. In what year was that ? — I could not H u 2 give 244 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 May 1881.] Mr. Hingley. \ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. give the exact date, but it Avas 30 or 40 years ago; there was sliarp competition in those days. Lord Randolph Churchill. 5457. What is the rate noAv ? — It is 11 5. from Dudley and 10s. Qd. from Wolverhamplon. 5458. What was 7s. Q d. is noAV 11s.? — It Avas 7 s. 6 d. from station to station, but the 11s. noAV is alongside ship in quantities of over 10 tons. 5459. Had you any facilities for sending your traffic by canal? — Yes. 5460. Could you send it cheaply and rapidly ? — WY could send it cheaply and rapidly Avhen required ; at least, comparatively so. 5461. What canals had you that Avere con- venient for you ? — The principal carriers by canal A\'ere the Shropshire Union and the Bridge- Avater Trustees. 5462. 'Where did the Shi’opshire Union carry it? — They carried it by Avater to Ellesmere Port upon the Mersey. 5463. And the other canal? — The Bridge- Avater 'I'rustees carried it to Preston Brook ; that Avent also to the Mersey. 5464. 'I'hen was the iron taken on board sliip from the mouth of the canal ? — It Avas taken alongside ship by barge. 5465. lYhat Avei’e the canal rates ? — The canal rates Avere about the same as by the raihvay. 5466. Had you any advantage in the canal rates? — The advantage Avas that the canal Avas at home ; it Avas in the district. 5467. If you sent large quantities, had you some advantage in a “ delivery alongside ” rate ? — Yes. 5468. What Avas that? — At the s.ame rate ; sometimes it AA^as 7 s. 6 d, : sometimes 6 s. 6 rf. 5469. For Avhat quantities? — For quantities over 10 tons. 5470. You got your canal rate for Is. Q d., alongside the ship? — Yes. 5471. That is, if you had sent the iron by rail- Avay in those days you had to pay an extra rate for moving it from the raihvay to the ship ? — Yes, 5472. vVhat Avas the extra charge you Avould have to pay from the railway to the ship? — lYe had to pay 1 s. 6 ense, or because you think the raihvay conqnmies would ])ut you to inconvenience otherwise ?— There would be the question SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 253 16 May 1881.] Mr. Hingley. \(2ontiaued. Mr. Barclay — continued, question of expense and loss of time, besides the odium that you would incur. 5766. Do you find that you can easily deter- mine what the law of railway rates is upon this matter ? — It is a very difficult matter indeed to get at it. 5767. Do you find that there are many lawyers in the country upon whose opinion you would be disposed to ])lace much reliance ? — There are very few in the country, but there might be some in town. 5768. Passing to another point, what sum do you think would turn the scale with regard to Belgian girders, whether they were made in this country or abroad ? — I do not tliink as regards those Belgian girders that we have much chance ; they are used for building purposes, and are of a very low quality. 5769. The workmanship looks quite as good as ours, does it not ? — I think it is. Mr. Caine. 5770. The quality is inferior to anything produced in South Staffordshire, is it not? — The quality of the iron is inferior ; I do not think that a reduction of the railway rate would enable us to make girders to compete with the Belgian manufacturer. Mr. Barclay. 5771. Cannot you make as poor a class of iron as they do in Belgian ? — We do not do so. 5772. You say the railway companies changed their mode of charge because it was illegal to charge for the 2,400 lbs. instead of 2,240 ? — The 2,240 is the legal weight. 5773. Is there anything to prevent the railway companies charging at so much per 2,400 lbs. ? — They might do so, but they must not call it a ton. 5774. But there would be nothing to prevent charging by the 2,400 lbs. without calling it a ton? — bio, I presume not. Mr. Paget. 5775. With regard to these Belgian girders, would it be impossible to manufacture iu England, girders the same size as these imported from Belgium ? — Not at all. 5776. 'I'hen what is the I’eason they are not made ? — Because they are made of very low quality, and they are brought over at a very low rate of carriage ; I admit that there are those two reasons, the low quality and the low rate of carriage. 5777. Has there been any attempt made, as far as you know, in England, to put into the market, a girder of low quality to compete with the Belgian girder ? — Girders have been made in England, and attempts have been made to com- pete, but we cannot compete successfully with the Belgian. 5778. What is the reason they have not succeeded ? — The reason is, that the Belgian girders are so much cheaper. 5779. Then I would ask you one question about the canals ; you say since they have been amalgamated with the railways there is no private enterprise upon those canals ? — None ; or next to none. 0.54. Mr. Paget — continued. 5780. Do the Acts under which the canals were originally formed still exist ? — Yes. 5781. Therefore would there not still be a right in private people to engage in trade upon those canals if they chose to do so? — They would have the right, but there is the extreme toll which comes in their way. 5782. Have you ever thought it right to establish for your own purposes, any private enter- prise upon a canal, even supposing you were charged the highest toll that the Act would authorise ? — Yes, we have done so ; we have sent our own boats to Ellesmere port, but when the boats arrive there they must be taken charge of by the company ; if we send goods by our own boat, we must j)ay the through rate to Liverpool. 5783. Then you find that even if you send goods yourself by canal you derive no advantage from it ? — None whatever ; we are simply allowed the difference to Ellesmere port. 5784. You think that if the canals were freed from connection with the railway, and were free to combine, it would be much to your advantage ? — It would be much better if they never had been combined with the railways. 5785. You have made a point of the fact that the charge from Middlesboro’ to Hull is at the rate of 5 5. 6 d. ; have you ever examined the question with the view of ascertaining whether the i-allvvay can afford to take these goods at that rate? — They charge 5 s. 6 cf. to Hull, and 12 s. 6 d. from South Wales to London ; I say, if they lose by the one rate they make us jiay the difference ; that is our grievance, we pay the higher rates. 5786. Have you ever made any personal investigation to ascertain whether the company lose at those rates ? — I do not see why they should lose ; s. Q d. for running 85 miles is a fair rate. 5787. How much will that be per mile? — Seven-eights of a penny. Lord Randolph Churchill. 5788. YOcf., I think? — Yes, *70 rZ, Mr. Paget. 5789. At all events, you have no reason to believe that the 5 s. Q d. for 85 miles is a charge which entails anything like loss upon the company ? — I do not think that they lose any- thing by it ; I think it is a fair rate, 5790. With regard to maximum rates ; do you know how it came to be originally that a maximum rate was inserted in a Railway Act ? — 1 do not know why it was. 5791. You have not been personally connected with the introduction of Railway Bills ? — I have not. 5792. As a matter of fact, are you aware that it is not the usual practice for a railway company to use the rate which they have the authority to use, as the maximum rate ? — Maximum rates have never been regarded as being actual rates, but simply as an extreme point. Chairman. 5793. Do I understand you to say that in those rates that you quoted as being favourable to the foreigner for imports ; you get the benefit I I 3 in 254 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 Mcnj 1881.] Mr, Hingley. [ Continued. Chairman — continued. in the trade of the same rate for exports? — As a rule I understand that it is so. 5794. Is that a great advantage to the British manufacturer that he should be brought so cheaply into the foreign market, as that repre- sents ? — 1 do not think there is much grievance upon that score, except that the company charge the same rate to an English port as they carry across the sea, for I gather from that, that they can afford to carry to our seaport towns at a lower rate. 5795. I want to confine myself to this appar- ently very natural question about the rate for imports. I have a letter here about the matter from a manufacturer of wire ; he says, German wire is brought from Antwerp to Birmingham at IGs. 8 J., and the charge from Birmingham to London is 22 s. 6 (7. ; but, in return, the English wire manufacturer would be able to put his wire into the foreign mai’ket for IGs. 8<7. ; is not that an advantage to him to be able to com- pete in that way ? — It would seem so. Lord Randolph Churchill. 5796. Would not the English manufacturer have to pay a high duty going into Belgium ? — He would to any part of the Continent. Chairman. 5797. But in the railway rates the manufac- turer does get the benefit of being able to send back again ? — He would, if he could send the goods at all, but he cannot send the goods at all, there being no demand. 5798. Is that owing to the protection policy of foreign countries ? — Yes. 5799. I may take it from your personal know- ledge that these figures I have read are correct? — I believe them to be correct. Mr. Bolton. 5800. Is there any import duty in Belgium upon British wire? — I am not acquainted with Belgium, I was referring to German wire ; as a matter of fact, Antwerp is a free city. Mr. Barclay. 5801. In point of fact, does any ironmongery or iron goods go to the Continent from Birming- ham and that district? — Ironmongery goes, but not iron wire. 5802. Does bar-iron go ? — Bar-iron goes to a very limited extent. 5803. Then this through rate is, practically, a dead letter ? — It is, practically. Mr. C. F. Clark, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Monk. 5804. Are you President of the Wolverhamp- ton Chamber of Commerce ? — I am. 5805. Do you hold any other office ? — I am honorary secretary to the Hollow Ware and Ironfounders’ Association. 5806. Does Wolverhampton complain that it has to pay excessive rates as compared with other districts? — It does, very grievously. 5807. Can you give the Committee some instances of that ? — The worst case is that of iron from Wolverhampton to Liverpool, a distance of 84 miles; the charge is 10 s., that is 1’43 d. ; whereas, from M iddlesboro’ to Liverpool, which is nearly double the distance, 155 miles, the I'ate is only 8 s. 9 d., or '68. 5808. Is that difference of charge on manu- factured iron charged to the consumer, or does the manufacturer bear the cost ? — The manufac- turer bears the cost. 5809. Has it not had some effect upon the scale of wages as compared with the Yorkshire scale? — I cei’tainly think so, inasmuch as a puddler in our district is paid 1 s., or five per cent, upon the selling price of the iron, and if we pay 1 s. 3 d., then it is deducted from the scale ; as it is, all the carriage being deducted from the scale before the puddlers are paid, the jiuddlers in our district are handicapped one per cent, below those of the Middlesboro’ district, and the mill men, I believe, are handicapped double the jier centage. 5810. Can you state whether there is a differ- ence in the rates for the conveyance of galvanized and sheet iron? — Two years ago it was 25 per cent, on sheet ii’on, and the result was that firms were started in galvanizing in Liverpool, London, Bristol, and Middlesboro’, and also there was a Mr. Monk — continued. firm in Glasgow ; the half-crown saved on the manufacture of galvanized iron being, no doubt, the inducement. At the present time, I believe, from Wolverhampton, there are from 500 to 600 tons a week of galvanized iron sent, and it is generally supposed if the railway companies had met the manufacturers, that instead of that, it would have been three times as much at the present time. 5811. And what has been the effect on the galvanized iron trade in South Staffordshire ? — The effect now that the rate is reduced is that they simply have lost their customers, and have got to yet them back again, and those who have gone to the coast have been deceived, because the rail- ways have dropped their rate from 12 s. 6 d to 10 s. 5812. Do you know any other trade which has left South Staffordshire in consequence of the high rate? — Yes, the cast-iron water-pipe trade, a large manufacturer in Dudley was obliged to open a foundry and blast furnaces in Middles- boro’ on purpose to compete with the Glasgow makers who were able to deliver their pipes very much cheaper than the Dudley manufacturers. 5813. The last witness stated that the canals were in the hands of the railway companies; will you state what the canals are? — I cannot quite mention them. 5814. He mentioned the Shropshire Union and the Bridgwater Navigation, are there any other canals which are in the hands of the railway companies? — I really do not know their names, I simply know that they are all in the hands of the railway companies. 5815. Can you state what aiTangement the railway companies have made with the canal companies in your district?— I can state one arrangement. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 255 16 May 1881.] Mr. Clark. \_Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. arrangement, and that is, that they have under- taken to guarantee them four per cent, upon their capital ; last year one of the shareholders told me that they gave them a cheque for 40,000 L in order that the four per cent, should be paid ; that keeps them very quiet. 5816. I think, as you have given that evidence, 1 ought to ask what canal company that arrange- ment was made witli ? — I received the informa- tion from a shareholder, and therefore I cannot answer the question ; but I may say that the canal is under the London and North Western Railway Company, and the London and North Western gave the money. Mr. Pell. 5817. It is the Birmingham Navigation Canal, is it not ? — I believe it is. Mr. Monk. 5818. Are you in favour of a mileage rate pure and simple ? — No, 1 am not. Lord Randolph Churchill. 5819. Are you speaking about other manu- factured goods than your own ? — I am speaking about all goods, not only manufactured iron moving from our district, but pig-iron coming to the district, otherwise we should be entirely dependent upon the district for our pig-iron, and I, as an ironfounder, do not think tliat it would be quite equal to the emergency. Mr. Monk. 5820. Do the railways in your districts allow the owners risk rate upon all classes of goods ? — Twelve months ago the companies refused to allow any owner’s risk rates, on hollow-ware or other packed goods. Then I wrote to them and explained to them that upon goods which went abroad they were receiving a premium for a risk which they were not running at all, inas- much as the shippers gave them a receipt for the cask and did not examine the goods, and then they agreed to allow 1 s. 8 off the Liverpool rate and 2 5 . 6 d. off the London rate, but that did not extend to the home trade. I have since, for my trade, been trying for six or eight months to get the same, or a similar allowance for the home trade, which the companies refused up to last week, when they sent me notice to say that upon the 1st June it would be allowed upon the home trade. 5821. Have you any idea upon what principle they grant an owner’s risk rate ? — I do not under- stand upon what principle they have not granted it and I cannot tell you upon what principle they do grant it. 5822. Have you any idea yourself how they classify the goods in the rate book? — No, I do not think they know themselves ; I think it is a mere chapter of accidents as to what classification they put the goods under. 5823. I suppose you think that the rate book should be made public property ? — 1 think the rate book should be made public and should be published, and that everybody who wishes to buy the book should buy it at the cost price of the printing. 5824. Can you state of your own knowledge 0.54—12. Mr. Monk — continued. whether any difficulty is experienced in obtain- ing the classification book from the railway com- panies’ offices?— I believe that it is as much as the place of the man is worth even to show it you ; I have seen it, but in order that I should be quite certain about it, I wrote for one on Saturday. 5825. To whom did you write ? — To the London and North Western Company, and they said they could not possibly let me have it. 5826. Did you write to Euston? — No, to Wolverhampton, to the London and North Western Company’s station ; but they added that they would assist me, in any way which 1 might desire, to understand their classification. 5827. Will you read your communication to them ? — We say, “ We do not understand the way in which you classify goods ; please hand us a copy of your classification book to enable us to decide the points in the classification for the transit of our goods and this is their answer ; “ In re 2 :)ly to your favour of ... I regret that I am not in a position to hand you copy of our classification book, which is supplied only for the guidance of the company’s staff; 1 shall, how- ever, be pleased to furnish you with any informa- tion that may be necessaiy, to assist you in understanding the application of our rates.” 5828. Do you know Avhether the rate book is kept for sale at any of the stations ? — Certainly not ; you can see the I’ate book at any time, and make any copies you like from it. 5829. But you cannot purchase the book ? — You cannot purchase the book. 2830. Have you ever compared the average charge for carriage u})on iinglish lines with the charge on Continental lines ? — I have done so on timber, and I find that from Gloucester to Wolvei’hampton, a distance of 66 miles, the rate is 6 s. 4 d., that is equal to I" 15 d. per ton per mile ; from Liverpool to Wolverhampton; a distance of 84 miles, the charge is 1 1 5 . 8 j. which is equal to 1’66 d. Then we come to water, from Gloucester to Wolverhampton they charge 5 s. 6 c?., that is \ d. a, mile, but taking it from Strasburg to Paris, a distance of 315 miles, the charge is 8 s. 5 d., or •32 d., and from Strasburg to Alareuil, a distance of225 miles, the charge is 2 s. 10 d.,that is '6 d., so that from Gloucester to Wolverhampton the rate is three times as much as from Strasbursr to Pans. 5831. What system have they in Germany with regard to the rates ? — According to an article in the “ Ironmonger,” communicated from Germany, they have a system of charging partly on space occupied and partly on classification, and they have one golden rule, that they never charge the exporter more than the importer. 5832. Do you know how many classes they have ? — I do not. 5833. Do you think the system in Germany might be made to work well in this country ? — I certainly do think so. 5834. You stated just now that you objected to the equal mileage rate ; what scale do you think would act fairly with reference to your own trade? — I have taken the London and North Western Company’s scale as a fair scale to besin I I 4 with, 256 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 May 1881.] Mr. Clark. \_Contiiiued. Mr. Monk — continued. • with, or rather, as a proof that they bow to a scale, that is 2J per mile for the first 50 miles. 5835. In which class would that be ? — I expect it would be No. 3 class; over 50 miles it is 2 d. per mile, and then the London and North Western Company go on at 2 d., but I sliould reduce the charge for the next 50 miles to 1 J d., and the next to 1 d. and beyond that to i d., and that would be a very fair rate to apply to hollow ware, hardware, and japanned- ware ; the rate for metals is now just half that of hardware, and if this is a fair scale for hardware, half of it would be a fair scale for metals. 5836. Do you know if the rates are altered in the same class of goods if they are differently packed? ^Yes, for japanned ware, which is a large trade in our district, if packed in casks, instead of crates, the charge is less, but if you go to the potteries it is just the reverse ; if pottery ware is packed in cases instead of crates it is more. 5837. I think you are a maker of enamelled cast-iron baths? — Yes, that is my principal trade ; we pay a very heavy rate upon enamelled cast- iron baths ; it has been raised a matter of 60 per cent, within the last few years. 5838. Is it fair to ask what effect that has had upon your firm ? — It has limited the sale of the baths. My firm was the first to bring out this bath, and owing to this tax upon our produce, we do not make one-tenth part of the enamelled baths that are now made. 5839. You say the I’ailway companies have raised the charge in some cases by as much as 60 per cent.? — Yes, they have; they have raised the rates even more than that ; they have raised the rates 80 per cent, on some articles, but upon the average of jjacked hollow- w'are it comes to 30 per cent. 5840. Have they reduced the charges in any cases ? — They are vei'y magnanimously going to reduced them 20 per cent, upon our taking the risk. 5841. How does the raibvay rate on small parcels under 500 lbs. affect the trade of Wolver- hampton. I think they are called “smalls”? — It affects it very much ; I have had a memorial sent to me, to present to the Committee, from four different trades in Wolverham])ton, viz., the Druggists, Stationers, Grocers, and Drapers, and if I may be allowed, I will read a portion of it : “ Although there are three separate routes to London, the charges of late years have been much increased, and especially do we wish attention to be drawn to the extra charge spe- cially put upon packages under 500 lbs., nearly all our packages being under that w'eight. The freight for return packages is also increased. These high charges are kept up owiug to there being no competition between the respective companies ; on the contrary, an arrangement of some kind exists between them which places us entirely at their mercy. They have the power of making any sudden increase in price wdthout their customers having any notice of it till they are called upon to pay.” 5842. Are you of opinion that all the railways in the United Kingdom should work upon the same system as to small packages? — Certainly I do ; it is exceedingly awkward as it works at Mr. Monk — continued. present. The Scotch lines go upon the old sys- tem, and the English lines upon the new system, and the consequence is, that there is a great dis- parity in the charges ; for instance, if we sent anything to Glasgow or Newcastle, which places are even with regard to the rate, we pay for 28 lbs. to Glasgow', 3 «. 3 d., but if we send it to Newcastle it is 1 s., that is 225 per cent, more in the one case than the other ; 56 lbs. are charged 3 s. 9 d. to Glasgow, and to New'castle 1 s. 6 d., that is 1 50 per cent, more ; 84 lbs. is 3 s. 9 d. to Glasgow and 2 s. to Newcastle, that is 112 per cent. more. 5843. Do you think those things would be better managed if the railways w'ere the property of the Government ? — I certainly do think so. I think that a great deal of money which is now spent in Parliamentary fights w'ould cease to be so expended ; we have to pay interest upon that money, and we should avoid what, I believe, is the case now, that is, the double terminal charges at junctions. 5844. Do you think that is the general opinion of the traders at Wolverhampton? — Yes, I think so. 5845. Those opinions have been expressed in your Chamber of Commerce more or less? — Yes, they have. 5846. I w'ant to ask you a question or two with regard to the Railway Commissioners ; what are your views with regard to the present power.s of the Railway Commissioners ? — I think they ought to be increased. 5847. In w'hich direction ? — So that Chambers of Commerce, or tw'o or more of one trade, could bring questions before them to decide as to the rates between stations, or station to station rates, and I think the Railway Commissioners’ decision should be final. It is the fear that after their decision has been given, the case might be taken to the House of Lords, which prevents most private individuals ever bringing a case before the Railway Commissioners. 5848. Have you had any experience yourself relative to any proceeding before them, especially with regard to costs ? — I have not. 5849. Have you any knowledge with reference to cases which have been heard before the Railway Commissioners, having been of a costly nature? — Yes, I have heard that they are. 5850. Do you think that the rates fixed from time to time for any particular place, in reference to particular articles, should be submitted to the Raihvay Commissioners at the request of a Chamber of Commerce, or of two or more tradei's? — Certainly I do, I think it would be a great assistance to commei’ce. 5851. Is there not in Wolverhampton some complaint about the carriage of meat, as compared with the charge from Liverpool to London ? — The butchers are naturally very sore upon the j)oint that foreign meat can be carried from Liver j)Ool to London for 25 s., whereas a man, if he wants to send his meat for the same distance, say to Carlisle (and I know a butcher who has sent 20 tons of hams this last winter), pays 40 5. for that same distance ; in both eases upon the London and North Western Railway. 5852. Do you know the mileage rates upon rivei’s, and canals abroad? — I have got the mile- SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 257 16 May 1881.] Mr. Clark. \^Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. age rate upon tlie river, from Saarbriick to Stras- burg, a distance of 100 miles, I find that coal is carried at ‘29 d., and I find that iron ore is carried from Nancy to Berbach, a distance of 87 miles, for ‘33 ; and then I come to limestone, from Saucy to Saarbriick, a distance of 196 miles, the charge is *18 J. I do not think we have any rates like those in England. 5853. Are those charges much less than they are upon the canals in this country ? — They are much less. 5854. I wish to ask you a question with regard to prepaying the carriage, do the railways in all cases allow you to prepay? — We always pay the carriage in our trade. 5855. Do the companies allow you any re- duction in consequence of prepaying the carriage ? — No ; wc have asked them, for this reason; we have said we have to pay a commission to the merchant, and we have to allow so much off for cash, and we are not allowed to put on more than just the extra can’iage that is charged ; but I was met by this, that the rate by law must be at each, eud the same, but I think it would be a great advantage to commerce if it were allowed, and also an advantage to the companies, inasmuch as it must save them a great deal of trouble to receive their carriage from the consignor rather than Avait to follow the goods. 5856. Can the railway companies demand car- riage from the consignor upon the receipt of the goods ? — Certainly not, until they have moved the goods one station. 5857. Do you think it ought to be alloAved? — I think if the law is altered, and we have some fairness shown to us, it would be only fair to the railway companies that that restriction should be taken out of the Act of Parliament. 5858. Have you any complaints to make with regard to the carriage of stock on railways? — I think it very hard upon certain districts ; our district is a great sheep-breeding district, and they breed a great number of rams around us. If I like to take a dog upon the railroad for 80 miles, I can take him for 2 5 .; if a third-class passenger rvants to go the same distance, he pays 65 . 8 (/. ; but if I Avant to send a ram the same distance, I am charged 13 5. 4 t/. ; that is a great tax upon the farmers of the district. I do not see Avhy farmers should be charged excessive rates for the conveyance of their stock. 5859. I suppose the railAvays are authorised to make their charge by the Act ? — They are. Mr. Bolton. 5860. What do you meau by prepaying the carriage ; do you mean paying before you send off the goods ? — If it Avere convenient to the rall- Avay company Ave should do it. 5861. But do you do it; does the prepaying that you Avere talking about as being convenient to the railway, mean paying in advance ? — It means undertaking to pay it. 5862. You would have a monthly or a quar- terly account, and you would not, in fact, pay it in advance ? — It Avould he a monthly account. 5863. It would be, in fact, a payment by the consignor instead of by the consignee? — Yes. 5864. You say that prepaylno; the carriage 0.54. 1 w to to Mr. Bolton — continued. Avould very much benefit the railway companies ? — Yes, I think so. 5865. Hoav Avould it benefit them? — Inasmuch as they have to folloAV their goods to the iron- mongers, Avhere they have to stay with the team very often until the ironmonger has opened the packages, to see that he has received them all right, and there is a waggon and tAVO horses pro- bably Availing Avhile the the goods are being ex- amined. 5866. Hoav would that affect the company in the Avay of a saving ; the money would be re- turned through the Clearing House either from one end or the other; hoAV Avould it benefit the company ? — It would save their men's time. 5867. But there would be the consignee having a monthly account at the one end, and the consignor at the other? — I do not think consignees generally have monthly accounts. 5868. You stated that Wolverhampton was very much injured by the establishment of gal- vanized iron works in Liverpool and GlasgOAv and other places on the coast? — I should like to be allowed to read a letter upon the subject ; a fi'iend of mine writes as follows: — “Under- standing that you Avill be examined as a Avitness before the Bail way Commission noAV sitting, we Avould Avish to draAV your special attention to the immense importance of reduced raihvay rates from this district to our shipping ports. Taking our oAvn case, Ave find on referring to our metal book, that we last year exported 10,000 tons of manufactured iron, and that nearly two-thirds of this quantity was bought outside our OAvn dis- trict; that is to say, in Wales, the Cleveland district, or Scotland ; noAV only a few years ago we Avill venture to say that the whole quantity Avould have been manufactured in this district. AYe need hardly point out to you that the reason of this is Avholly on account of our unfortunate inland position, for Ave believe that iron can be manufactured in this district as cheaply as any other, and of better quality. In proof of this we find that Ave are at present buying Staffordshire bars at 5 Z. 7 5 . 6 d. per ton at the Avorks ; AVelsh bars 5 1. 5 s. per ton at the Avorks ; and North Country bars 5 1. 7 s. 6 d. per ton at the Avorks. AVe consider that if this district is to exist at all as an iron manufacturing district it must be treated in a liberal and fair spirit by the different raihvay companies that carry our produce to the coast.” — Signed, T. W. and J. Walker.'' There- fore my ansAver is, yes, as exemplified by that letter. 5869. The galvanised iron to AA'hich you refer is in sheets ? — It is in sheets. 5870. What iron is thatmadefrom? — Sheet iron. 5871. AVhat is the galvanised sheet iron made from ? — It is genei'ally made from the Stafford- shire district iron. 5872. Exclusively the Staffordshire district ? — ■ Nearly all of it. 5873. Is thei'e much of it made from Cleve- land iron? — No, I should think not, except from the Cleveland pig. 5874. Is there much made of Scotch iron ? — • From the pig there is undoubtedly. 5875. Scotland and the neiglibourhood of Cleveland manufacture a large quantity of pig K K iron ? 258 MINUTES or EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 May 1881.] Mr. Clark. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. iron ? — Yes, but Scotland does not send it to our district. 5876. The galvanisers in Scotland, I presume, use their own iron? — No, the Glasgow producers are almost as dependent upon Middlesborough as we are. 5877. How do they get their iron? — By the rail, I believe. 5878. Are there not steamers from Middles- borough to Grangemouth ? — Y es. 5879. And from Grangemouth to Glasgow is there not a canal ? — Yes ; but still they send a good deal by rail, 1 believe. 5880. If they do send a good deal by rail, what is the rate from Middlesborough to Glasgow as compared with the rate from Middlesborough to Wolverhampton? — From Glasgow to Middles- borough or from Middlesborough to Glasgow the rate would be 9s., and from Middlesborough to Wolverhampton it is 12 s. 6 d. 5881. Are you quite sure of that ; take sheets for example ? — Ido not know what sheets are; we are not likely to have any ; it would be like sending coals to Newcastle. 5882. The difference is 3 s. 6 <7. a ton on the iron they bring from Middlesborough in favour of Glasgow, 9 s., as against 12 s. Qd., is it not ? — 1 believe it is so. 5883. But you do not know ? — The figures show it to be so; the difference between 12 s. %d. and 9 s. 5884. Then that is the whole advantage which Glasgow has over Wolverhampton, assuming your figures to be correct ? — Certainly not : the great advantage which Glasgow has over Wol- verhampton is that the Glasgow people have taken good care of their waterways. 5885. What do you mean by that? — I mean the canal and the river. 5886. Is there any canal in Scotland which is not owned by a railway company ? — I believe so. 5887. Which is that? — I do not know ex- actly. 5888. What is the name of that canal between Grangemouth and Glasgow ? — I do not know. 5889. I think you may take it from me that it does belong to a railway company ? — But the river does not belong to a railway company. 5890. But we are now upon the rates — You asked rhe Avhat advantage they had over the Wolverhampton people. 5891. Is there any pig iron taken by sea from Middlesborough to Glasgow, I mean without the intervention of the railways ? — I really do not know. 5892. Then you complain of there being an absence of competition between railways ? — Cer- tainly ; in our town we have three railroads, and we might just as well have one railroad ; in fact when we had one and the canals "we were getting on very much better than we are now. 5893. What remedy would you propose for that? — I should propose that any dispute with reference to rates should be brought before the Bailway Commissioners, and then we should avoid the overcharges now being made. 5894. How would you propose to compensate railway companies for the loss of the privileges Mr. Bolton — continued. which their Acts give them, and under which they undertook to make the railways ? — I should give them more trade, whereas now they hamper the trade of the district. 5895. Tliey would require a guarantee of that; how would you propose to give it ? — I could not personally give it. 5896. You spoke of the expense of Parlia- mentary fights ; is it not the traders who cause those fights? — I do not think so. 5897. Is not it the traders who require the companies to extend the lines into their districts ? — Partly. 5898. Have you been a witness before any Committee of Parliament ? — No. 5899. Or assisted in bringing any of those lines into Wolverhampton? — I assisted the Wal- sall Bailway Company, which is now in the hands of the Midland Bailway Company. 5900. That is to say, you assisted the Midland Bailway Company to compete with the North Western Bailway Company? — Yes, but they do not do so. 5901. You caused them to spend the money without deriving any advantage? — No, the rail- way was made privately ; it was made by private subscription, and it had nothing to do at first with the Midland Company, and nothing to do with the London and North Western Company. 5902. You gave the Committee some of the Continental rates ; on what authority do you give the Committee those rates? — Upon the au- thority of an engineer in Berlin. I should be very glad to show the Committee his letter if they require it. 5903. Then you have no knowledge of the the rates yourself? — No, I have not. 5904. You also stated that the Germans ad- hered to one golden rule ; that is to sav, that the import rates should be not lower than the export rates? — Yes. 5905. You mean they adhere to the principle of protecting the manufacturer ? — I do not call it protection. I think our present system is carry- ing free trade to a farce. I do not see why the American should be able to bring goods, as he can at the present time, from New York to the London market at a less price than I can bring them for from Wolverhampton to London. 5906. 1 think you misapprehend the question; my question is, whether the fact that the German Government charges, or causes the railways to charge the exporter much lower rates than they charge the imjiorter for the same goods, was not, practically, a protection to the native manu- facturer ? — I said the golden rule was, that the imported goods were not charged lower than the exported ; I did not say that the export charge was lower than the import. 5907. But is it not the fact ? — I do not know that it is ; I know the reverse is the fact in England. 5908. You allege that from Wolverhampton to a port in England the charge is higher than from that jiort to Wolverhampton? — I cannot say that, because it is like comparing coals going to New'castle ; the coals do not come to Wolver- hampton. 5909. Then what are you complaining of? — Nails SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 259 16 May 1881.] Mr. Clark. [ Continued . Mr. Bolton — continued. Nalls are brouglit over from Germany for 16 s. 4 rf., from Antwerp via Harwich, and if we want to send the same things to Harwich I think the charge is 21 s. 4 d. 5910. But that is not the point ; what would bo the charge if you sent them to Antwerp ? — It ought to be the same. 5911. Do you know whether the charge from Wolverhampton to Antwerp would be different from that from Antwerp to Wolverhampton ? — I know if they can come to Wolverhampton with these nails, it is absurd to imagine that any manu- facturer would ever ask for a rate to Antwerp. IMr. Monk. 5912. Do^you know that as a fact ? — I really do not know it. Mr. Caine. 5913. What is the rate on galvanised sheet iron from Wolverhampton to Liverpool ? — It is now the same as iron. 5914. But for a long time it was different? — It was 12 s. 6 (1. ; 25 per cent. more. 5915. Is there anything in the nature of gal- vanised and sheet iron to justify a higher rate being charged in one case than the other ? — I think it is the reverse. 5916. Do you think that the '2 s. %d. a ton Mr. — continued. difference really stimulated the manufacture of galvanised iron sheets in Ijiverpool ? — Yes. 5917. But do you not see that the manu- facturers of galvanised iron sheets in Liverpool have to bring this sheet iron to their works, and galvanise it, and then bring it to the ship’s side, while you have only to send the galvanised iron to the ship’s side. I only wish to show that there must be apparently some other cause for it besides the mere difference of carriage ? — There is the saving upon the carriage of the spelter that the raihvay companies have thrown themselves out of. 5918. But still the galvanised sheet iron had got the spelter on it if you come to the ton rate ? — Yes, no doubt. 5919. You have considerable knowledge of the Ironmongery trade at Wolverhampton; is it not the fact that the Belgian nails have pretty much demolished the hand-made nail trade of your district ? — Yes, of our district. 5920. Are there any hand-made nails made in your district? — Yes, a great number, but nothing like what there were before the Belgian nails were imported. 5921. Do you ascribe that to the fact that the railway companies favour by low rates the im- portation of foreign nails ? — What I contend is that it is the manuf acture of machine-made nails in our district that it cuts up. 0.54. K K 2 260 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Thursday, \9th May 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr, Samuelson. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Arthur Haliburton, called in ; and Examined. Chairman. 5922. You are Director of the Transpoi’t Ser- vice in the War Office, are yon not? — I am. 5923. And you wish to state to the Committee what your department has to say in the way of complaint about the terms under which your material of transport are carried by the railway companies ; -would you, as shortly as possible, state what is your complaint? — There is an Act of 1844, the 7th & 8th Viet., which governs the carriage of baggage for the Government ; that gives us a rate of 2 (/, a ton a mile for the carriage of stores, and it has been assumed, al- though it is not expressly stated in the Act, that that ajiplied only to stores connected with the movement of regiments or troops ; and the con- sequence is that when we have to convey bag- gage not accompanied by troops, although it is identically the same baggage, the companies charge varying rates, and we never quite know what we are charged ; the goods are put under classification, but the accounts never show the rates, so that we never know whether we are rightly or wrongly charged. We think that the rate laid down in the Act ought to apply to all baggage and stores, whether accompanying troops or not. 5924. I suppose it is rather for the conve- nience of the railway companies that the War Office do not always send those goods along with the troops? — Yes; the idea was originally, I believe, that they wouhl always go Avith the troops, but they practically go separately in goods trains. 5925. Then there is a charge for loading and unloading? — The Act says, “ fhe assistance of the military being given in loading and unload- ing,” so the consequence is that Ave have never paid any terminal charges ; the rate of 2 a ton a mile covers all charges. 5926. If you employ the military you are not charged terminals? — We are not. 5927. On the other hand, if the military do not assist in loading and unloading, is there any Chairman — continued. extra charge besides this 2 rf. a ton a mile ? — If the military do not assist, the raihvay company then say, you ha\"e not complied with the Act, and then they charge us anything they please ; they do not merely add on a terminal, but they charge different rates altogether. 5928. In fact, you do not knoAv what is termi- nal and what is rate? — No; and I have an instance of that Avhich I can state. A fe w days ago there were some troops landed at Liverpool rather late in the evening, and the authorities Avere in a hurry to send them to their destination, as they could not get the baggage out of the doeks ; it Avas left to come next day. The charge Avould have come to 9 I, if the baggage had gone Avich the troops, but the company charged 1 6 1. because it did not come with the troops, and the troops did not assist in loading and unloading. 5929. What you Avould ask is that you should be charged 2 d. a ton a mile for all stores ? — Yes. 5930. And that Avhen the troops do not assist in loading and unloading, then there should be some fixed addition in the way of terminals ; is that AA’hat you Avould propose ? — Yes, Ave under- stand that there is a fixed charge of 1 s. 6 a ton for terminals. 5931. For other people, you mean ? — Yes; for the jmblic, 5932. And AA’hatever that charge Avas you Avould pay it? — Yes, we Avould pay it where the military assistance Avas not given in grain loading. 5933. What do you find is the case for long distances? — For very long distances we find that there is a reduction in the rate to the public, and we contend that Avhatever that reduction is Ave should get the advantage of it for long dis- tances. 5934. Do you desire to say anything about the charges for short distances ? — When troops are carried the raihvay companies always charge as for the shoi'test route. 5935. But AA'lien stores are carried,^ Avhat happens ? SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAIL'VVA.YS. 261 19 May 1881.] Mr. Halibukton. [^Continued. Ch airman — continued. happens ? — I suppose they would follow the same rule. 5936. Would it be possible for the War Office to send stores as members of the public, instead of under agreement with the railway company under Act of Parliament ; and so to claim the allowance which is made to the public? — We could do that, but as a matter of convenience it would be much better for us to have one rate, because we have paymasters scattered all over the country, and they cannot know all these vary- ing rates, and when they pay the account they never know whether it is right or wrong, so that for convenience sake (it is more that than a ques- tion of gain) we want to have one uniform system. 5937. Have you anything to say about the charge for “ smalls ”?— We think that our rate for smalls should be based upon a general rate, according to the Clearing House scale ; that is to say, 2 rf. a ton a mile should be our classification, and that the companies should base their charge for our “smalls” upon that rate just as they do for the public at large ; we consider the maxi- mum for “ smalls ” rather high, but we are quite willing to follow the rest ol the public in that matter ; we think 500 lbs. rather a large limit for “ smalls.” Mr. Bolton. 5938. As I understand you desire to have a uniform rate of 2 c/. a ton a mile for baggage ? — Yes, the existing rate of 2 <7. a ton. 5939. Is not that the present rate? — Yes, but the railway companies do not apply that except in cases where troops are moving in connection with the baggage ; we wish to have it applied always. 5940. With reference to “ smalls,” you wish the usual rule to be applied to your case as well? — Yes, based upon that rate of 2 d. a. ton. 5941. You wish “ smalls” canned at 2d. a ton, whether they amount to a ton or not ; is that so ? — That the charge for “ smalls ” should be based upon that rate. Sir Edward Watlan. 5942. I think you are acquainted with that document {handiny a coyy of the Railway Clearing House classification to the Witness') ? — I am. 5943. This is the general classification, and it says, “ Baggage, 4th class ; ditto, military, when tendered with a printed military route order, and provided the assistance of the military be ren- dered in loading and unloading, 2 d. a ton a mile, station to station ” ; that is the present condition of things ; now, what is your grievance? — The exact grievance is this, that when the assistance of the military is not given, the railway company can depart from that rate and classify our goods under various rates, and charge us sums that we have no means of checking. 5944. Is there any case in which you send baggage of any importance without any military attendance? — Yes, we do so constantly, from the arsenals and depots. 5945. Do you want to absolve the military from any attendance, or do you think that when you send baggage without the military the rail- way companies should not charge you anything 0.54. Sir Edward Waikin — continued. beyond that 2 d. ? — That they should charge a terminal charge in addition to the 2 d. \ at present they charge us no specified terminal. 5946. Then I see, with regard to soldiers’ blankets, and so on, not with troops, that that is in the third class? — Yes. 5947. Then with regard to “ smalls,” I will take it shortly : from Dover to Shornclifie, which is six miles, we will assume there is a package of 508 lbs. weight; would you have that carried at the rate of 2d. a ton a mile, being 3 d. for that service? — May I ask, is not the classification for “ smalls ” always based upon the rate per ton per mile ? 5948. But the railway company have the power of fixing any rate they consider reasonable for packages under 500 lbs. weight ; would you consider it fair to call upon them to carry that package for 3 d. ? — We would not object to a minimum charge for short distances. 5949. When you refer to stores you would not include heavy guns or things of that sort, would you? — Only general stores. Mr. Barnes. 5950. You would not wdsh the railway com- panies to load and unload your baggage for nothing ; as I understand it noAv, the troops themselves load and unload, supposing they go in the same train? — The baggage does not ever go in the same train ; for the convenience, of the railways they send the regimental baggage by itself. 5951. But still the military load and unload it ? —Yes. 5952. And if they do not do that, the com- panies make a terminal charge. But Avhat I am saying is, that I do not think that the rate per mile should be altered because the troops do not assist in loading or unloading, or accompany the baggage. There should be merely an additional charge for loading and unloading in such cases. Mr. Lowther. 5953. You mentioned a case in wdilch some troops arrived late at night in Liverpool ; at what hour did they arrive ? — At eight or nine o’clock at night, and the authorities wished to send them’ through to Shprncliffe, so they sent them through that night, but the baggage was kept till the next day. 5954. And it was for the removal of the baggage the next day, and not for the removal of the troops that night, that the charge arose ? — Yes. 5955. What did the charge come to ? — It came to 16 /. instead of 9 1. 10 s., I think. Sir Edward Wathin. 5956. What was the date of that arrival of troops? — It was about 10 months ago. Mr. Nicholson. 5957. With regard to ordinary baggage stores, what weight goes In an ordinary truck ?— I do not know what the railway trucks cari’y, so I cannot say. I presume the capacity of railway trucks varies. K K 3 5958. Do 262 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 19 May 1881.] Mr. Haliburton. \_Continued. Mr. Barclay. 5958. Do I understacd you to say tliat the War Department is not treated so well when the stores are carried long distances as the public are ? — I do not quite know how the public are treated, but 1 understand that there is a reduction on many railways for long distances. 5959. That is your imjn-ession ? — That is my impression, and I know it as a bxct from the railway companies. 5960. The Act of 1844 provides that the assistance of the military or other forces shall be given in loading and unloading such goods ? — Yes. 5961. And the M^ar Department desires to have a fixed rate of 2 d. a ton a mile, with a fixed charge by the railway companies for loading and unloading ? — If we did not assist them, there would be, 1 suppose, what is called a terminal charge. Mr. Gregory. 5962. You only desire to have the same rate for loading and unloading as is charged to the public ? — Yes, when we do not assist. Mr. Barclay. 5963. Do I understand you to say that the railway companies charge more than 2 d. a mile when you do not assist in loading, or that they charge a vague indefinite sum for loading and unloading ? — They give us the account in a' lump sum ; we cannot tell how it is composed, but it comes to very much more than 2 d. a mile. 5964. Have you asked the company to divide their charge?— I do not know that we have ; I know we have very often tried to induce them to reduce the charge, but we have never succeeded. 5965. Do you know that you have the power to take a railway company before the Railway Commissioners to compel them to divide their charge ? — No doubt we may have the power, but we are constantly having dealings with them all over the country. 5966. Are yon aware that you have the power to take the railway companies before the Rail- way Commissioners, and have it declared what is the fair charge for terminals, which, when settled in one case, might be settled for all ? — I do not know that we could have it determined for all railways, but we could in a particular case take the railway company before the Railway Com- missioners. 5967. Is there any great diffei’euce between loading and unloading in one case and another ? — Not much, I think, in our case. 5968. If you have one case decided before the Railway Commissioners that would be sufficient to govern the others, would it not? — The rail- way companies do not take that point as to the mere addition of the terminal ; they say you have not complied with the Act, therefore we carry your goods entirely apart from that ])rovision. 5969. Is there not a laAv officer attached to your dei)artinent? — There is the law officer of the Treasury. 5970. Moidd it not be worth while asking his opinion as to whether the Railway Commissioners could not settle this point for you ? — I do not know that the Commissioners could settle that the companies could not charge us more than 2 d. Mr. Barclay — continued, if we did not comply with the. Act ; they cai'ry all our goods, whatever they may be, which go with the regiment, at 2 (i. a ton ; but when the troops do not give their assistance, then they classify our goods and charge a different rate. 5971. In point of fact, you have never in- quired into this point or taken a legal opinion upon it? — We have never disputed it with them in the sense of taking them before the Railway Commissioners. 5972. The only question you desire to settle is, whether the railway companies are charging you fair terminals or not ?— That is not the only jioint we take ; the object we have in view is to get a convenient rate which all our paymasters all over the kingdom could understand. 5973. You have a convenient rate at the pre- sent moment of 2 <1. a ton, and you complain that the railway companies do not adhere to that rate ? — They do not adhere to that rate when the assistance of the military is not given for the loading and unloading, or for stores not carried in conjunction with troops. Mr. Bolton. 5974. But then a charge is made for terminals, is it not? — They charge us a different rate ; I do not know what the charge is for terminals. Sir Edward WatJnu, 5975. I understand you to say that where the assistance of the military is given, they charge you a uniform rate of 2 d., wliether it is glass or baggage, or whatever kind of stores it may be ? — That is so. 5976. Then further, I understand you to say, that where you have no military assistance they charge you something more for the conveyance and services ? — That is the case. Mr. Bolton. 5977. You do not, as I undei-stand, object to the charge, but you wish it to be a uniform charge all over the country? — Yes, we wish for a uniform rate for all stores, whether moved with or without troops. Chairman. 5978. But they charge so much more in the latter case just put to you, that you do not con- sider the difference could be represented merely by terminals ; but must be an extra mileage sura, and you desire to have it sjiecified what the chai’o e shall be ? — We do. O Mr. Barclay. 5979. The Act says that the railway company shall not charge you more than 2 d. a ton a mile, the assistance of the military being given in loading and unloading such goods. The only question, then, which arises is, what shall be charged by the railway company when they load and unload ? — I do not think that the railway companies quite take that line ; I think they say. You have not complied ivitli the Act, and there- fore do not come under that clause at all. 5980. You never thought it worth while to take a legal opinion as to whether the railway companies were right in their action or not? — We have never referred the matter to the Railway Commissioners. 5981. You SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 263 19 May 1881. Mr. Thomas Swan, called In ; and Examined. Mr. Paget. 5981. You are, I believe, a member of the firm of Messrs. Swan and Sons, of Edinburgh ? —Yes. 5982. And your business is that of a salesman of stock? — Yes. ^ 5983. How many years have your firm been established? — Since 1843. 5984. Your business is in store stock and fat stock, is it not? — In both kinds. 5985. You deal in all kinds of stock?— In all kinds. 5986. Is your dealing with home stock? — Both home and foreign. 5987. I believe a very large per-centage of the foreign stock imported into Scotland goes through your hands ? — I should think we sell 95 per cent, of all the foreign stock that comes to Scot- land. 5988. What was the amount of American stock that passed through your hands last year? — 23,000 cattle. 5989. And all stock altogether, including horned stock ? — M^e sold last year 42,341 cattle, and 194,212 sheep. Sir Edward Watkin. 5990. Were the last two figures home cattle and sheep only? — No, both home and foreign combined. Mr. Paget. 5991. The American stock are sent to Glasgow ? — Yes. 5992. And are slaughtered at the ports? — The States cattle are. 5993. What amount are you Importing from the States at present ; how many a week ? — W e are getting just now from 250 to 400 a week. 5994. Are those all from the United States? — Yes. 5995. Have you any Canadian stock as well ? — AVe have had 300 this week, and we have 550 due to-morrow. 5996. Will you explain to the Committee what you do with those stock ; they are, I believe, consigned to you at Glasgow ? — Entirely. 5997. And you distribute them from Glasgow ? — Quite so, if Canadian. 5998. AA'here do you generally disti'ibute them to ? — The cattle w hich come to Yorkhill have to be slaughtered there. AA"e sell as many as we can alive, and if the trade gets bad w'e have them slaughtered and sent to London. The Canadian cattle go alive ; we take out of the lot those destined for the English markets, and send them where we think the best market is, and where the most money can be got for them, 5999. Having to send stock over England and Scotland, you are pretty well acquainted, I pre- sume, with the railway rates ? — I am. 6000. AYill you give the Committee some in- formation as to the rates from the North of Scot- land ; do you know, for instance, the rate from Thurso to London? — Yes, the rate from Thurso 0.54. Mr. Paget — continued, to London would come to about 1 Z. 11s, in the case of a bullock being sent alive. 6001. How' far is that? — I could not give the distance at the moment. I should think it would be about 650 miles. I did not acquaint myself from the hurried notice given me on this point. 6002. How do you arrive at that; what do you pay per truck? — £. 12 9s. 6003. AVhat size truck is that, medium or large ? — Medium. 6004. Is that the charge for cattle conveyed at owner’s ri-k ? - Y"es. 6005. And how many fat stock does a truck hold ? — Eight. 6006. AVhat is the rate for dead meat? — The rate for dead meat from Thurso is 90s. per ton. 6007. About how much would that come to per carcase ? — That w’ould come to about 27 s. per carcase. 6008. AA’^hat is the rate from Inverness to London ? — Live stock from Inverness would cost about 28 s. 6 d. per head. 6009. And that also is at the owner’s risk? — I have taken all the charges as at owner’s risk. 6010. And in medium waggons? — Yes, In medium waafirons. 6011. AVhat is the charge for meat? — It is 77 s. Q d. per ton, which is equal to about 24 s. a carcase. 6012. How Avould that meat be sent? — In sheets, or probably vans. 6013. Is it sent in special vans? — I do not know what they have upon the Highland line, but I know' that upon some of the lines in Scot- land they have special meat vans for the pur- pose. 6014-15. AA hat is the distance from Inverness to London ? — I should think about 550 miles, but I am not particularly sure about that. 6016. Could you give the Committee the maximum rate from Aberdeen to London ? — The rate from Aberdeen to London, for cattle, is 25*-, a head by rail. 6017. Is there any other way of sending from Aberdeen ; is there any steamboat competition? — Yes, there is steamboat communication be- tween xVberdeeu and London. 6018. Can you tell me w'hat is the steamboat rate? — The steamboat rate is 16 s. a head. 6019. Hoav long does the steamboat take ? — I think it is 36 hours, but I am not quite sure about the time a steamer Avould take. 6020. How long w'ould the railway take ? — About 24 hours, I should think. 6021. Then the rate is 25 s. by rail and 16 s'. by steamer? — YYs. 6022. Do you know', as a matter of fact, whether stock are mostly sent by rail or boat? — I think the boat is taken great advantage of in fine weather. 6023. AA'^hat are the rates for meat, by rail, from Aberdeen to London? — Sixty -seven shillings and sixpence per ton. 6024. Do you know how much that works out 264 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 19 May 1881.] Mr. Swan. {^Continued. Mr. Paget — continued. per carcase ? — I make that to be about 23 s. 7 d. per carcase. 6025. Wbat is the charge for meat by steam- boat ? — Forty-seven shillings and sixpence. 6026. What do you count the average weight of a bullock? — I have taken them at about i cwt. a bullock. Mr. Samuelson. 6027. One of these calculations appears to be wrong, working them out at per cwt. i — I took the Inverness cattle as not being so heavy as those from Aberdeen ; I put the Inverness cattle at 6;^ cwt., and I put the Aberdeen cattle at 7 cwt. Mr. Paget. 6028. What would the 47 s. 6 d., the charge by steamboat, be per bullock? — Sixteen shillings and seven pence, I think. 6029. What is the rate from Perth to London? — The rate from Perth to London is about 25 s. per head. 6030. IVhat is the rate from Perth to Aber- deen ? — I have not got that. 6031. With regard to the charge from Perth to London, how do you arrive at the result of 25 s. per head?— By dividing the cost price per truck by the number I calculate it contains. 6032. What is the charge by the small wag- gons from Perth to London ? — £. 8 15 5. 3 d. 6033. MTiat is it by a medium sized waggon ? —£. 9 11 5. 9f/. 6034. And a large waggon? — £. 115 .v. 6035. And what is the price of the conveyance of meat from Perth to London ? — Seventy shil- lings a ton, including delivery. 6036. I think you stated that the charge for meat from Aberdeen was 67 s. 6 d. ? — It is. ISIr. Samuelson. 6037. Does that include delivery? — I think so. Mr. Paget. 6038. Aberdeen would be about 90 miles fur- ther from London to Perth ? — I cannot state the distances with any accuracy. 6039. But taking it from me that there is a difference of about 90 miles ; for the longer dis- tance the charge is 67 s. 6 c/., and for the shorter distance it is 70s.? — That is the case. 6040. Do you know what is the Dundee rate ? — The Dundee rate is charged upon the same principle as to Aberdeen, viz., per head, it is 24 s. 6041. And what is the charge for meat from Dundee ? — The charge for meat from Dundee is 70 s. net. 6042. "Would that include delivery ? — I think so. 6043. Are there steamboats running from Dundee ? — There are. 6044. What are the steamboat rates? — The steamboat rate for cattle alive is 15 s., and for meat 45 s. a ton. 6045. Are those steamboats much used for the conveyance of cattle and meat ? — There is not much live traffic from Dundee to London, jNIr. Paget — continued. but I think they are pretty fairly used in the season. 6046. You told the Committee that there was a great importation of foreign stock into Glas- gow. Can you give us the rates by railway ; is there any difference in the rate charged from Glasgow to Loudon for foreign, as compared with home stock? — Yes; we have a special foreign rate from Glasgow to London. 6047. Would you give, first, the rate for home cattle from Glasgow to London ? — The home cattle from Glasgow to London cost 8 Z. 15 s. 3 d. per small waggon ; the charge for a medium watTp-on is 9 /. 11s. 9 d., and for a lar^e waug-on 11 Z. 5 s. 6048. And those waggons would hold, respec- tively, how many cattle ? — ■! calculate them to hold, respectively, seven, eight, and nine beasts. 6049. Can you give the Committee the rates for the conveyance of foreign stock in the same description of waggon ? — For a small waggon the charge is 7 Z. 6 s. ; for a medium waggon 8 Z. 2 s., and for a large waggon 9 1. 5 s. 6 d. 6050. So that, on a large waggon, there is a dlffei’ence of 21 . as against home stock? — Of 1 Z. 19s 6 cZ. 6051. There is, I believe, more than one rail- way route available from Glasgow to London? — Yes. 6052. Would the charges be the same by all the railways ? — Yes, I expect so. 6053. Would the cattle be conveyed in the same description of trucks ? — Quite. 6054. In the same w'ay ? — Yes. 6055. And at the same speed? — Quite; in every respect similar. 6056. But if the stock are imported the charge would be 1 Z. 19 s. 6 lace, it would regulate the markets better, and w'ould increase the traffic to a large extent, by inducing more people to come north and buy cattle. 6225. What becomes of the fat cattle that go to your markets now ?— A very large number of go south. 6226. Then how would you increase the fatten- ing of cattle by a small reduction ; you already pay a little more than half the rates allowed by the Act, what further reduction would you expect from Inverness ? — I should not expect any further reduction from Inverness ; the rates are already fair. 6227. From what other part of Scotland would you think a reduction might be made ? — I think Edinburgh, to begin with. 6228. They do not fatten cattle at Edinburgh; they are brought there from other places? — That is so. 6229. In what part of the country would there be an increase of cattle fattening? — I do not suppose that lowering the rates would have a very great effect upon the increase of the fatten- ing of cattle, but it would increase the facilities for people shifting them. 6230. But why should they shift them ; thev do not shift fat cattle more than once, if they can help it? — They often do. 6231. But not if they can help it? — No, it is a very bad job if they have to do it. 6232. But you have not shown how a reduc- tion of the rates would increase the fattening of cattle ? — I have spoken to some very lai’ge dealers this last week, who came up to Edin- burgh to take cattle south, and they say that it is the railway expenses which kill them. The men who come from the Midland counties t ibuy fat cattle in our market at Glasgow comjdain about the expenses, and I argue that if the railway comj)any would accept the same pro- portionate rates of carriage ])er mile from say Edinburgh to Wakefield, as they take from In- verness to London, that would have a beneficial effect upon the market. 6233. How do you suppose that the freight on cattle from New York to London is fixed? — Sometimes a man who is going to ship cattle will charter a line of steamers for a certain time at a Mr. Bolton — continued. fixed rate ; sometimes, when the trade is very bad here, and there are lines of steamers to let, they make the best bargain they can with them. 6234. W'^hatever the rate is from New York to London direct, the rate via Glasgow, including the railway rate, must be about the same ? — I think the rate is about the same, but cattle sent from Montreal via Glasgow to London would be laid down here, as nearly as possible, at the rate of the railway transit. 6235. You have told the Committee that the freight from New York to London, be it via Glasgow or direct, is practically about the same, and 1 ask you how the effect of a low rate on foreign cattle from New York via Glasgow to London affects the home grower ? — It affects the foreign cattle. 6236. No, they would go any way: they would go direct if the railway rate were against them ? — If we are afforded special facilities from Glasgow to London if we are over supplied, it offers an inducement to send the cattle there. I must explain that cattle are not sent to Glasgow for the purpose of coming to London, they are only sent to London when the market is large, and they cannot be sold at Glasgow. 6237. Take the dead meat ; what have you to say about that? — There is a very large quantity of dead meat sent from Glasgow to London. 6238. Is it not the fact that steamers from New York quote the same rate oto Glasgow, as they .do direct to London? — Very possibly. 6239. Then how can it alter the matter; it cannot affect the consumers ? — I do not know the rate for meat from New York to London. 6240. But your own experience will teach you that it cannot; that no dealer in New Y''ork would send meat via, Glasgow to London at a higher price than he would send it direct to London ? — That may be- Chairman. 6241. Would not the question of freights in- fluence him ; if he sent it all by by steamer to London, could he insure return freights? — There arc vessels fitted up for that particular trade. 6242. Do they go back empty ? — No ; they are “ liners.” 6243. M’hat I ask is this: if all the steamers w'ent to London, and not any of them to Glas- gow, could they have the same certainty of getting a return freight? — Not at all; they have each an established business at the different ports. Mr. Bolton. 6244. If the rate for foreign meat from Glas- gow to London was the same as for homegrown, it would practically exclude the trade entirely, would it not ? — It would. 6245. That would throw into the hands of the direct steamers from New Y'ork to London all the trade in dead as well as live meat ? — It would tend to that effect, no doubt. 6246. And that would also tend to this effect, would it not, to raise the freights from New Y"ork to London ? — It would. 6247. M ould that not be adverse to the con- sumers? — Directly they raise the freights above the SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 271 19 May 1881.] Mr. Swan. \ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. the present freights, the exporter would send the cattle vili Glaso'ow a^ain. 6248. There is, I believe, a regular service of steamers between London and New York? — Yes, I am aware of that. 6249. An honourable Member asked you about Irish fat cattle being sent to Glasgow ; it would be absurd, would it not, to send Irish fat cattle to Glasgow to be killed to be sent to London? — It would be absurd, 6250. You were asked about the comparative amount ,of accidents by steamer and by train ; if there is any loss takes place on board a steamer, I think the shi2iper is responsible? — Yes; the ship does not take any responsibility. 6251. But in the other case, if a railway breaks down, the railway comjiany is responsible ? — I believe the cattle are carried at the owner’s risk, 6252. Have you had any claim against a rail- way company for damage to the cattle which has not been met and paid ? — There was a question recently about the excess of damages claimed. 6253. The company acknowledge the respon- sibility, but question the amount? — Quite so; and I think they are j^erfectly right in doing so. 6254. You are aware that there is a combina- tion amongst the American steamboat owners for fixing the rate of freight from the various ports ? — I never heard of it. 6255. Is the value of foreign meat equal to the value of home meat per pound ? — No. 6256. What would be the per-centage on the cost of foreign meat of the rate charged, com- pared with the i)er-centage on the home-grown meat of the rate charged ? — I have not gone into that question ; but I can tell you the relative value of the American meat compared with home meat. 6257. What is it ? — A good American bullock is worth now about 66 s. per cwt. in Glasgow, and a good Scotch bullock is worth from 70s. to 72 s., that is from 5 s. to 6 .v. a cwt, more. Lord Randolph Churchill. 6258. That is what it is worth to the butchers? — Yes, to the butchers. Mr. Bolton. 6259. Do you know what the difference in the retail price of a jfiece of beef to the consumer is between the American and the home grown? — I saw a contract this week for American beef to be taken at 5 s. 7 d. per 14 lbs., and a firm who dealt in home meat tendered at 6 s. 1 d. Mr. Monk. 6260. Have you had litigation with the rail- way companies in any of these cases ? — No. 6261. Are you at all acquainted with the Rail- way and Canal Traffic Act of 1873 ?— 1 am not. IVIr. Gregory. 6262. You assume, I suppose, that the rates upon foreign meat and cattle charged by the rail- way companies are fairly remunerative rates to the railway com2)anies ? — I presume so, 6263. Then those charged upon home produce are considerably more than remunerative rates ? — No doubt. 6264 I want just to understand about the 0.54. Mr. Gregory — continued, shipment of foreign meat to Glasgow ; you say that all the foreign meat comes from one slaugh- terhouse at Glasgow ?— Yes, all that is charged at the reduced rates. 6265. The meat is not charged at the reduced rate unless it is consigned from that slaughter- house, as I understand it ? — That is so, 6266. All that comes elsewhere they charge at the home rate ? — Yes. 6267. Who is the jn-oprietor of that slaughter- house ? — The local authority of Glasgow. 6268. Do they consign all foreign cattle landed to that slaughterhouse ? — All the cattle that come from the United States. 6269. And the Canadian cattle ? — The Cana- dian cattle would go to the other side of the river to another wharf, and, after standing 12 hours quarantine, they get away. 6270. Are the Canadian cattle charged as foreign meat or as home meat ? — The Canadians are charged as foreign on coming to London, provided they are not shown in the market, if they are sent direct from the wharf. 6271. There are one or two places in Glasgow from which foreign meat is shipped direct by t he railway? — There are. 6272. And those places belong to the local authorities? — The slaughterhouse at York Hill, where the American cattle are slaughtered, belongs to the local authority, but the common slaughterhouses belong to the town. 6273. Has the railway a branch or siding to those slaughterhouses? — The slaughterhouse at York Hill is, I think, within about 200 yards of the railway station. 6274. Do the trucks run into the slauohter- house ? — No, the meat has to be carted. 6275. That is the foreign meat? — Yes. 6276. Is the cartage included in the railway charge ? — I expect so. 6277. Now, as regards the home meat, has that to be carted? — Yes. 6278. Do the railway companies pay for the cartage of that meat ?— I expect so. 6279. From the slaughterhouse ? — Yes. 6280. In either case, the cartage of the meat from the slaughterhouse to the railway is included in the railway charge, is it? — Yes. 6281. As regards Canadian cattle which are unshipped, are they taken from the ship to the railway direct ; is there a branch down to the quays ? — No, the cattle walk to the market. 6282. They are driven to the market? — They are driven to the market, and then they are either slaughtered or shipped, as the case may be. Chairman. 6283. The Committee have had forwarded to them a memorial of farmers, cattle dealers, and others from Cumberland and Westmoreland, complaining of the charges made on the home animal as compared with the foreign animal ; I want to test their statements by your knowledge. Have you any knowledge of Perth ? — I have* 6284. I will put their statement in, and ask you whether you corroborate it. One of these com- plainants went from Carlisle and bought sheep at Perth, and I gather that there were 1,313 sheep carried in 29 waggons ; would that be likely to be the case ? — That would be 44 sheep for each waggon. L L 4 6285, The 272 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOUE THE U Ma;, 1881.] Mr. Swan. \_Co„tmued. Chairman — continued. 6285. The charge made, as I think you Avill see, from Dalwhinnie to Carlisle is 2 6-. 11|- d. per mile =: 124/. 15 s., whereas my informant says that a charge of 40/. would have yielded a hand- some profit to the company ; would you be pre- pared to say that. The charge made appears to amount to about 2 s. per sheep ? — I do not think that 40 /. would pay the company. 6286. The consionment from the company’s bill ap2)ears to work out in this way : there are 29 waggons and 1 van from Dalwhinnie to Carlisle; the charge would be, 29 waggons at 4 /. (carrying 1,313 sheep) 116/.; one van (double the charge for single waggon), 8/.; jiaid on (saw- dust), 15 s.; total 124/. 15 s. Would you call that charge excessive ? — I do not know the dis- tance, but it seems to be excessive. 6287. 'J’he comjdaint is that the railway rate virtually prevents the English grazier from going to the Scotch market ; the memorial says that a com- mission of 6 d. per lean sheep is what is usually charged ; does that accord with your experience ? — We charge 6 d. for buying them ; that is a fair commission. Mr. Paget. 6288. Your commission would be higher upon a fat sheep ? — It would be 9 d. in that case. Chairman. 6289. This charge would be by the Caledonian Railway ? — Yes. 6290. Are you aware whether they have any engagement with the North British Company for the carriage of stock ? — M'e generally find that where the coinjianies compete the rates are similar. 6291. But my informant says that on remon- strating with the Caledonian Company’s traffic manager, he was answered, that their engage- ments with the North British Company jirevented them taking into consideration the reduction of the rate ; do you know whether those companies have agreements betAveen each other ? — I know there is a sort of recognised rate of charge. J knoAV when I put it to them they say that it would be a ruinous comjietition, and 1 think.myself it is only fair that a reasonable rate should be charged. 6292. I only wanted to ask you one question about the matter of bringing dead meat or live meat from GlasgOAv to London ; do you consider that the cliarges of the railway companies, for in- stance, from Aberdeen to London favour one trade in preference to the other? — No, 1 do not think so. 6293. I think you stated that a live animal came up for 25.'?., and a dead animal for 23 5. 7 d.'i — That is so. 6294. I suppose that is a Aalue in the liA’e animal in London over the dead meat ; there is the offal and the skin ?— Yes, but the raihvay companies do not carry that ; they get quit of the carriage of the offal, Avhen it is dead meat they have less Aveight to carry. 6295. Sujijiose you had the option at Aberdeen of slaughtering the animal, or take him up alive, Avouid there be anything that guided you as to sending him uj) alive or dead ? — I Avould be guided very much by the Aveather; if the Aveather Chairman — continued. Avere A'ery hot, I Avould send him uj) alive, and if the Aveather was cold, I Avould send him up dead, according to the market. 6296. You get more profit by sending the animal up dead, if the Aveather Avill alloAv of it ? — It must be so, because the meat trade from Aberdeen is gradually increasing, and the live cattle trade is decreasing. 6297. They can sell the offal better at Aber- deen, can they not, than in London ? — Yes, they can. Lord Randolph Churchill. 6298. But surely the moveability of the animal must be taken into consideration ? — No doubt ; but still it is the fact, that the dead meat trade is superseding the live. 6299. lou told the Committee that the dead meat rate included delivery : — Yes. Mr. Bolton. 6300. M if h regard to the case that Avas mentioned of 1,313 sheep, carried in 29 waggons, for Avhich a charge Avas made of 124 /, 15 s., 1 think the trader considers that they ought to have been carried at 40 /. , or that a profit could haA'e been made at 40 /. ; do 1 understand you to say, that if those were lean sheep, your commission for the purchase of those alone Avould haA'e been 32 /. 13.?. ? — Our charge is 6 d. a head. 6301. And if fat sheep, your charge would have been 49 /. ? — Yes. 6302. So the allegation is that it Avould pay the railway company to carry the sheep from Dalwhinnie to Carlisle for 40 /., Avhereas the simple commission for the purchase of those sheejA, if they had been fat, Avould have been 49 /. ; and 32 /. if they Avere lean? — Yes. Mr. Paget. 6303. ^Vith regard to the question just asked you, I Avould beg to ask youAvhether the amount Avhich you get as commission has anything Avhat- ever to do Avith the raihvay rate? — Nothing Avhatever. 6304. And there is no kind of analogy betAveen the tAvo, and no kind of comjAarison betAveen the tAvo ? — Not in the least. 6305. You Avere asked some questions Avith reference to raising the rates and lowering the rates ; is it not jilain that anything Avhich tends to raise the rate must be against the consumer ? — Certainly. 6306. And anything on the other hand which tends to reduce the rate must be in favour of the consumer ? — Certainly. 6307. In short, that if the' rate from LiA erpool to London Avere 25 s. in each case instead of being 25 s. for the imported foreign meat, and 50 5. for home meat; one rate of 25 5. would be in faAour of the consumer? — Certainly. 6308. You have said that you yourself are not comjdaining ])ersonally, but that you rather think that it Avould bean adAantage by iuci’easing the trade if the rates Avere put on one footing? — If they Avere made uniform. 6309. But your chief ground for coming here is, that the farmers (>f Scotland haA'e largely' conqilained to you ? — Certainly. 6310. And SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 273 19 iViay 1881 .] Mr. Swan. ^Continued. Mr. Paget — continueu. 6310. And you come here as a spokesman on their behalf? — I come here to say that I cannot see why the rates should not be assimilated. 6311. And you speak on behalf of those with whom you have very large dealings ? — Yes. 6312. Your complaint is chiefly the differen- tial rate between home and foreign cattle ; and you assume that the rate for home cattle from Inverness of 8 f. 10 s. a truck is a fair and reasonable rate to London ? — Quite so. 6313. And that if the other Scotch rates were baesd upon the same terms as the Inverness Mr. Paget — continued. rate, you would have no cause of complaint ? — That is so. 6314. You Inform the Committee that the rate from Inverness to London is 8 /. 19 s. a truck for home grown stock, the Glasgow to London foreign rate is 8 /. 2 s. ? — Yes. 6315. You think those are both fair rates ? — Quite so. 6316. If the whole of the Scotch rates were based upon either the Inverness rate of 8 /. 10 s,, or the Glasgow foreign rate of 8 /. 2 s., you would not have any ground for complaint? — I should be perfectly satisfied per mile. Mr. John Saunders, called in; and Examined. Mr. Caine. 6317. You are the proprietor of the Cookley Iron Works, at Kidderminster, are you not ? — Yes ; I am a partner in them. 6318. You are a large manufacturer of tin plates ? — Yes. 6319. And the oldest firm in the district, I think ? — Yes. 6320. You are also President of the Tin- Plate Association of the United Kingdom, I believe ? — I am. 6321. What is the total productive power of the tin-plate trade of the United Kingdom ? — It is above 8,000,000 boxes annually. 6322. Worth 7,000,000 I or 8,000,000 1. ster- ling ? — Yes. 6323. From the situation of the bulk of the tin-plate works, almost all the whole of this traffic is carried by the railway ? — Yes. 6324. The export trade is about 4,500,000 boxes, I think? — Yes. 6325. And those are chiefly exported to America, are they not? — The great bulk of them are exported to America. 6326. Mostly from the ports of Loudon, Liver- pool, and Southampton ? — Yes ; and Bristol. 6327. And a few from Cardiff? — A few from Cardiff and a few from Swansea. 6328. What quantity of this 8,000,000 boxes is made at present in Staffordshire ? — About 400,000 boxes, about 5 per cent, of the total quantity. 6329. Then the balance, the 7,600,000 boxes is made in the South Wales district ? — Yes, in South Wales and Monmouthshire. 6330. Now, I will ask you what the make of tin plates in the year 1858 was, in Staffordshire and Wales respectively ? — In 1858 the total make of the kingdom was about 1,200,000 boxes, Staf- fordshire producing 300,000, and Wales about 900,000. 6331. So that while Staffordshire has only increased its manufacture for those 30 years about 30 per cent., Wales has increased her manufacture 750 per cent? — Yes. 6332. Have you any reason to believe that this disproportionate increase is in anyway due to the railway company having fostered the South Wales trade by exceptionally low rates of car- riage, lower in proportion than they have charged to the Staffordshire trade? — I have reason to believe that the South Wales trade has developed very largely in consequence of the low rates to 0.54. Mr. Caine — continued. Liverpool and Ijondon as compared with South Staffordshire, the distances from South Wales being practically double the Staffordshire dis- tances, while the rates are nominally the same, or even under. 6333. The railway companies have a practical monopoly of all the carrying routes from the mid- land district, have they not? — Yes, they have. 6334. And are enabled to dictate their own rates, defying competition ? — That is so. 6335. There is no other carriage from your district except the railways, the canals being virtually monopolised by the railway companies ? — Quite so. 6336. I understand that your works are a very much shorter distance from London, Liverpool, and Southampton, the three chief ports of the American trade, than are the South Wales works ? — Our distance is considerably shorter. 6337. Will you give the Committee the dis- tances by the shortest routes, and the rates of carriage from Llanelly, Swansea, Neath, and Newport, which I understand are the four great centres of the tin-plate trade, to Loudon ? — From Llanelly to London, a distance of 226 miles, the rate is 18 s. 4cf. a ton. 6338. Will you give the distance and rate from Swansea to London? — The distance is 216 miles, and the rate is 17 s. 6 d. 6339. And the same from Neath? — The dis- tance is 209 miles, and the rate is 17 5. 6 d. 6340. And from Newport ? — The distance is 159 miles, and the rate is 15 s. 10 d. 6341. Now, will you kindly give us the dis- tance and the rate from your works at Cookley to London? — The distance is 148 miles, and the rate is 17 s. 6 d. 6342. Now, [ will ask you to give me the distance from the same districts in South Wales to Liverpool ? — From Llanelly to Liverpool the distance is 187 miles, and the rate is 12 s. 6 d. From Swansea to Liverpool, a distance of 192 miles, the rate is 12 s. 6 c?.; from Neath to Liver- pool, a distance of 201 miles, the rate is 12 s. 6 c?. 6343. And Newport? — Newport is 169 miles from Liverpool, and the rate is 12 a. 6 d. 6344. Will you give the Committee the dis- tance from Cookley to Liverpool by the shortest route ? — It is 108 miles, and the rate is the same, namely, 1 2 s. 6 c?. 6345. So you pay 12 s. 6 a company getting facilities of carrying from a railway company, namely, that that com- pany, or party, should sign Avhat is called a “ risk agreement.” There is an agreement entered into between the railway companies, particularly the Midland Railway Company of Ireland and the companies that they carry at through rates Avith, undertaking cei’tain responsibilities, putting them upon each company separately. I think that is a proper thing to be done, so that there should not be a dispute hereafter. 6616. If four or five companies enter into a sort of partnership for the conveyance of the traffic, the thing to be avoided, I suppose, is a dead lock, and I wish to get your opinion upon the question whether if the principle of arbitration Avere introduced into these conferences, If they are to exist as it is introduced in England, that would not meet the difficulty? — In the con- ference, if there is a dispute about the liability of one comj)any more than another, the matter is referred to the arbitration of the members of the conference, Avho decide it ; that is the process in existence in our conference. 6617. I Avish to ask you whether the intro- duction of a comjnilsory system of arbitration (similar to that Avhich exists with regard to claims), into the fixing of rates and dealing with competition, and so on, Avould not meet your difficulty ? — That is Avhat I say now Avith regard to the raihvay companies. Suppose that another company wishes facilities of carrying in con- junction Avith the raihvay companies, I think it is right, then, that they should sign an agreement either for arbitration, or to fix the liability of each company, under certain circumstances. Of course, if they had not an arbitration, they Avould haA'e the courts of law, which Avould settle it for them ; but the great point I Avish to show is, the injurious effect of the conference upon the trade of the countiy. I have illustrated that by the fact of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Com- pany charging 1 s. d d. for a beast from Dublin to Livei'pool for years and years, whether it be a beast Avorth 4 /. or a beast Avorth 30 1. I say that is Avrong. Then, when Ave go in, commencing to carry these beasts according to their size, Ave are found fault Avith, and put out of the con- ference ; that is the effect of it. 6618. I do not understand you to complain to the Committee in the sense that a conference hoAvever Avell regulated, is not necessary and use- ful, but to complain that in the conference that you SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 287 23 May 1881.] Mr. xMiddleton. ^Continued. Sir Edward Wathin — continued, you had to do with, which does exist at present, and to which you did belong, there is no means of preventing a dead lock? — I think I may ex- plain that the conference is to a certain extent a “league,” and that w^e found ourselves, so to speak, “ Boycotted ” by the conference from carrying a share of the traffic. 6619. If there had been a provision to prevent dead locks, such as I have ventured to suggest, then you would have a|)pealed to that tribunal, and you would not have been “ Boycotted or turned out ? — I only know what did occur ; I cannot say what it would have been under other circumstances ; we have now a line of steamers which have been running regularly twice a week for a year and four months, and now within the last month the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, to try to exterminate us, have put on a steamer between Sligo and Liverpool, and they are carrying now from Sligo to Liverpool cheaply, which they would not do by Dublin. First they would not let us carry our traffic from Dublin to Liverpool, and now they have to come round to Sligo. 6620. Your complaint is that you have been oppressed by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company through the action of the conference ? — That is the effect of it. 6621. And you do not think that the existence of an arbitration, such as exists in the English conferences, would cure the evils which you comjdain of? — I do not think it would ; I know they have tried all they could to Induce Mr. Ted- castle to go into the conference, but he would not come in. We wanted to keep in, but when we wanted to stop in, they turned us out. 6622. What did you mean by saying that when a company reduced upon one section they ought to reduce upon all the other sections ; will you give the Committee an illustration of what you mean by that? — I would say that if the rale from Boyle to Sligo, a distance of 27 miles, is reduced, then that the rate for the same distance between Dublin and Galway, Westport and Ballina, for equal distances, should be put at an equal rate. 6623. Whether or not upon one section there was a large amount of traffic, and upon the other none ? — Yes, they should just take it as it comes. We tried a steamer between Westport and Liverpool, and ran it for some time, but as soon as we did that, the Midland Company reduced the I ate from Westport through to England, and kept them up between the Midland towns and Westport, so we had to quit that; we found that our traffic was drawn by Dublin, and we withdrew it. 6624. Does it come to this, that if a certain arrangement for traffic was made at the rate you named for the 27 miles you spoke of, you would have the same rate for any 27 miles upon the same railway? — To every port upon the same system of railways ; but I think that if the whole system of Irish railways were under one system of management, we would be saved a great deal of money and the public benefited. 6625. You would propose that the State should undertake the management of the rail- ways? — I do not go in for the Government taking 0.54. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. up the working of the raihvays, or acting as mer- chants at all. 6626. You go in for unity ? — I would do so. 6627. You are an advocate, as I understand, for what are called equal mileage rates ? — Notin all cases, because I think that long distances can be carried more cheaply proportionately than short distances. 6628. You would not say that because butter is carried 10 miles from Cork for 10 s., it should be charged 10 times as much for 100 miles ; you would rather divide it into what we have called zones, I presume ? — I would say that up to 20 miles there should be one rate, and up to 50 miles another rate, and beyond that another, because companies can carry for a long distance cheaper than a short one ; the rolling stock is occupied, practically, just as much for the shorter journey as for the longer one. 6629. You would not go in for absolute equality, but rather for equitability ? — That is so ; I merely illustrated my views by the case of Boyle, but the same thing applies to the short distances, such as Ballymote, a distance of 1 2 or 14 miles, and all those near places to Sligo ; they are all very much higher in proportion than the distances at the Dublin end of the line. 6630. The illustration would not be accurate mathematically, but it is a fair illustration of what you wish to convey ? — Yes. Mr. Callan. 6631. What you call the Sligo group is an egg and butter producing country, is it not? — Yes. 6632. And you object to all the rates to Dublin in compai'ison with the rates to Sligo ? — I object to the high rates ; I have illustrated the rate from Ballina to Dublin of 2 /. 7 s. 2 d. as bein< store closes. They get the goods at half-past eight in the morning, 6747. Is it the expense and the trouble that prevented you going before the Raihvay Com- missioners ? — It was rather the tincertainty that deterred us ; we would not hesitate about a little expense. 6748. Do you know that their time is princi- pally taken up on regulating disputes between railway corajianies ? — I think I have seen that the Railway Commissioners have regulated the rates about Belfast very much to the advantage of the public, Mr. Callan. 6749. With regard to the rates from Sligo to Ballaghaderreen, do the company deliver ? — They neither deliver nor collect. 6750. You spoke about the maximum rate from Boyle to Sligo ; do you knoiv what is the rate ; is it not 13 s. 4 s. a ton, and is not that under the maximun rate ? — No : I think it exceeds the maximum rate. 6751. What is the through rate from Boyle to Liverpool in Dublin for butter? — Thirty-eight shillings and ten pence. 6752. It is 38 s. 10 li. to Liverpool, and 13s. 4//. from Boyle to Sligo? — Yes. 6753. How is it that the trader prefers the route from Boyle via Dublin to Liverpool at 38 s. 10 d., to sending in his goods to Sligo at 13 s. 4 d., Avhich Avould give 25 s. 6 d. for convey- ance SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 293 23 May 1881.] Mr. Middleton. [ Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. ance from Sligo to Liverpool ; is it not that lie prefers the long land journey and the short sea to your screw steamer ? — No, it is because the railway rate into Sligo is higher in proportion. 6754. The rate from Boyle to Sligo is 13.t necessary to employ counsel in their court? — I was not aware of that fact, because I noticed at Belfast the parties had counsel from London whom I see in the railway committee-room here. 6834. Were they counsel employed by the railway companies or not ? — They were employed b}^ the railway companies. 6835. You think it is in consequence of the great power which the railway companies have, and the lomr purse which they possess, that so many counsel are employed before the Railway Commissioners ? — Yes, that is so. 6836. Therefore, do I understand you, that it is not so much the action of the Railway Com- missioners, but that it is the action of the railway companies that you complain of, who make that court an expensive one ? — Y"es ; I am not com- plaining of the Railway Commissioners. I only want more power given to the Raihvay Com- missioners, and greater and cheaper facilities for manufacturers and traders to get before them to state their complaints. 6837. I think you stated that you wished the Railway Commissioners to haA^e the poAver of fixing the maximum rates, but do you mean maximum rates irres])ective of the provisions of the statute under Avhich the railway com[)anies fix their rates? 1 believe that if the rates that are fixed by statute were enforced in Ireland it would amount in many cases in connection Avith agricultural produce, to the confiscation of the goods. I look upon it as a very serious blot in connection Avith our railway affairs, that such enormous maximum rates Avere given to the rail- Avay companies in obtaining their Acts. 6838. Then you propose that the Raihvay Commissioners should have the power to revise those maximum rates Avithout fresh lemslation ? — Yes. 6839. Or that this power should be given by the Legislature ? — Where those maximum rates Avere given by statute 30 or 40 years ago, I think the Raihvay Commissioners should have the poAver to revise those rates. 6840. Do you consider that the chamber of commerce should have a locus standi before the Raihvay Commissioners? — Yes, I think that Avould be very desirable. Mr. O' Sullivan. 6841. Are there are complaints in your district Avith regard to the rates charged for agricultural produce genei’ally ? — We have practically no such thing as agricultural produce going over the. line; the rates are almost prohibitory. A large farmer Avrites me : “ On one occasion I offered a very large lot of turnips for conveyance at same rate as Avas charged per Avagon for cattle. This Avas actually refused, and my customer in Bel- fast sujiplied himself from lYigtOAvnshire in Scot- land. The general experience is that local traffic, especially agricultural, is much overcharged and not cultivated.” P 1* 6842. AYherc 298 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 May 1881.] Mr. Dickson. [ Continued. Chairman. 6842. Where is this letter from ? — From the neighbourhood of Dungannon, upon the Great Northern of Ireland Railway. Mr, C Sullivan. 6843. Do you believe that if the agricultural produce of your neighbourhood were brought at a fair rate there would be a good deal of traffic over the railways? — I do. I believe the railway companies are standing in their own light in not developing the agricultural traffic, because the waggons go into tlie interior loaded with bread stuffs, and go back empty. I will just illustrate the rates for agricultural produce : Indian corn is carried for 6 a ton ; tliis is from Donough- more to Belfast, and the value of it is 6 1. 10 5. ; potatoes, valued at 2 1. 10 s. a ton, are charged 7 s. 6 d. ; turnips, only worth 13 s. 4 rf. to 15 s. a ton, are charged 5 s. for 45 miles ; whereas hay and straw, only valued at 2 Z. to 4 /. a ton, are actually charged 20 s. a ton for carriage. 6844. Is there a large amount of produce carried in carts within a radius of 20 miles of Belfast that you think would be carried by rail- Avay if the rates were moderate ? —Yes ; at Porta- down, the junction, I found, on inquiry, that nearly all the agricultural produce coming into Portadown, Avhich is only 24 miles from Belfast, goes by cart. Hay from Portadown to Belfast is carted all the way during the spring, and by that means the farmers have 10 s. to 20 s. for two days’ pay by carting. 6845. Is not flax largely grown in the north of Ireland ? — Yes, it is one of our main crops in the North of Ireland. Chairman. 6846. Are the public generally dissatisfied with the railway charges in Ireland ? — They are; they complain A^ery much that in 1873, at the time Avhen the prices of coal, and iron, and Avages, advanced so much, the increased rates Avhich Avere then put upon both passenger and goods traffic have never been since reduced; the passenger rates certainly have never been re- duced. Ml’. Callan. 6847- Are those complaints local or general ? — I believe I am speaking the opinion of the Avhole of the Province of Ulster. We have only two systems of raihvay in the northern counties. Mr. O' Sullivan. 6848. With regard to the Raihvay Commis- sioners, do you think there should be access given to that court Avithout much expense? — Yes, I do. 6849. Have you any comjilaint to make with regard to the return of empties by raihiay? — I do not knoAV that 1 have. Mr. Cruiy . 6850. Do you kuoAv hoAv much per ton per mile the coal rates arc that you complain of? — hor 40 miles Ave pay 4 .v. ; that is the statlon-to- station rate. AYc pay 5 s. for 42 miles Avhen it is Mr. Craig — continued. put upon the Avagons of the Central Railway Company. 6851. You say that the effect of the classi- fication of iron is very detrimental to the trade there? — Yes, it is very detrimental. 6852. Would you prefer a substitution of the English classification ? — Yes. 6853. You think that Avould be sufficient with- out any further classification? — AVhen I speak of the classification, I do not knoAv anything about the English charges ; it may be that the first- class goods are carried for less than the mineral class in England, but I do not think so ; I think Ave should be enormously benefited if our Irish raihvays Avould adopt the English classification. 6854. You do uotknoAv the comparative effects of the tAvo classifications ? — I do not. 6855. You said that you Avere paying 15 5 . lOd. for the conveyance of pork 40 niiles, and that there Avas a charge of 10 5. for American bacon ; is there any great difference in the quantity ? — The difference in quantity is very much in fa\’our of the pork, because the pork is an enormous traffic. 6856. So that, although the quantity of hams and bacon imported is less than the amount of home pork which is exported, the charge is much higher in the latter case ? — It is so. 6857. Hoav do you account for that?— That is one of the anomalies I cannot account for, but I take it that the pork being brought to the station must go at once ; it cannot go by cart, Avhereas the American bacon is sometimes put on the canal in boxes. 6858. You complain of the conference ; I sup- pose you have found the operation of that in- stitution to be detrimental to trade interests ? — We consider it unfair that railivay managers .should meet in conference in England and decide all questions as to these through rates, what I am to pay for my linen goods from Dungannon to London, Avhereas I am not protected against the French manufacturer, Avho can deliver" his goods in London at about half the price that I can. I Avant no jirotection, I only AA’ant fair rates. 6859; A. ou mean that the raihvay people have it entirely in their own hands ? — That is so. 6860. Having regard simjily to raihvay policy, is there an absolute necessity for such a con- ference to fix the rates? — AAHien the raihvays and steamboats are all united in Avhat Lord Randolph Churchill described as a “ commercial union,” 1 think that for their interests the raihvaA' con- ference or union is absolutely necessary, but I believe that the union acts at present detri- mentally against Irish interests. 6861. But Avherever the union or conference takes action Avhich affects the trading interest, you AA Ould recommend interference on the part of some official ? — I Avould. 6862. W ould you depute it to the Raihvay Commissioners to say that there should not be any conference of that kind unless the Avhole of Avhat Avas done Avas disclosed to the Commis- sioners? — Precisely so. I believe the conference should be under the control of the Raihvay Com- missioners. 6863. AYouid you give the Commissioners the control over their decisions? — 1 Avould, as con- nected Avith classification and rates. 6864. I suppose SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILM’ATS. 299 23 iliay 1881.] Mr. Dickson. ^Continued. Mr. Craig — continued. 6864. I suppose you look upon these con- ferences as having ranch the same effect upon the trade as an ainalgaination ? — I do. 6865. Especially as an amalgamation between one railway company and another is not permitted by Parliament 'without investigation ; as to how far it affects the public interest you would have a similar control over those conferences ?— Yes, I quite think so. I may say that I am in favour of railway amalgamation, and have been, in the north of Irefand as regards consolidating a number of small companies under one management ; but I must say that the ])ublic have been disappointed by the result of railway amalgamation in the north of Iieland, and that they have not been treated in the broad and liberal spirit that they were led to expect. The companies seem to think tliat having the monopoly they may charge what they like. 6866. You would prefer the result of amal- o-amation rather than one of these trade “rings,” who make all their arrangements with regard to rates without public knowledge ?— Yes. A friend of mine was asking for a reduction of the rates some time ago, and he was told that it would be better for him to make a railway for himself. 6867. I suppose you attribute the low rate from Dundee to London entirely to sea competi- tion? — 1 presume it is. 6868. So that wherever there tvas competition against railway companies, there would be no danger of exceptionally high rates prevailing ? — No. 6869. But this competition is entirely destroyed by private arrangement? — It is. 6870. And you tvould strongly object to any of these private arrangements being permitted except under the control of the liailway Com- missioners ? — I would. INIr. Buhon. 6871. Hoav would you prevent railway com- panies agreeing between themselves, Avhat machinery would you suggest by which that should be carried into effect? — If I went before the Railway Commissioners and said, manufac- turers in Dundee can send their goods to London for 41 s. 8 d. per ton, whereas I am charged by the conference for a less distance 52 s. 6 d; ; I say the Railway Commissioners should take cognizance of that fact and not allow the conference to overcharge me. 6872. In other words you would authorise the Commissioners to fix the rates from one place to another all through the kingdom ? — I would authorise the Railway Commissioners not to allow manufacturers in the north of Ireland to be placed at a serious disadvantage compared with competitors in Dundee, Forfar, and other places. 6873. Would you give the Commissioners a general and not a specific power? — A general power. 6874. What general power would you give them, would you give them power to fix the rates from eveiy place to every other place in the kingdom ? — I believe that all the rates should be under the control of the Railway Commis- sioners. 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. 6875. I believe you are aware that every Act of Parliament contains a schedule of rates which the railway companies cannot exceed without incurring a suspicion of illegality; would you give the Commissioners power to reduce those rates? — I would give the Commissioners jjower to reduce the rates which ■n'ere put in an Act of Parliament 30 or 40 years ago. 6876. Would you give them power to increase the rate ? — I am not aware that there is any case in which tliey could increase. 6877. Then you are not aware that a Com- mittee of the House of Commons only last week permitted a railway company to increase its maximum rates ? — I "was not aware of that ; may I ask what case that was?. 6878- 9. That was the Great North of Scotland Railway Conqiany. You think that the expense of going before the Railway Commissioners is so great that only public companies could go before them ? — That is so. 6880. Have you looked over the list of cases which have been taken before the Railway Com- missioners? — I looked over the nine cases decided last year. 6881. Not more than that? — No. 6882. Will you take that in your hand and count how many of those cases taken before the Railway Commissioners in 1876 wei’e taken by public companies, and how many by private individuals {lianding a list to the Witness) ? — I could not say that, because “ Lees versus tlie Lancashire and Yorkshire Company ” might represent a very powerful limited company. 6883. Take the next, Mr. Palmer ; do you know whether he is representative of any com- pany ? — I do not know that. 6884. Take the next ? — f The Witness examined the list). I could not say who they are, or what their claims were. 6885. Now, your statement was that the cost of going before the Railway Commissioners was so great, as practically to preclude private indi- viduals from going to that court ; I presume you are satisfied from looking at the result of 1876, and you may take any other year you please, that you were wrong in that impression, because I think you will find that in 1876, there is no case taken before the the Railway Commissioners except cases of private individuals? — Ido not know anything about 1876. I am now giving evidence in connection with Ulster, and I do not know any case of a private individual in Ulster going before the Railway Commissioners ■with a complaint. 6886. The experienee of the action of English private traders, must prove to the Ulster people, that it is quite possible for a private ti’ader to go before the Railway Commissioners ? — Perhaps so, 6887. Now, you said that the Irish trader would be enormously benefited if the classification in Ireland were assimilated to that in England ? — Yes, I think so. 6888. Are you quite positive that the classifi- cation, although under a different name, is not already assimilated? — I could not say that. 6889. Would you tell me the rates, under classification 1, in the Irish scale? — The rates tinder classification 1, ai'c mineral rates, but I P P 2 should 300 MINUTES OP EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 Jiay 1881.] Mr. DlCKSOls. \ Continued. ]Mr. Bolton — continued. should mention that we know nothing at all about tlie Irish railway rates, in connection with classification. If you ask a railway company in Ireland, under Avhat class are they carrying coal, or grain, or hour, they simply say, “ That is not your business ; our rate is so-and-so ; ” but they do not give you any information as to the class. 6890. But you told the Committee that you thought the Irish traders would be greatly benehted if the Irish classihcatiori were assimi- lated to the English ; upon what ground do you make that statement? — Coal is carried in Ireland at the hrst-class rate, whereas in England it is not only cari'ied under the special, but under the mineral rate. 6891. Are you quite sure that the Irish hi’st- class and the English minei'al rate are not the same ? — I am sure that no English company charge 5 s. for carrying coal 40 miles. 6892. I ask, are you quite sure that the Irish first class and the English mineral rate are not the same ? — 1 am satisfied they are not. 6893. But you cannot tell the Committee the rates under any Irish classification, nor the rates under any English classification ? — I cannot. 6894. It is merely an impression of ymurs ?■ — When I see articles rated in the Irish book as fifth class, and when I see them in the English book as third class, I know that the difference is very much in favour of the English classifica- tion. 6895. But you are not aware Avhether or not the Eiiijlish classification under the letter “ M,” and the Irish classification under the No. “1,” are not quite the same? — I believe that English “ M ” rate refers simply to coal, iron, and manures, and that is a special rate ; and that the goods under the M ” rate are carried at a very low price, and that in no nay do they' compare with the first-class Irish rate. 6896. I think you told the Committee that bricks in Ireland Avere fourth class ? — Bricks, common, are first class in Ireland, and in Eng- land in Class “ M.” Fire bricks (we have only one place in Ireland where they are made) are put in the second class; they are “M” class in Eng- land. Earthenware pipes I said were fourth class in Ireland, while they are special in England. Sewerage pipes are third class in Ireland, and special class in England. 6897. 1 think you will see that the first class consists of those articles which are In the mineral class in England {handing the Irish Kate Book to the Witness) ‘t — Yes; that is so, and I see also that in tiiis first class Irish rate we have all the items that are carried to the “ M ” class in Eng- land. 6898. You spoke of some person who had entered into a contract to su])pl}^ turnips? — Not with me, but I si)oke of the complaint of a gentleman farmer, who farms some hundred acres of land ; he m anted a special rate for turnips from Donoughmore to Belfast, a distance of 4i miles, lie offered for the carriage of turnips the same rate as that charged for cattle ])cr wagon: those would be six-ton wagons; the railway company' refused tiiis facility', and the buyer supplied himself from NA’igtownshire. Mr. Bolton — continued. 6899. How' were the turnips taken from Wig- townshire * — They were taken Iroai Wigtown- shire to Belfast by sea. 6900. He wanted to use the turnips at Bel- fast, did he not ? — Belfast was the market. 6901. What do you argue from that? — I consider it a disgrace to Irish railway' manage- ment tint a fai'iner in Wigtownshire can deliver to Belfast cheaper than a farmer 40 miles from the port. 6902. What was the distance from AYigtovvn- shire? — 100 miles, I should say. 6903. Do not y'ou think it possible to carry 100 miles by sea, cheaper than 44 miles by' rail- way?— I n^o, I do not think so. Mr. O' Sullivan. 6904. Did not the farmer ofler for the carriage of turnips as much as the comjiany' charge for the carriage of cattle? — He did; he offered just as much as the charge for the carriage of cattle, hay, and straw. IMr. Bolton. 6905. Do you know tire distance from Port- jiatrick to Belfast? — I do not know the exact distance. 6906. You have stated that in 1873 thei'e ivas a gradual increase in the rates? — There w’as not a gradual increase, but a very sudden and emphatic one. 6907. Are those rates still the same ?— There has been no alteration in the passenger rates? — I think that within the last six or twelve months on the whole the rates for goods are easier under certain circumstances. 6908. Is this a matter of impression on your part, or a matter of fact? — A matter of fact. 6909. What were the rates in 1873 for the same class of goods, and what are the rates now? — I could not say' ; I only' know as a manufac- turer, giving large sums to the railway company' every month, that I am paying as much for my' goods as I w'as in 1873. 6910. A^ou mean that the rates now are practi- cally' the rates which were charged in 1873? — A"es, that the rates now charged are the same as the advanced rates of 1873. 6911. What quantity do you send now by the railway company ? — My traffic w'ith the railway company' is, I think, from about 100 /. to 1 20 1. a month. 6912. What is your tonnage? — I could not say. 6913. Then how do you know that the rates are the same as those which you jiaid in 1873? — In mv account furnished me every' month I have the rates. 6914. But you are telling us as a fact that there has been no reduction of the rates, and you tell the Committee as a proof of that that you pav the same amount now that you paid in 1873 : but you may carry' ten times the tonnage now for all we know ! — 1 am not carrying any' more than I was carrying then. I cannot tell you the number of tons actually, but tb.e charges have fixed themselves in mv mind. 6915. But SELECT COMMITTEE ON BAILWAYS. 301 23 May 1881.] Mr. DiCKSON. {^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued, 6915. But unfortunately you do not tell tlie Committee -what are the rates charged per ton either? — I have stated to the Committee that the advanced charges 1 paid in 1873, I am still continuing to pay. 6916. Will you give the Committee any in- stances in figures? — Take linens and yarns, which Avere charged 10 5 . a ton for 40 miles to Belfast. I am paying that rate still. 6917. Did you ever pay less ? — No._ 6918. Then that cannot be one of the rates that were raised in 1873: did you pay less be- fore 1873 ? — I do not say Ave Avere, but I think for other goods Ave Avere paying less. Mr. Caine, 6919. Do you knoAV anything of the mineral traffic with the north of Ireland ? — 1 know the mineral traffic to Belfast is coal. 6920. And you complain of the inward rates of freight for those coals to your Avorks ; is that so? — No; fortunately Ave have coal raised in the neighbourhood ; it is the only place in the north of Ireland Avhere coal is raised. We get common Irish coal locally Avlthin a mile of my Avorks, so that except for gas and house con- sumption, myself and other manufacturers use the home coal. The rates Ave pay for Imported coal are 5 s. from the ship’s side, and 1 s. for delivery for the, 44 miles. 6921. What do you mean by 1 s. for delivery ? — When the coal arrives at Dungannon station the railway company carts them about a quarter of a mile to our Avorks. 6922. Does that charge include the hire of wagons? — Yes; Ave have no such thing in Ire- land as a private trader supplying wagons. 6923. Do you knoAv anything of the rates for iron ore to Belfast ? — I do not. 6924. You do not knoAV them so as to be able to compare them Avith the rates on coal? — I do not. Sir Edward Wathin. 6925. With regard to the gas coal, you spoke of that as being carried in the company’s Avagons? — It is. 6926. Where did that coal come from ; ex ship, of course ? — It Avas ex ship. 6927. Who put the coal into the Avagons? — It is put into the Avagons out of the ship on the Belfast Central Railway. 6928. The raihvay company put the coal in the wagons, do they not?— Not at all. Who- ever unloads the coal at Belfast pays so much a ton craneage for putting it into the wagon. 6929. That is plus the 5 s, ? — It is. 6930. The rallAvay company finds the siding for the Avagon to stand on Avhile it is being loaded, does it not? — Yes. 6931. Did the raihvay company put in a siding at the gasAvorks? — No, Ave Avent to the expense of 600 Z, or 700 Z. in putting in thesidinsr. and although the railway goes past the gas- Avorks and everything is ready for putting in the siding for the last tAvo years, aac have been x’e- fused over and over again a siding, and Ave have had. to pay 1 s. a ton cartage, althoimh the 0.54. Sir Edward Wathin — continued, boundary of our works is the land of the railway company. 6932. Then you Avould have to pay 65 .? — Yes. 6933. Y^ou stated that you would be disposed in many cases to go before the RaihAaiy Commis- sioners, but thought that you Avould not on account of the expense ; will you kindly men- tion to the Committee the grievance Avhich you could have taken before the Railway Commis- sioners? — I am not here to stale a particular grievance. I am only here to state the case on broad lines and not to state any particular griev- ance ; I get on as well Avith the railway com- pany as anyone else, and do not fight Avith them, but my own personal complaint, if I may mention any such thing, is that I have sidings to my Avorks, and yet although I load and unload my OAvn goods, I pay the same rate as is paid to the station farther on Avhere all the labour is sup- plied by the railw'ay company ; so that I have no benefit Avhatever from my sidings, but pay exactly the same rates. I had special rates from the company to my sidings in 1873, before the Railway Commissioners Avere appointed, by Act of Parliament. The moment the Railway Com- missioners Avere appointed I Avas told by the rail- Avay company that special rates must cease, and my rates Avere put up to the public rates. 6934. That is to say, the company finding that they might be compelled to do the same favour for everybody that they did foryou,Avere obliged to put an end to the favourable eonditions Avhich you then enjoyed? — Yes ; only that I found my rates Avere so excessive, that instead of brinMnir me up to the public rate they might Avell have loAvered the public rate to luy scale. I have been consequently a serious loser from my con- ditions having been altered. 6935. Now with regard to this Great Northern of Ireland Railway, I think you had a line from Dungannon to CookstoAvn, had you not ? — Yes. 6936. Did you not sell it to this monopolising company ? — I was a promoter of a very important link of 14 miles, to connect the tAvo raihvay systems of the North of Ireland, and after six or seven years Avorking, trying to get that 14 miles of raihvay made, I at last succeeded, although both companies opposed to the very utmost the making of that line ; neither of them could agree as to Avho should make this line, when myself and a friend stejxped in and solved the difficulty by getting an Act of Parliament, although the raihvay companies gave us all the opposition in their poAver. As soon as we got the Act of Parliament and the Avorks wei’e actually com- menced, the Great Northern Railway Com- pany of Ireland comes in and buys our Act of Parliament and takes over the Avorks. Our friends in Cookstown, Avhich is 54 miles by the Great Northern, and 54 miles by the Nortlicrn Counties Company from Belfast, thought they Avould have the advantage of tAvo ways of send- ing their goods from Cookstown to Belfast, but before the line Avas opened to CookstOAvn both companies put their heads together and divided the traffic, so that the public have reaped no advantage in lower rates whatever from the con- struction of that line. p P 3 6937. And 302 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 May 1881.] Mr. Dickson. \_Continued. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. 6937. And in point of fact you would hardly say with the last witness that there is a benefit and good policy in uniting instead of dividing the railways of Ireland ? — I believe there w'ould be great advantage in uniting the I’ailways of Ire- land, if they were conducted in a liberal spirit and under a liberal policy, but not under the narrow and contracted system under which they are now managed. 6938. I suppose I am right in saying that the credit of the companies, which is an element of the costs, cannot be maximised so long as tliey are divided as they are ; that is to say, that little companies cannot borrow so cheaply as big ones ? — There are no railways in England or the Avorld which have better credit than the Ulster railways, the Northern Counties Eailway for years paid a dividend of 7| per cent., and the Great Northern Company paid for years a divi- dend of 6 per cent., and even now with all the present dejiression they are paying 4-j per cent. 6939. I only Avanted to gather whether you are in favour of continued disintegration or of the union of Irish Railways ? — I am in favour of the union of the Irish Railways Avith extended poAvers being given to the Railway Commis- sioners. I consider that a great political mistake, not merely a commercial mistake, Avas made by the Government not taking up the Avhole of the raihvay system in Ireland and extending it. 6940. Noav Avith regard to your proposed remedies; you comjdain, I think first of all, that the classification of goods in Ireland is more severe against the trader than the classification In use in England? — Yes. 6941. I am informed that these are the facts : that in the English classification the mineral class corresponds Avith the first class in Ireland, and that the special class In England corresponds with the second class in Ireland ; the first in England Avith the third in Ireland ; the second Avith the fourth ; the third Avith the fifth ; and the fourth with the sixth class in Ireland ? — I could not say that, but I Avould venture to say that bleaching powder is three times in Ire- land Avhat it is England, no matter how the class may correspond. Mr. Cross. 6942. What is the rate for bleaching powder in Ireland ? — It is 8 s. 4 <7. a ton for 40 miles. Sir Edward Wathin. 6943. You said that you thought there ought to be a revision of the classification for raihvay carriage, and of the maximum rates, Avithout further legislation? — Y"es, if it is possible. 6944. Are you not aAvare that both the Eng- lish and the Irish railway companies have made their lines ujAon the distinct system of poAver to charge? — I am. 6945. Would you, Avithout going to Parliament at all, and giving them the poAver of being heard, leave to any body, and that a political body, the ])Ower to alter and revise those rates? — I believe the circumstances of the carriage of goods, and tlie excessive foreign competition to Avhich the Sir Edward Wathin — continued. country is now subjected, demand a revision of the rates alloAved by Parliament -as maximum rates 30 or 40 years ago, and that the old rates should now be considered as ob.solete. I have no wish to injure raihvay property ; on the other hand, I should be glad to see shareholders getting a good dividend. 6946. I presume you Avill agree that the time has come Avhen the classification requires re- vision ? — I do. 6947. Do you Avish to do that over the heads of the railway companies, or as part of the same general treaty between the Government and the railway companies, aa'IucIi Avould be bene- ficial to all parties? — I think that it Avould be A'ery arbitrary to do it against the Avish of the railway companies, but that it should be done in a liberal manner; 6948. You think that if any alteration of the rates, in consequence of competition, is carried out, it should be done in a large and liberal manner? — I do distinctly. 6949. I find that you are right about the chemicals; that they are much cheaper in Eng- land than in Ireland, and that the charge operates against the producer in Ireland? — So I had ex- pected. Then Mr. Bolton asked me a question about the rates as between 1873 and the present time, which I Avas unable to answer at the mo- ment. Noaa", in 1872, the rate from Belfast to Dungannon for tow Avas 7 s. 6 cf. a ton ; the rate was adAmnced in 1873 to 10 s. a ton, and it still remains at 10 s. a ton. 6950. We Avere speaking about flax, and you stated that there Avas a rate of 21 s. 8(7. upon home-groAvn flax, as against 18 s. 8 (7. upon the flax from Ghent ? — Y es. 6951. I suppose that the rate for flax from Ghent is so Ioav, because if it Avere not carried at that price it Avould go by Avater ? — Yes, I jAre- sume so. 6952. Is it not a benefit to the local manu- facturer that he should get his raw material cheaply? — Quite so; but I complain that our flax groAvers in Donegal should be charged such an enormous rate. The rate from Stran- orlar to Belfast is 21s. 8(7.; but, in order to diminish that the Stranorlar buyer sends first the flax to Derry, 30 or 40 miles north, and then it is re-booked to Belfast from Derry at 18 s. 8 d., the Avhole distance, so that it is carried to Belfast at 3 s. a ton less, taking it in that way, than if he booked it direct. 6953. Does not that shoAV that a revision of the classification would be a very fair and jmoper thing to direct our attention to? — Certainly. iMr. Bariies. 6954. Do you suppose that alteration Avould have come about if this Committee had not sat ? — Certainly not; Ave would be told to make rail- Avays for ourselves. 6955. Did that adAmnce on tlie rate in 1873 include everything? — Y^es, everything; the first-class passenger fare Avas increased from 10 s. to 1 1 s. 8 rf. for 40 miles, and that still remains. 6956. And that applies to goods and minerals? — Y’es. 6957. Y'^ou complained of the maximum rates being SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 303 23 May 1881.] Mr. Dickson. * [ Continued. Mr. Barnes — continued. being too high as fixed by Act of Parliament ? — Yes. 6958. Do the companies, as a rule, charge up to those rates? — -I do not think they do, because the maximum rates chargeable upon the Irish lines in many cases are enormous. 6959. Do you know what the maximum rate is upon this coal that you spoke of? — I do not ; 1 did not compare the maximum rates. 6960. You do not know whether the 5 s. for 40 miles is over the maximum rate? — I am quite sure it is not. 6961. Do you know the number of cases which have been brought before the Railway Commis- sioners in Ireland by private parties ; I believe none ? — That is so. 6962. Do you attribute that to fear? — Yes; not to fear with reference to the success of the application, but as to the consequences which might arise afterwards. Mr. Callan. 6963. You spoke of a manufacture of tiles and bricks at Coal Island ? — Yes. 6964. Before the Great Northern Railway was made. Coal Island had a reputation for the manu- facture of that commodity ? — The fire-clay raised at Coal Island is equal to Stourbridge in point of its endurance under heat, and it makes capital fire-bricks and sanitary goods of all kinds. 6965. Though you cannot speak exactly as to the facts from your own knowledge, still you would be acquainted generally with the facts from living in the district ; at the time you made or projected that railway from Cookstown to Coal Island, did Mr. Devlin complain that instead of the railways facilitating him, they opened up the local district to English and Scotch manufac- turers, and closed them against himself ? — I could not go that length ; I only know with regard to Mr. Devlin’s case that I interceded with the Great Northern of Ireland Railway Company on behalf of Mr. Devlin to develope this local manu- factory ; my impression is that the Chairman of the Great Northern Company conceded a rate for these fire-clay goods of 1 d. per ton a mile, adding, I think, 1 s. for some other charges. Mr. Devlin was perfectly satisfied with that arrangement. Then when they came to work out that arrange- ment the railway company only applied it to bricks and solid heavy goods, whereas sanitary goods, which have now come into such demand, were put under a prohibitory rate, second, third, or fourth class. What I understood, was, that the railway companies should 'carry sanitary goods and coarse pipes, and if there were only two tons in a wagon to charge for six, but to give the manufacturer still the advrintage of 1 d. per ton a mile, charging as for a full wagon load. Sir Edward Watliin. 6966. A wagon rate, in fact? — Yes, a wagon rate, no matter whether the soods were solid or hollow. Mr. Callan. 6967. Omagh formerly was at the junction of 0.54. Mr. Callan — continued. two systems, was it not? — Omagh was formerly the junction between the Irish North Western and the Londonderry and Enniskillen. 6968. Since the two railways have been amal- gamated, has the rate been increased or de- creased ? — I could not say. What I stated was that while the rate for flax from Derry was 10 s. a ton, the rate from Omagh, which is nearer Bel- fast by 30 miles, is 14 s. 2 d. 6969. Do you state as a fact that flax for Bel- fast from Stanoi’lar is taken at the local rate into Londonderry, and then brought for some 18 or 20 miles back over the same road into Belfast at a cheaper rate? — Yes, for 3s. a ton less. 6970. So that a Stranorlar man would book his flax first to Derry? — Yes. 6971. And then from Derry to Belfast via, the Great Northern Railway? — Yes. 6972. Retaking it over 20 miles of the same road ? — Yes, precisely so, for 3 s. less. 6973. The last few years a great deal of atten- tion has been dmected to the sending of agri- cultural produce over the northern railways ; have you made any calculation, or in any way entered minutely into the subject, as to Avhat additional value it would be per acre to the farmers to have these increased facilities for agricultural pi’oduce ? — Taking districts in Donegal, you can convey bread stuffs from America to Londonderry at about one-half the rate that you can from Londonderry into the interior of county Donegal. It takes more to convey produce from Donegal to its market in Londonderry, than it does from America to Londonderry. 6974. Take the corn growing district of Donegal, the Finn Valley; that is served by railway, is it not ? — Yes, to Stranorlar. 6975. You say it would cost more to carry bread stuff to Stranorlar than from America ? — No, not to Stanorlar; I was speaking of the districts not served by the railways. 6976. Is the charge which is made for potatoes from Donoughmore, which is an agricultural station west of Dungannon, a prohibitive charge ? — The rate is 7 s. 6 d. for potatoes. 6977. Is the rate prohibitive ? — It is prohibi- tive from that station ; I do not think there is any potato traffic from that station at all, because the rate from Dungannon is 2 s. lower. 6978. Would you say that the charges for agricultural produce upon the Great Northern Railway are detrimental to the agricultural interests of that part of the country ? — I do, because I say it is perfectly impossible for hay and straw, worth between 2 /. and 3 /. a ton, to bear a charge of 20 s. a ton for that short dis- tanee. 6979. You stated that the rate for potatoes was 7 s. 6 c?. from Donoughmore to Belfast, a distance of 44 miles ; that is about twice as much as the charge for potatoes would be from the same dis- trict by the through rate to London ? — That is so. 6980. Have you heard of complaints of prefer- ences given to Belfast against Dundalk and Newry ? — I have heard that complaints have been made from Newry ; I know their conjplaint is that facilities are not given for the conduct of the traffic. p p 4 6981. What 304 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 May 1881.] ’ Mr. DiCKSON. \^Conlmued. Mr. Callan — continued. 6981. What is the rate for flax between Stra- bane and Belfast? — 14s. 2d. 6982. What is the distance ? — Eighty-six miles. 6983. Are you aAvare that great dissatisfaction exists along the Great Northern Railway with regard to the excessive charges for agricultural produce? — Upon the railway system of Ulster there are no facilities, given for sending agricul- tural produce at a moderate rate. 6984. So far as you have known does there seem to be at present any anxiety to meet those complaints, or to develope the requirements of these districts ? — I do not see any change in the last three or four years, that 1 am aware of. Mr. Nicholson. 6985. You have chambers of commerce con- nected with the linen industries of the North of Ireland, have you not? — Yes, and in Belfast. 6986. Has the subject for excessive rates been discussed at Belfast ? — At the last meeting I attended of the chamber of commerce the rates were discussed, but it was no use discussing them till the Committee Avere sitting, as the discussion would have done no good. 6987. I suppose the chamber of commerce would make itself acquainted with the railway company charging in excess of its rates ? — Their attention would be directed to that fact noAv. 6988. But hitherto it has not been ? — Hitherto it has not been. 6989. Is it your opinion that the terminal charges should be separate from the carrying rates? — Yes, I think so, so that aa^c could see the rate per mile for carrying goods. 6990. You think that the carrying rates ought ahvays to be separate from the terminals ? — Yes. 6991. In the course of your evidence you stated that you had put a siding into your Avorks, and that the raihvay company Avould not alloAv you any reduction for the use of that siding ?■ — I pay the same rate, although I pay for loading and unloading. 6992. If you had applied to the RaihA^ay Com- missioners they Avould have alloAved a reduction, I presume? — Yes, but in employing counsel to make out ymur case, you might easily expend more than the reduction Avould be Avorth to you. 6993. In point of fact, you are of opinion that it Avould be well for such a body as your chamber of commerce to have a locus standi be- foi’e the Raihvay Commissioners, Avhere they could fight the Avhole battle ? — I certainly think so. Mr. Paget. 6994. You stated to the Committee that in the opinion of the people of the north of Ireland, the Raihvay Commissioners are an expensive tribunal to come before? — In our opinion (avo may be Avrong) they are expensive and inaccess- ible ; they arc quite beyond the ordinary traders’ reach. 6995. In your opinion the Raihvay Com- missioners ought to be niore accessible and less costly ? — That is my opinion. As I said, I do not knoAv anything about the assistant com- Mr. Paget — continued. missloners ; I see them in the Act ; they may not be appointed, but I think if assistant com- missioners would look after the grievances in connection Avith private traders and manufac- turers it Avould reiilly open up the Avhole case before the Raihvay Commissioners, and we Avould have then a tribunal easy of access, just as Ave make complaints to the Local Government Board in Dublin, and they send doAAm a com- missioner to inquire Avithout putting us to any expense Avliatever. 6996. You have no objection to the raihvay companies combining to facilitate traffic and grant through rates? — No, I think it Avould be a great advantage under supervision. 6997. But you object to the “Ring”? — I object to the raihvay “ Ring” sitting in London or elseAvhere and fixing my rate to London, and making that rate in many cases a very serious loss to me, and prohibitory of my trade. 6998. Is the secrecy of the arrangement one of your objections? — Yes, the secrecy of the classification : vou could not get a classification book in Ireland. I do not knoAv any one Avho could get the Irish classification to look at the rates. I knoAv the difficulty I had in getting one myself. I could only get it surreptitiously. 6999. You think that if these raihvay com- binations exist, they should act under open and recognised rules ? — Yes, under the control of the Raihvay Commissioners. 7000. And that the Raihvay Commissioners Avould be able to prevent any kind of combination from excluding a raihvay or giving a particular preference to any one line? — Certainly, Ave only Avant an equal mileage rate for proper distances. Mr. Cross. 7001. You gave the Committee the rate from Lille to London as coming into competition Avlth your rate from Dungannon ? — The rate from Lille to London for linen goods is 28 s. 9 d. a ton. 7002. Could you tell me Avhat the railway carriage Avould be upon that in France? — Those goods would come from Lille to Boulogne, and then across the channel I suppose from Boulogne into Folkestone and so through London. 7003. Do you knoAv the French rates? — The rate from Lille to Boulogne is 13 s. 9 c?. a ton. Chairman. 7004. I think it Avould appear from the notes that it is rather your opinion that the Railway Commissioners should alter the rates Avhich have been fixed by Act of Parliament ; is that so? — Yes, I believe that the rates which have been fixed by Act of Parliament, a great many years ago, should be revised. 7005. And that they should be revised by the RailAA-ay Commissioners ? — Yes, that the Raihvay Commissioners should have the power to revise the rates. 7006. Do you mean all the rates that have been fixed by Parliament? — Yes, under the authority of Parliament of course, as I have stated to Sir EdAvard Watkin, that this should not be done in an arbitrary Avay, independently of the raihvay companies, but that they should certainly SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 305 23 May 1881.] Mr. Dickson. {^Continued. Chairman — continued. certainly have a voice In the matter. But when I am talking about the old Acts of Parliament, I am talking about rates Avhich were obsolete many years ago, which no railway company practically could or dare enforce. 7007. Are there many trains in the day from Portadown to Belfast? — Tes, a great number. 7008. And in the night? — Yes- 7009. Are you in business yourself? — I am, as a manufacturer. 7010. In what business? — In the linen trade. 7011. I suppose the linen trade does not come together and fix the prices of their goods? — No, I wish we could. 7012. Do water companies or gas companies do so? — No; there are no trade combinations that I know of. Mr. Mulholland. 7013. Sir Edward Watkin asked you whether the classification of the Irish railways and the English railways was not really the same, although nominally different ; that is to say, that the classes have different denominations, but that if you allowed for that the classes were really identical ; do you know how the maximum rate corresponds in that case for the same series of goods with that in England — I do not ; I only mentioned one case in connection with chemicals, namely, bleaching powder and dyewoods ; we pay third class for those goods in Ireland, whereas in England the goods are conveyed at the special rate, showing that the special rate in England must be considerably lower than what we pay in Ireland. 306 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Thursday^ 26th May 1881. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Mr. Caine. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Craig. Mr. Cross. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Samuel Morley. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Mr. Phipps. Mr. Sclater-Booth. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Thomas Alexander Dickson, re called. Chairman. 7014. There are two Questions, Nos. 6598 and 6599, to which you replied upon the last occasion of your examination, that you did not know what the maximum rates chargeable in Ireland were ; you have now something which you want to sup- plement that by, have you not ? — Yes, I was asked if the companies charged up to their maxi- mum rates, and 1 stated that I thought they did not, because the maximum rates were enormous, but in reply to Mr. Barnes I could not give what the maximum rates for coal were upon some of Mr. John Greenhill, Mr. Mulholland. 7015. You are a mex’chant in general business in Belfast, I believe ? — I am. 7016. Have you been there for a considerable length of time ? — I have, for about 23 years. 7017. From the nature of your business, are you brought into contact to a great extent with the different railways in the north of Ireland? — I am. 7018. And your business is to a great extent, I presume, dependent upon the rates charged ? — That is so. 7019. Perhaps you would mention to the Com- mittee the nature of your business? — We do a large trade in artificial manure, having 134 agents in -the North of Ireland, and we represent large American flour millers, and w'e also import coal largely, being agents for Messrs. William Baird & Company, of Glasgow, and also coke. 7020. Do you im])ort coals solely for the con- sumption of Belfast, or do you send it over the North of Ireland railways? — We send it very largely into the interior of the country, as there is, practically, no fuel in the interior of the country. 7021. Would you say it was very important to the industries in the interior of the country that Chairman — continued. the Irish Northern Railways ; I have obtained that information, and I find that the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway maximum rate, authorised by their Act of 1845, for coal, is d. a ton. Upon the Great Northern of Ireland the railway rate is 2 J. a ton, so that the Northern Counties Railway Company have authority under Act of Parliament to charge 14 s. 7 d. a ton for carrying coal 50 miles, and unless they exceeded that charge, we would have no right to appear before the Railway Commissioners to complain. called in ; and Examined. Mr. Mulholland — continued. they should have this coal supplied cheaply ? — Yes, undoubtedly so. 7022. Do you complain of the rates charged by the North of Ireland railways? — Yes, the rates are very high in some cases, and they are very iri’egular. 7023. You do not say that the rates are above the maximum rates that the companies are allowed to charge? — No, the maximum rates are very high indeed ; I do not think the charges are above the maximum rates. 7024. Have you any instances w'hich you could give the Committee of the rates that you complain of ? — Yes, from Belfast Quays to Armagh, a distance of 39 miles, the rate is 3 s. 6 d. a ton for coal for the whole distance. From Belfast Quays to Ballinderry, a distance of 17 miles, the rate is also 3 s. 6 J. a ton; but I should remark that the rate from Belfast Quays to Armagh was fixed by the Railway Commis- sioners some few months ago. 7025. And you complain that the rate to Ballinderry, not half the distance, is as high as the rate to Armagh? — Yes, and in comparing it with the English rates, I find it very excessive indeed. 7026. That SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 307 26 May 1881.] Mr. Greenhill. [ Continued. Mr. MulhoUand — continued. 7026. That is about 2| d. a ton a mile, is it not? — It is. Now I take the rate from Wigan to Chester, a distance of 36 miles, and that is only 2 s. 6 c?. a ton. 7027. Then the Irish rate to Ballinderry, for a distance of not more than half of the English distance, is 1 s., or 2 s. 6 d. greater ? — It is. 7028. Have you any other rate to mention to the Committee as an instance of a high or irregular rate? — Yes, from Belfast Quays to Monaghan, a distance of 55 miles, the rate is 4 s. 8 of. per ton for coals ; this rate was fixed by the Railway Commissioners a few months ago ; then from Belfast Quays to Glasslough, a dis- tance of 49 miles, the rate is 5 s. 3 d. Mr. Bolton. 7029. Was that rate also fixed by the Railway Commissioners ? — No, not in the last case. Mr. MulhoUand. 7030. When the Railway Commissioners fixed the rate you have mentioned, was it a reduction upon the rates previously existing ? — It was. 7031. Could you not have brought before them the cases that you quote as being out of pro- portion to those ; was there any special reason why they reduced the rate to Monaghan and Armagh, and did not reduce the rates that are of a relatively higher tariff? — I'his was an applica- tion made to the Railway Commissioners by another railway company ; but we, as merchants, had nothing to say to it. 7032. Do you wish to mention any other in- stances to the Committee ? — From Belfast Quays to Clones, a distance of 67 miles, the rate is 6 s. 6 rf. a ton. From Belfast Quays to Omagh, a distance of 66 miles, the rate is 7 s. 9 <£. a ton, and I find that from Wigan to Stafford, almost the same distance, 65 miles, the rate is 3 s. per ton. 7033. Again, the Irish rate is more than double ? — Yes ; the rate from Belfast to Omagh is more than the rate from Wigan to London, 220 miles, which is 7 s. 1 d. 7034. Is it the result of your experience that these high rates operate as an obstacle to the coal trade in the North of Ireland ? — Un- doubtedly they hinder its development. 7035. Are those all the places which you wish to mention to the Committee ? — There is the in- stance of Larne to Antrim, a distance of 31 miles, and the charge is 3 s. 7036. Do you mention that as being lower than the rates from Belfast? — No; I wish to make a comparison with that. That is 3 s. for a distance of 31 miles. Now, from Belfast to An- trim, a distance of 22 miles, the rate is also 3 s., which is an injustice to Belfast. 7037. Thei-ate from Larne is lower, in propor- tion to^the distance, tlian the rate from Belfast Tes; and is typical of several other stations, but I give you that one as a sample of several others. 7038. You, as a Belfast merchant, complain that the I’ates from Larne to the interior are lower, relatively to the distance carried, than they are from Belfast? — Yes; I would beg to mention another instance, and rather a glaring one. From Larne to Castle Dawson, a distance 0.54. Mr. MulhoUand — continued, of 50 miles, the rate is 4 s. 9 d. ; and from Bel- fast t<^ Castle Dawson, a distance of 41 miles, the rate is 4 s. 9 d. also, which is exactly the same rate as from Wigan to Bangor, a distance of 95 miles. 7039. Are those rates both on the Northern Counties Railway ? — Yes ; both of them. 7040. Is there any canal competition with the railways in Ulster ? — There is to some of the towns. Where the canal competition applies, the rates are generally a little lower. 7041. Where the canal does not compete there is no competition ? — No, not generally. 7042. It is a complete monopoly, is it not ? — It is, as far as the North of Ireland is con- cerned. 7043. Are those rates that you are giving now, the rates for large quantities of coal, or are they for small parcels ? — In some cases; for instance, in the case of Monaghan, it is a rate for 20-ton lots ; that is to say, for 20 tons or over. If it is under 20 tons in any one day, they may charge 1 s. 1 d. per ton additional, which is sometimes a great hardship in this respect, that the railway companies load the waggons, and tell you they have about 20 tons, or a little over 20 tpns, and then when they come to be weighed, they may be found to be a little under 20 tons, and then we have to pay the higher rate, which is felt to be a hardship. 7044. If there were nnder 20 tons, say 19 tons, would you have to pay the whole at a liigher rate? — Yes, or we should have to pay for 20 tons, and it would be cheaper in that case to pay as for 20 tons. 7045. Have you anything else to mention to the Committee with regard to the coal trade ? — I do not believe that I have any further facts to give the Committee with regard to the coal trade. It is very important that coals should be carried cheaply into the country, as there are no collieries in the country, with the exception of one in the North of Ireland. 7046. Practically speaking, there is no Irish coal, so that all the manufactories are depen- dent upon the English and Scotch coal ? — That is so. 7047. I think the ne.xt article which you said you were extensively engaged in was artificial manure ? — That is so. 7048. Have you any complaint to make of the rates charged upon artificial manure ? — In regard to artificial manure, the rate from Larne to Antrim, a distance of 31 miles, is 3 s. 6 <7., whereas from Belfast to Antrim, a distance of 22 miles, the rate is 3 s. 6 d., with this disadvantage, that we have the manure to cart in Belfast, costing about Is. 3 c?. a ton additional. 7049. Do you complain there of the rate itself, or do you merely complain that the coal is earned at the same rate from Larne ? — We tliink that we ought to have a lower rate from Belfast, be- cause as there is no carting in Larne, that has the effect of di-awing the traffic through Larne to the exclusion of Belfast 7050. Do you think that 3 s. 6 <7. is a fair rate in itself? — I think that it is a very fair rate from Larne to Antrim, but that it is too high from Belfast. Then from Larne to Castle Dawson, a distance of 50 miles, the rate is 8 s. a ton, and Q Q 2 from 308 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 26 May 1881.] Mr. GeeenhilL. [Continued. Mr. Mulholland — continued. from Belfast to Castle Dawson, a distance of 41 miles, the rate is likewise 8 s. a ton. 7051. That is a higher rate per mile, is it not, than what you quoted in the last instance ? — It is. 7052. Then from Belfast to Newcastle, a dis- tance of 37 miles, the rate is 7 s. per ton, which is a very high rate. From Belfast to Omagh, a distance of 66 miles, the rate is 10 s. per ton. Sir Edicard Watkin. 7053. Is that station-to-station rate ? — Yes. 7054. In each case? — Yes. From Dublin to Omagh, a distance of 128 miles, the rate is 12 s. 6 6?. per ton. 7055. That is nearly double the distance? — Yes, nearly double the distance, and only 2 s. 6 6?. per ton additional, which operates very seriously against Belfast. Mr. Mulholland. 7056. Do you complain of any ajiparent dis- position on the part of railway companies to divert traffic from Belfast? — Yes, the tendency is to divert the traffic from Belfast to some of the other ports ; that is since the amalgamation of the railway companies. May I mention to the Committee a very flagrant instance in connection with manure. From Dublin to Tanderagee, a distance of 82 miles, the rate is 15 s. per ton; whereas from Dublin to Portadown, a distance of 87 miles, a station beyond Tanderagee from Dublin, the rate is 9 s. 2 d. per ton. 7057. You think that the object of that is to attract ti’affic at Portadown by the low rate which would otherwise naturally come through Belfast ? — I think so. 7058. Have you any suspicion with reference to the object of the railway company in doing that? — I cannot give any tangible reason for it ; we know it as a matter of fact, and we know the way it affects us. The policy of the railway companies since the amalgamation seems to be to promote traffic through some of the other ports, such as Dublin, Newry, Greenore, and London- derry, in preference to Belfast. 7059. That is to say, traffic which would natu- rally come into Belfast if the rates were propor- tionate? — If the rates were based upon a mileage principle, that traffic would come into Belfast. 7060. I think you mentioned that you were also engaged in the ffour trade ? — I am. 7061. Have you to complain of the rates charged for flour or grain ? — The rates charged for flour into the interior of the country are generally very high. 7062. Would you give the Committee some instances of those rates? — From Birmingham to Belfast, via the Midland Railway, a distance of 346 miles, the rate is 20 s. 10 (A per ton, whereas I'rom Belfast Quays to Monaghan, a distance of 55 miles, the rate is 9 s. per ton. 7063. That is about three and a-half times the rate ])er mile ? — Yes. 7064. You stated that you were in the iron trade ? — I know a little about the iron trade. 7065. There is no iron produced in Ireland; we have to inqjort all our supplies of iron, I believe ? — Yes. Mr. Mulholland — continued. 7066. And it is an article which is very heavy in proportion to its value ? — Very indeed. 7067. So that the rate of carriage is an impor- tant consideration ? — It is. 7068. Can you state what the Irish rates are, compared with the rates in England or Scotland ? — F'rom Belfast to Lisburn, a distance of seven miles, iron is cliarged at the rate of 4 s. a ton ; whereas from Coatbridge to College-street, Glas- gow, a distance of nine miles, the rate is 2 s. per ton. 7069. That is double the rate for three-quarters the distance ? — Yes. 7070. And does the same apply to other places ? — Yes. From Belfast to Banbridge, a distance of 24^ miles, the rate is 8 5. 4 6?. a ton, while from Liverpool to Warrington, a distance of 18 miles, the rate is 3 5. 9 r not? _ — Delivery is included in the rate of 15 s. a ton. 7666. But that is under a different class? — ■ That is under a different class. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7667. Could you say whether there are any terminals at all included in that 7 s. 6 c/. ? — I can- not say. Chairman. 7668. This Is. Qd. a ton charge includes delivery at the ship’s side? — Yes, I believe so. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7669. Are there any terminal services per- formed for the 7 s. 6 d. ? — They are performed if asked for ; I believe there are some terminal services. Mr. Mimk. 7670. Could you tell the Committee why the rate to Goole is so heavy ? — I cannot account for it ; I ship goods myself through Goole to Calais, through Grimsby to Dieppe, and through Hull to Dunkirk. The distance by sea is about the same ; the rate from Goole to Calais is only 9 s. a ton upon the goods I send ; from Hull to Dun- kirk, and from Grimsby to Dieppe the rate is 20 s. I cannot account for that heavy difference in freight. 7671. You SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 335 30 May 1881.] Brittain. [^Confinued. Mr. Bolton, 7671. You spoke of some of the charges being in excess of the statutory rates ; how do you make that out? — I said that the Act of Parlia- ment to which I referred authorised a rate of 1 d. per ton per mile to Goole for a certain distance, and on another part of the line, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshh’e Railway, \\d. per ton per mile. I could not state exactly what that includes, but the companies charges amount to 2-72 6?. per ton per mile. 7672. You cannot state the terminals?— I can- not state the terminals. 7673. How do you say they are excessive ?— Because it appears to me that even if the ter- minals were allowed for as being charged, the rate would be immense in proportion to what it is reasonable to charge for terminal services.^ 7674. What would you take it, that it was reasonable to charge for terminals? — In this case the goods are taken to the side of the ship. Chairman. 7675. Mr. Bolton asked ivhat rate you take, in your opinion, as a reasonable charge lor ter- minals ? — I cannot give an answer to that question that would be at all valuable, because I am not sufficiently acquainted with the subject. Mr. Bolton. 7676. I think those ports that you quoted, namely, Goole, Grimsby, and Hull, are all in the hands of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincoln- shire Railway Company, are they not ? — I think so. 7677. Can you give the Committee any reason why the railway company should charge the high rate for the shorter distance, and a low rate for the longer distance ? — The rate is the same per ton upon the three lines. 7678. Can you suggest any reason why the railway company should prefer to carry 20 miles further at the same rate ; you gave the Com- mittee an identical rate from Sheffield to Hull, Grimsby, and Goole, the one being 20 miles further than the other, and the third twice the distance ; can you tell us why the company should prefer to carry the longer distance for the same sum ? — Because I believe the Goole line has been more recently opened, and there have been one or two lines of steamers there in the past few years, and I suppose the railway com- panies have not liked to reduce their charge ; they thought that if they could induce the public to pay the same I’ate as for twice that distance it would be to their advantage ; that was what I thought was the reason, 7679. Is it needless to ask you anything about the excessive rates, as you cannot give us the details ?— I cannot distinguish the terminals from the rate. 7680. Therefore, upon that point, your evidence will be worth little ? — I cannot distinguish the terminals ; I can only state the facts with refer- ence to what are the rates charged, and not what they should be, or what they consist of. 1681. Do you think that there is anything in the position oi Sheffield to which is due the falling off in the trade, rather than to the railway rates, and is it not also the fact that you have 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued, had a great deal of trouble witli the workmen in Sheffield? — There is no doubt that a good many facts have tended to produce depression in Shef- field, and perhaps to a very much larger degree than the railway charges. 7682. You spoke of the canal competition in former days ; is the rate now higher or lower than it was? — •! think the rate is a little hisrher o now. 7683. But you do not see any reason, do jmu, why if tlie canal is independent, it should not combine with the railway now ? — I certainly see nothing to pi-eventit combining with the railway, but my evidence was to this point, that if rail- ways were annihilated, and we were allowed to construct acanal, and could pay a fair per-centage upon that outlay, Ave could carry our goods to Goole at considerably less than half what we pay now. Mr. Barnes. 7684. Sheffield of course was the mother of the steel trade in every shape and way ? — I believe so. 7685. Both in the shape of rails and in melt- ings? — Yes, I believe so. 7686. You stated that since 1875 there had been a falling off" of about half of the total manu- facture in Sheffield, I think? — Between 1880 and this year the computation is, that at the present rate of reduction there ivill be in 1881 100,000 tons of steel rails jiroduced less than in 1880. 7687. You do not ascribe that entirely, do you, to the peculiar position Sheffield is in ; have the times had nothing to do with that? — In 1872 or 1873 I think the price of steel rails was about 16 /. a ton, Avhile two years ago it was only 4 Z. 10 5. a ton ; sc that upon that sum of 4 Z. 10 s. there is a difference of 7 s. or 8 s. in favour of our competitors ; which is a very serious proportion. There can be no doubt that the excessive charge upon the pig-iron from the port to Sheffield and upon the manufactured article, from Sheffield to the port, would have made a very large difference in our trade. 7688. Still the stagnation of trade generallv must have had some effect upon your trade ? — No doubt it contributes to it, perhaps to a com- paratively small extent. 7689. Sheffield, as far as coal is concerned, lies as well as any place ; as Avell or better than Barrow, and as ivell off as South Wales? — That is so. 7690. But not as far as the hematite, or the ironstone, is concerned? — No. 7691. Is Sheffield as well off as those places as far as regards the purchase of pigs? — No, the pigs have to come from a longer distance, and that disadvantage is very much aggravated by the fact that the rate per ton per mile is higher to us, than to those that are nearer to the pig-iron district, but even if Ave Avere not in a disadvantageous situation Ave should be very heavily handicapped by the rates. 7692. Then South Wales, Middlesbrough, and Barrow have the great advantage that their goods can go by sea as Avell as by rail ? — That is so. 7693. That necessarily has an effect upon their T T 4 rates? — 336 MIXTJTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 30 May 1881.] Mr. Brittain. [Continued. Mr. Barnes — continued. rates ? — Yes, but the rates to the same places upon the coast, viz., to Hull and Goole, are very much lower to them than they are to Sheffield, so that we are in this position, that we have access to an estuary 34 miles away, hut Ave have not access to the ports Avhich have access to the pro- ducing parts of the North, whereas, they have access to our producing districts at very low rates, so they have a very great advantage over us in that respect. From Glasgow to Hull the rate is only ’75 per ton per mile, whereas to Sheffield it is 1‘7 ; that is more than twice as much, and from Stockton to Hull the rate is '73, which is considerably under half our rate. 7694. Your contention is that if you were fairly treated by the railway, although you have disadvantages from your position you still would be able to hold yonr own in the trade ‘i — Yes, decidedly. 7695. Would you be able to hold your own against BarroAv? — Yes, against Barrow, and against any producing centre in the kingdom, or in the ivorld, in fact. If the rate to Goole for the distance of 33 miles Avere charged a fair av'erage rate U2)on our productions, and if Ave only had to pay a fair average rate from the place where the pig is produced to Sheffield, Ave should have a fair price for our things in a foreign country, and Ave should be able to do a much larger trade. Mr. Nicholson. 7696. The canal from Sheffield to Hull runs into the Trent at StockAvith, does it not ? — I am not exactly acquainted Avith that. 7697. Is that canal used at all for the carriage of goods noAV ? — I do not think it is to any great extent. 7698. The rails Avoidd be put on the trucks at the OAvner’s sidings, Avould they not ? — That is so. 7699. And I suppose the siding that runs into the works is their own property? — Yes. 7700. What railway adjoins Messrs. Cammell’s Avorks ? — The Midland liaihvay. 7701. And then they have to pass over the Midland to get to the Slanchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway, or the North Eastern, Avhichever raihvay they use ? — I am not sure of the route they take. 7702. Has any application been made to the Raihvay Commissioners by your Sheffield Cham- ber of Commerce? — Not to my knoAvledge. 7703. Have your Chamber of Commerce ever applied to the raihvay companies at all ? — Not as a Chamber of Commerce, hut those interested in the steel rail trade have seen some of the direc- tors of the raihvay companies. 7704. Would it be an advantage to the Chamber of Commerce to have ])OAvcr to apply to the Raihvay Commissioners ? — I think it Avould be a great advantage if the poAvers of the Raihvay Commissioners Avere extended, so that they could deal more Avith the cases that arise currently ; it might be of advantage as things stand noAV, but if the Raihvay Commissioners got extended poAvers and the process Avere econo- mical ami rapid, very likely it Avould confer great advantage upon the trading interest. Mr. Nicholson — continued. 7705. Are you aAvare that any private manu- facturer has full power to apply to the Raihvay Commissioners himself without the intervention of any counsel? — If 1 may reply to the question indirectly, I believe the cost and the trouble deter manufacturers from appealing to the Rail- Avay Commissioners. And there is another rea- son Avhy they cannot do so ; the manufacturers of steel rails, and tools, and files, and other things supply the raihvay companies, and they are deterred by the consideration that they may make martyrs of themselves, and sacrifice their OAvn private trades for the benefit of the community, Avho may be afterwards rather ungrateful to them. 7706. I su{)pose a Chamber of Commerce Avould have no such fear if they could ajiply to the Raihvay Commissioners upon the part of manufacturers? — But I believe, unfortunately. Chambers of Commerce are not very Avealthy bodies ; they have no funds to spare in that Avay. Not only would their constitution have to be altered to make it available, but the process of application to the Raihvay Commissioners Avould have to be much altered also. 7707. But seeing how Avealthy a place Shef- field is, do not you think that these subscriptions could be much increased, so as to enable a Chamber of Commerce to apply in such cases if it Avere thought desirable ? — That is a case in Avhich my opinion is of no value. 7708. Would you suggest any Avay in Avhich the poAvers of the Commissioners might be en- larged? — I think the RaihA^ay Commissioners might perhaps Avith advantage to the country, have power to deal Avith unequal rates, proA’ided that proper evidence could be giA’en to them that those rates exceeded considerably the average paid by other districts exactly under the same conditions. Mr. Cross. 7709. I think you stated that the cost of rail- Avay carriage materialiy enhanced the price of your steel mils Avhen they arrived at the port of shipment ? — It does so. 7710. Have you tokl the Committee how much that excessive carriage adds to the cost of your rails ? — I think I did tell the Committee that the carriage to the ])ort above the average paid by other districts, is about 5 s. per ton, and the difference in the carriage of the pig-iron from the producing district to Sheffield is about 2 s. or 3s. ; that is not an exaggeration; it is rather an under statement ; it Avould be 7 s. or 8 s. a ton less, taking it in and out, if the Sheffield rates Avere about the aA’erage. I haA’e taken as a basis something like three farthings a ton a mile, but evidence has been given that one-halfpenny Avould be sufficient. 7711. Then your com]dalnt is that Sheffield is handica])|)ed to the extent of about 7 s. to 8 s. a ton ? — Yes. Lord Bandolph Churchill. 7712. You stated that in 1870 and afterAA'ards, Sheffield Avas doing a brisk trade ? — Yes. 7713. Can you say Avhether the raihvay rates increased SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 337 30 May 1881.] Mr. Brittain. \^Contmved. Lord Randolph Churc-hill — continued, increased in 1872 ? — I cannot say that with re- gard to steel rads. 7714. Is it not a very important consideration to know whethe the rates have decreased or in- creased? — Decidedly it is, but I had not the time to prepare that evidence. 7715. Have the rates decreased; are they lower now than what you paid 10 years ago ^ — I cannot sav that. I am not a manufacturer of steel rails. 7716. Then in 1875 the steel rail trade de- clined, did it not ? — Yes, from that time it has declined very eonsiderably. 7717. Has the invention of the Bessemer pro- cess of making steel proved unfavourable to Sheffield ? — It has developed an immense com- petition in foreign countries ; there has been an immense increase in the produetion of Bessemer steel in other countries. 7718. So that it is more than ever important that you should be placed upon a fair footing with regard to railway rates in consequence of the discovery of the Bessemer process, enabling as it does foreign countries to make steel almost as easily as ourselves ? — Yes ; and I would add that the railways in England have been already completed, and we must therefore look to foreign countries for the trade in steel rails ; there can- not be many sold in England in future in propor- tion. 7719. AVhere are your principal competitors in steel making in England? — South Wales. 7720. At Dowlais? — Yes, there are several places in South Wales ; I believe the increase has been greater there ; I have figures here showing what the increase has been. 7721. Do they make steel at Middlesboro’ ? — Yes, Middlesboro’ and the South Wales district have risen more rapidly than any other districts. Then with regard to the manufacture of steel made by the “open hearth” process, in 1872 Sheffield manufactured 50 per cent, of the whole make, whereas in 1879 the Sheffield manufacture had fallen to 15 per cent, on the whole make. In regard to Bessemer steel rails, Sheffield has found the competition of Middlesboro’ and South Wales exceedingly severe ; their trade has increased wonderfully. 7722. I suppose those high rates to the port, of which you complain, interfere very much with your being able to tender with regard to foreign contracts ? — Decidedly so. 7723. Have you many instances of your being unable at Sheffield to accept large contracts in consequence of these high rates ? — I can only give hearsay evidence upon that point. I cannot give individual cases, but I believe many con- tracts have been lost through foreign competition, partly produced by the high rates. 7724. XoAv about the canal ; where did that canal go that you have talked about ? — To Hull. 7725. Do you recollect the canal when it was in private hands? — I do not. 7726. Was it ever in private hands? — Yes, it t»elonged to the River Don Company. 7727. Do you know anything about the rates charged upon the canal for the conveyance of heavy forgings, before it fell into the hands of the railwav companv ? — I do not 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. 7728. Do you know what they are now? — The rates by the canal are the same as by the railway. 7729. AVho uses the canal ? — It belongs to the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company, and I presume they use it themselves, but I am not acquainted with the matter personally. Mr. Bolton. 7730. Do the railway companies fix the rates upon the canals at all ? — 1 cannot say how that may be. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7731. Do you say the canal belongs to the railway company? — I believe it does. Mr. Bolton. 7732. I understand that the railway company are mere toll-takers ; taking tolls for the boat and not tolls for the ton? — I cannot give definite evidence upon that point. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7733. I suppose this question of railway rates affects the working population of Sheffield very largely ? — Very largely, more than the manu- facturers. Some few years ago we had great distress in Sheffield which excited the sympathy of the Avhole country ; there were thousands of people out of work ; in the iron districts nearly half the houses w'ere empty- 7734. Did the raihvay companies give you aiiy assistance towards relieving the disti'ess in Shef- field? — I never heard of it. I am not aware of it. 7735. Is the result of that depression that you are not able to keep uj) the same amount of work in Sheffield ? — The trade has been rather better during the last 12 months, but it is not really brisk yet. 7736. With reference to this 7 s. 6 d. rate that you complain of so much, have you ever applied to the railway comj)any to distinguish between the station rate and the terminal charges ? — I be- lieve not. 7737. Does not it strike you as very extra- ordinary to come here with a great complaint of a charge w'hlch has been ruining Sheffield, you say, and yet although you had the remedy open to compel the railway companies to tell you what they Avere charging for one service and Avhat for another, you have not taken that step ? — I think it is very extraordinary that the manufacturers have not taken steps to obtain justice. 7738. I Avant to knoAv, therefore, if it is really such a vexy great grievance ? — As I said before any manufacturer bringlixg uj) a case of this sort AA'ould very likely lose a great part of his ti’ade. 7739. But how Avould he lose his trade; he Avould only have to ask the question of the rail- Avay company. How much ai'e you charging me for carriage and Ixoav much for x’ate ? — I cannot say Avhether or not the steel manufacturers are aware of the state of the laAv. 7740. Now you sa}' the carriage to Goole is the same as the carriage to Grimsby ? — Yes. 7741. Do you account for that by the fact that the Manchester’, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire u Company 338 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 30 J/a// 1881.] Mr. Brittain. ' Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. Company have expended very large sums on docks, at Grimsby? — No doubt it might be that the railway company desired to promote the trade of Grimsby in someway, and have some arrange- ment to charge a very low rate, but 1 have no evidence to adduce upon that point. 7742. Then 1 may take it as your opinion that if the rate to Grimsby is a fair rate, the rate to Goole must be an unfair rate, because the distance in one case is more than twice what it is in the other? — Yes, that is so. 7743. So you think the company are giving- greater advantage to Grimsby because they have constructed large docks there ? — I do not know that at all ; I know' they have constructed docks there, but I could not ofi'er an opinion upon the subject. 7744. Have the company constructed any docks at Goole? — I believe not to the same ex- tent. 7745. Have they constructed any?- — I am not aware. 7746. If it is the case that the company have constructed docks at Grimsby, and have not con- structed docks at Goole, and you find that there is a fair rate to Grimsby and an unfair rate to Goole, would you not tliink that if that be so it is because the company is making its rates to suit the particular town where they have laid out their money ? — That is a fair assumption, but there may be other causes. 7747. What could the other causes be; is there anything particular in Grimsby wLich should ma^e the company give Grimsby the preference if they had not laid out money there ? — I should say that very likely the priority of date would decitle the rate. I cannot exactly say the date when the rate to Goole was made, -uTat it is, but before the amalgamation of the South Yorkshire Raihvay, when they got hold of the South York- -hire Railway, and found they got to Goole in 33^ miles, that may be the reason why they charged that rate of Is. Qd. per ton to Goole without reference to distance ; I thought that would be the reason, and I did not think about the docks at all. 7748. That would be a clear injustice on the part of the company, w'oukl it not? — it would. 7749. You stated that, in your opinion, the Railway Commissioners ought to have pow'cr to deal with unequal rates, did you not? — Yes, 1 did. 7750. Would you kindly tell the Committee what standard of equality the Raihvay Commis- sioners should go by ; take Goole and G rimsby, there you have unequal distances but equal rates ; wdiat should the Railway Commissioners do ; should they lower the Goole rate or raise the Grimsby rate ? — I think if they had evidence ’hat the 7 s. 6d. rate to Gi’imsby had been unre- munerative it w’ould be only fair to empower the companies to refuse to run at that rate unless the circumstances of the line justified it in other respects. 7751. Would you further recommend that the Railway Commissioners should require that if that were considered a fair rate the rates upon the rest of the line should be reduced to that? — I do not think you cotdd draw a hard-and-fast Lord Randolph C/(«rc4i7/ — continued, line, but should allow the Commissioners them- selves to decide within certain limits what is a fair rale, under the circumstances. Mr. .]Jonk. 7752. I understand you to say that y('u are not in favour of absolutely equal mileage rates, but that where railways have cost an equal sum per mile for construction there, equal rate should pe charged ? — That is my opinion. Chairman. 7753. We quite understand that; but now I want to put this to you : these railway companies have received a guarantee under Act of Parlia- ment enabling them to charge some maximum rate ; is not that so? — Yes. 7754. Then, would you advocate this, that because for certain purposes I have carried at a certain rate lo Grimsby or any other port on that side you would come to the Railway Commis- sioners as a judicial body and give them power to modify the conditions upon which the railway was constructed, and say you shall not charge your maximum rate upon the Goole line? — 1 think, in many cases, the maximum rate is too high.^ 7755. I only submit to you that if the maxi- mum rate is too high a rate, the way to deal with it would be to lower the maximum rate when next the company comes for Pai-liamentary powers? — Yes, decidedly. 7756. But does not it seem a very high-handed proceeding that Parliament or anyone should say, because you, upon a certain portion of your line, are content to carry at a certain rate, therefore we will abrogate the compact under which you made your line ? — There are lines upon which the present rates will do, and are doing, immense damage to the country generally ; therefore, although it may be a high-handed proceeding to say to the railway companies, you shall bring your rates more or less to an equal ratio ; still I think the public benefit would go far to justify it- 7757. But is not there a iireat difference between making a new com])act Avith the railway company, and saying, if we give you these powers you must do a certain thing ; and comj)elling them, without any agreement, to lower the maxi- mum rate ? — Tcs, but if, from long ex])erience, it has been found that the maximum rates are too high and are injuring the trade of the country, although they are well within the powers of the company to imjiose, I think they should be com- pulsorily lowered. In this case of Grimsby and Goole, for examj)le, there ought to be no diffi- culty in saying that the district should have some approach to justice without doing the raihvay companies any injustice. 7758. What do you call a fair and remunera- tive rate? — I take the average of the railway companies and add up the figures and see what most of them charge. AVhen I find that we ai’e paying quite three times as much then 1 think that is not a fair remunerative rate. 7759. You Avould not give the conqianies the option of levelling up, but would insist upon their levelling SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 339 30 ilffly 1881.] Mr. Brittain. {Continued. Chairman — continued. levelling clown; supposing the Railway Commis- sion came forward and said to the railway com- panies, now, upon these two parts of the system you must have e(]^ual rates, and they raised the other portion instead of lowering your portion; would you agree to that? — I would say that if the rates had been so reduced by excessive com- petition as not to be remunerative to the railway companies, they should be allowed to level up. 7760. Do you think they would do so? — The two must go together ; if competition has reduced the rates to a point below that at ivliich railway com- panies can live, and in other cases has raised them to a point at which manufacturers cannot live, I would have them meet half-way, and level up and level down, and so bring them to a reasonable rate all round. 7761. Taking this question of Middlesbro’ and Hull; if under the Act of the Legislature the railway comjiany were compelled to run at an equal mileage rate, the only result would then be that there would be no trade between Middles- bro’ and Hull by railway, it would all go by boat? — I am not in favour, as I stated, of an equal mileage rate, because pai’t of the line was constructed at a very expensive rate, and it would not be fair to make the railway company carry at the same rate as if it had been con- structed in a flat country. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7762. Do you know what the charge for steel rails, or for manufactured steel, is from Sheffield to London ? — Yes. 7763. How much is that ? — The rate for steel rails, free on board, is 14 s. 9 d. Mr. Bolton. 7764. How many miles is that? — One hundred and fifty seven miles. Lord Randolph Churchill. 7765. I see a statement in the “Ironmonger,” that from Sheffield to London the rate is 25 s. ? — But that is not for steel rails. 7766. But I am asking you for the rate on manufactured steel ? — I believe the rate is 25 s. 7767. What do the companies charge to Wool- wich, which is eight miles further? — I do not know. 7768. Do they Increase the charge to 21. 2 s. Q d. ? — I do not know. Mr. Callan. 7769. I think you gave evidence that the trade of Sheffield and the district is in a very depressed condition ? — It was one or two years ago ; it is depressed now, but not so seriously de- pressed as it was one or two years ago. 7770. Then you attribute that in a large degree to the excessive railway charges ? — To a certain degree. 7771. And you say that tbe trade of Sheffield is still in a very depressed condition? — It is. 7772. Just listen to this ; I am reading now from a commercial report made this morning by a commercial writer in the “ Daily News ; ” it is 0.54. Mr. Callan — continued. dated 28th May, and tbe Avriter states : “ Con- tinued activity prevails in the heavier branches, and not only are the armour plate mills in full operation, but ordinary ship plates are being produced in large quantities. Makers of rails, axles, and tyres are doing an extensive business, but at very low prices. For steel rails the profits are only lean, however, and BroAvn, Bayley, and Dixon (Limited), a well-known company here, about to be reconstructed with an additional capital of 56,000/., have decided not to run their rail mills again. Large orders are in hand for Bessemer ingots for various purposes, and the steel manufacturers are busier The saw trade is not brisk, but on the Avhole a fair business is being done. From Australia and the Cape have recently come very good orders for edge tools and other hardware goods, and a rather brisk trade is being car- ried on with the West Coast of Africa, especially in butcher's knives and hunting knives. The razor trade with America is very active, and the fine iveather has given a very marked impetus to the demand for agricultural implements and garden tools.” Do you agree with that commercial writer ; in the face of that commercial report, do you still adhere to your evidence that the condition of the trade in Shef- field is in a very depressed state? — Undoubtedly it is in a very depressed state ; but there have been some very heavy contracts which have been taken lately by some Sheffield houses ; I believe, by John BroAvn and Company, Avhich will give work to many for some time; but the general trade of the town is not good ; I have made inquiries and visited foundries, and I am a manufacturer of files and saws myself. A cooper stated to me, and I have heard it from many others, that the trade of Sheffield generally was very unsatisfactory a month ago ; I have not heard of anything since then, beyond these large contracts. 7773. Then you are in direct conflict with this report? — Not altogether; I say that trade Avas very much depressed tAvo years ago, but there is an imf)rovement noAV, and the improve- ment is attributable to a very large extent indeed to some heavy contracts Avhich have been received during the last few Aveeks. 7774. Are you aware that these heavy con- tracts to Avhich you allude had been made in Sheffield in competition Avith the South Wales, the Middlesbro’, and Barrow districts, in spite of the heavy rates that you allege to be charged ? — I have not the slightest doubt that Sheffield, even with all this handicapping, would be able to get some contracts, but that the profit Avould be in some cases entirely absorbed by the charges. 77 75. Have not Middlesbro’ and South Wales, as regards sea accommodation, much the advan- tage of Sheffield ? — They have. 7776. And notAvithstanding that advantage and the keen competition that exists, never- theless the Sheffield makers have been able in open competition to obtain those contracts, in spite of all the raihvay charges? — Yes, and Avhile this competition has been going on, several of those houses Avhich had obtained the contracts at such ruinous rates, have shut up their rail mills, u u 2 -t- There 340 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 30 May 1881.] Mr. Brittain. [ Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. There are two or three houses which have ceased manufacturing steel rails; they may have taken contracts in spite of the competition of those places, but though it may take some time about it, I have no doubt that the steel rail trade will eventually die. 7777. 1 am not going into the past, but into the ])resent ; were not those contracts obtained in competition with Middlesboro’ and Barrow ? — That is so. 7778. Looking at the natural advantages of those places, Sheffield could not have obtained those contracts if the railw'ay charges had been very oppressive ? — That is not quite so alto- gether ; there are many other reasons which in- fluence the giving out of contracts, which I can- not go into now. 7779. lieasons with which the railway com- panies have no influence ? — No doubt. 7780. You do not mean to say that Messrs. John Brown & Companj^ have shut up their rail mills ? — Messrs. John Brown & Company do not manufacture steel rails. 7781. What houses have these heavy contracts to which you allude ? — I cannot give the names of the houses; Messrs. John Brown & Com- pany have some of the contracts, I believe. 7782. Are those contracts for steel rails? — No ; John Brown & Company have ceased to manufacture steel rails some time since. 7783. So that wdiatever are the reasons you have alleged, yet Sheffield is in a position to compete with other districts more favourably circumstanced ? — Perhajis by the sacrifice of the whole profit, or a great part of it. 7784. But they have done so? — They have done so to keep their works employed. Sir Edward Watkm. 7785. I think you stated the railway com- pany fixed the canal rates by water between Sheffield and Hull? — No; I do not remember saying so ; I said that the railway company got possession of the canal from Sheffield to Hull some time since. 7786. But are you, or are you not, aware that the railway company are not carriers at all by water, between Sheffield and Hull? — I am not aware of that. 7787. That there are a body of independent carriers who can make any bargain they please, and that the railway comj)any owning the canal merely charge a very small toll for the traffic ? — I suppose they charge tolls. 7788. But you are not aware that the whole traffic is done by a body of independent carriers ? — I am not; my whole evidence with regard to the canal is this, that there was formei’ly a body of private traders who were in comj)etition with the railway, and that now that canal has become useless from falling into the hands of the railway company. 7789. Do you know -what are the charges by the canal from Sheffield to Hull ? — I do not know the charges by canal. 7790. Then how' do you know that the canal is of no use? — Because formerly the Swedish bar-iron used to come to Sheffield from Hull by canal boat, whereas now the steel rails are sent by railway. I do not draw any inference from Mr. Callan — continued. those facts ; I simply state the facts, and the railway company some time since bought or got possession of the canal, or amalgamated it. Chairman. 7791. Do you know whether the navigation of the canal is kept up in good working order? — I know nothing about it. Sir Edward Wathin. 7792. Will you take it from me, and you ought to know, that there are a body of indepen- dent carriers between Sheffield and Hull, and that there is a very large bulk of traffic which goes at the present moment by water from Sheffield to Hull, with which the railway com- pany have no interference of any kind? — I do not know that. I only stated that formerly bar-iron came from Hull by canal, and at the present time the railway company, I believe, carry the greater part of it. 7793. Was not that simply because at that time there were no other means to get from Hull to Sheffield but by tvater ? — No, 1 am speaking of after the railway was constructed. 7794. Are you aware that Messrs. Brown and Cammell’s, and other of the largest steel houses there, are very frequently sending a heavy traffic by water both in pig-iron rails and blooms, although their works are not on the canal ? — That may be so. 7795. Then how can you say that that canal is useless ? — I simply say that we have lost the benefit of the competition of the canal. 7796. How can you show that that is so, when I give you the fact that the two largest firms are at this moment sending very largely traffic from Sheffield to Hull by the canal when their works are not upon the canal ? — I cannot give any evidence upon that point. 7797. Do you know what the maximum rate allowed by the Act is from Sheffield to Hull ? — It is If d. 7798. So that the railway company are not charging them full powers? — Not anything like it. 7799. Now, with a company that is charging its full Parliamentary power, what course would you recommend ; siqiposing, instead of the rail- w'ay company charging 7 s. 6 rf. a ton for these steel rails between Sheffield and Hull, they chose to charge their maximum rate, say, if you like, 15 s. 6 d., what c<-urse would you recommend to be taken ? — I would just recommend this course, that I should restrict the jiower of the railway companies to charge within certain limits. I think the maximum powers granted to some com- panies have been excessive. 7800. In this particular case w'ould you pro- pose that the Commissioners should have the poiver to reduce the maximum rate from, say, 15 5. 6 d. to, say, 7 s. Q d., because at some time or other somebody had cai'ried for 7 s. 6 f depression? — Decidedly so. 7823. Is that any reason why if there be any unfair handicaj)ping against English agriculturists in the way of railway rates, it should be looked into and removed ? — Decidedly so. 7824. I believe you have taken considerable trouble to obtain information upon the subject of railway rates as affecting agricultural produce ? — 1 have. As Secretary to the Cheshire Chamber of Aoriculture. I addressed a circuhir to a num- O ber of farmers resident in various parts of the county, asking for information upon these points, and I Have received a number of letters from those gentlemen from which I propose to quote in giving my evidence before the Committee. 7825. Will you read the circular ? — I will. “ Cheshire C'hamberof Agriculture. This Cham- ber is desirous of collecting evidence to lay before the Select Committee of the House of Commons which is now making inquiry into railway charges for freight, &c , and I am desired by the council to ask yon if you are conversant with any facts showing that excessively high rates are being chai’ged in your neighbourhood for freight of farm produce, such as grain, milk, cheese, live stock, or market garden produce, &c., or for manures of feeding stuffs, or, if you are acquainted with any disproportionately high rates being charged for home produce in comparison with foreign produce, or for local jiroduce, such as potatoes, vegetables, &c. sent to Liverpool, or Machester market, in comparison with the rates charged from other English counties, or from any part of the United Kingdom, or from the conti- nent, and, if so, will you kindly favour the council through me with such information as early as you possibly can. Please say also if you suffer any loss from the irregularity or incon- venient hours at which trains carrying milk, &o. run to or from stations near your residence.’’ Sir Edward Watkin. 7826. What is the date of that circular ? — 6th April 1881. Mr. Paget. 7827. That was the circidar sent out by you as the Secretary of the Cheshire Chamber of Agriculture, and by direction of the Council of that Chamber? — Yes, it was. 7828. Will you state to theCommittee generally what are the classes of agricultural produce witli regard to which you have complaints to lay be- fore the Committee ? — Cheese and milk, and the carriage of animals, grain, ])otatoes, hay and sti aw, weeds and fruit. 7829. Are your comjdaints these, that the railway rates are in excess of the legal sum that the comj)anies are permitted to charge by their Acts ? — In some cases they are, 1 believe. 7830. Under what other head would you class the complaints which you desire to make ? — Mr. Page! — continued. 1 would complain about lower rates being charged for foreign jjroduce, compared with home-giwn produce, and that the classification of the rates of articles is unfair in some instances ; and also that tlie charge as between owner’s risk and the com- pany’s risk is very unequal, and in many cases unfair ; that there are high rates for short dis- tances, and rates unfair in proportion to distance ; that there is some delay in transit also, and that upon some goods that are carried, excessive rates are^ charged for small quantities of produce. 7831. And those are the various heads of com- plaint which you wish to urge upon this Com- mittee ? — They are. 7832. Will you kindly favour the Committee, first, with the case of cheese. I believe you are large manufacturers of cheese in the county of Chester? — We are. /833. Do you know at all what quantity of cheese is manufactured in Cheshire ? — I take it from the number of cows that are kept in Cheshire, taking them from the agricultural re- turns : I find that there are something like 90,000 cows that are kept in Cheshire, whose milk 1 estimate is taken and made into cheese, b rom the Agricultural Returns of last year, there were 151,866 head of cattle in Cheshire, of which 91,174 were in milk or in calf, besides 15,846 of two years old and upwards. Many of those would he in milk. Sir Edward Watkin. 7834. Would those be included in the 151,866 ? — No, besides. Of this number 90,000 would j)robably be used for cheese-making, which taken at 3 cwt. per cow, would show an aggregate make of cheese of 13,500 tons. Mr Pa^set. 7835. Where is the largest part of the best made cheese sent to ? — The largest part is sent to London. 7836. Where it has, I believe, to compete with American cheese ? — It has. '<837, Are there large imports of American cheese in the port of Liverpool ? — Yes, very large imports. 7838. Do you know what the quantity would be? — Last year, from the 1st of January to the end of December, there were 1,877,723 boxes of about half a cwt. each. 7839. Of the American cheese imported to Liverpool, are you aware that a large portion is sent up to London ? — A large portion is, I believe. 7840. So we have it that from Liverpool a large proportion of American cheese is sent up to London, and also that the chief part of your best Cheshire make is likewise sent to London ? — That is so. 7841. And the two have to compete with each other in the London market? — They have. 7842. Can you give the Committee any in- formation with reference to the rates at which the American cheese is sent up from Liverpool, and at which your own cheese is delivered to London ? — I can ; but 1 am not quite sure whe- ther I am right in saying that the chief importa- tion of the cheese from America to Liverpool goes SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWAYS. 343 30 May 1881.1 Mr. Kigby. IConfinyed. Mr. Paget — continued. goes to liondon. I would say that a consider- able quantity of the American cheese goes there. The rate for cheese from Liverpool to London is from 25 s. to 30 s. per ton. 7843. When you say from 25 s. to 30 s., what does that mean? — Twenty-five shillings, as I understand, is the carriage from station to station, and the other 5 s. is porterage, and so on. 7844. So that the actual railway rate from Liverpool to London is 25 s. ? — Yes, that is for American cheese and provisions. 7845. Now, take Wrexham or Beeston, or almost any station in Cheshire, and give us the rate to London ? — The rates generally is from 42 s. 6 d. to 45 s. per ton. 7846. Are the stations to which you have alluded in Cheshire, from which cheese is sent, nearer to London or further than Liverpool is ? — They are nearer to London by 20 or 30 miles. 7847. So that the rate at which your goods are sent is from 42 x. to 45 s. per ton, whilst American cheese is sent from Liverpool to London, 20 to 30 miles farther, at 25 '. as the railway rate I — That is so. 7848. Does that 45 s. include delivery in London, or is it merely the rate up to London — Whether or not the companies deliver the cheese here, I cannot say, but whatever the practice of the companies is, it would apply equally to American cheese. 7849. What is the present saleable value of. the best class of American cheese in Liverpool ? — I cannot quite speak to the present market, but something like from 55 5. to 70 6'. per cwt. 7850. What ai-e the relative prices of the cheese which you make in Cheshire? — From about 60s. to 80s. Mr. Gregory. 7851. Do we understand that the delivery is ihe same in both cases ? — I believe it is the same in both cases. Mr. Paget. 7852. I take it that the sums you have given to the Committee of from 42 s. to 45 s. are given as the average rates from two or three stations? — Yes, taking Cheshire, Beeston, Whitchurch, Wrexham, and Crewe, the principal places, and grouping them together, I think the figure I have stated gives the average. 7853. Taking your Cheshire cheese, is that rate you have given us, taking it at owner’s risk, or at the railway company’s risk? — If it is taken at company’s risk, they would charge us 60s. a ton. 7854. Is American cheese conveyed from Liverpool at owner’s risk, or at com|iany’s risk ? — I cannot quite say, but I should think it is con- veyed at owner’s risk chiefly. To compare the different charges, it would be better to assume that it is sent at the owner’s risk. /855. You are not able to say yourself whether, as a fact, the American cheese is taken at owner’s risk; or not? — I am not absolutely able to say. 7856. I need not ask you what is the result of 0.54. Ml’. Paget — continued. this handica})piug upon your cheese market — It is, of course, in favour of the sale of American cheese in London as compared with the ^ale of Cheshire cheese. 7857. I will take the item of grain ; I believe there is a large amount of grain of all sorts im- ported from the United States into Liverpool? — A very large amount. 7858. Have you any returns which you could refer to, which would show that to the Com- mittee ? — The gross import of wheat, barley, oats, beans, peas, Indian corn, oatmeal, and flour, for the year 1879, was 32,568,5.34 centals; and, for 1880, it was 31,666,827 centals, which gives an average for the two years of 32,117,680; the average for the first quarter of 1880 was 5,318,355 centals; and for the first quarter of 1881, 7,919,707, showing an increase over cor- responding quarter of 1880 of 2,601,352. cen- tals. 7859. Do you know what is the cost of con- veyance on American railways, taking Chicago to New York? — The cost from Chicago to New York is 35 cents, gold per 100 lbs., or 17 1 per cental, English money. 7860. How far is that? — A distance of 950 miles. 7861. How much would that be per ton? — Twenty eight shillings per ton. 7862. Do you happen to know any arrange- ments that are in existence, or have been re- cently made with regard to the conveyance of flour from Montreal or Toronto, on any of our Canadian places? — I have a statement here of that ; I must be free to say that I bring it before the Committee with some little hesitation, though the gentleman who gave it me is a large corn merchant in Liverpool, and said he would vouch for the fact, and be ready to testify to it. I am informed that an arrangement has been completed by which Canadian flour can be sent from any station lying between Toronto and Montreal to any station between Liverpool and Manchester, at very low rates. 7863. You say at very low rates ; does that mean at a rate below the ordinary railway charge ? — Thirty-three })er cent, below. I was told that the arrangement between those who were anxious to get the traffic was that upon the Canadian side 33 per cent, less than their ordi- nary charge should be taken, and the same thing should be done on the English side ; that does not apply to grain, but to the manufactured article, flour. A merchant or flour dealei’, for instance, can purchase for delivery at Ordsall-lane Station or any station between Manchester and Liver- pool in any quantity above 50 sacks, and have it brought to his order all the distance at a through rate, subject to these deductions. Mr. I'lolton. 7864. What is the through rate? — I cannot give you the through rate, but it is the railway rate, subject to a deduction of 33 per cent. ; it was said that a gentleman had come from Canada endeavouring to arrange this matter ; he had been something like three years in accomplishing it, but had now arranged the conditions with the English railways ; one was dependent upon the other ; that a 33 per cent, reduction was taken u u 4 upon .'544 MIXUTEb OF FVIDEACL TAKEN BEFORE THE 30 May 1881.] Mr. Kigby. \^Contivved-. Mr. Bolton — continued. •upon the Canadian side in return for a reduction of 33 per eent. upon this side ; that is to say, 33 per eent. oft" the rate from places between Toronto and Montreal, and between Liverpool and Man- chester. Mr. Paget. 7865. When you say 33 [)er cent, below the rate, do you mean below the highest rate or below the ordinary rate that is quoted? — 1 take it that it is below the ordinary rate that they are in the habit of charging for similar produce. Mr. Bolton. 7866. But you do not know? — I do not know which it is for certain. Mr. Paget. 7867. Could you tell the Committee with re- gard to these through rates whether they apply to all stations or to any particular stations only ? — They arc not to apply to the temiinal stations upon the Canadian side, not to Toronto or Mon- treal, and upon the English side not to Liverpool or Manchester. 7868. But would they apply to any stations in the neighbourhood of Manchester or Liveiqiool ? — Yes. 7869. Is there a station called Ordsall-lane ? — Yes. 7870. How far is that from Manchester? — ' About two or two and a-half miles. 7871. And this flour might be consigned there ? — Yes : it could not, under this arrangement, be consigned to Manchester, but it could to Ordsall- lane, and, by way of securing evidence to ex- plain this, I inquired of anotlier flour dealer, and had a letter from him in which he gives me an instance ; he says, “ I heard of one instance to- day in which a man in Manchester bought 500 sacks of flour direct from Chicago, delivered at Ordsall-lane, at some shillings lower than it could be bought at in Manchester. As a matter of fact, however, the flour arrived in such a condi- tion that only a limited number of the sacks could be used by the buyer, the remainder was sold by auction.” 7872. Do you know of any fact with regard to the railway rate for cured meats and ])ro\isious from America ? — For bacon and hams the average ^ O rate is 30 s. per ton. 7873. Is that over the 950 miles from Chicago to New York? — No, this is the average rate on the ship for the voyage from America or Canada to Liverpool. 7874. But can you glie us the rate from Chicago to New Y"ork for cured meats? — Ido not think 1 have any evidence to ofter to the Committee on the carriage of meat upon the other side. 7875. But you know at what rate American meat imported into Liverpool is delivered in London, taking the rate from Liverpool to Lon- don ? — That is from 25 .v. to 30 s. 7876. That is 25 s. for the railway rate, and 5 s. extra for the dock charges, and so on ? — Y es. Now a large number of Irish cattle come to the Liverpool market ; but a butcher buying those cattle, killing them in Liverjiool, and sending the meat to London, must pay 50 s. a ton, I am told. IMr. Paget — continued. 7877. lYhereas, if they had been brought in Upon an American steamer, and sent on to London, they would have been sent for 25 s. ? — That is so. 7878. I do not understand you to complain of the lowness ef those American rates as rates, but what you ask for is their introduction here? — Y'es, that is what we would like. 7879. And with regard to the information which you have given to the Committee as to the low rates on American railways, that is so for the purpose of showing at what rate the American railways can aftbrd to convey agricultural pro- duce? — Y'es, the American producers of grain and meat get their produce carried down to the seaboard at very low rates ; that is the point I want to establish, much less than we have our produce carried for in England. I know, of course, that the circumstances are diflercnt, and it may not be possible to do it at the same rate in England ; but what I have ascertained are facts. 7880. In short, if we are able to get our Eng- lish meat and English flour conveyed on anything like the same terms as the American, it would be a very favourable thing to the agriculturists? — Very much so. 7881. And -what would help him would help the consumer? — Of course the consumer must get the benefit. 7882. Of course you do not pretend to say that there is any reason why the rates should be identical ; there may be a special reason why the American railways should bo able to carry for less money, having been constructed probably for a less })rice? — That might be so. 7883. I believe with regard to the conveyance of seeds on railways, you have some information to give the Committee ; could you tell the Com- mittee what would be the rate on seeds from Paris to Chester by the Great Western Rail- way ? — Twenty-seven shillings per ton. 7884. Which way w'ould that come? — 17d YYeymouth. 7885. What is the rate from Weymouth to Chester by itself? — Thirty-five shillings. 7886. So that the rate for seeds from Paris to We 3 mouth, and rid Weymouth to Chester, is 27 s., whilst the raihray rate from "Weymouth to Chester is 35 s. for the same article ? — That is so. 7887. Do you know the rate from Rotterdam to Chester? — Yes, by way of Harwich it is 33 s. 4 d. 7888. And for seeds also? — Y'es, I am quoting seeds. 7889. Now, what is the railway rate from Harwich to Chester? — Forty shillings. 7890. Upon what line of railway would that come ? — I think it is the Great Eastern and the Midland Railways. 7891. So that in those two cases you have a much higher rate for a small distance over an English railwav than for a far larger distance, either from Rotterdam in one ease, or trom Pans in the other? — That is so. 7892. AVhat is the rate for seeds from London to Chester? — Twenty-seven shillings and six- pence. 7893. That would be 6 d. more than from Paris to Chester? — Yes, the I’ate used to be 32 5. 6 d. 7894. Y'oti SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 345 30 May 1880.] Mr. Rigby. IContinved. Mr. Paget — continued. 7894. You have spoken of seeds ; what sort of seeds are you referring to generally in those replies which you have been lately giving? — Clover and grass seeds are the principal seeds which come from those places ; I might ])erhaps say that the information is given to me by Messi's. F. and A. Dickson, of Chester, who are large seed merchants. 7895. Dealing still with the question of seeds, I think you have some complaints with regard to the railway classification, making a com- parison between seeds and plants. Can you give the Committee any instances ? — The existing classification of goods is unsatisfactory, cheap uudamageable goods being sometimes charged more than goods of much greater value, and of a more risky nature ; and the rates charged for goods of one class seem to have little relation to the rates charged for goods of another class. Plants, for instance, are in some cases charged double the agricultural seed rate, while in other instances the plant rate is 3^ times more than for seeds. 7896. How much are the rates from Chester to Park Gates for seeds? — Five shillings and tenpence. 7897. And for plants ? — Twenty shillings. 7898. How much is the rate from Chester to Dolgelly for seeds? — Twenty- two shillings and sixpence for loads under two tons. 7899. And plants? — Thirty-seven shillings and sixpence. Sir Edward Watkin. 7900. What is the rate for loads over two tons? — I have no quotations for over two tons ; people would very rarely send two tons of seeds to- gether. Mr. Paget. 7901. What ai’e the rates for plants? — At owner’s risk they charge 37 . 9 . 6 d., and eompany’s risk, 45 5. 7902. So that in that ease the railway company charge for plants carried at owner’s risk just double the amount for seeds ? — Y^es- 7903. But in the previous case which you quoted, from Chester to Park Gate the charge is from three to four times as much ? — That is so. 7904. And the complaint you make is that in the classification of those goods they do not appear to be equally treated for different dis- tances ? — That is so. 7905. What is the rate from Chester to Pem- broke ? — For seeds the rate is. 38 s. 4 d., and for plants ] 22 i. 6 d. 7906. The difference there is very consider- able ? — ^That is so. 7907. There is no equal system of classification as regards plants and seeds ? — There us no pro- portion between them. 7908. Have you any experience of your own as to the unreasonableness of the railway charges in other matters ? — Yes. A little while ago I had the castings of a water wheel from Preston to Halton Station. Mr. Bolton. 7909. hat was the total weight of the castings? — From about 9 to 10 tons ; 17 s. 6 d. a 0.54 . Mr. Bolton — eontinued. ton was charged for it, and on appeal I got the charged reduced to 12 s. 6 d., but even then it was put in a higher class than was warrantable from the kind of casting that it was, it was simply a casting taken out of the rough sand, and just dressed with a hammer and chisel ; there were no bright pai'ts in it, and from the classification that the station-master had, it appeared that the charge was originally made upon the same rate as engine work would be charged at, or bright work for engines. 7910. What classification was it put in? — The 4th or the 5th, I think, at 17 s. 6 d. Sir Edward Watkin. 7911. Was that machinery In one piece or In several pieces ? — In several pieces. 7912. What was the weight of the different pieces? — The smallest was over two cwt. and the largest 10 or 12. Mr. Paget. 7913. Y^ou stated to the Committee that you had certain complaints to make with reference to the difference of the rates when goods are taken at owner’s risk, and when taken at the risk of the railway company ; have you any examples to offer to the Committee of that difference ? — I have. Seeds at owner’s risk are charged 12 s. 6 d., and at the company’s risk 15 s. 7914. There is an addition of 20 per eent. in that case ? — Y^'es ; then seeds are also sent at 50s. at OAvner’s risk, against 70 s. at com])any’s risk, being an addition of 40 per cent., and in another case 37 s. 6 d. owner’s risk against 60 s. eom- pany’s risk, being an addition of 60 per cent. 7915. So that in the three instances which you quote the difference between the owner’s risk and the company’s risk is 20 per cent., 40 per cent., and 60 per cent, respectively ? — That is so. 7916. Is that over the same line of railway ? — Yes, the rates are taken from the letter “ C.” The stations are jnunted alphabetically in the railway company’s lists, and those instances are , taken from the letter “ C.,” out of those that were given to me. In fairness I ought to say th.at in one case there is a difference of only 16|rds. per cent, as between owner’s and company’s risk. 7917. And those are all the same class of seeds? — They are all of the same class of seeds. 7918. There is no reason for saying that they ouo-ht to be charged a his/her rate in one case be- cause of the increased value of one as compared with another ? — No, they are the same class of goods, as I understand. 7919. Now we will go to a different subject, and that is the complaint that you have made wltlx reference to the high rates which are charged for short distances ; I understand you to say that that is considered by the farmers in your neigh- bourhood a serious reason for complaint ? — It is. 7920. Can you give the Committee any example of the cai'riage of grain ; take grain first, for instance, in lots of two tons ? — There is one rate of 11 5. 3 c?., 1 think, from Ellesmere Port to Sand bach. 7921. How many miles is that? — About 27 miles. X X 7922. 'VVhat 346 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 30 May 1881.] Mr, Rigby. 'iContiumd.. Mr. Paget— continued, Mr. Paget— continued. 7922. What is the rate from Whitchurch to Sandbach? — Seven shiilings and sixpence. _ 7923. How many miles is that ? — Sixteen miles. 7924. What is the rate fiom Liverpool to Southport ? — Seven shillings and sixpence. 7924*. Whatis the number of miles ? — Twenty- four, I think, 7925. Now with regard to the 16 miles from 'Whitchurch to Sandbach, for which distance grain is charged Is. &d. a ton, do you consider that a high rate ? — A very high rate, and that is a case in point ; it is for the carriage of English grown coni a corndealer sends me that informa- tion, and tells me that he lias frequently to decline purchasing from small fanners because the rates are so excessive for small quantities to be sent. 7926. Do you know the rate that is quoted for quantities over two tons? — do not, in that case. 7927. Would it be usual in your neighbour- hood to send grain in quantities over or under two tons I — Tlie usual thing is above two tons ; but in this case it is under 20 sacks. 7928 So that your complaint iS of small quantities for short distances? — Yes. 7929. Do you supply more than one line of railway? — Yes. 7930. The rate from Liverpool to Southport, a distance of 24 miles, you say, is 7 s. 6 d. ? — YYs, I think it is, 7931. Do you consider that a high rate at 7 s. 6 d. ? — It is considered very high. 7932. If 7 s. 6 d. is considered very high for 24 miles, it must be extravagantly high for 16 miles ? — It is thought so. Mr, Bolton. 7933. Are those the rates at owner’s risk ? — I think so. 7934. But you do not know ? — I think so. I would be almost as certain of it as of anything, because it is the usual practice. From my ex- perience of forwarding grain, I never send it at the company’s risk, but always at my own risk, and it is the usual practice of the trade to take it at the owner’s risk. IMr. Paget. 7935. Could you give the Committee any in- formation with regard to the conveyance of potatoes by rail ; wdiat is the rate that is charged from Northwlch to Manchester for the convey- ance of potatoes ? — From Northwich to Man- chester, a distance of 18 miles, the charge is 6 .V. 8 d. 7936. Would that include delivery in the market ? — No. 7937. How much more would they charge you for delivery upon the market ? — One instance I have is, that 4 s, 2 d. is charged for cartage, though the ordinary rate of cartage is 1 s, 6 d. 7938. AVhat is the reason the company have charged 4 s. 2 d. in this instance ? — I cannot quite explain it. I am giving the fact as stated to me. 7939. AYhat is the charge from Frodsham to INIanchester ? — I think it is 8 5. 4 d. 7940. And the distance, I think, is about 30 miles ? — About 30 miles. 7941. ATou have compai’ed those distances with rates to more distant j)laces ; do you know what is the rate to Goole, in Y’orkshire ? — It is 16 s. for a distance of 85 miles from Man- chestei-. 7942. Take the rate to Nottingham; svhat is the rate for potatoes ? — Potatoes from AVhit- church to Birmingham, a distance of 65 miles, are charged 14 .s. 6 d. per ton. Then I have be- fore me a case in Avhich potatoes from Moles- worth to JManchester were feold in Manchester at 4 5. a load, tvhich is two hampers; the charge paid to the company was 1 s. 4.^ d. per load. 7943. How many miles tvould that be? — It would be about 30 miles. The rates from Nottingham, to which your question wms directed, are 13 5. 4 cZ. a ton to Manchester. Then taking Hull and Goole, Hull being 109 miles from Manchester, the rate is 16 s. to Manchester, and to Middlesbro’ also 16.9. 7944. AVhilst it is 6s. Sd. for 18 miles? — Yes. Sir Edward W atkin. 7945. Upon these Cheshire stations, are you giving the rates for old potatoes in sacks or in bulk, or new potatoes in hampers ? — Those are new potatoes in hampers. I have only at present given one instance witlr regard to new potatoes, showing that 1 s. 4gf?. was taken out of the 4 s. ; the others are for the old potatoes sent loose in the trucks. Mr. Paget. 7946. Do you know what is the rate at which potatoes can be delivered from Belgium ? — The rates from the Channel Islands, and Scotland, and the Continent, are from Jersey 50s., for 340 miles to Manchester ; that includes 80 miles by- sea ; from Ayrshire and the district, the charge is 21 s. 8 d. to 23 s. 4 d. by rail, the distance being 190 miles ; from Perth and district the charge is from 25 s. to 27 s. 6 d. • 7947. Do you know the distance? — I cannot give that distance ; from Belgium it is 14 s. per ton to Manchester. Those are all quoted rates to Manchester, show-ing the difference in the changes betw'een freights from distant places and short distances. Mr. Bolton. 7948. But the last quotation is nearly all sea passage? — From Belgium the passage is partly by sea. ]\Ir. Nicholson. 7949. The Belgium railways bring potatoes ■which go by way of Grimsby or Hull? — That is so. Mr. Paget. 7950. Your object in producing this evidence is to show that the rates by’’ rail for short dis- tances are excessive? — Yes, in comparison with those for longer distances. 7951. The operation of that is unfavourable In the neighbourhood of Ylanchester, is it not? — It is. 7952. Is SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 347 30 Ma 7 j 1881.] Mr. Rigby. \_Continued. Mr. Paget — continued. 7952. Is that a district which in point of climate and soil is favourable for the growth of fruit and vegetables ? — Some districts lying around Manchester are very favourable for the growth of strawberries, and other fruit and vegetables. The districts about Timperley, Bow- den, and Altrincham are very favourable for the growth of strawberries and vegetables, and in some parts of Cheshire there is a great growth of early jiotatoes, and those rates I am comparing with the rates from the Continent and Scot- land. 7953. If your short distant rates could be reduced to anything like equal terms to those from long distances, it would be a great advan- tage to all your districts ? — It would be a great advantage to us. Our j)roduce only a few miles from iManchester is subject to as much expense as if it came from Yorkshire in many cases. 7954. Y^ou stated that the rates did not appear to be fixed in accordance with distance ; do you happen to know the rate from Chester to Aber- deen for seeds ; is that 40 s. 10 d. a ton ? — I be- lieve it is. 7955. And the rate from Chester to Eccle- fechan, which is a place in Dumfriesshire, is also 40 s. 10 rf.?- — It is. 7956. One place being twice as far as the other ? — It is. 7957. And that is an example you give to show that the rates do not appear to be fixed in proportion to the distance travelled ? — That is so. 7958. Xow, with regard to the rates for the distribution of grain from Liverpool, you have also complaints that the rates charged are ex- tremely high for short distances? — That is so. 7959. And that they do not appear to be charged upon any fair system compared with the distance the goods are taken? — That is so. 7960. What is the charge from Liverpool to Winsford? — Six shillings and tenpence. 7961. Ai'e there any other instances you can give ? — The rate from Liverpool to Sutton Weaver is 6 .?. 7962. How far is Winsford? — Winsford is about 24 miles. 7963. How far is Sutton Weaver? — Sutton M eaver is practically about 17 miles. 7964. So that for that distance the rate is 6 s. ? — Yes. 7965. And the charge for 24 miles is 6 s. 10 d. ? —There are two diflerent charges from Liver- pool, depending upon which dock the traffic is collected at ; from the dock near the railway ter- minus the charge is 6 s. 10 d. ; but 7 s. 1 d. is charged from the dock a little further from the railway station, and the same thing applies in proportion to Sutton Weaver. 7966. May I take it from you, generally, that to stations within a distance of 20 miles of Liver- pool, the rates are generally excessive? — Yes, I can give other instances in the same neighbour- hood ; I know them because I deal with those places myself. I pay 5 s. a ton from Sutton M eaver to Winsford, if I have to send there, whereas if I sent it direct from Liverpool to Winsford I should pay 6 s. 10 d. a ton, 7967. Is that the rate for two tons or under ? 0.54. Mr. Paget — continued. — Yes, not under four tons. I never send less than four tons to get the 5 s, rate. Mr. Dillwyii. 7968. Does that include collection and deli- very? — Xo, it includes collection in Liverpool, but it does not include delivery at Sutton Weaver; conversely it does not include collec- tion in Sutton Weaver, because I send it to the railway in my own waggons. Mr. Paget. 7969. With regard to the carriage of grain for longer distances, what is the rate from Liveiqiool to Oxford ? — Sixteen shillings and twopence. 7970. Is that in four-ton loads? — Y^'es. 7971. Is that delivered in the same way as you describe ? — Yes, the distance is 135 miles. 7972. YVhat is the rate to a station called Darnell, which is near Sheffield ? — I would prefer to take Reading, a distance of 155 miles from Liverpool, for which the charge is 17 s. 10 d. ; from Liverpool to Southampton, a distance of 185 miles, the charge is 23 s. 8 d. ; to YVolverton the charge is 16 s., and the distance is 128 miles ; from Lowestoft to Liverpool, a distance of 210 miles the charge is 21s. per ton ; those rates are all for grain; the charge of 21 s. for 210 miles is considerably less in jiroportion per mile than the other cases 1 have cited to the Committee. 7973. But you do not know the charge from Liverpool to Darnell, a station close to Sheffield? — It is 16 s. 7974. How many miles would that be? — It would be about the same distance as Sheffield. 7975. It would be one-third of the distance from Liverpool to Oxford? — Yes. 7976. The rate is the same? — Y^’es. 7977. Those are examples of rates not being fixed in accordance with the railway distance trayelled ? — That is so ; not proportionately, 7978. And also of excessive rates for shoi’t distances? — That is so. 7979. Xow, with reference to hay and straw, could you give the Committee some instances ? — I know that hay and straw carried from Run- corn to Liverpool are charged 5 s. 10 d., whereas from Frodsham the rate is 10 5 ., and Fx'odshamis about three to four miles further away. 7980. So that the company appear to charge 4s. 2d. for the extra four miles ? — That is so. 7981. Ai'e those both at owner’s risk ? — They are both at owner’s risk. 7982. Would that be in large quantities? — There must be a ton of straw or 30 cwt. of hay, and the prices ai e charged as if they were in those quantities at least. 7983. What is the effect upon your agricul- ture of those differences with regard to hay and straw? — It puts a very high price ujxon straw; it limits the sale of it by making it cost so much when it gets to Liverpool. The charges are ex- cessively high upon the freight of hay and straw to any distances between 20 and 30 miles from Liverpool; from Warrington to Liverpool the charge is made of 14 s. 2 d. 7984. How far is that? — Xinetcen miles. X X 2 7985. Does 348 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 30 May 1881.] Mr. Kigby. S^Continued. Mr. Bolton. 7985. Does that include loading and unloading? — No, the farmer sends a man to load, and it is fetched away by the purchaser ; I think the com- pany find ropes and sheets and bind it, but they do not put much labour upon materials of that kind. Mr. Payet. 7986. Would not 14.9. 2d. per ton be nearly a prohibitive rate ? — It is for straw, which is selling now at less than 3 Z. a ton ; the freight is one- fourth the value of it. 7987. Do you know any cases in which special rates have been asked for potatoes ? — Yes, I have one Instance which I can turn to ; I ajiplied for a potato rate for a distance of 32 miles for two- ton lots, and I have had one granted of 8 s. 4 d., in comparison with the next station, a distance of 29 miles, where the rate is 6 s. 8 d., and also another station, a distance of 40 miles, where the rate is 7 s. 6 e- cial reductions being made in the through rates by the “ Conference,” without such corresponding reductions in the local railway rates, as would enable independent-steam ship companies to com- pete on fair terms with the cross channel con- ference companies.” Mr. Monk. 8134. (To Mr. Inglis.) Is the Dublin Chamber of Commerce of a representative character? — The Chamber of Commerce consists of about 1,200 members, who represent, I may say, all the mer- cantile interests of Dublin. 8135. That is to say, the })rincipal traders of Dublin? — Yes, the principal traders of all kinds, and also a large representation of the Port and Docks Board, and a large number of railway directors, three of whom are chairmen. The chamber contains also a representation of the canal interests and ti amways ; in fact, a large re- presentation of all the mercantile interest of the City of Dublin. 8136. Will the witnesses named in that memorial be able to give evidence with reference to preferential and diftierential charges made in Dublin, and generally to support the statements which have been read ! — Yes, we had a number of witnesses suggested to the council, who selected these two gentlemen ; in fact, we did a great deal of the wmrk of this Committee in sifting the evidence that was to be laid before you. called in ; and Examined. Chairman — continued. can understand their Act of Parliament, I think this legal charge of 5 d. includes everythina: except loading and unloading. Lord Randolph Churchill 8140. Is that a station-to-station rate, or does that include terminals ? — It does not include collection. 8141. Or delivery ? — I assume that it does cover terminals under their Act of Parliament, but as they never publish particulars of how the rates is made up, 1 cannot say posi- tively. The Act of Parliament says, “ the maximum rates to be taken by the company tor the conveyance of goods upon this railway, in- cluding the tolls for the use of the railway and Y T 2 the 356 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 2 June 1881. Mr. PiM, Jun. [ Continued. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. the carriages, wagons, trucks, locomotive power, and every expense incidental to such conveyance, except the loading and unloading of goods Avhere such service is performed by the company, shall not exceed the following ; ” and 5 d. is the maximum. Chairman. 8142. As I gather from what you say, you work it out at 9 d. per mile to Mullingar? — It is 9 d. per ton jier mile instead of 5 d., their legal maximum. 8143. So that you leave 4 d. as a margin for any extra loading or unloading that the com- pany might do ? — That is so. 8144. That charge is a large sum per mile, is it not? — It is a large sura. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8145. If 5d. is their legal rate, what would be the right charge ? — It is 50 miles, and the rate would be 250 pence, or 1/, Os. 10 d., but they charge 38 s. 4 d., so that they charge about 18 s. too much. Now, taking a shorter distance, viz., Clonsilla, which is only seven miles, the charge there would be equal to 15'7l d. per mile, or 1 s. 3| d. per ton per mile. 8146. Have you any rates to Galway ? — I have not worked out Galway, but I have equally im- portant places with Galway ; 1 have Roscommon, a distance of 96 miles, w'here the rate charged is 70s. lOd., equal to 8 '83 d. per ton per mile. Mr. O’’ Sullivan. 8147. Have you the rate to Castlerea? — I have Castlebar, which is not far from it; it is 150 miles from Dublin, and the price charged for the sixth class is 108s. 4d., equal to 8-66 d. per ton per mile. 8148. What are they allowed by their Act of Parliament ? — Fivepence a mile, which would be live times 150, or 62 s. 6d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8149. What class of goods would come in that highest class ?— Furniture for one thing; all the more expensive articles, or such as are light and bulky. Chairman. 8150. AVill you just give the Committee one or two instances of rates u])on some of the other lines ? — ^Vith regard to the Great Northern Rail- ■vvay, which runs between Dublin and Belfast, if we take the town of Dundalk, which is 54 miles from Dublin (I again take the highest class), the rate is 25s., which is 6’31d. per ton per mile. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8151. What is the legal charge by Act of Par- liament? — Fivepence is the most ; I am not j^er- fectly certain about it, but it is not over 5d. Chairman. 8152. I can tell you that 4d is the highest charge allowed by the Act of the Great Northern Chrirman — continued. Company of Ireland, but I would just ask you, before you go any further, are you sure that you are not taking these as the rates for parcels under 500 lbs., because that is a very important dis- tinction to bear in mind ? — This rate is taken from the com.pany s own rate-book at per ton. Now to Portadown, a distance of 88 miles from Dublin, the price is 31s. 6d. ; that would be 5T1 d. per ton per mile. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8153. Can you give the Committee the rate to Belfast? — The rate to Belfast is very cheap. I have not got the rate for the sixth class, but for the fifth class the charge is only equal to 2T2d. Now take Lisburn, a distance of 105 miles, the company only charge 35 s. for their sixth class, Avhereas they charge 37 s. 6d. to Portadown, which is 18 miles nearer Dublin. Now take the Great Southern and Western; if you look at the Act of Parliament I think their maximum rate is 4|d. Chairman. 8154. I make it that 4 d. is the highest rate ? — Taking the town of Newbridge, a distance of 25 miles from Dublin, the rate is 13 s. 4d. for the fifth class, which is the highest class upon that line; they have no sixth class upon that line; they classify their goods dillerently ; that works out to 6'21 d. per ton per mile. Mr. C Sullivan. 8155. That is 50 per cent, more than the com- pany is allowed to charge ? — It appears to be so. Now to Maryborough, a distance of 51 miles, they charge 23 s. 4 d., that is 5‘49 d., per ton per mile, and to Carlow, a distance of 56 miles, the com- pany charge at the rate of 5*36 d. 8156. Have you any rate to give the Com- mittee on lines going in a southerly direction ; take Cork, for example ? — The rates in that case are cheaper, but take Limerick, Limerick appears to be 129 miles from Dublin, and the rate there is 4*09 d. per ton per mile. Mr. Barnes. 8157. What is the company’s rate for that? — 44 s. Mr. C Sullivan. 8158. Can you give the Committee the rates to Portarllngton ? — I can to Templemore, a dis- tance of 79 miles ; the charge is 33 s. 4 d., that is 5*06 d. per ton per mile. Chairman. 8159. These rates you have taken out of the company’s rate books, as I understand ? — I have had them taken out from their own books with their own mileage, at the rate per ton for the highest class of goods. 8160 . They are not what you call special rates, but they are the rates in the rate book ? — They are the rates for the classification which is given SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAIL’WAYS. 357 2 June 1881 .] Mr. PiM, Jun. [ Continued. Chaiaman — continued, given in the railway clearing house classification hook. 8161. You have given tlje Committee rates on the Great Northern of Ireland, the Midland Great Western, and the Great Southern and lYestern Railway Companies ? — 1 have. Mr. O' Sidlloan. 8162. Have you any rates upon the Wicklow and Wexford line.?— I have not taken the rates on that line, as I thought three lines were enough. Chairman. 8163. Will you go now to the second head upon Avhich you desire to give evidence, which is as regards preferential rates to inland towns? — I can give you a variety of examples, and that I suppose is the best way of doing it. 8164. Do you come here to complain of their being an injury to the town of Dublin ; is that your ground ? — I do not come specially to repre- sent Dublin. I think the system is a bad one for all over the country, and that Belfast is suftering just in the same way as Dublin is; it is the large towns that the goods go through, to ‘which the preferential rates are Injurious. I think Cork has been injured, and Limerick in the same way. IMr. O'Sullivan. 8165. But you think they affect Dublin more than any of the places you have mentioned ? — Dublin being the point to Avhich the great ci’oss channel traffic comes, it suffers the more. Chairman. 8166. What is the rate to Duhlln from London for drapery goods ? — The rate to Dublin from London, for drapery goods, has been within the last month reduced to 80 5. from 88 s. 4 d. 8167. The rate is now at 80 s. ? — Yes. 8168. Now what are the same goods delivered for at Kilkenny or Tipperary ? — The same goods are delivered in Tipperary for 85 s., and I believe they were delivered for 85 s. when Dublin was charged 88 s. 4 d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8169. How far is Tipperary from Dublin? — One hundred and ten miles. Chairman. 8170. What would the rate be from Dublin to Tipperary? — The rate from Dublin to Tipperary is 28 s. 3 d. upon that class of goods. 8171. So the position of affairs is that the Dublin merchant would have to pay 80 s. and 28 s. 3 d., whereas the goods can, by a through rate, reach Tipperary for 85 s. ? — Yes ; but strange to say, and I have it from one of the railway companies in their own handwriting, there is a special rate for Tipperary goods, drapery, at 70.V. 0..54. Mr. O' Sullivan. 8172. And this traffic all comes through Dublin, does it not? — Y^es. I was rather astonished at getting that Information ; but I have it here in writing. Chairman. 8173. I should like you to answer this ques- tion for me, I suppose it is a benefit to people living inland in Ireland having this through rate; it cheapens the goods for tliem ? — It cheapens the goods for them, provided that all towns were treated alike ; but I can show you that there is a difference of from 10 to 15 and 20 per cent, between towns that are 20 miles from each other. As a general rule, those towns which have the through i-ate, and which are so bene- fited, are tliose which can be supplied in other ways. 8174. Take Tipperary, how can that district be supplied otherwise than via Dublin ? — By sea to W'’^aterford from the Great Western Railway in England, via Milford. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8175. Do you from your experience say this, that if you could send drajjery goods from Dub- lin to Tl 2 )perary for 5 5., you would be able to supply the Tipperary people with drapery goods at a lower co.st than the London people can supply them ? — We should be able to do it as well. If it could be done at 5 s. the soods would be subject to just the same freight as if purchased in London. 8176. Could you do it any better than the London people can? — I do not say that we could do it any better, but we could do it as well. Chairman. 8177. Can you give me any instance of an inland town which is not fairly treated by these through rates ? — To Carlow the freight is 95 s. from London, and to Kilkenny, 25 miles further on, on the same line of railway, the freight is only 86 s. 8 d. ; so that the goods are sent 25 miles further, and the railway company carry them for S s. -id. a ton less. 8178. I suppose Kilkenny can be served from Waterford ? — Y'es, it can. 8179. Can Carlow be served from Waterford too? — No, because it is anothei' line of railway, and the Waterford and Kilkenny Company, I believe, have not running powers over it. Carlow is upon the Great Southern and Western Railway which goes to Kilkenny, but there is also a line from Waterford to Kilkenny, which comes up to Maryborough afterwards, and that company can deliver goods from Waterford to Kilkenny, but has no power to deliver goods beyond Mary- borough. 8180. Do you know whether that little line has been applied to to give the through rates ? — I have not heard. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8181. Take the point where the Waterford line comes in, can you give the Committee the Y Y 3 rates 358 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881. PiM, Jun. \^Cvntiiiued. Lord Randolph (Jhurchill — continued. rates to Maryborough ? — I do not think I have the rate from Waterford to Maryborough, but I can give you the rate from Dublin to Maryborough, and you may assume that the rate from London is something about 90 Mr. Nicholson. 8182. What is the local rate ?— The local rate from Dublin to Maryborough is 15 5. 6 rf., and for this particular class of goods I am speaking of< the highest class, the rate is 23 5. 4 d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8183. Do you mean that the London rate would be 90 5*? — Yes, because there is no com- petition to Maryborough. 8184. But this line from Waterford runs into Maryborough, does it not? — It does, I had for- gotten that. Mr. Callan. 8185. What company works the line from Waterford to Maryborough? — I do not know the name of the company. Chairman. 8186. To take it shortly, you find fault with the same system as existing upon other articles besides drapery, viz., sugar, oils, soap, and so on ? — Yes. Mr. O' Sullivan. 8187. Can you give the Manchester rate to inland towns ?— I may say with regard to the Manchester rates, that about two years ago some merchants of Dublin met together asking the companies to reduce the rates ; they raised them at the time of the coal famine on drapery goods from 32 s. to 38 5. a ton from Manchester to Dublin ; we had a correspondence with the large railway companies then, and I have a letter here as representing the conference, which I Avill speak of afterwards, and the companies said they could not reduce the rates at all, although they had put them up because of the coal famine ; but within the last eight or nine months an opposition steam packet company has been started across Channel, and the result of that was a reduction from 35 5 ., to which the rates had been reduced, to 29 s. 4 d. ; and about two months ago the conference reduced the rate again to 25 s., so that we have had a reduction of 10 5 . a ton in the last few months by the road being opened by the competition of another steam company. They have not reduced the rates, as far 'as I can judge, to the inland towns, because the steam packet company which has been put on cannot work at a through rate on account of the op]:)Osition that there is, so that the inland towns are not getting any of that benefit whatever. Now cotton goods from Manchester are charged 25 5. through to Dublin delivered, but to Mullingar, a distance of 50 miles further, the rates are 53 5. 4 d. for the same class of goods ; to Carlow they are 52s. 6d., and to Kilkenny they are 46 s. 8 d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8188. Then what inference do you di-aw from that ; that this is a preferential rate in favour of Dublin? — We have now the rate 10s. cheaper to Dublin, the benefit of which I do not think has been given in any way to inland towns. Mr. O'Sullivan. 8189. Have the Great Southern and "yV'estern Kailway Company control over that portion of the line from Kilkenny to Carlow ? — They have from Kildare to Kilkenny, passing through Carlow. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8190. I suppose that lower rate to Kilkenny is owing to the Waterford competition? — It is owing to the Waterford comjietition. Now, with regard to the through rate from London on what are called drysalteries, the rate is 60 s. to Dublin and 65 s. to Tipperary, a distance of 110 miles further ; that traffic all comes through Dublin. Common soaps are charged 37 5. 6 d. from London to Dublin and 40 s. to Tipperary. To Carlow the rate is 48 s. 4 d., whereas Carlow is only half the distance from Dublin that Tipperary is, but it has not the advantage of an opposition. Chairman. 8191. Now, having given the Committee those instances, I should like to know what you deduce from them. It is clear. I supjiose, to you that the railway companies, like any other trading community, try and get as much money as they can, and that where there is competition they are obliged to reduce their rates, and Avhere there is not competition they do not reduce their rates? — I think that very often, in their anxiety to beat the steamers, the railway companies charge at so low a rate that they ai-e obliged to make the places where there is no competition make up for the cutting charges that are made elsewhere ; I think they are obliged to do it in that way. 8192. Your point is that, if they did not cut so low where there is competition, they could aftbrd to carry more cheaply where there is none? — That is so. 8193. Now, with regard to preferential rates to individuals, does that system exist in Ireland? — I have full belief in its existence, but it is very difficult to get information about it. I have here, from Messrs. Bickford & Co., on behalf of the London and North Western Railway, a state- ment that the rate from Manchester to Kilkenny is 46 5 . 8 d. on our drapery goods, and I have, at the same time, a letter from a trader in Kilkenny stating that he has for two years got all his goods at 405 . ; I have that in writing before me. 8194. Are you allowed to make use of that letter in public ? — The Avriter did not object to it, so I think I may. I Avill read the letter with- out giving the writer’s name. He says: “In reply to yours, I should say that it is nearly tAvo years since the Loudon and North AYestern Raihvay reduced the freight from Manchester to Kilkenny to 4()s. per ton.” Against that I have from the London and North Western Railway Company the statement that the rate is 46 s. 8 d. I have SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 359 2 June 1881. Mr. PiM, Juii. [^Continvf'd. Chairman — continued. I have also a letter from another merchant, but that is the only case that I can actually |.rove. 8195. You are aware, I suppose, that the law is quite sufficient as it exists to protect any cor- responding trader in Kilkenny : he could go be- fore the Railway Commissioners, and claim the same allowance as this gentleman you have alluded to? — Yes; but this difficulty of going before the Railway Commissioners is very great to the small traders. 8196. ])o not you think it would be enough to threaten the railway company, who would know that the Commissioners would at once compel them to give the same rate to any other trader to Kilkenny as they do to this gentleman?— I do not know that the traders are aware of that. I have a statement from a gentleman upon whom I place great dependence, but of course it is only a statement and must be taken as such. He says that two years ago drapery in trusses and cases was taken from London via Dublin to Cork for 66 s. 8 d., and he adds, that they were privately contracted for at 62 s. 6 rf. ; whereas at the same time the same class of goods were cost- ing 66 s. 8 d. to Dublin, so that they were taken the whole way to Cork for nothing. Now he says that the rate from London to Cork via Dublin from the 1st May this year is 62 #. 6 d., or I I d. per ton per mile, and from London to Dub- lin the rate is 60 s., which is 2 s. 4 d. per ton per mile. Mr. O'Sullivan. 8197. What is the rate from Dublin to Cork for the same goods? — If we sent the same goods to Cork they would cost 30 s. Chairman. 8198. But I want to have this point perfectly clear : are you aware that preferential rates are already illegal by law ; that it is illegal for a company to take from one person a rate that they do not take from another? — I only became aware of it the other day. 8199. What is your opinion as to special rates ? — In some cases I think they might be advantageous, as in the case of any new manu- factory starting in any particular district, but in that case it should be done openly, 8200. There is nothing to prevent special rates being given to districts or to certain trades, but preferential rates are not allowed to be given to one individual as against another?— Now I should like to mention that I have a list which I obtained from the representative of the Great Northern Railway Company of England in Dublin, and he says there are exceptional rates ; he mentions drapery at 70s. to Tipperary, although in the list given to us, the rate to Tipperary is 85 s. Mr. Callan. 8201. What connection has the Great Northern Railway with Tipperary ? — It does a large trade. I am referring of course to the Great Northern Company of England. 0.54, Lord Randolph Churchill. 8202. You mean the London and North Western Railway of England surely, do you not? — No, I mean the Great Northern; tliey run to Liverpool, they are in connection with the Dublin Steam Packet Company, and they have agreed rates with the London and North Western Company ; they do a very considerable trade in Ireland indeed, both to Belfast and Dublin. Now another inequality of rates is this. I have a list here from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Com- pany, and their rate on woollen goods from Manchester to Dublin is 55 s,, while their rate on calicoes and linens is only 25 s. The rate on woollen goods from Leeds to Dublin is 45 s., which is 10 s. less than the charge from Manchester to Dublin, and the charge for calico and linen goods is also 45 s. I only mention these figures to show the inequality of the basis of the rates. We are manufacturers of linen goods in Dublin, and if we send those linen goods over to Man- chester we must pay 29 s. 2 d., whereas if we get them back from Manchester we get them at the rate of 25 s. Mr. O'Sullivan. 8203. Could you give the Committee the rate for those goods from Manchester to Cork via Dublin ? — I do not think I can ; I recollect hear- ing what the rate was, but I am not quite sure of it. Chairman. 8204. I think you have given the Committee enough instances of inequality, because we know that they exist ; will you now refer to the Con- ference of the Railway and Steamboat Companies? — The Railway Conference is an association which I think must date its birth from the time when the London and North Western Railway Company got permission by Act of Parliament to run steamers. When they got a line of steamers across from Holyhead to Dublin, the company entered into arrangements with the existing lines of steamers which principally ran from Liverpool, and that has extended until they formed an irresponsible conference, which is composed of the representatives from the English railways having an Irish trade ; from the Irish railways in connection with them, and from the steamboat companies in connection with the Irish trade, and almost all the carriers between the two countries, so that it is a trade combination to protect their own interests. The result of .all this is that if there is a new line started between Dublin and Liverpool they find it very hard to get a living, because this conference can immediately reduce the charges upon the particu- lar class of local goods which this new steam- packet company carries, and so can drive them off the road. Now the way that tells is this: there was a company put on some time ago called the Sligo Steam Navigation Company 8205. The Committee have had information relating to that company from Mr. Middleton ? — I was going to give evidence with regard to the way in which this conference affects our own Dublin trade in through rates. A trader in Liverpool buying a lot of Bradford stuffs, gets Y Y 4 them 360 MINUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881.] Mr. Pim, Jun. \_Continued. Chairman — continued. them delivered in Liverpool for 18 r. 4 d. a ton, and we have Ijeen charged for the same goods delivered in Dublin 50 .<;. a ton. Xow, if you take the IS.s. 4 1 /. and add 3 s. for crossing Liverpool and loading ( I believe the 18 s. 4 includes collection g that would make 21 s. 4 f/. ; we have been charged, as I say, 50 s., leaving about 29 s. for the cross Channel freight. Now 20 s. was always considered the outside price for the cross Channel freight, and this new company would carry for 10 s., so that we can get done for 30 s. what we used to pay 50 s. foi'. The reason for the high through rate is, that the London and North Western Company, having a very long mileage to Holyhead from Bradford, as compared with the mileage to Liverpool, keep up the freights by their combination with the steam packet companies, and allow them to get this heavy freight from Liverpool, they giving the London and North Western Company some other advantage in lieu of it. These things are all settled in this conference. 8206. You mean they agree to draw the traffic through Holyhead? — Not exactly ; their point is to put themselves upon a footing of perfect equality. The London and North Western Company fix the rate at 50 s. per ton from Bradford, and they say to the other companies, I assume, “ You must charge the same, or else we will oppose you for the cross Channel traffic,” perhaps, “from Dublin, in fact, you must fall in with our views,” so that there is a combination to keep up the rates. Lord Randolph Clnirchill. 8207. That is an instance of the longest dis- tance governing the rates? — Yes, the longest distance governing the rates between England and Ireland. Then there is this to be remem- bered, that supposing w'e brought down goods from Bradford to Liverpool, and put them on board, through an agent of the Dublin Steam Packet Company, that company would, I believe, be bound not to charge the local rate, but to charge us the through rate, owing to that trade combination being in existence. Chairman. 8208. Will you explain how these lines of steamers, which you say have recently been put on, have managed to exist in spite of this con- ference ? — They have got a great deal of local traffic from the merchants of Dublin, who have sup])orted them because they saw it was an opportunity of opening the line ; but they can- not get through traffic into the country, and therefore the country towns are not benefited by it. 1 should like to point out that the country towns cannot get the advantage of this cheap service being put on, because they cannot send the goods on by the through rate, as the railway companies Avill not work with a non-conference steamshij) company. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8209. If you sent goods from Dublin to Liver- pool, what would be the rate you would have to Lord Randolph Churchill — continued. pay ? — The rate up to some lime ago was 20 s. 1 believe the City of Dublin company will take the goods at less uoav ; but the Sligo Company will take bale goods for 10 s. 8210. From Liverpool to Dublin locallv, the rate is 20 a-.? — By the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company. 8211. And from Bradford to Liverpool the rate is 18 s. 4 d. ? — It is so. 8212. That makes 38 .s. 4 d. ? — Yes. 8213. But you can make no arrangement by Avhich you can get advantage of the low local rates and avoid the high through rates ? — We can make no ai'rangement except sending the goods by the new company. Chairman. 8214. Then the new company is living on the local traffic between Dublin and Liverpool? — That is so ; it is living upon the local traffic be- tween Dublin and Liverpool. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8215. And you state that this company have been the cause of the reduction in the Mancheter rate ? — Tire rate has been reduced from 35 s. to 25 s. in the last few months. Nlr. Barnes. 8216. That is the rate on fine goods, is it not? — It is on bale and box goods, and I believe on other goods as well. « Chairman. 8217. Do you attribute that reduction to the starting of this company ? — I attribute it to the ojiening of the road by steamers not connected Avith the conference, and I think I may also say, in addition, that the appointment of the Select Committee to inquire into rates has had an effect upon the minds of some persons connected Avith railways. 8218. Will you noAv go on Avith Avhat you have to remark upon the next head, AA'hich is the classification of goods sent by raihvay ? — It is very difficult to get at this question of the classification ; raihvay companies A'ery greatly object to traders getting hold of these little books, Avhich are the Raihvay Clearing House classifica- tion of Ireland and England, showing the classi- fication of the tAVO. I had very great difficulty in getting hold of this little book Avhich I have in my hand. I Avill take three or four instances. We have six classes in Ireland, Avhereas in England there is a special rate and Aac classes. Now, I find that soap is first class in England and thii’d class in Ireland. Shoes carried in cases or boxes are third class in England and fifth in Ireland. Ale and porter in casks are in the first class in England and third in Ireland. Iron bed- steads are second class in England and fourth in Ireland. Coffee is second class in England and fourth in Ireland. 8219. Have SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 361 2 June 1881.] Mr. PiM, Jun. \_Coiitinued. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8219. Have you any examples in favour of tho Irish classification, that is to say, have you found any articles in the Irish classification which are carried cheaper than under tlie English classification ? — I think in the Irish classification the charges all round are higher than they are in the English classification. Chairman. 8220. Will you tell the Committee what suggestions you have to make in the direction of amending the existing system of railway action ? — The first question is with reference to this Rail- way Conference. I think when a railway com- pany gets the power of working in connection with a steampacket company, the public and the ti’aders ought to know how much is charged for freight and how much for railway carriage. I think that would be a great safeguard with regard to new companies starting, and would open the trade, for, at the present moment, what this conference does is quite secret and unknown to the general traders ; and, moreover, I have a statement from the companies themselves to show that these rates can be altered at any time. The London and North Western Railway Company and the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company were formerly getting 35s. from Manchester to Dublin upon the particular class of goods that I referred to, and now that charge is reduced to 25 s. ; that is divided amongst the companies in certain proportions, and it is quite probable the London and North Western Railway Company between Manchester and Liverpool is getting less than the local rate, while the company, carrying across the Channel may be getting a full rate, so that they may drive the other line off the sea. I think for that reason they should be obliged to state what is the pro- portion charged and taken by each. I do not mean that that should be stated upon all the documents, but that it should be obtainable, so that any trader, upon inquiry, could obtain it. 8221. But that arrangement concerns rival railway companies or rival carrying companies more than it concerns the public ; all that con- cerns the public is to know how much one has to pay, and to pay as little as possible ? — I do not quite see why we should have been charged 35 s. for that which we are now charged 25 s. We ought to have the power of seeing how this reduction is arranged between the companies. 8222. Would it not check the railway com- panies, and prevent their reducing their through rates for fear that if it became public that their proportion was under the local rate, it might have a tendency to call public attention to it, and compel the local rate to be reduced ? — I do not know that ; I think that in many cases the company have been making money on the through rates, and probably putting one thing against the other it would be an advantage. 8223. And you would say the same with regard to the ordinary local rates ; that they should be published and easily accessible ? — Cer- tainly. 8224. And that the collecting and delivery charges should be stated in the rate, apart from 0.54. Chairman — continued. the station to station rate ? — That is so, and that they should apply all over the kingdom. A few years ago some Dublin traders passed resolutions asking the railway companies to consider this question of the reduction of the railway freight, and I would ask pemaission to read one letter from the Great Northern of England Railway Company ; they say, “ With reference to your letter of the 27th ultimo, I have now to inform you that the resolutions passed at a meeting of the wholesale merchants in the drapeiy trade, held on the same date in Dublin, of which you were instructed to send me a copy, have been submitted for consideration to my board. I am to inform you that the question relating to a re- duction on the rates upon Irish traffic has been specially referred to the companies represented at the English and Irish Traffic Conference, of which a meeting will take place on the 4th proximo, and the Great Northern representative has given notice that on that occasion he will bring the matter under the attention of the con- ference in order that a decision may be arrived at.” 1 mention that letter in order to show that we are subject to a conference and not to the will of any railway company ; my belief is that the Great Northern Railway Company were willing to make a reduction, and that they recommended their representative to propose it ; but that this irre- sponsible conference being a made combination decided against any reduction. Mr. O’Hullican. 8225. I think you told the Committee that upon the Midland line you found that to Mul- lingar and other stations the company were charging far over their maximum rate ? — Yes. 8226. In some cases, I believe, as high as 50 per cent.? — Yes. 8227. And, I think you stated, that from Dublin to Newbridge the Great Southern and Western Company were charging 6d., while, under their Act, they arc only authorised to charge 4 d. per ton per mile ? — Yes, that was so. 8228. Now, I believe you say, that the charge from London to Dublin for soap is 37 s. 6 d. ? — Yes. 8229. And from London to Tipperary, via Dublin, a distance of 110 miles further on, the charge is only 40 5. ?— Yes, that is correct. 8230. Will you tell the Committee what the charge is for soap direct from Dublin to Tip- perary ? — Fifteen shillings. 8231. And the English soap is only charged 2 5. 6 d. more to Tipperary than it is to Dublin ? — That is so. 8232. Under that arrangement it would be quite impossible for a Dublin soap merchant to compete with a London manufacturer ? — It would be quite impossible. 8233. You told the Committee that from Lon- don to Cork, via Dublin, for the same class of goods, the charge was 62 s. 6 d. ? — I told you that it was stated so to me ; I did not state it as a fact, on my own account. 8234. Have you not a large number of whole- sale drapery merchants in Dublin? — Yes. 8235. And by the undue advantage given to Z z the 362 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881.] Mr. PiM, Juii. [ Conlhmed. Mr. O' Sullivan — continued, the Manchester merchants, you are jdaced in a position of disadvantage ? — I think London mer- chants are given an advantage of from 20 to 25 per cent, upon the freights generally to Dublin. 8236. Is it a fact that the Manchester mer- chants get an advantage over the Dublin mer- chants? — I think they did; but rates to Dublin are now reduced. 8237. Is it the fact that they sometimes get a through rate from Manchester at less than you can send the goods from Dublin for? — IN’o, I have heard that stated as regards patent manures, but not on Manchester goods. 8238. Will you give the Committee some of the cases in which it has been stated that the company charge more on manure from Dublin than . they do from Manchester ? — I will find it directly. 8239. You told the Committee that ale and porter w'as first class in England, and third class in Ireland? — Yes, in casks. Ale and porter in hampers are second in England, and fourth in Ireland ; in casks they are first class in England and third in Ireland, and that affects the Irish trade very much. 8240. Could you tell the Committee the dif- ference between the first class rate in England and the third-class rate in Ireland, say for 100 or 10 miles ? — I think the third-class rate from Cork to Dublin is 20 v. 8241. Will you take the rate to Thurles or Portarlington ? — I will take Thurles ; the third- class rate to Thurles is 14 s. 9 d. per ton. 8242. That is about 86 miles, is it not ? — Yes, 86 miles. 8243. What is the charge for 86 miles in England for the first-class rate ? — I really do not know that. 8244. Did you hear the evidence that was given before this Committee by Mr. Banks, of Cork, that the Great Southern and Western Company had a rate upon their line from Burton to Cork, for Burton ale of 25.*;. 10 <7., out of which they get 6 s. 6rf., Avhlle they are charging Messrs. Guinness, the brewers of Dublin, 15 s. for the same distance ? — I saw' that gentleman’s evidence in the newspapers. 8245. Do you think it would be of advantage to large senders in Ireland, if they w'cre allowed the px’ivilege of loading and unloading their ow n goods, and getting a reduction for it? — 1 tliink it would on heavy goods, but on tlie general class of goods I do not know that it w'ould be any very great advantage. 8246. Do you know, as a fact, that the railway companies do not make any allowance to those who load and unload their goods, such as grain, manure, and so on ? — I am not w^ell acquainted with the matter of agricultural produce. Mr. Barnes. 8247. You say the London and North Westexn Company have practically the command of the rates having through communication, both steam and rail ? — Yes. 8248. And that in fact they rule the Dublin Steam Packet Company and the wdiole of the other steam packet companies? — It is the interest of the other companies to agreed with them. Mr. Barnes — continued. 8249. That is to say, to fall in with them ? — To fall in with them. 8250. You want to have set apart the railway and the sea part of the freight, so that you may know exactly what they have a right to charge upon the railways and on the steamer ? — We think w'e have the right to do so ; we think the steam packet company, which is, as it is called “ in the conference,” should be bound to take goods, no matter where they come from, and charge local rates if the parties sending or re- ceiving w'islies it to be so; at present they only charge through rates. 8251. You look upon the raiBvay conference as being decidedly inimical to your Interests? — We think it has been inimical to the interest of traders. 8252. The companies give you no notice of an advance in the rates, but it may be made imme- diately?^ — I have a letter from the agent of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Bailway Comjiany, which says so ; “ Bates to Dublin ; the above are liable to alteration at any time wdthout notice.” 8253. Do you think that there ought to be some notice, say six months’ notice, before a change of rates takes place? — I think so. A trader might have a contract in which the freights were a very essential element, and if the freights were raised at a moment’s notice, he would seriously suffer. 8254. You consider that a very important point? — I think it is an important point, but there arc others of more importance. However, I think that if the particulars w'ere easily knowm it would regulate the freights, and public opinion would have the effect of keeping them right. 8255. I think you stated that in 1872 the com- pany raised the rates on account of the coal famine ? — Yes, they raised the rates on account of the coal famine. 8256. The last year or two when coals have been cheap, have the rates been reduced? — I think I mentioned that the four large railway companies of England, which comjiete for the Irisli trade all, with the exception of the Great Northern Kailway Comjiany, refused to I’educe the rates; they said that they had been put to great ex- penses in having to put up signals, and so on, and that they could not reduce the freights. 8257. You do not in Ireland seem to have had a knowledge of the jiower of the Kailw.iy Com- missioners ? — Some traders may have had a knowledge of them, but I certainly did not in- dividually understand their powers. 8258. Would there be any fear on the part of a trader of being “ boycotted ” if he took a rail- w'ay company before the Railway Commissioners’ Court ? — I think it miglit strike his mind; we are greatly at the mercy of the London and North Western Railway Company. 8259. You are in dread of them? — I would not say that ; tliey do their business exceedingly well, and if the rates are high, the Irish business, at all events, is done by them si)lendidly. Sir Edward Wathin. 8260. I think you complain that the Man- chester merchant has a preference over the Dublin SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 363 2 June 1881.] Mi’. PiM, Jun. [^Continued. Sir Edward Wntkin — continued. Dublin merchant in rates ; that the Manchester merchant is in a better position (lua railway rates than the Dublin merchant?— That is to an in- land town in Ireland; it is so in that case. 8261. Do I understand you to mean that a merchant in Dublin, trading with an inland town in Ireland is in a worse position than the Man- chester mercliant trading to an inland town in England ? — No, it was not that at all. 8262. But that the Dublin merchant is in a worse position trading from Dublin to an inland town in Ireland than a Manchester merchant would be trading to that particular town ? — I would rather take Bradford than Manchestei’. 8263. You object to the Railway and Steam Packet Conference, as it is called ? — Yes, de- cidedly. 8264. Would you abolish the conference? — I know so little about the secret working of that conference that I could not say how much ought to be abolished and how much ought to remain. I think it possible that some part of it ought to remain, but the public should know all about it. 8265. Do you think it is a great advantage to have to pay one charge instead of several charges ? — I think it is a great advantage, but if a through rate is a means of putting on undue charges, I think it is exceedingly well to know of what that through rate is composed. 8266. But I ventured to suggest to another wit- ness from Ireland, that probably, if the Railway Conference were so organised that it had a standing arbitrator of a high class, all those disputes and differences might be got rid of in that way ; do you think that might be a mode of getting rid of the difficulties ? — I have not heard of that before, but if we had the Railway Commissioners, and the opportunity of going before them, would they not act in that position ? 8267. They would act as a judge acts, by direct appeal, but they would not act fi om day to day, as an arbitrator between the parties ; is it your your opinion that the Railway Commis- sioners should make the rates between England and Ireland? — No, I do not think that they should formulate the rates in any Mmy, but that where there Tvas a case of undoubted unfairness, they should settle it. 8268. Would you come to England for the purpose, or would the Railway Commissioners come to Ireland ? — I think that is a question for Parliament to settle, but one of the Commis- sioners might come over when required. 8269. Do you think it might be convenient that any question of difference with regard to rates or affecting these conferences might go by a cheap-and-easy form before the courts in Dublin ? — It would strike my mind that a special court which understands the matter would be a much better court than any of our legal courts in Ireland. 8270. Then you think the Railway Commis- sioners’ Court does understand the question ? — ihey ought, and I assume that they do. 8271 Are you in favour of an equal mileage rate irrespective of distances ? — I do not think that a perfectly equal mileage rate could ever be arranged, but I am very much in favour of what I call an equitable mileage rate in propoi’tion 0.54. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. to the distance; something must be allowed for terminals, upon the use of a small fraction of the railway. 8272. You would have division by scale, but not an absolutely arithmetical proportion ? — I do not say how it is to be done, but that there should be some relation between distance and rate. 8273. Now, with regard to competition by water, where the sea rate is lower than the ordi- nary railway rate, how would you deal with that ; would you compel the railway companies to charge their full rates notwithstanding. Sup- pose, for example, the railway company has the power to charge 2 /. to one place, and the sea price is 1 /., would you compel the railway com- pany to charge the 2 Z., or would you allow them to come down to the sea competition ? — I think the railway companies in their anxiety to get trade, very possibly work at such a rate to places where there is competition, that to places where there is no competition, they are obliged to put on a high rate to make np for it. 8274. Now passing to another point ; would you be in favour of a uniform classification for the three kingdoms ? — I am in favour of a re- classification, or a readjustment of the classifica- tion. 8275. I suppose that dividends on Irish rail- way property are not very large upon the average ? — ^They are not very large at present, and I think it is possible they may be worse. 8276. Taking the average, the dividend is under 4 per cent., is it not? — It is. 8277. Now taking another question. Many of the articles produced in Ireland, like hay and straw, and things of that kind, are so bulky, that a high rate is charged upon them, because they ai*e bulky ; would you be in favour of giving rail- way companies some further facilities or powers, by which they could put up pressing machinery at the stations, so as to reduce the bulk, enabling themselves to carry the goods at a lower rate to a more distant market? — I think that might be a very good thing. 8278. Now, with reference to warehousing ; if a farmer has 100 quarters of barley at his farm, would you be in favour of a system like the American system, under which the companies would be encouraged to build warehouses, and warehouse that barley for the grower, and issue to him a ticket or warrant, which warrant he could put into his pocket-book, and sell at any town in Ireland, if he pleased ? — It would, to a considerable extent, be a good thing. 8279. Do you not think that would have a considerable effect upon facilitating the sale, and dealing in produce in Ireland ? — I think it would be very beneficial. Mr. Monk. 8280. May I take it that your evldencq goes to this extent, that the railway com[)anies com- bine together to raise their charges by means of a conference and other modes, in a manner pre- judicial to the public interest ?— They have com- bined together, and raised the charges to certain places in a manner which I believe is decidedly injurious to those places ; and the result is that they have in their own hands the power of either z z 2 helping 364 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881.1 Mr. PiM, Jun. f Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. helping or injuring the place by charging those preferential rates which are settled at the con- ference. 8281-2. The honourable Baronet lias asked you some questions with regard to the dividends which are jiaid by tlie Irish railways ; in your opinion is not trade stifled by the high rates, so that the railways themselves lose a good deal of traffic which would otherwise go over their lines? — I observe in the last report of the Midland Great AVestern Company, that since they have reduced the pi’ice for carrying cattle very consi- derably, their income from that source was in- creased, so I argue from that that trade is stifled by the carrying at high rates. 8283. A^ou think that if the railway companies charged lower rates, trade would be improved ? — ^The country is in such an abnormal condition just now, that it would be difficult to say how far it Avould be affected by anything, but I have no doubt that in the long run it would be beneficial to the railway companies. 8284. Do you think that further power should be given to the Kailway Commissioners, with reference to the I’egulation of railway rates? — I think that further powers should be given to them, so that when ajipealed to they could settle a question of the sort. 8285. That is to say, when ajipealed to by the public ? — iM y opinion is that chambers of commei’ce and agriculture ought to have the power of bringing a case before the Kail way Cominis- sionei’s, and of being heard before them. 8286. Have you heard any complaints against the Court of the Kailway Commissioners ? — I have not. 8287. Have you, on the ground of expense, heard that tribunal objected to? — I know it is alwa 3 ^s looked upon by us that the railway com- panies will fight to the end, and that the result of that is very great inconvenience and expense, so that private parties are inclined to submit, rather than run the risk of the cost. Mr. Callan. 8288. In your direct examination, you made a reference to the excessive rates to Dundalk ; will you give me the particulars of those exces- sive rates ? — I brought that case in as a sample ; the company charge 25 s. a ton for the sixth class of goods, for a distance of 54 miles. 8289. Have you had complaints made by traders on the Great Northern Kailway that un- due preference has been given to Dublin ? — I cannot say that 1 have. I think that neither Dublin, nor any other place, ought to have undue preference. 8290. I am only asking about the Great North- ern Hallway ; are you aware that complaints have been made at Newrj" and Armagh that an undue preference has been given to Dublin? — I saw that in the newspapers, but I was not com- plaining of undue preference ; I was speaking of charging illegally upon that line. 8291. You spoke of the rate as being very excessive to Dublin in comparison with the rate to Cork via Dublin, but is not there a direct communication by sea between London and Mr. Callan — continued. Cork ? — There is a direct communication by sea from London to Cork ; there is also a steam company which runs between Milford and Cork ; and there is also a steam company which runs between Bristol and Cork. 8292. 'fherefore the rates that you refer to, via Dublin, are in competitition with direct steam communication ? — Yes, that is so. 8293. It is an exceptional position? — I do not complain of the thing. I merely pointed at the inequality of the rates in mentioning that fact. 8294. You spoke of preferential rates to indi- viduals ? — Yes. 8295. Is that on the Irish or the English railways? — The Irish raihvaj^s. 8296. You said, “ AYe all know it exists, but it is difficult to get at it can you give the Com- mittee any instance of that ; you gave one in- stance from England, but can you give it as re- gards any individual in Ireland? — I stated that it was the general belief that it existed, but that it was very difficult to get at. 8297. AYhat you said was, “We all know it exists what you meant, I presume was, that the impression exists, but the fact was not acknowledged? — Yes, that is so. 8298. You referred to the rate from Bradford to Dublin as being 50 s. ? — Yes, I did. 8299. And the local rate to Liverpool as being 18 s. 4 a. ? — Yes. 8300. Are those the rates at present in exist- ence ? — No, the rate to Dublin from Bradford, at present was reduced, on the 1st of May, to 45 s. 8301. And what is the local rate to Liverpool? — It is the same, viz., 18 s. 4 d. 8302. And the local rate from Liverpool to Dublin is 20 s. ? — Ten shillings is the lowest we have paid. 8303. That is by the Sligo Company ; what should you say was a fair rate ? — I assume that 15 s. Avould pay exceedingly well. 8304. Have you known any instances in which, when the local rate was tendered with the goods at Liverpool, they have been refused, unless the through rate was paid ? — I do not like to speak of the thing myself, as it does not come within my experience. 8305. Supposing the Irish and English Kail- way Conference were broken up and all the rates cancelled, and they simply charged local rates, would it benefit the general public in Ireland, or tend to their injury ? — I should be very sorry to see through rates done away with. 8306. I am not asking your wish ; but with reference to the public benefit, if the conference were broken up, and the local rates charged, would it tend to the benefit or the injury of the Irish community ? — I think the breaking up of the Irish conference in its present state would be an advantage, but that would not at all pre- vent through rates being given. 8307. AVould you be of opinion that the through rates are lower than the local rates in almost every instance ? — I believe so generally, but not always. 8308. As far as you know j'ourself you cannot controvert the declaration that in every case through SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 365 2 June 1881.1 Mr. PiM. Jun. I Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. through rates are under the sum of the local rates? — I am speaking of Dublin. 8309. But I am speaking of Ireland ? — Dublin happens to be in Ireland. If I send goods upon the Great Southern and Western Raihvay for delivery in Thurles, for example, from Dublin, I do not call that a through rate, I call that a local rate. 8310. But for delivery in Kilkenny you would call it a through rate ? — It depends upon Avhat lines the ti'affic goes over ; whether on one line of railway or more. 8311. Then you would call it a through rate if it Svent over more than one line of railway ? — Yes. 8312. You referred to the Midland Great Western Comj^any having lowered the rates for cattle ? — Yes, as a sort of experiment. 8313. And since then the chairman has con- gratulated the shareholders upon the result? — - He did so, in his report. 8314. You think that he will not have to con- dole with them upon the diminution of the traffic at the next half-yearly meeting ?— "I am appre- hensive that in that period there will be a diminu- tion in the traffic, but I have no apprehension that the reduction of the rates will be the cause of the diminution. 8315. Do you think that it is the high rates which keep down the traffic ? — I think this cause assists to do so ; but it is the want of public con- fidence at present that affects the railways so materially. Mr. O’’ Sullivan. 8316. Have you heard that cattle are walked very long distances on account of the very high rates ? — I have heard so. Mr. Lozcther. 8317. With regard to the classification of goods, I think you have six classes in Ireland? — Yes. 8318. And in England we have seven? — You have seven in England, I believe ; the special, the mineral, and five others. 8319. What is Class 1 in Ireland, is mineral in England, is it not ? — I can hardly compare the two classifications, one with the other. 8320. But you gave some instances of the clas- sification of various goods; will you kindly re- peat them? — Soap is 1st in England, and 3rd in Ireland. The next was shoes in cases ; that is 3rd Class in England, and 5th in Ireland. 8321. What is the next? — I quoted ale and porter in hampers; that is 2nd Class in England, and 4th in Ireland ; and in casks it is 1st in England, and 3rd in Ireland. 8322. Then it comes to this, that we have seven classes in England, and you have six in Ireland. Your 1st Irish Class is mineral in England ; your 2nd Irish is special in England ? — The mineral in England is 1st in Ireland; I am unable to say that what is 2nd in Ireland, is special in England, but I dare say it may be so. 8323. And what is 6th in Ireland is 4th or 5th in England ? — What is 6th in Ireland would be 4th or 5th in England. 0.54. Mr. Lov)ther — continued. 8324. You spoke of certain goods which were sent from Manchester to Kilkenny at 40 s . ; what were those goods ? — What are called drapery goods. 8325. VVere they sent by the London and North Western Company? — Yes. 8326. Do you know whether they often send goods of that kind to Kilkenny ?— I should think they do. 8327. I think you stated that they do not charge the same to all parties; that they have a separate rate ? — I stated that I had from the London and North Western Company a state- ment that the rate to Kilkenny was 46 s. 8 d., and that I had a letter from a gentleman in Kilkenny informing me that he gets them at 40 5. 8328. Does that gentleman state it in writing? — Yes, I have it in writing. 8329. Therefore, the London and North Western Company stated that they charged one price, and this gentleman stated that he was charged another ? — Yes, that was the statement of this gentleman. 8330. Are there many commercial houses in Kilkenny ? — There are just a good few. It is a county town ; the population is 12,700. 8331. When was this line of steamers that you mentioned put on? — I cannot tell you when they started, but we have been getting goods by them for either six or eight or ten months. 8332. They are doing a good business, are they not ? — Yes. 8333. What is the rate from Dublin to Liver- pool for any class of goods ? — There is a great A'ariety of rates between Dublin and Liverpool. 8334. Take any one you like ; I understood you to say that the rate from Dublin to Holy- head was high ; that it was kept up by this traffic conference, and that they do not allow the things to go via Liverpool? — I hat was not what I stated. What I stated was this, and I gave it as an opinion : that the London and North Western Company having a very long mileage to Holyhead, and having no opposition upon that jiartlcular line, formed a rate to Dublin which Avould pay them for this mileage, and that then their influence in the conference is so strong that they have forced it to be so arranged by the power of their influence, that the goods which come to Dublin through Liver- pool shall pay at the same rate as though they went via Holyhead ; whereas Liverpool is only 210 miles from London, as against 264 miles to Holyhead. 8335. But, I suppose, time counts for some- thing as between Dublin, via Holyhead, and Dublin, via Liverpool? — But sometimes there is very little difference in the time, for instance, goods sent from London to-day, Thursday, will be delivered in either case on Saturday morning to Dublin. 8336. Now, you spoke of the confei'ence known as the English and Irish traffic conference ? — Yes. 8337. That is a voluntary association, is it not? —Yes. 8338. Do the London and North Western Com- z z 3 pany 366 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881.] Mr. PiM, jun. S^Covtinued. Mr. Lowther — continued. pany have more than one vote upon that traffic conference ? — 1 cannot tell you anything about it ; it is a secret conference. 8339. You spoke of their very jrreat influence? — Being a very powerful company, they would naturally have very great influence. 8340. But you do not know whether the Lon- don and North Western Company have more than one representative, and one vote at that conference? — I do not know anything about the working of the conference. 8341. I understand you to state that this con- ference takes upon itself the power of raising the rates? — So it is stated here in the document I have. 8342. Does it also reduce the rates? — No doubt; it has reduced the rates in the last few days to us. 8343. Therefore it is not always prejudicial to commerce if the conference reduces the rates ? — We think it is an advantage to have a rate reduced, of course. 8344. Therefore the conference is not entirely bad in its operation? — We think that through rates are a good thing, and to the regulation of through rates, if we are treated fairly with regard to them, we cannot have any objection but they must be fairly worked. 8345. I think you complained that when the rates were changed you did not have proper notice of it? — I did not say that; what I stated was, that I had a notice from one of the representatives of the conference stating that the rates were subject to change without any notice, and I thought it was rather hard that it should be so ; I do not particulary care about that, but if we were a large mauufacturing business in Ireland which took contracts it would be a serious thing; I think the principle is wrong. 8346. Have you had much experience of divi- dends ujion railroads in Ireland ; can you tell at all what the Kingstown and Dublin Railway Companies’ dividends are ? — The Dublin and Kingstown Railway is a line which is incorporated with another, they pay about 9| per cent, guaranteed. Mr. Dilheyn. 8347. You spoke just now of the power of arbitrarily imposing differential rates in different districts, and you objected to that; have you any reason to think that the railway companies of Ireland have ai’bitrarily or unfairly exercised that power for the sake of benefiting par’icular districts or towns? — I think the railways of Ireland are so anxious to get the through traffic, and to make suitable arrangements with the large English companies, that there is influence brought to bear upon them by this conference with regal’d to the rates, and in some instances the way in which the through rates are levied is objection- able. 8348. In point of fact you think it has been a desire to get traffic, not a desire to injure any particular traffic that has guided them ? — I agree that they do not desire to injure any particular district ; it is only their action which has had that efl'ect in the desire to get the traffic. Mr. Dillwyn — continued. 8349. Could you give the Committee a single instance in which the rates have been advanced by the conference during the last two years ? — I am not aware of any advance by the conference during the last two years, but we have been trying to get the rates down during that time, and until some action has been taken of a public nature, we have had no reduction from that con- ference, with the exception of a slight one which took place five years ago. 8350. Have you had any advances? — We have had no advances since the coal famine, about 1872, and at that time they went up from 15 to 20 per cent. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8351. I suppose, in the time of the coal famine, the rates were put up as high as they possibly could go ? — I believe they were. 8352. And you think that it would not have been easy to make an advance upon that? — They could not have made an advance upon that. 8353. With regard to the reduction of the rates, the only principal reduction has been made this year? — Ido not think that there has been any general reduction made except to Dublin as far as I can gather, and that is only because the steam companies have been forced into it from seeing the trade going from them. 8354. Did you not state that there had been reductions to some other places lately? — I said I was not able to ascertain whether the reduction given to Dublin had been extended to the country, but I thought not. 8355. As a matter of fact, with the exception of Dublin, you are not aware of any reductions having been made anywhere ? — That is my belief, as respects drapery goods. 8356-62. Are there any manufactories in Dublin ? — There are some. 8363. Now, is there a linen manufactory there? — Yes, there is. 8364. The Committee had some evidence the other day from a gentleman of Belfast to the effect that people in the inland towns could pur- chase manufactured iron cheaper from England than they could purchase it from Belfast, where there was a large iron foundry, on account of the low through rates, and the high local rates. Now, can people in inland towns purchase linen goods cheaper in English towns than they can in Dublin? — So little linen is made in England that the case is hardly fair. If you mean that linen goods are taken into the inland towns in Ireland at a cheaper price from England than if they went to Dublin, and were then sent on to the inland towns, I agree with you. Of course, if you bought linens anywhere in England, at the through rate, they would be delivered at about 20 per cent, cheaper than if they were stocked in Dublin and then forwarded. 8365. If I were living in Galway, linen would be cheaper to me from Manchester than it would be from Dublin, would it not? — It would be so in the case of other articles, but that would not apply to linen. 8366. Take chemicals, for instauce ? — They can be laid down at a less rate if sent direct from England SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 367 2 June 1881.] Mr, PiM, Jun. [ Continued. Lord liundolpk Churchill — continued. England than if stocked in Dublin, and then sent on. 8367. Do you think that that must have a tendency to stifle trade ? — If a local manufac- turer were to bring over cotton, or any other article, and manufacture it, and send it on to the inland towns, it would cost more than goods manufactured in England, and sent direct over, but the reduction of freight, which has been made the last few months, has to some extent altered this. 8368. But the company would have their fare to add betw'een Liverpool and Manchester ? — I w'ould say, that if you buy a pieee of calico in Manchester, and you deliver it in an inland town in Ireland, it is landed there for about 20 per cent, less than if sent to the dealer in Dublin and then sent on. I allude to what it was when the rates ere fl.'i s. to Dublin. 8369. Did you not state that you sent manu- factured goods of your ow’u to Manchester ? — Yes, we do occasionally. 8370. And you pay a higher rate by 5 s. than if you bought goods in Manchester, and brought them to Dublin ? — That is so now, but I believe the real meaning of that is that the freight has been reduced by the conference to Dublin, and the question has not come before tliem about the rate the other way, but I believe they will reduce it in time ; it is only, I should think, a temporary inequality from the matter not having been considered. 8371. But you do not know wdiether that in- equality is accidental or intentional, and if there were these intentional Inequalities, would they be very favourable to Irish manufacture ? — No, they would not. 8372. Now with reference to the classification ; you were asked some questions by an honourable Member, Avhich had a tendeney to show that the classification was practically the same in both countries ; what I want to know from you is this : you have not in Ireland at all either a mineral or a special class, have you? — We have not. 8373. Is it in this way, that the Irish classifi- cation, as compared with the English classifica- tion, begins two classes higher ? — 1 1 does. 8374. Did you ever hear of coal being carried at \d. a ton a mile? — I do not know M-hat the charge for coal is. With regard to the classifi- cation, it is almost impossible to get the facts, because it is exceedingly difficult to get these classification books. 8375. How did you get that book Avhich you have before you? — I got the loan of both of these books from parties connected with the companies. 8376. Did you ever apply to a company to see that book? — I applied the other day to see it, and I was immediately refund it. Mr. Callan. 8377. What company Avas that? — It was an Irish company. 8378. It was not any of the Northern com- panies ? — No ; it was not. 0.54. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8379. Do you think that if you Avanted to get the classification in use by the Great Northern or the Midland or the Great Southern and Western Companies, they Avould give it you ? — I have not asked them. 8380. You have quoted from the rate books a good deal ; how did you get hold of those rates? — The railway companies have their rates so that 3 mu can see them. 8381. The companies do not make any diffi- culties about that? — I believe, supposing you wanted to know what the rate was to a particular place, the company would say you had better apply to that place, but they will give you the rate though they are not very Avilling to do it. 8382. You said ymu believed that if you went to a station and asked for the rate to another station, you could not get it ? — I have been told so. 8383. You Avere asked whether the Irish rail- AA'ay companies are as prosperous now as they w'ere before ; is it not the case that Avithln the last 12 or 15 years, the value of Irish raihvays is estimated to have risen 15,000,000 /. ? — The value of Irish railways has gone back very much of late, but in 1878 it Avas estimated to have in- creased several millions ; I am not quite sure hoAV much. 8384. And you say that the value is going back now ? — The shares have gone back con- siderably'. 8385. There was a gentleman wdio gave evi- dence before the Committee, Mr. Middleton, who said it would be a gi’eat blessing to Ireland if the raihvays of Ireland Avere under independent management ; would you concur with that opinion? — I think it Avould be a great blessing to Ireland if the railways of Ireland were under one management. 8386. Would that be an independent manage- ment? —I think it Avould have been a great benefit if the State had purchased the Irish rail- ways, 8387. Now, with regard to the Dublin and Kingstown dividend, that high rate of dividend would not apply to the other railways in Ire- land? — Certainly not. 8388. That Avas a guaranteed dividend which applied to the original shareholders of the Dublin and KingstoAvn Railway Company ? — That Avas so. Chairman. 8389-98. Do yovA know any case in Avhlch the through rate from a manufacturing district in England to an interior toAvn in Ireland is less than the local rate from Dublin to that same town? — I do not. Mr. O' Sullivan. 8399. The honourable Chairman asked you if you Avere avvare of the cases in Avhich the through rates from England Avere lower than the local rate from Dublin, and you said you were not? — I am not, 8400. Could you giv'e the Committee any through rates from England to an interior toAvn ; z z 4 say 368 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 2 June 1881.] Mr. PiM, Jun. [ Continued. Mr. (ySuWvan — continued, say to Mallow ? — I could not give the rate to Mallow, but I could give you the rate from Manchester to various places. 8401. Take Tipperary ; I wish to show that the rate is not more from Manchester to the inland towns in Ireland, via Dublin, than to Dublin ? — From Manchester to Tipperary the charge is 52 s. 6 d., and from Dublin to Tipperary about 26 s. Sir Edward Wathin. 8402. You spoke about the confeence two or three times over ; do you know whether it is or is not the fact that, in the last two years, as re- Mr. David E. Egberts Chairman. 8404. You, I believe, are agent for the Sligo Steam Navigation Company, and you were manager for five years in Liverpool, of the Ted- castle line ? — Yes. 8405. I believe you have also had seven year’s experience in the head office of the North British Eailway ? — I have. 8406. You heard the evidence given by Mr. Pirn ? — I did. 8407. Do you generally agree with his evi- dence ? — In some instances I disagree with it ; he is not absolutely correct on one or two points. 8408. Will you just tell us the points on which you disagree? — The first point I would like to mention is this. One honourable Member asked if there was any overcharge in other goods be- side tlie highest class on the Irish railway ; there is an overcharge by the Midland Great Western Eailway Company on manure to different stations; their maximum rate is 2 d. by the Act, and they exceed it. The lowest rate they carry at, the shipper has to load, and the consignee to dis- charge, and we find that for 8i miles from Dublin to Clonsilla the company charges 2 s. 6 d., and you must send 6 tons before you get that special rate, and the railway company do no terminal services. That what I wish to con- vey is, that the Midland Great Western Eailway Company overcharged on other than high-class goods, and taking manure, for wliich their maxi- mum is 2 d. per ton, I find the company exceed their maximum between Dublin and Clonsella. The distance is 8| miles, and the lowest rate the company will carry manure for, between the points named, is 2 s. 6 d. per ton, and in order to have the advantage of the 2 s. 6 d. rate, not less than six tons must be forwarded at one time. This special rate does not include loading or dis- charging the waggons, which must be performed by sender and consignee. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8409. What is the ordinary rate? — The or- dinary rate is 3 s. 4 d. 8410. What should it come to ? — It should be \ s. 5 d. according to the maximum rate ; 3 .s. 4 d. is charged ; there are other great overcharges up to 16 miles. The Great Southern Eailway Corn- Sir Edioard Watkin — continued, gards the rates fixed by the conference, there has not been a single case of increase of rate, while there have been several hundreds of cases of reduction ? — I certainly do not believe that there has been any increase of rates, because they were got up so high at that time that an increase would have been almost impossible. 8403. I ask, would you indorse the statement that there has not been a single instance of in- crease, while there have been hundreds of cases of reduction ? — I think it is e.xceedingly likely, because there have been a good many reductions made in the last three months. called in ; and Examined. Lord Randolph Churchill — continued, pany also exceed, in manure, their legal tariff for short distances.. I am now going to speak of the Great Southern and Western. Chairman. 8411. Will you tell me what you have taken as their maximum rate allowed by law ? — Two- pence. Now to Salins taking the class-rate for manure, they charge 4 s. 2 d., that is 2 d.'ll per mile. 8412. What is their legal charge ? — Twopence per mile. In one case there Avere proceedings threatened before the Eaihvay Commissioners ; we threatened the Midland Great Western Com- pany, and Ave Avent into their offices and had their Acts placed before us by the manager. It Avas considered that the proceedings v\ould be here extended, that the time and money might be Avasted, and that perhaps Ave might not have a case, so it Avas not proceeded Avith ; but Ave had a case, and that case I Avish to lay before you. Lord Randoph Churchill. 8413. It has been laid before us ? — As regards the Sligo route only, but not as regards the Dublin route. Chairman. 8414. What was the effect of your threatening the Midland Great Western EailAA^aj Company? — They behaved Avorse to us than ever. Noav as resulting from the opposition of our Tedcastle Company and the Sligo Steam Navigation Com- pany, I Avish to put in a large number of rates from Liverpool to the interior of Ireland. The rate from Liverpool to Kilkenny for American bacon in boxes is 1 5 s._ and the rate from Dublin to Kilkenny is 15 s. Then taking uji the Mid- land Great Western rates for the same com- modity ; from Dublin to Ballyhannis, the rate is 25 s. 10 d . ; and from Liverpool it is 26 s. 8 d., being a difference of 10 d. The charge to Swln- furd from Dublin is 24 s. 2 d., and it is 27 s. from Liverpool. Mr. Cullan. 8415. Hoav many miles is Ballyhannis from Dublin? — One hundred and tAventy-five. Then I take the Great Southern and Western rates to Limerick SELECT COMMITTEE ON PwAILWATS. 369 2 June 1881.] -Mr. Roberts. [^Continued. Mr. Callan — continued. Limerick and Tipperarv. Mr. Pirn has spoken to the rates on his goods. Now taking eggs in boxes, the chai’ge from Limerick to Manchester is 43 s. 4 d., and to Dublin 26 s. 6 d. It is im- possible for any coastwise steamship company not in the conference to take eggs locally, be- cause as I say the rate to Dublin is 26 s. 6 d., and the rate direct from Limerick is 43 s. 4ct., and the difference would not pay the cartage and freight, and expenses from Liverpool to Man- chester. Those rates have been reduced since the Sligo companies and the Tedcastle opposition was started. Lord Randolph Churchill. 8416. How much have the rates been re- duced ? — That I cannot say, because we are not doing in every branch of traffic all at once. These rates which I have given you are from Limerick. Now I will take Tipperary; the rate from Tipperary to Dublin is 28 s. 3 d., and to Liverpool 33 s. 4 d., leaving only 5 s. 1 d. for cross Channel freight and cartage, the latter of which by the conference rate is 3 s. a ton in Dublin. Then with regard to wool in bales from Limerick and Tipperary, the rate from Limerick to Bradford is 52 s. 6 03. Ai'e any of those complaints based upon Mr. Bolton — continued. rates charged above the statutory rates ? — I have not furnished myself wdth examples of charges in excess of those authorised by law. There can be no doubt whatever (it is a thing which very few companies would feel disposed to deny) that there are such excess rates charged ; but I did not come here to complain of that. 9004. You take the general inequality of i*ates as between different places ? — Yes, and the dis- tances. 9005. May I infer from that, that you are in favour of a uniform distance rate ? — I think that that would be a vei’y decided improvement upon the existing system. 9006. That is to say, you would charge every- thing at so much a mile, irrespective of distance? — Irrespective, I tliink, of distance. 9007. That would put an end to some trades in the country, w'ould it not ? — ^The weakest, I daresay, would go to the wall. 9008. Not necessarily tlie weakest, but those worst situated would go to the wall ? — No doubt. 9009. And wdth regard to those places which are better situated by sea than by rail, you would completely exclude the use of the rail? — I think the effect of competition would be to lead one means of communication to compete xvith another. 9010. But you must see at once that a railway could not compete in price with the sea ? — I have not considered the matter vei’y fully. 9011. Blit you come hei’e and advocate a uniform mileage rate ; have you jumped at that conclusion without considei'ing the question ? — I have to some extent considered the question, but I do not come here -as a strong advocate of any particular remedy. 9012. I take it that one of your remedies is a uniform mileage charge irrespective of distance and situation. Now I will ask, have you well considered it, and are you, in places to which thei’e is both sea communication and railway communication, prepared to close the railway communication at once entirely? — That would obviously be an undesirable thing. 9013. Then with regard to centres of manu- facture a long distance from the port, would you exclude them altogether from the foreign trade, because your uniform mileage must lead to that result ? — I should be sorry to do so, 9014. Then you would not recommend as strongly as you did at first a uniform mileage rate ? — When I speak of a unifoi’m mileage rate, I do not recommend it as an Infallible specific ; I recommend it as an improvement upon a system which contains many anomalies. 9015. Are you quite sui’e that it would be an improvement to close the foreign trade to all manufacturers situated at a distance from a sea- port, and to completely exclude from railway carriage the manufacturers in those ])laces where tliei’e is sea competition ? — That is the way you put it, but I do not agree to it in all cases. 9016. If the imposition of a unifoi’in mileage chai'ge did produce the result I have indicated, you would not be an advocate for it? — Not in cases where such results were certain to follow. 9017. Or likely to follow? — Or likely to fol- low ; SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 399 13 June 1881.J Mr. Jeans. \ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. low ; in such cases a modification of the uniform mileage rate might be adopted. 9018. Then you would not, under those cir- cumstances, recommend a uniform mileage rate ? — I do not say it is an infallible specific, but I say it is a better system than the existing system of anomalies. 9019. I think you advocated that plan on the authority of some gentleman whose name I did not catch, but who you said was employed as an actuary? — He is a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. 9020. Is this gentleman whom you mention, Mr. Pryce Williams, a railway engineer ? — I be- lieve he is. 9021. And of considerable experience? — I believe he is a man of great experience. 9022. That is to say applied to railways? — Y es ; applied to railways. 9023. According to his opinion, ^ d. a. ton per mile for coal gives a net profit of 47 5 per cent.? — That is, I believe, what it comes to. 9024 Are you of the same opinion ? — I did not say so. 9025. I ask you? — Not having gone into the figures thoroughly I am not prepared to say any- thing of my own upon the matter. 9026. What is your object in citing his opinion before the Committee ? — As showing what view w’as taken of that one particular point by a gen- tleman who, I believe, is usually regarded as a railway authority. 9027. But you are not of that opinion, your- self? — I did not say I was. 9028. I do not think you have told the Com- mittee yet whether you advocate, or think it de- sirable, that railway companies should be com- pelled to reduce their rates to such a rate as would enable pig-iron makers to get 4 tons 14 cwt. of materials carried at 5 s. 8 d, under the average rate ? — I have not stated that ; I have simply given the fact. 9029. The rates on fire-bricks from the Tyne were water rates entirely, were they not?— - They were. 9030. What did you ])ut them forward for ? — To show that the Auckland fire-brick manufac- turers are severe sufferers in being prevented from sending their manufactures to the best market. 9031. What distance are they from the market ? — They are 30 miles from their principal market. I also mentioned it as showing that if the North Eastern Railway Company were to carry fire- bricks and clay at the same rate as they carry the coal and coke upon their system, the fire-brick makers in the Auckland district would then be in a condition to compete with their rivals upon the Tyne. 9032. Do you know whether clay and bricks are carried to the same extent as coal and coke ? — I know they are not. 9033. Then why do you suggest that thev should be carried at the same rate as coal and coke ? — I can only give the Committee the reasons urged by the fire-brick manufacturers themselves ; they say that their manufactures are not perish- able articles, and that they should not be classed as goods traffic, but that they should be put upon the same level as coal and coke. 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. 9034. You are aware that iron material is car- ried invariably in train loads? — Yes. 9035. Whereas brick and clay are carried in truck loads, or one or two trucks now and again ? — I believe that is the fact. 9036. You would not recommend or sus-fiest that it would be practicable for a railway com- pany to carry one at the same terms as the other ? — I do not see why they should not. 9037. You think it is practicable to carry a traffic which is very small indeed, at the same rate as one which is very large, one being, as it were, retail, and the other wholesale? — But the retail is often added to or made part of the wholesale. 9038. Have you ever seen the working of the supply of pig-iron making material between the pits and the furnaces ? — Very often. 9039. A train load is sent on, and the engine comes back for the empty trucks, and carries away another load as fast as it can go ?— Yes, that is so. 9040. Have you ever seen the making up of a train of goods ? — Yes, 1 have often seen the making up of a train of goods. 9041. Do you think that the two operations can be carried on at the same rate per train mile? — Perhajis not per train mile. 9042. Or per ton per mile ? — Per ton per mile, yes, because in one case the coal and coke trucks come back empty, whereas in the other case the trucks which have carried the fire-bricks comes back full. 9043. Do you know of your own knowledge ? — I do not know it of my own knowledge, but I have a letter from the chairman of the Asso- ciation, who informs me that that is the case. 9044. You told me that the mineral traffic of the kingdom had increased enormously ; I think you told me that the mineral traffic had doubled itself, while the passenger traffic had remained comparatively without increase? — The facts are, 1 believe, thatbetw'een 1868 and 1878 the mineral traffic of the country inci'eased about 66 per cent., and the passenger traffic only 29 per cent. 9045. What do you deduce from that fact ; that those enormous and extravagant charges, to which you have been alluding, have killed the mineral traffic ? — Certainly not. 9046. Have they not increased the traffic enormously ? — Not the charges, but our unsur- passed natural resources, our enormous command of capital, our ready access to the ports, and other matters with which railway charges have nothing to do. 9047. Then in spite of all these difficulties, the iron trade has increased to this enormous extent ? — The iron trade has increased, but I have no doubt it would have increased very much more if the charges had not been so high. 9048. Are you aware of any iron-making com- panies which publish their accounts? — I am. 9049. AVhat dividends do they pay ? — In many cases they go into the Bankruptcy Court. 9050. And in the good cases, what do they do ? — You find exceptions to every rule ; the rule for the last four or five years has been, that the iron-manufacturing companies have gone on the road to ruin. 9051. Take the period from 1854 to 1878, what has been the per-centage of profit made by those 3 D 4 companies ? 400 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 13 June 1881.] Mr. Jeans. \^Continiicd. ]Mr. Bolton — continued. companies ? — I have not prepared myself to answer that (juestion, but it is notorious that Avithin the last JO years iron making has been an exceedingly unprofitable business on the average. 9052. AVhat was the state of business in 1875? — Eighteen hundred and seventy-five was a very unprofitable year. 9053. That Avas in comparison with 1872 and 1873? — Eighteen hundred and seventy -tAvo and 1873 Avere highly profitable years. 9054. What Avas the highest ju’ice of pig-iron during the good years? — Inasmuch as there are a great many varieties of pig-iron made in the country 9055. Take any one, I do not care which ? — I can give you the exact figures if you Avish. 9056. Is it not the fact, without going into the figures, that the profit per ton of pig-iron during those fcAv years Avas more tlian the Avhole eost of pig-iron noAV ? — I do not think so. 9057. Was not the price more than 100 s. on Scotch pig-iron ? — It Avas. 9058. Whereas the jiresent price is 45 s.? — The present price is 45 s. to 48 s. 9059. Will you tell me Avhether the profit on that article then Avould not he more than the Avhole cost noAv?— I believe the profit Avould not be so much for this reason : that Avhile the price of pig-iron Avas more than double AA'hat it is noAv, the price of coke, Avhich is one of the largest items entering into its production, Avas three or four times as much. 9060. Was not the price of iron nearly three times the present price ? — It Avas very nearly. 9061. What Avas the cost of coke ? — In 1873 the price of a ton of coke Avent up to 43 s. I believe at present in the Middlesborough district coke is being delivered at 10 s. a ton ; everything Avent up, and Avages increased. Sir Edward IVuthin. 9052. I think you stated that the average cost of the conveyance of iron ore in this country Avas 1T9 d. per ton ? — I said so. 9063. Are you aAA-are that the scale fixed by the raihvay companies at large for iron ore for dis- tances above 75 miles is 5 d. per mile ; that is to say, less than half what you have quoted? — I have heard that there Avas some such arrange- ment, but inasmuch as the greater part of the iron ore consumed in the country is sent over distances under 70 miles, it folloAvs that the h d. a ton rate Avould not apjily. 9064. But still it is a fact, I think, perfectly plain to everybody that the rule universally adopted by the railway comjianies, Avith the vieAv of developing the iron trade, is for a distance of 75 miles | d. a ton Avith terminals of 3 ^/. a ton at each end ? — I have heard something of it, but I do not knoAv it of my oAvn knowledge. 9065. But it is a question involving millions of tons, and the Avhole or a large portion of the iron trade of the country ? — I do not know it of my OAvn kuoAvledge. 9066. Are you aAvare that doAvn to very short distances there is an analogous rate? — I believe there is no analogous rate to that. 9067. Then hoAv do you get your lT9f/. ? — Sir Edward Watkin — continued. By taking the average of the distances over Avhlch ore is carried, and the rates charged for those distances in seven or eight of the principal districts in the United Kingdom. 9068. Will you give us tAA'o ; one of them the maximum rate that is charged jAer mile, and the other the minimum ? — I Avill take the Cleveland district ; the average for the Cleveland is 1 d. I haA'e not the maximum rate, but I can give you other districts in North StalFordshire ; the maxi- mum rate that I have got is T24 and the minimum 0'56 d. 9069. That is from 1]^ d. to ^ d. a ton ? — Yes. 9070. That being so, the Cleveland rate being 1 d., how do you get as the average of the Avhole kingdom 1T9 d. ? — But I haA'e other rates Avhich are very different from those ; in West Cumber- land I find that the maximum rate is 2’4 d., and the minimum l’55d. 9071. Those are not eases in AA’hich the mini- mum (T 75 miles would apply ? — I stated that in the majority of cases, ore Avas not carried a dis- tance of 70 miles, or even approximating that. 9072. You spoke about the foreign railways ; Avould you contradict me if I said that the aver- age cost of raihvays in France, Belgium, and Holland, as debitable to the shareholders, is 20,000 1. a mile, whereas in this country it is between 40,000/. and 50,000/.? — I think I am accurate approximately in stating that in France the average cost up to the end of 1879 Avas between 33,000/. and 35,000/. j)er mile, basing that cost upon the subscribed capital. 9073. You are noAv referring to France, but you previously grouped together France, Bel- gium, Germany, and Holland ; Avill you believe me Avhen I say that the average cost of the rail- Avays in all the countries that you have taken after, of course deducting the Government sub- sidies, has not been more than 20,000 /. a mile ? — I believe in Germany it exceeds that consider- ably, 9074. But taking the five kingdoms you have grouped together, is the cajiital cost to the share- holders more than 20,000 /. ? — I think it is, very considerably. 9075. But you Avould not contradict me, Avould you, if I put it at 20,000 /. per mile ? — I think I Avould. 9076. You are aAvare that in France they have a differential rate according to the speed ; they have tAvo speeds, grande vitesse and petite vitesse; that is to say, if you Avanted goods expedited, you Avould have to jiay so much more for it, that you have to pay for speed upon the continent, Avhere- as in this country you have not ? — That is so. 9077. Are you aAvare that in France Avaggons are only alloAved to remain in the receiving stations eight hours for loading and unloading, and that, if they remain longer than that, there is 2d. per hour charged with a minimum of Is. per truck ? — I Avas not aAvare of that. 9078. Whereas in this country 48 hours are alloAved ? — I believe so. 9079. What is the minimum allowed in the Cleveland districts for the loading and un- loading of Avaggons ? — I could not give that authoratively. 9080. Could you give me for Cleveland the amount SELECT COMMITTEE ON llAILWAYS. 401 13 Junt 1881.] Mr. Jeans. S^Continued. Sir Edioard Watkin — continued, amount tliat the various rates come to per ton of pig iron; you have given 5s. 2d. as the average abroad, including America, what would it be in England? — I could give you that appruximately ; in the MiddlesborouQ-h district the cost of fuel averages 36-. per ton of pig iron, the cost of ore 4 s. per ton of pig, and the cost of limestone 1 s. G d. per ton of pi» for railway carriage; the total cost for railway carriage being 8 s. 6 d. per ton of pis- 9081. What is the distance the coal comes, and the distance the stone comes, and the distance the lime comes ? — The coke comes from 30 to 33 miles. 9082. And the Ironstone ? — The ironstone comes distances vaiying, speaking without book, from 18 to 4 miles. 9083. If that is so, if 4,«. is the average cost of carrying from 4 miles to 18 miles, there must be something charged a good deal more than for four miles ? — You must not forget that in the Cleve- land district it takes 3 tons 5 cwt. of ore to make a ton of pig ; it takes, I think, on an average about 23 cwt. of coke, and about 12 cwt. of limestone. 9084. What is the distance the limestone comes? — About 30 miles. 9085. Then, taking the average of England, according to your own showing, Cleveland has a benefit of 2.s. 4 J. a ton as against other districts? — Taking the average of England that is so. o o o Mr. Samuclson, 908G. Just to clear up that point about the Cleveland district, you know the Cleveland dis- trict well, do you not ? — I do. 9087. Are you able to substantiate this state- ment, that it is not at all unusual for mineral trains composed of the same waggons to pass twice between the blast furnaces and the mines in the course of the day ? — That is so. Sir Edward Watkin. 9088. At all events, taking the average of Eng- land, Cleveland has a benefit ? — It has. 9089. In comparing the English with the American railways, have you at all studied the American railways in America? — 1 have not; I got my rates, I believe, from one of the first authorities there upon the subject ; but as to the details of railway management there I know very little of them. 9090. But you would of course concur with me that it is difficult to compare a country, ^^hich is Sir Edward — continued. a country of long distances, with an Island which is a place of short distances ? — That is so, except that in some parts of America, as in Alabama, the ore and fuel are found together; in other places, the ore is separated from the fuel by distances api)roximating to 1,000 miles. 9091. But where the ore and fuel are found approximately together, is it not the fact that although they have a benefit as regards that cir- cumstance, the market they have to sell at is not near the source of production? — That is so. 9092. Now with reference to this question of the fire bricks, is it not the case that the low rate which the North Eastern Company charge from Leeds to Middlesborough, was given with a view to enable the iron manufacturers of Middles- borough to have cheaper fire bricks? — That may be so, but it nevertheless seems anomalous to be able to carry the same thing cheaper in one dis- trict than in another. 9093. Is it an anomaly to give a rate that pro- bably will not ])ay in order to supply a particular want in a district ? — I am not jirepared to say that the rate was so given. 9094. But su})posing it Avere? — Supposing it were, I should say that the iron manufacturers would have reason to be grateful, but the fire- brick manufacturers, for whom I speak, would . not have such reason. 9095. Who is to settle between them? — This Committee. 9096. Now is it not the fact that, as regards foreign railways, foreign Govei'innents have gone for assistance by the State and economy of capital, whereas in England Ave have gone for Avhat is called unlimited competition ; that is to say, the State in this country has encouraged as much as possible the outlay of capital on rail- Avays, instead of endeavouring as much as possible to economise it ? — I should not disagree Avith you there. 9097. Is it not the fact that abroad local taxa- tion and burdens of that kind, such as improve- ment rates, higliAvay rates, poor rates, and so on, are not applied to raihvays Avith that scA'erity Avhich tiiey are in this country, being applied here, as they are, Avitli the jitmost severity ? — No doubt that is so. 9098. I can shoAv you a railAvay in England about 300 miles in length Avhich pays about 70,000 /. a year in local rates, irrespective of Imperial taxation ; Avould you be able to parallel that in any part of the Avorld? — I do not knoAV a similar case. 0.54. 3 E •»— 402 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Thursday, \Qth June 1881 . MEMBERS FRESENT: Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Lord llandolph Churcliill. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dilhvyn. Sir Daniel Gooch. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. jMr. William N. Nicholson. Mr. Phipps. Mr. liichard Paget. Sir Edward Watkin. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Maskell William Peace, called in; and Examined. Mr. Barnes, 9099. You are Secretary, I believe, of the Mining Association of Great Britain ? — I am. 9100. And you have been so for a great number of years ? — I have. 9101. The Mining Association of Great Britain consists of Avhat ? — It consists of an association formed of the local coal and iron associations in the following districts : Northumberland and Durham, Cumberhtnd, Yorkshire, Nottingham- shire, Leicestershire and Derbyshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, South Staffordshire and Wor- cestershire, North Staffordshire and Shropshire, Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, Nortli Wales, Warwickshire, Dean Forest, South Wales, and Scotland ; and I have with me a list of the repre- sentatives from each of those districts who form the executive council of the association. 9102. Will you give the production of the year 1879, and the number of men employed ? — I think about 500,000 men are em 2 )loyed in the trades. 910.3. And what w.as the get of last year? — Be- tween 146,000,000 and 147,000,000 tons. A meet- ing of the associatibn was called to consider the question which has been referred to the considera- tion of this honourable Committee; they have met upon several occasions, and they have discussed se- veral questions, upon which they were unanimously of opinion that certain recommendations ought to be made, and with the view of saving time, they have embodied these recommendations in the form of a memorial which I beg to read: — “To the Select Committee of the Honourable the House of Commons on Railways, 1881. The Memorial of the Mining Association of Great Britain, resjiectfully sheweth: (1.) That your memorialists represent the coal and iron trades of Great Britain, and are an association formed for the imrpose of watching the interests of the trades generally in Parli.ament ; (2.) That your memorialists are dependent for their trade iq)on the conveyance of their coals and minerals by the railw.ays and can.als of the United Kingdon ; (3.) YYur memorialists are of opinion that the powers of the Railway Commis- sioners should be continued, and that they might Mr. Barnes — continued. be extended with benefit to the trades rejire- sented by your memorialists as follows : (1.) The Railway Commissioners should have jiower, on the aji{)lication of a ju’ivate trader, to order two or more railw.ay companies to make a through rate over two or more railway systems, as a con- tinuous line of communication, by the shortest route available ; (2.) The Railway Commis- sioners should have to enforce obedience on the pai’t of railway comjianies to the jirovi- sions of their respective special Act, and in par- ticular to com})el railway companies to open and work lines made or authorised to be made for the 2 )ur 2 )Ose of connecting adjoining systems of rail- ways; (3.) That the Railw.ay Commissioners should have full power, on the application of the owners or occupiers of lands .adjoining to any rail- Avay, or any other jiersons, to order a railway company to allow junctions of private lines to be made with any jmblic railway or with any siding thereof, on such plan and on such terms and con- ditions as to the Commissioners may appear rea- sonable, with due reg.ard to the j^iiblic s.afety, notwitlishanding the restrictions and conditions contained in the Railw.ay Clauses Act, 1845, section 76, or any bye laws made in pursuance thereof; (4.) That .associations of ti'aders or of freighters should have a locus standi before the Commissioners on all questions which the Com- missioners have .authority to inquire into; (5.) That the decision of the Railway Commissioners ought to be final and conclusive, except on ques- tions of law, as to Avhich there should be one apjieal only, and that to the House of Lords ; (4.1 YYur memorialists further respectfully sub- mit that the law relating to railw.ays and canals require alteration and amendment in the following respects ; (1.) That no rate in use should be increased without due and sufficient notice ; (2.) That when a railw.ay company gives a spechal r.ate to any trader, such rate shall be entered in the rate-hook at the general office of the com- 2 )any, and .also at the station dealing with the traffic ; (5.) YYur memorialists consider that the multiplicity of special Acts dealing with rates or charges on the same railw.ay is a great evil, and that SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 403 16 June 1881.] Mr. Peace. 'yContinued. Mr. Barnes — continued. tliat railway companies should be required to consolidate their special Acts in so far as they affect rates or charges imposed upon the tenders; (6.) Your memorialists also consider that railway companies should be required to publish their maximum rates in the same manner as they are at present required to 2 )ublish their tolls; (7.) Your memorialists further respectfully submit that the time has come when the Board of Trade should exercise the powers conferred by theTraffic Mr. Barnes — continued. Act of 1854, and the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, for the protection of the public, and that arrangements should be made whereby the Board of Trade, when a violation of the law by a railway company has been shown to exist, should apply to the Railway Commissioners for a remedy. It is signed by Alfred Barnes, as president, and myself, as secretary, in pursuance of the resolu- tion of the council held upon the 15th of June 1881. Mr. William Fletcher, called in; and Examined. Mr. Barnes. 9104. You reside at Brigham Hill, Carlisle, do you not ? — I do. 9105. Are you a justice of the peace for Cumberland, and until lately Member of Parlia- ment for Cockermouth ? — Yes. 9106. You wish to give evidence on behalf of the West Cumberland Coal Association ? — I do. 9107. I believe you are chairman of the Cleator and Workington Junction Railway Com- pany ? — I am. 9108. What was this line promoted for ? — It was promoted in 1876, in consequence of the very high rates charged upon iron ore by the existing railways between the Cleator Hematite district and the blast furnaces around W orkington, Harrington, and Maryport. The charges upon ore at the time this line was promoted, amounted on the average to about 2^ d. per ton per mile, and that excessive rate so handicapped the pig iron producers of West Cumberland in their competition with other districts where Spanish ore could be imported at a low rate, and where the materials for iron making are cheaper than in West Cumberland, that after the traders had failed to get any relief from the existing com- panies, they px’omoted this other route for the purpose of getting a more moderate rate. 9109. The rates were very heavy, were they not, which were charged by the railway com- panies ? — As I said, they amounted to something like 2^ d. per ton per mile for a distance of from 12 to 15 miles. Chairman. 9110. Was that the London and North West- ern Company ? — The London and North West- ern Company was concerned in it, and the Furness Railway Company, and the then White- haven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway Company, which has since been bought up by the London and North Western Company and the Furness Company jointly, so that the parties now in- terested in the route with which the new line competes, are the London and North Western and the Furness Companies only. 9111. Could you give the profits of the London and North Western Company at the White- haven junction line ? — •! cannot give exactly the profits of the London and North Western Com- pany upon their West Cumberland lines, inas- much as they merge into the general profits of the company ; but during the passage of the 0.54. Chairman — continued. Cleator and Workington Bill through Parliament, evidence was given, based upon figui’es then pro- duced, to show that the profits made by the London and North Western Company upon their then West Cumberland line, which ran be- tween Whitehaven and Maryport, amounted to at least 46 per cent, upon the capital invested in that line. I may say that some years before then the line had been leased by them from the original company at the rate of 10 per cent, in perpetuity. That statement as to the profits was not controverted by the company, although their manager was put in the witness box ; and I may say that on the original Whitehaven, Cleator, and Egremont Railway, which, as I have stated, has since been bought by the other two com- panies in partnership, the profits upon the line had enabled the company for a great many years to divide from 10 to 15 per cent, and I think upon one occasion as much as 18 per cent. I might go on to say that in consequence of the making of this Cleator and Workington line, the company being bound to a maximum tariff of less than one-half the maximum tariff of the existinsr companies, the rates upon iron ore have been re- duced at least 1 d. per ton per mile, and that reduction as afforded the smelters of iron ore a relief in regard to the rates upon that article amounting to not less that 30,000 1. a year. The line cost 300,000 /., most of which was found by the traders, and therefore I need not say that that expenditure might have been saved alto- gether, and the other companies might have been left in a much better position now if they had consented to take reasonable rates at first. Chairman. 9112. Do I understand you to say that the maximum proposed upon this new line was half of the former maximum? — Yes, the maximum for the new line is l^d. a ton. 9113. Was that the maximum in the Act of Parliament, or did they ask for more ? — They asked for more ; but Lord Redesdale, fortunately for the traders, would not allow a higher maxi- mum than 1^ d., inclusive of the waggons. Perhaps you will allow me to state to the Com- mittee, as an explanation in part of the way in which these excessive rates had come to be charged in this district, that the other lines were made under Acts of Parliament, obtained from 25 to 30 years ago, and at that time I believe it was the practice of Parliament to allow any 3 E 2 maximum 404 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 16 June 1881.] Mr. Fletcher. [ Continued. Chairman — continued. maximum the promoters cliose to ask for ; in one case the maximum is 3 d. per ton a mile, with the usual short distance clause, in another case it is 4f/., and in a third case of a company whose Act was passed about 1836 or 1837, the maxi- mum rate is 5 d. per ton per mile. 9114. Could you tell the Committee what the maximum asked for by the promoters of the new Bill was, which Lord Redesdale cut down ? — If I remember rightly, I think we asked for 2 d. Mr. Barnes. 9115. The maximum rates on the old lines being 3 f/. ? — Upon the old lines the maximum being 3 d., I think, in one case ; in another 4 d., and in another 5 d., the latter maximum being upon a line which I have not yet mentioned, the Maryport and Carlisle, because it was not con- cerned in the iron ore traffic at all. 9116. With reference to the question of local rates upon coal, have those been affected by the making of the Cheator and Workington line? — I have already said, that upon iron ore, the local rates have been reduced about 1 a ton a mile, but in consequence of the new line, the Cleator and Workington, not affecting the coal trade very much, the coal and coke rates remain very much as they were before, except that a fortnight ago, upon the first of this month, there were some reduction made in the local rates, possibly in con- sequence of the action of this Committee, or in consequence of its expected action ; whether or not that was so, I do not know, but at any rate, upon the 1st of ffune a revision was made. I do not know the particulars, but many of the rates are somewhat i-educed. The figures that I have before me represent the rates which have been in use up to the 1st of June last, and for many years before. 9117. Did not the Maryport and Carlisle Railway Company convert their debenture capital into ordinary stock ? — Yes. 9118. To disguise the dividend? — Yes, that Avas the case. The Maryport and Carlisle Rail- way Company, for 10 or 12 years, have been dividing, upon the average, from 10 to 12 per cent, per annum. I'he coal owners, Avho were losing money, partly in consequence of the high I'ates, thought it a fit time to apply to the com- pany for some reduction of those rates ; the ap- plication was not granted, but immediately after- Avards the company took the extraordinai y, and I fancy, the unprecedented course, in order, as Ave suppose, to conceal the real magnitude of their profits, of converting nearly the Avhole of their preference and debenture cajjital into ordinary stock, and that ordinary stock Avas allotted to the existing shareholders at par, Avhilst it Avas worth in the market a premium of at least 120 per cent. Notwithstanding that extra- ordinary financial jierformance the dividends have since been maintained at very much the same point as before ; the dividend for the last half year Avas 10 per cent. 9119. Do you complain, as colliery OAvners, of any undue preference being given? — Yes, Ave comj)lain that the rates are excessive, inasmuch as they are higher than the rates charged in other colliery districts Avith'Avhich Ave have to compete in Ireland. I may explain that the bulk of the coal raised in West Cumberland is exported to Mr. Barnes — continued. Ireland, and there Ave come into competition with coal from South Wales, Lancashire, and the West of Scotland. The coal rates in all those districts being very considerably less ; in some cases they are only one-half, and in other cases 30 per cent, less than ours ; Ave are, to use the expression I used before, handicapped in the coal trade in consequence of our rates being higher than the rates of competing districts. And Ave not only complain of their being too high upon the ground of fairness and reasonableness, but we complain that the companies, especially the Maryport and Carlisle Company, give a prefer- ence to distant freighters over the local coal- owners. 1 have here one or tAvo examjfies; to save the time of the Committee I have only brought one or tAvo, but I may say that they are fairly rejAresentative, and that I could have brought, I dare say, 30 or 40 times as many. Perhaps I may be allowed to place in the hands of the honourable Chairman a map shoAviug the district and the position of the coalfields {handing a map to the Chairman). This is the Bray ton Colliery, the rates from Avhich I am about to quote ; this is Carlisle {pointing to the map), thioLigh which a good deal of coal and coke traffic is brought from places beyond, namely, New- castle and Stockton into West Cumberland. This is Maryport, and this is the Maryport and Car- lisle liailAvay running between Maryport and Carlisle, upon Avhich the Brayton Colliery is situated, and this is a point which I shall haA e occasion to mention, Cleator Moor, the route to Avhich is first over the Maryport and Carlisle, and then over the London and North Western to Whitehaven, and then on the London and North Western and Furness joint line from Whitehaven to Cleator Moor. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I have no interest in this Brayton Col- liery myself. Noav, the coal rate from Brayton to jNIaryport, a distance of nine miles, in the com- pany’s Avaggons, is 1 s. 5 d. per ton for shipment, and 1 5. 1 1 (/. for land sale, but from Carlisle to Maryport, a distance of 28 miles, over three times as far, the company brings coal from Scotland and NeAvcastle at 1 s. 84 d. per ton in OAvner’s Avaggons, which is equal to 2 s. in company’s Avaggons for shipment, and 1 5. llff. per ton in owner’s Avaggons (equal to 2 s. 24 d. in company’s Avag- gons) for land sale. The rate from Brayton to Carlisle, a distance of 21 miles, is 2 s. '2d. a ton in comjiany’s waggons. Chairman. 9120. Then, in fact, your figures shoAv that from Carlisle to MaryjAort is the same charge as for a portion of the same distance from Brayton to Carlisle ? — The rate from Brayton Colliery to Carlisle, a distance of 21 miles, is 2 s. 2 fZ. per ton, whereas, as you have seen, the company brings coal the other Avay, from Carlisle to Mary- port, a distance of 28 miles, for 2 s. 2^ d. Now, the coke rate from Brayton to .Maryport is 1 s. 1 1 f the supply of coal to London by railway I belieye was in 1851 ? — Yes ; un to tjjat time coal had been brought in by the canals : there was scai'cely any brought in by railway ; in fact, railway compa- nies were so shy of carrying coal that the general manager of the London and North Western Company at that time pro])Osed that the first train of coal which was put upon his line should be sheeted ; he said it did not look respectable to have a train of coal going along his railway ; but the trade has so much increased since then that tlicre are now 6,000,000 tons of coal brought by railway into London every year. I have here a statement of the sources from which they are derived, and the quantities furnished by each (handing in a Table\ 9193. That Table is the Table of 1877, is it not? — This is the Table for 1877 ; there is no public document appearing that separates the coal into the different counties and coal fields from which it comes ; we have no such public document. This was made up for another pur- pose in 1877, and it is quite close enough to elucidate the observations I am about to make. { The IJ iiness handed in maps to the CornmUtec shoiving the coal Jields.) It will be seen by the Table I h ave handed in that the AVarwickshire coal-field is the nearest ; but sends very little, Leicestershire is also near; but sends very little, the reason being that the quality of the coal in AVarwickshire and Leicestershire is not accept- able in the London market. On the other hand South Staffordshire and Shropshire send a respectal)le quantity, and Derbyshire and Not- tinghamshire, Avhich for quality and quantity are most suitable for the London market, send about one-half of the entire quantity which is con- sumed in London. Again, the South Yorkshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, send nearly 1,000,000 tons, and South AA’^ales sends nearly 1,000,000 tons ; Durh.am sends by railway about 250,000 tons ; the coal comes mostlv by sea from there ; but from all these sources London is siq)plied. I have given, in this Table, the rates from each of those coal fields. Those are rates Avhich were fixed I think about 1870, but they have varied very little ; it may be a few pence in some of them ; but the rates now are very much the same as the rates that were charged in 1870. It Avill be seen there that I have put down Mr. Barnes — continued. decimally what proportion of a 1 d. a ton a mile is charged from each coal field ; the nearest coal field for instance is charged *55 d., and the farthest coal field, Durham, at the bottom of the paper, is charged only ‘SOf/., so that through the paper it will be seen that the further the distance the lower the mileage charge, and I conceive in the working of the coal traffic to the immense extent to which it must be worked in this country that that is a necessary consequence. If you Avere to charge the same sum jier ton per mile throughout Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire would, practically, have the monopoly of the London market, instead of which they now only serve half of it ; they ai'c competed Avith by all the other coal fields that there are upon this table in consequence of the difference of rates. It may seem to some gentlemen that the difference betAveen the '55 d., and the "44 d. is smell, but it really Avorks out Avhen you come to multiply it by a couple of hundred miles, or so, to a very respectable sum, and so close is the competition in the coal trade that 1 d. per ton Avill command the market. 9194. Those rates Avhich you have given* do not include the City dues, do they ? — No, they are exclusive of City dues and Avaggons; they show simply the rate per ton per mile ; there are 1 s. 1 d. City dues paid upon all coals coming into Loudon. 9195. The City dues are paid by the railway companies upon all the coal that comes Avithin the 20 miles? — Yes, that is so. 9196. This Table shoAvs a total of 5,233,000 ; I believe the present figure is about 1,000,000 more ?• — A^es, it is about 1,000,000 more noAv, and it is steadily increasing, because the cheaper coal is the more is consumed of it. 9197. I believe you contend that if a rigid mile- age rate Avere adopted throughout the product of the distant collieries Avould not come into the London district until the price of coal had risen consider- ably ? — That is obvious. Supposing the railway companies charge the same sum ])er ton per mile Derbvsliire and Nottino-hamshire being the nearest coal fields of Avhich the quantity and quality oi the coal suits the London market, they avouIcI have the call of the market until the price rose to such an extent that a moi’c distant colliery could afford to come in Avith profit, but by the method Avhich has been aclojrted by the railway companies ever since the opening of the coal trade by the raihvays, Avhich AA^as in 1850 and 1851, the rate per mile carriage is lessened by the distance, and although it does not make the cost equal (the raihvay companies do not loAver the price to such an extent as to put the distant upon a perfect equality Avith the nearer fields), yet it practically brings them into competition. This has not been done by any concert amongst the rail- Avay companies, but in furtherance of their oAvn interests and by reason of the pressure Avhich has been put upon them by the trade. It Avill be seen by this Table that the longer distances have the lower rates per ton per mile, although, of course, they are higher than the local rates ; and it is, I contend, to the public interest that SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 409 16 June 1881.] Mr. Baxter. '^Continued. Mr. continued. that that difference should exist, because you have now all these fields competing in the London market ; whereas, it’ you were to take a rigid sum ner ton per mile throughout, you would shut every market until the first market was exhausted, or until the price rose to such an extent as to enable the more distant coal fields to come into competition. 9198. At the same time you take into account the geographical position of each colliery ?— It is taken into account by the railway companies. 9199. Though not strictly a mileage account? —No. 9200. The latter was the decision in the Denaby Main case, was it not ^ — Yes; another thing that the railway companies did, and which they did not do in consequence of any desire to do it, but because it was pressed upon them, was to group collieries. In South Yorkshire we have a district within a radius of five miles from a place called Wombwell (it is of a diameter of about 10 miles) containing about 20 to 30 collieries, to which the railway companies charge the same rate. They adopted that system 30 years ago, and have continued it for 30 years to the universal satisfaction of the trade, the railways, and the colliery owners, ex- cepting one or two which lie nearest to the place of sale, and, therefore, consider that they have a right to an advantage over their fellows. They have the advantage always in some respects of their situation, if they are nearer they can take advantage of it ; but, under the method of group- ing, one price is given to the 20 or 30 different collieries : it lessens the trouble to the railway companies, and it brings everyone of those colleries into competition with its fellow. Another great advantage is, that ships come into Hull wanting 2,000 or 3,000 tons directly, they send down to any of those collieries (they are all at the same price,and the same carriage), they order their coals, and get them in the course of the next day ; whereas, if the rates differed to each colliery, they would have to make a bargain with each colliery, and buy at the lowest colliery learning how much that colliery could serve, and probably be delayed several days instead of being expedited as at present. But last year the Denaby Main Col- liei’y Company went to the Railway Commis- sioners, and the Railway Commissioners not un- derstanding the subject, I am afraid, put their foot upon it and said, you shall charge the same sum per ton per mile. The consequence of that is that it has broken up the group, and thrown the export trade in Hull and South Yorkshire into confusion, and altogether disorganised the trade of the district. Chairman. 9201. Might I interpolate this, that it seems to me that the principle of the decision of the Railway Commissioners in the Denaby Main Colliery case if carried to its logical conclusion would bring about an equal mileage rate through- out the whole kingdom ? — That vvould be so ; they now say, privately, “We did not mean to go to the full extent of that,” but their decision goes to that, namely, that the man who is 10 miles from the port, we will say, ought to have a lower rate than the man who is 20 miles from the port ; whereas by the system of grouping you get the Chairman — continued. same rate to 20 or 30 collieries ivithin a radius of five or 10 miles. 9202. Do you know whether that company were represented by counsel? — Yes, the railway argued it, and re-argued it, but they could not convince the Railway Commissioners of the advisability of the policy, and they have given a decision which has created great confusion. Mr. Dillwyn. 9203. Which railway company was it that carried the coal under this grouping system ? — The Manchester, Sheffield, and Ijincolnshire Railway Company. Mr. Barnea. 9204. I believe the decision of the Railway Commissioners was that the Denaby Main Col- liery should have the advantage of its geogra- phical position? — Yes. 9205. That having taken its coalfield and ex- pended its capital upon that coalfield, upon the faith of its being nearer the market, it should have the advantage of what it had actually given to its lessors? — Those were the aroruments used m its favour ; but the fact was that long before the Denaby Main Colliery was thought of, the grouping had been established, and it knew before it sunk its pit what would be the rate to be charged to its colliery, and to the other collieries ; so that it could be in no doubt about that. Lord Randolph Churchill. 9206. 1 suppose this grouping that you speak of is entirely cai)ricious upon the part of the com- panies; they can put a colliery in or keep it out? — It must be an arrangement between the rail- way companies and the collieries ; you cannot compel the railway company to group. Sir Daniel Gooch. 9207. Pressure has been put upon the railway companies to do it, has it not ? — (^uite so. 9208. It is not to the interest of the railway company to do it, except that it developes the trade ? — That is so. Mr. Barnes. 9209. You are aware that that particular policy is not pursued by the Midland Company ? — I do not know what the Midland policy is, but I should think that the Midland Company must have the same policy upon some parts of its line ; I know that the Midland rates accommodate themselves to the circumstances of the country in that respect. In the neighbourhood of Wigan the Wigan colleries have one rate ; I think it is Is. 4 d. ; the difference of distance there is as between 1 0 and 20 miles each. 9210. That coal is sent to Garston for ship- ment? — Yes. Sir Daniel Gooch. 9211. Do you know the system of grouping with regard to South Wales? — Yes, there are groupings in South AVales ; but an engineer told me the other day that he vs as employed to work coal and manage a railway, and when he had got to a certain charge upon the railway (he said 2 s.l, 3 F he 410 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 June 1881.] Mr. Baxter. [^Coniinued. Sir Daniel Gooch — continued, lie said anybody who sinks a colliery beyond this shall come at the same rate. Lord Randolph Churchill. 9212. Who said that? — The manager of the railway ; the effect was that immediately there were a number of pits sunk beyond that point not one of which would have been sunk if the company charged at jier ton jier mile. 9213. And the trade of the pits inside that point Avas in a projiorlionately worse position ? — They would have comjietition brought against them. The public policy is to bring the Avhole, or as many as you can, of the colliery owners and coal getters into competition one Avith another, so as to get the coal at the loAvest earning price. 9214. Does not it amount to giving a preferen- tial rate ; if you give a loAver rate to the distant man than to the nearer man ?— In one sense, the rate is jireferential, but in the eye of the laAV and in the sense of the Avord, it is not pre- ferential, because it is a reasonable difference to be made ; preferential” means that it is an undue preference; that is not an undue pre- ference. 9215. It is an undue preference, as far as the man at the nearer distance is concerned? — Not at all. Chairman. 9216. Besides Avhich, to constitute undue pre- ference in the eye of the law, the circumstances must be exactly similar? — Precisely so. 9217. Two traders must be in exactly the same circumstances, Avhereas, if they are not running over the same length of line, their circumstances are not similar ? — That is so. Mr. Bai •nes. 9218. I think you complain in the South Yorkshire district of the rate from Normanton to Hull upon the North Eastern system, a distance of 48 miles; the charge in tliat case is only 2 5. 3 rZ., Avhereas the charge from South York- shire, from the nearest colliery, 47 miles, is 2 .S'. 10 d., and the average charge is 3 s. 1 d. ? — Tliat is so ; that is to say, that upon the North Eastern line the rates for the carriage of coal from the ])its to the port are lower than they are upon the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Ilaihvay, and therefore the South Yorkshire jjarties complain, and say that they are put under a disadvantage in that resj)ect, and. they plead that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company should adopt the same rate as the North Easteim rate. 9219. Therefore, of course the advantage to the West Biding colliery OAAmer is 7 d. or 10 d. upon the average ? — Which AAmuld entirely com- mand the market in the fine quality of coal. 9220. You further complain that the rates for coal charged by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company are considerably higher than the coal charges by the North Eastern Bail- way ? — That is so from a conqiarison of one Avith the other. 9221. Have you any instance of that? — The proof of that is the instance that Avas just cited of 48 miles, in Avhich the North Eastern charge 2 .S’. 3 c/., Avhile, for the same distanee from the South Yorkshire district the coal is charged Mr. Barnes — continued. 2 s. 10 A the cheapest, and 3 5. \ d. on the aver- age. 9222. But from South Moor to Hartlepool, 40 miles, eoal is carried for 2 s. 6 d., is it not ? — South Moor is one of the collieries upon the North Eastern coal field, and they get carried at loAver rates to their ports than Ave do in York- shire, to our ports of Grimsby and Hull. 9223. That 25. 6f/., I believe, includes Avag- gons and shipping charges? — Yes. 9224. Whilst the South Yorkshire eolllery OAvners pay at the loAvest, 2 s. 10., and then if you add from Wednesbury to Wolver- hampton, a distance of five miles 11 chains, the maximum rate being 6 d., it makes the through maximum rate Is. 6 t/. against 2s., as charged by the railway company ; the Wolverhampton jjor- tion being on the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway ; the Act of Parliament, 9 & 10 Vict. s. 46, fixes the rate for that portion of the line. Mr. Barnes. 9463. Will you give the details of the Bilston case?- -That mileage, to Wednesbury, is also nine miles, 32 chains, amounting to 1 s. ; and from Wednesbury it is two miles, 40 chains. The maximum charge for the two miles 40 chains is 3 d., the railway being subject to a two mile clause, which makes the total maximum 1 s. 3 c?. as against 2s., w'hich the company charge. 9464. I think you have a large number of overcharges? — I have several tables of over- charges. {These Tables were put in.) 9465. Will you give the Committee the par- ticulars with regard to Smethwick ? — Smeth- wick, which is in Table No. 2, is entirely in the hands of the London and North Western Company, the maximum i-ate being Is. 7 d., and the rate charged being 1 s. 9 d., but that is also made u]) under two Acts of Parliament ; first of all there is the South Staffordshire Railway to Dudley Port, and then the Stour Valley Rail- way from Dudley Port to Smethwick. 9466. You find great difficulty in arriving at what the company can charge, from the multi- plicity of Acts ?^ — [f we appeal to the Acts them- selves we find no difficulty in making up the rates, but it is a considerable work for people who do not understand the Acts to get out the details. 9467. Are you aware that the London and North Western Company have something like, in round numbers, 80 Acts of Parliament ? — I believe they have. 9468. And the object of one of the pi'ayers of this memorial is, that those Acts should be con- centrated into one, in order that you should know what the rates are without having to refer to 82 Acts of Parliament? — Yes ; it makes a great difficulty in ascertaining what the real rate should be. 9469. fake the SandAvell Park Colliery upon the Great Western Railway, between AV elling- ton and Oxford ; are the rates charged above the maximum rates? — Upon the Sandwell Park list the rates are nearly all above the maximum rates. ( This Table roas als>> put in.) 9470. How much are they above the maxi- mum rates? — They are from ?>d. to 1 5., and 1 i-, 2 d. 9471. With regard to the Oldhill (folliery, how is that upon the Great Western Railway ? — AA’^ith regard to the Oldhill Colliery upon the Great Western Raihvay, the charges above the maximum for very short distances are from 1 s. to 1 s, 6 d. Taking the case of the charge from Oldhill to Cradley, a distance of two miles, the company charge 2 s. % d. per ton for bricks, Avhereas to Worcester, a distance of 28 miles, 0.54. Mr. Barnes continued. they charge the same sum, ( This Table was put in.) 9472. How are the stations within 20 miles of London charged ? — The charges to stations upon the liondon and Brighton, tbe South AVestern, and the London, Chatham, and Dover Railways, for about 20 miles round London, are all in excess of the maximum rate : they vary from 2d. to 4 rf. a mile. ( These Tables xnere put in.) 9473. I believe you have an instance of tbe Great Western Company going for powers to make a junction, and not making that junction ? — There is an instance at Birmingham. I think that somewhere about 1850 there Avas a junction made between tbe Birmingham and Oxford Junction Railway and the London and North Western Railway ; but up to this day the points have never been put in. Sir Edward Walkin. 9474. Is that Avhat was called “ Saunders’ Bit”? — Very likely. Sir Daniel Gooch. 9475. It is a viaduct, is it not ? — It is a viaduct. Mr. Barnes. 9476. Have you to send your traffic round by Wednesbury? — I believe it arose in this Avay : When the Birmingham and Oxford Junction was ready for traffic the Board of Trade objected be- cause this connection AA^as not made, and the open- ing of the line was delayed. A considerable sum of money was expended* in putting in this curve^ and after it Avas made it w;is said that the Ijondon and North Western Company would not allow the points to be put in. Up to this day that junction has not been completed, and all the traffic is forced round by Wednesbury, Avhich is a most incon- venient junction, there being a difference of 30 feet between the levels of the tAvo rail av ays, and it has to go up an incline and pass over a single road: it is like passing traffic through the neck of a bottle ; it is continually choked, whereas if we Avere allowed to bring the traffic through Birmingham and pass it over this junction, which is on a level with the North Western Line, the facilities would be materially in- creased, in addition to which the mileage round by W^ednesbury Avould be saved three miles. Sir Daniel Gooch. 9477. Has that junction never been com- pleted ? — The road has been completed and the Avorks completed, but the points have not been put in. Sir Edward Watkin. 9478. Was that line built for the sake of the Cannock Chase Colliery ? — No, it was built for tbe interchange of traffic generally. Mr, Barnes. 9479. You have heard the evidence given to the Committee with reference to the group- ing system in South Wales, and upon the North Western system at Wigan; do you knoAV of that taking place upon the Midland line? — I do not knoAV any instance of grouping upon the Midland line, but that would scarcely arise with us, because 3 G 4 the 424 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BFFOKE THE 16 June 1881.] Mr. Brown. \^Cuntinned. Mr. Bai •nes — continued. the whole of the traffic is collected by the London and Nortli M estern Company, and delivered to the Midland Company at a common point, but the London and Northwestern Company do group in the Cannock Chase Colliery district. 9480. You do not know any instance where 155 miles is charged at the same rate as 150 miles? — I do not; I believe they charge the exact mileage in most cases. 9481. Have you anything further to mention to the Committee ? — There is one thing with regard to the accommodation at Soho. On the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley branch of the Great Western line, there Avas a great pressure of traffic last winter, and finding that the Great Western Company had land at Soho Station whicliAvas not occupied by sidings,! applied to the manager there to know if he would put in a siding for the coal trade ; he replied that the company themselves would not expend the money, but that we might ])ut the siding in at the ex- ])ense of our own company if we thought proper; I apjdled to knoiv what the estimate was for the cost of the siding, and it was said to lie about 1,000/.; upon the receipt of that estimate I asked the manager upon Avhat terms he Avould carry our traffic from the !Vednesbury Junction to the Soho Station, in the event of our going to the cost of putting in these sidings, and he re- plied tliat the charge wmuld be 1 s. I pointed out to him that that was just double the statutoiy power of the company, and I asked if there had not been some mistake, to which he replied that the thing had again been considered, and that tliey found they were Within their powers, and further, they could not afford to carry the traffic for less. The mileage being six miles, and the statutory toll being 6 d., they demanded 1 s . ; first of all asking us to put the siding in at our own expense. 9482. I need not say, of course, that the siding never has been put in I — It has not. 9483. Then you cannot do the trade ? — I'Ve could do a considerable trade there if the siding was put in. Sir Edward Watkin. 9484. Were you to pay for the land as well as the sidin;r ? — No. 9485. The company would have contributed the land? — The land is there ah’eady, but the company cannot carry the traffic unless they have termi- nal stations at which to dispose of it. ('hairrnan. 9486. The company will not do any loading or unloading for you, or find waggons ? — No. Mr. Monk. 9487. In those cases of overch-irge to which you have alluded, are the terminals included ? — There are no terminals allowed by the Act of Parliament ; there is a fixed maximum toll charge. 9488. Those are tolls, not rates? — Those are rates for coal, there being a maximum charge fixed by the Act. 9489. Which includes collection and delivery ? — It includes all expenses, except loading and unloading and tlie finding of waggons. Mr. Monk — continued. 9490. Are the charges for loading and unload- ing included in the sum charged by the railway ? — No, they are not. 9491. Those sums are sei)arately charged, are they not? — Those services are performed by our- selves. Mr. Bolton. 9492. As regards the siding to Avhlch you have just noAv referred, access to which the Great Western Bailway Com 2 )any refused, except upon terms to which you could not agree, did you offer to guarantee any traffic at that siding ? — There was an estimate of the traffic made, and I think it amounted to several hundred tons a Aveek ; Ave did not go so far as a guarantee. 9493. There Avas no obligation ujion you to send the traffic, if the expense of making the sidings Avas incurred by the company ? — There Avas no compulsion U2)0n us to send the traffic, but the siding Avas i-equired for the traffic. 9494. Upon Avhat ground did they refuse you, if as you say it Avould have been a profitable ti’ansaction for them ? — I cannot tell upon Avhat grounds they refused the siding, having the land there already. I made a like application for a similar jiiece of land in SnOAv Hill station, and I offered to send 1,000 tons a Aveek, and that offer Avas declined ; the land has remained idle ever since, and the sidings have not been put in. I am quite sure I could have sent 1,000 tons a week, if the sidings had been put in. Sir Daniel Gooch. 9495. 'Where is that piece of ground to Avhich you refer? — It is just before you enter SnoAv Hill Station, just at the bottom of Constitution Hill. There AA^as a deal of correspondence at the time, but it Avas not thought desirable by the Great Western Company to put in the siding. Mr. Bolton. 9496. You have spoken of the rates charged by the companies being in excess of the statutiuy j)OAvers ; have you taken any action at all Avith regard to that, either by application to the Eail- Avay Commissioners, or to the County Court ? — We have not. 9497. Why is that ? — Because it is a matter of less im])ortance to us than it is to the public. If Ave made an application to the Kaihvay Commis- sioners at a very large cost, and got those rates brought doAvn to the reasonable statutory charges, the competition is so strong in the coal trade, that the next day the advantages, if there Avere aiiA’, Avould be given aAvay to the public instantly, there- fore it is no use in these cases to interfere for the benefit of the public exclusively. 9498. It Avould have reduced the price to the ])ublic, without increasing the profit to A'our- sclves ? — YYs. Sir Edward Watkin. 9499. You said in the case in Avhich the com- pany declined to i)ut in a siding, except upon terms, that itAvassix miles between Weduesbury Junction and this jinint ? — Y'es, it is. 9500. Hoav do you measure ; do you measure Aiie distance actuall}' travelled in conveying the material. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 425 16 June 1881.1 Mr. Brown. yCouiinued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued, material, or from point to point? — We take the distance from the company’s rate book. 9501. Do you take the distance actually tra- velled by the waggon containing the coal, or the distance between the colliery and the union of the proposed siding ? — The distance was taken as 9 miles 32 chains, and 2 miles 40 chains upon the two companies lines. 9502. Where did you get that ? — That is from the company’s rate book. 9503. But that is not the distance between the two points, but the distance travelled by the goods, is it not ? — It is the distance the coal is hauled. 9504. With any allowance in . addition to the actual distance for shunting to get on to your siding and off it ? — At what point ? 9505. As you are aware you have to cross one line to get to another in each case ? — That is a question which affects the railway companies ; it does not affect us ; our siding is parallel with the North Western line at the colliery junction. 9506. You stated that you proposed to pay the cost of the siding, namely, 1,000 and you said that the company would contribute the land ; have you any notion of what the value of the land upon which you proposed to put your siding would be, seeing that it is in the town of Bir- mingham ? — I do not think it is worth much con- sidering it has been left idle for 20 years. 9507. But what would it sell for ? — I do not think it would sell for anything, seeing it is upon an embankment ; there is a value to it no doubt, but it depends upon what purpose it is used for ; it is worth more to the railway company for traffic than anybody else. 9508. If you put in a siding there you would require signals and a staff to work the traffic ? — No doubt we should require the signals and the staff, and we should have to pay for them ; the railway company would take good care of that. I do not know any case in which they have put in sidings for the public without charging for the use of the signals, and for the cost of working them. 9509. Then, again, you applied last year for a siding at Soho, you say ? — Yes. 9510. Was not the siding at Snow Hill de- clined upon the ground of safety to the public ? — That I could not say. 9511. Would you yourself recommend a coal yard at that particular place ? — It could be worked with perfect safety. 9512. With regard to that particular bit of railway to which you referred, you say that has been unused since 1850? — I think, soon after 1850, that junction was put in. I can give you the date of the Act ; the Act was obtained in 1846. 9513. Then you consider that the London and North Western Company are to blame for not Mr. Handel Cossham, Mr. Barnes. 9524. You live, I think, at Holly Lodge, St. George, Bristol? — I have one home there. 9525. You are the chairman of the Kingswood and Parkfield Collieries Company, are you not ? —Yes 0.54. Sir E(hvard Watkin — continued, permitting the junction to be made there? — I do not know who is to blame ; I do not blame .any- body ; all 1 say is that the junction is not made, and it would be very convenient to us if it were made. 9514. Have you ever approached the Chair- man of the London and North Western Bail- way, Mr. Moon, to get him to put in a junction? — I know in Captain Huish’s time we did ap- proach them. 9515. But that must be, at least, 14 years ago; have you been to the chairman of the com- pany since? — No; we have not. 9516. Has there been any representation from the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce to have this junction completed? — That I cannot tell. 9517. Do you mean to say that if it had been a great public grievance as you represent it, a representation would not have been made to the Chairman of the London and North Western Company? — A representation may have been made, but I cannot say that it has. 9518. You, at all events, have not made it? — No. Mr. Nicholson. 9519. In the case of this siding that was pro- posed to be put in, you would have been pre- pared to guarantee a certain quntity of coal a week, as I understand ? — If the company put in the siding at their own cost. 9520. But you would have been prepared to enter into an equitable arrangement for the use of such siding, the railway company laying it down themselves, and giving vou the land ? — Yes. Chairman. 9521. Do you say that you have known cases where railway companies have charged for the use of signals where they have allowed a siding to be made on to their line ? — I do. 9522. Do you know a case where the charge has been resisted ? — We tried to resist it, but we were told that unless the charges were agreed to, the siding would not be put in. I will give you an instance of that ; I am a director of the South Staffordshire Water Works Company, and we have a pumping station between Walsall and Wednesbury, about an equal distance between the two stations ; we asked the London and North Western Company to bring the materials for putting up the engine-houses, and afteiwvards to carry the coal for the use cf our engines, and the company demanded to be paid the cost of putting in the siding, and the charges for sig- nals, which charges are continued to this day. 9523. The Act says the company shall not take any rate, or toll, or money for the passing of goods or other things along any branches to be made by the company or other person ? — That does not consist with the 2 )ractice. called in ;• and Examined. Mr. Barnes — continued. 9526. You have been asked to give evidence on behalf of that company and other colliery owners in the district ? — I have. 9527. Your collieries, I think, are served by the Midland Bailway and the Gi’eat Western 3 H Balhvay '. 426 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 16 Jri ne 188 1 ] Mr. CoSSHAM. [ Continued. Mr. Barnes — continued. Chairman — continued. Kjiilway ? — M e are served by tlie IVIidland Rail- way ; we are situated on the Midland Railway. 9528. The Kingsw'ood Colliery is on the Mid- land Railway ? — It is, and the Parkfield. 9529. The old Bristol and Gloucester Railway was taken hy the Midland Railway? — It was in- corporated in 1846. 9530. The charges upon that railway under the Act of 1846, ought to be 1 d. a ton over 40 miles, and IJ d. under 40 miles, those charges being governed by a minimum clause of six miles ?— 'fhe changes are governed by that and the maximum rate, which would be 9 d. for six miles. 9531. The complaint of the traders in your district is that the charges made by the Midland Railway Company are above the maximum ? — That they are above the maximum. 9532. What does the over-charge vary from? — It varies from 1 d. a ton up to 7 d. or 8 d. 9533. That is for distances under 40 miles ? — Yes. 9534. You have a list of the stations, have you not? — Ves. 9535. You propose to hand that in, do you not? — I will. ( The same was handed in.) 9536. Will you mention one or two instances ; not more ? — I will ; from Parkfield to Bristol the distance is seven miles, and the maximum rate would be lOid.; we are charged 1 s. ^ d. 9537. Will you mention one more ? — You may take Weston, near Bath ; the distance is 11 miles from the colliery ; the present rate is Is. 9 d., and the proper charge should be 1 s. 4^ d. Lord Randolph Churchill. 9538. Is this a station to station rate ? — Yes. Chairman. 9539. You have a similar return of over- charges on the Midland Railway, have you not ? — I have. 9540. I believe there is another point which you wish to bring before the Committee. In going west upon the Great Western system there is another over-charge ? — That is upon the same principle ; when you pass on to the Great Western system we are charged 1 s. 2^d., and we say the charge is above the maximum ; we have maximum tolls also upon the Great Western, but I am not aware that they are above the rates which they are allowed to charge. 9541. You are charged 8 d. for toll, and 4id. for the locomotive power? — We are charged 8 d. for the road, and 4 J d. for the locomotive power. 9542. What is that more than it should be ? — That is a H d- a ton more than it should be, and we find the waggons; we understand that the maximum toll upon the Midland Railway includes the waggons ; instead of that we have to pay more than the maximum, and find the waggons as Avell ; we contend that either the Act ought to be operative, or it should be abolished. 9543 . You have prepared a plan, have you not, showing the position of those two collieries rela- tively? — I have. ( The same was handed in.) 9544 . Do you wish to make any further state- ment to the Committee? — No, the only complaint I wish to make is that the charges which are made upon the Midland Railway are above the maximum toll. The Act of 1846 appears to be very specific ; the charge is 1^ d. for a distance under 40 miles, and 1 d. above. Mr. Bolton. 9545. Your complaint is that the Midland Company charge you above tlie maximum rate ? — Yes, the explanation being that they have a riojlit to charge for terminals. 9546. Why do you not seek your remedy ? — It is very easy to say so ; a railway company has enormous power, and no single trader can contest with them very easily ; it is not a thing to be lightly entered upon. 9547. Do you mean to say that before the county court the railway company would be likely to be in a better position than you ? — They have other powers which they could put in force. 9548. What is your object in coming here ? — We come here to state our grievance and to hear what the railway company have to say upon it. 9549. But the law already provides a remedy for your grievance ; why do you not show us that the remedy cannot be applied ? — But the railway company contend that they have a right, in addi- tion to the tolls allowed by the Act, to charge any amount of terminals they think proper. 9550. Who is to decide that point ? — You gentlemen, I hope. Chairman. 9551. Are you aw'are that the Railway Com- missioners have power to fix the terminals upon application ? — I am aware that the Railw'ay Com- missioners have pow'er over the raihvay companies to a certain extent, but I was not aware that they went so far as that. Every time we apply to the railway company they always assure us that they have the power to charge terminals over and above those maximum rates ; my impression is that that is not so ; if I read the Act correctly d. a mile is the maximum rate under the Act. 9552. Will you look at Clause 15 of the Act of 1873, wdiich constituted the Railway Commis- sioners {handing the Act to the Witness). ( The W itness perused the Clause.) 9553. So you see you have a remedy, if you choose to exercise it? — I am much obliged to you for calling my attention to the Clause. Mr. Bolton. 9554. That is your only complaint, and you now know that you have a remedy without coming here ? — I am glad to have my attention called to that Clause. Mr. Monk. 9555. Do I understand you to say that you have a complaint against the Midland Railway Company for not providing waggons ? — They have not provided them for the last 20 years ; we have provided the waggons, in addition to paying beyond the maximum tolls. 9556. Do you consider that you have a right to demand waggons from the company ? — At first they allowed us 1 5 d. a ton for our waggons going to Bristol ; that was gradually diminished, until at SELECT COMMITTEE ON KAILWAYS. 427 16 June 1881.] Mr. Cossham. [^Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. at present we are allowed nothing for waggons, and we have invested 25,000 L in waggons. Sir Kdward Watkin. 9557. You gave the Committee two instances of alleged overcharge ; one was a distance of seven miles, and the other was a distanee of 11 miles ; would you kindly tell me whether your complaint against the Midland Railway Company is, that in every case they are charging more than the maximum, or merely for the short distances ? — Merely for the short distances; we have no complaint with reference to long distances. 9558. In long distances the charges are under the maximum ? — Yes. 9559. Then your contention is based upon your comprehension of the Act? — Yes, that unless they have power to charge beyond what I understand appears in the Act, we are illegally charged. 9560. Though you are paying nothing for shunting ? — It is said, “ And be it enacted that it shall be lawful for the said Midland Railway Company to demand and receive in respect of passengers and of the several articles, matters, and things, and of the several descriptions of animals hereinafter mentioned conveyed upon the Bristol and Gloucester, and Birmingham and Gloucester Railways, amalgamated by virtue of this Act, whether in carriages belonging to the Midland Railway Company or otherwise, any tolls not exceeding the following ; that is to say, for all dung, compost, and all sorts of manure, lime, and limestone, and all undressed materials for the repair of public roads and highways, which shall be conveyed for a distance of 40 miles or upwards, 1 d. per ton per mile. For the like articles, goods, and things, which shall be con- veyed for a less distance than 40 miles, \\d. per ton per mile.” Chairman. 9561. What you mean is rather this, namely. Section 60, provided always, and be it enacted, that in the said tolls shall be included the tolls for the use of engines for propelling carriages on the said railway, and that no further charge than as hereinbefore stated shall be made by the Mid- land Railway Company for the use of such engines ; provided also, that nothing herein con- tained shall be construed to prevent the Midland Railway Company from charging any reasonable sum for the use of such engines and carriages for express trains, and for loading, unloading, and for providing covers for minerals, goods, articles, or animals ? ” — That is right. Sir Edward Watkin. 9562. If you have to shunt a waggon of coal from one line to the other to get it into the siding, that is a distance you are entitled to charge for? — In this case I am referring to it is taken from our siding on to their line. 9563. But that is without prejudice to what the legal power is ? — If they have a power to charge for other things than those specified in the Acts, then they are probably riglit. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. 9564. Then with reference to the waggons, have they any power to charge for waggons ? — I assume that the companies are bound to find the waggons. 9565. Assuming .they are bound to find the waggons, would they not be entitled to make a charge for bringing the empties back from the collieries? — I have never known it done. 9566. I have never known it done, but I ask whether the company would not have a strict legal power if they had the question tried to have the back charge ? — I do not know about that ; I understand that the Midland Railway Company are going to obtain power to acquire all the waggons again for the purpose of getting rid of those empty return waggons. Mr. Nicholson. 9567. Have the company a rate book to which you can refer, to see the rates ? — I suppose they have at Derby. 9568. But have they at your station ? — I do not think that they have. 9569. Taking for granted that there is a rate book to which you ought to have access, if termi- nals or other service can be charged, should they not be stated in the rate book ? — Yes, I should think so. 9570. Would it not be better that if there is a charge for terminals or waggons, that should be stated ? — It ought to be so. 9571. You say that there is a general terror ot appearing before the Railway Commissioners, because of the probable expense ? — It is not only from the probable expense, but the enormous power which the railway company has. 9572. You think that a more easy remedy should be given than at present exists ? — I do. 9573. Do you belong to the Coal Owners’ Association? — I do. 9574. YV)u are of opinion that your associations should have power to appear before the Railway Commissioners? — I think so. Chairman. 9575. This coal is carried in your own wag- gons, you say? — Yes, they are our own wag- gons. 9576. Are you sure that in that case it is the toll clauses and not the rate clauses you ought to look to ? — I am quite sure that the tolls we are charged are charged for coal in our own waggons. 9577. If you are running with your own wag- gons, you cannot go and find out what are the maximum rates allowed to the railway companies as carriers, but you must go and see what the toll clauses are ; that is to say, the tolls which the railway company are allowed to charge as owners of the road ; then they have the right to charge something for locomotive power; there are two systems of charge, one obsolete, and one actual. These being your own waggons, you must see the rate the company have a right to charge under these clauses? — Assuming they have the power to charge us at the full maximum rate, the difference I have given you is what they charge us above that. 0.54. 3 H 2 428 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE W? June 1881. Mr. Mask ELL William Peace^ called in; and further Examined. Mr. Barnes, 9578. I BELIEVE you desire to make an addition to your previous evidence? — As ques- tions have been asked about sub-section 3 of paragraph 3, I wish to say that the object of it was this : In the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, there is a clause (No. 76), which gives owners and occupiers of land the fullest possible power of making junctions and sidings into railways for the accommodation of the traffic, but after that section come some restrictions which are so wide in their nature, that they render the pre- vious section practically inoperative, because the sub-section says that we shall not go upon a line set apart for any special purpose, or ujion an in- clined jdane ; those words are so wide that the desire of the coal trade is first of all that we should have some tribunal to go to of easy access, which should say, having due regard to the public safety, upon what terms and conditions we shall join a railway. Chairman. 9579. You would say that railway companies take advantage of the -words “ nor upon any in- clined jilane,” to refuse you when it suits them, except upon the dead level? — Yes, and also the words “ which they shall have set apart for any specific purpose the company always say that it is set apart for a specific purpose. Sir Edward Wathin. 9580. Have you any cases within your know- ledge in which railway companies have, for in- sufficient reasons, refused to put a siding into a colliery ? — I do not know about insufficient rea- sons, but there have been many cases in which we have wanted to make communications, but have been unable to do so. I was employed in the case of Andrew Knowles & Son, who wanted to make a junction into Manchester ; that was refused, and we took the matter into court, but eventually it was sanctioned without being tried. 9581. Do not you know that in the neighbour- hood of towns it is very often very dangerous to put in sidings ? — The practical effect of this is, that the person who wants to make a siding is forced to make it upon terms which may be made very onerous upon him. 9582. Do you think that if you had time to consider it, you could mention a dozen cases in which, for insufficient reasons, and on improper grounds, railway companies have refused to con- nect collieries with their railways? — I will not say on insufficient and improper grounds, but I say that, practically, there is very great difficulty with the railway companies 1 have had to meet, in getting these sidings, and in all cases the parties are fettered with an agreement which I say goes beyond the Act of Parliament. SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. 429 Monday, 20th June 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Caine. Mr. Callan. Lord Randolph Churchill. Mr. Cross. Mr. Dillwyn, Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. Mulholland. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. Phipps. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. Pell. Sir Edward Watkln. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Frederick Brent Grotrian, called m; and Examined. Mr. Monk. 9583. Are you a Merchant residing in Hull ? • — I am. 9584. And ex-president of the Hull Chamber of Commerce ? — Yes. 9585. And one of the Commissioners of the Elumber Conservancy? — Yes. 9586. And you are also a justice of the peace ? —Yes. 9587. Will you state in what position Hull is in the North of England, wdth reference to popu- lation, and as a port? — Hull is the third port in the United Kingdom, ranking next to London and Liverpool. The population, according to the last census, is 150,924. 1 think, possibly I might say here, that I represent a joint committee which was formed from the Hull Corporation, the Hull Chamber of Commerce, and the Hull Guardian Society. Those three bodies formed a joint committee, and it is at the request of this joint committee, representing those bodies, that I appear here to-day. 9588. Upon what system of railway is Hull ? — Hull is situated on the north-eastern system of railways ; the North Eastern Railway Com- pany having a complete monopoly of the lines in the district, with one exception, which I will refer to hereafter. 9589. Does that include the ports of Hartle- pool and the Tyne ? — That includes the ports of Hartlepool and the Tyne. 9590. Can you state how many miles of rail- way the system of the North Eastern Company embraces ? — -The system of the North Eastern Railway Company embraces 1,490 miles of line worked by the company ; 1,466 of which are entirely owned by them. 9591. By whom are the docks of Hull owned ? — The docks of Hull are in the hands of a private company. 9592. Plas the North Eastern Company any interest in those docks? — Yes, the North Eastern Company have an interest of 100,000 1. in the Hull Docks. 0.54. Mr. Mo7tk — continued. 9593. And what is the total value or capital of those docks ? — I think, with the debentures, it would be close upon 3,000,000 /. In considera- tion of their 100,000 Z. of share capital, they appoint a director. As a matter of fact, they have two directors of their board, who are also directors of the Dock Company. 9594. What is the whole number of the di- rectors ? — I do not know exactly. 9595. You do not know what proportion the North Eastern Railway Company’s directors would bear to the whole ? — Most of the railway companies are represented upon the Hull Dock Board. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin- colnshire Company have a director, and the Lan- cashire and Yorkshire Company have a director in consideration of a small amount of share capital which they hold. When I say a “ small amount,” I mean relatively a small amount. I believe the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin- colnshire Company have 50,000 Z. of share capital, and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Comjiany have 1 00,000 Z. 9596. By whom are the docks at West Hartle- pool owned? — The docks at West Hartlepool are entirely owned by the North Eastern Rail- way Company. 9597. Were they constructed by the railway company ? — No ; they were purchased by the North Eastern Railway Company at a cost of 4,000,000 Z. Sir Edtvard Watkin. 9598. Was that the docks alone ? — That in- cluded some railways. 9599. So that it was not 4,000,000 Z. for the docks ? — No. Mr. Monk. 9600. That was including certain sidings ? — Including certain railways. 3 H 3 9601. In 430 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 June 1881.] Mri Grotkian. [ Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. 9601. In wliat year was that purchase effected ? — 1'hat was in 1865. 9602. Since that time have the docks been en- larged ? — Yes ; the North Eastern Railway Com- pany have done very much to forward the interests of the port of Hartlepool naturally, having a large interest there. 9603. Does the North Eastern Company own any other docks in that district? — \e3; they own the Tyne Dock at Newcastle, and they own the docks at Middlesbro’ also. 9604. Am I to understand that the North Eastern Comj)any practically own all the rail- ways in this district? — They own all the ports ; that is to say, all the railways running to all the ports, and they own most of the docks, with the exception of the Hull Dock. 9605. Does the North Eastern Company show any preference to any one part of the district over another in the rates which it charges? — The rates charged are all based upon a system of preference to the northern ports of Hartlepool and the Tyne over the port of Hull. 9606. Has the result of the system been to divert the trade from Hull to the Northern ports? — Yes, doubtless; I may, perhaps, give some illustrations of the rates which exist. I have a statement here of the rates charged for the cai’riage of timber and deals from Hull to Leeds. From Hull to Leeds, a distance of 51 miles, the rate is 7 5. 11 d., and from West Hartlepool to Leeds, a distance of 72 miles; that is to say, from the docks of West Hartlepool, which are owned by the North Eastern Railway Com- pany, it is' the same rate, namely, 7 s. lid. Fi’om Newcastle Tyne Dock, also owned by the North Eastern Railway Company, to Leeds, a distance of 93 miles, the rate is also 7 s. 11 d,, so that as a matter of fact, the rates are the same, although the distance is very much longer. 9607. Can you give one other illustration to the Committee ? — I can give some hundreds if it is necessary. 9608. Will you give the rate from Hull to Barnsley, if you have it? — From Hull to Barnsley, a distance of 61 miles, the rate is 9s. 2d. Sir Edward Watkin. 9609. Is that for timber and deals? — Yes, for timber and deals. From West Hartlepool, from the North Eastern Railway Company’s docks, the rate is 9 s. 2 d., the distance being 96 miles ; and from Newcastle-on-Tyne to Barnsley, a dis- tance of 116 miles, the charge is 10 s. Mr. Monk. 9610. So that they are very nearly the same rates notwithstanding that the distance is nearly double from the Tyne to Barnsley, •as compared with that from Hull to Barns- ley ? — Yes ; if you will allow me, I will give another illustration ; to IManchcster from Hull, a distance of 91 miles, the charge is 15 s. From West Hartlepool to Manchester, a distance of 114 miles, the rate is also 15 s., and from New- castle, a distance of 136 miles, the rate is also 15 s. I have given those places as typical places, but Mr. Monk — continued. really and truly they embrace hundreds of other places. For instance, Manchester would em- brace a group of places ; and the same with Sheffield. 9611. Does the North Eastern Company adopt the same principle invariably ? — They adopt one principle, I think, invariably, and that is this: that whenever there is traffic to come south to that district, which belongs, as it were, geographi- cally, to Hull, they carry, as I have attempted to show, any distance at the same rate ; that is to say, when the company has to bring it down south from their own docks to compete with Hull, or the docks at Hull, now the system they adopt, on the other hand, from Hull, is invariably a mileage rate when Ave want to go into a district which is served by the Tyne and Hartle 2 AOol ; so that, as a matter of fact, the effect of it is this : that all the places near the Tyne and Hartlepool which belong, geographically, to those places, ai’e reserved exclusively to them by the action of the North Eastern Raihvay Company, whereas all the places to which we have the ad- vantage, geograjjhically, of access and jAOsition, are also opened out on equal terms to the northern ports. Mr. Bolton. 9612. You are now speaking of Hull as “ We ” ? — Yes. Ckainnan. 9613. Will you give the Committee one or two instances of the milea<^e char 2 :ed into the Hartle- pool district ; you have given us tlie others ? — I will take Middlesbro’ ; to Middlesbro’ from Hull, a distance of 93 miles, the charge is 8 s. 4 <7. ; from the West Hartlejiool Docks to Middlesbro’, a distance of 17f miles, the chai-ge is ds. for tAvo- ton lots, and 3 s. for four-ton lots. Mr. Bolton. 9614. I fancy all the other charges are for four-ton lots ? — No, not the 8 s. 4 c?.; the 8 s. 4^7. is for tAVO-ton lots and upAvards ; there is a rate from West Hartlepool to Middlesbro’, on four- ton lots, of 3 s., and from NeAvcastle to Mid- dlesbro’, a distance of 45 miles, it is 5 s. Take another illustration. From Hull to Darlington, a distance of 87 miles, the charge is 10 s. ; from West Hartlepool, a distance of 24 miles, the charge is 5 s.; from Newcastle, a distance of 35 miles to the same place, Darlington, the charge is 5 s. Mr. Monk. 9615. Are you sure about the distance in the last case? — I may perhajis exjdain that these rates are from the Tyne dock ; that is a shorter route ; as a matter of fact the rates are the same from NeAvcastle station, Avhich would give an extra five miles, and also the tolls over the High- Level Bridge, so that the company have put this as favourably for the northern ports as they can in that rcsjtect. I have given tliem the advantage, of the distance, in many cases ; and Hull does not get that advantage, because the distances I have gi\'en from Hull are not the distances by the near- est route, but they are the distances by the route Avhich SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 431 20 ./une 1881.J Mr. Grotrian. {^Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. which the railway company adopt, so that this Table, however favourable it may apper to my view of the case, Avould be still more favourable if I had taken the distances from Hullby the shorter route. 9616. Do you find that this system of favour- ing the northern ports tends to divert the trade from Hull? — I have no doubt of it. I should like to give another illustration ; take Pontefract, the distance from Hull being 42 miles, the rate is 7 s. 6 d. ; from West Hartlepool, a distance of 81 miles, the rate is 8 5. 4 d. From Newcastle, a distance of 101 miles, the rate is also 8 s. 4d. Now there is a difference there in distance of 59 miles ; it is 59 miles longer to Pontefract from Newcastle than from Hull, while the only addi- tion to the rate is 10 d. Now I want to take another case to show how the system is applied with regard to Hull. Take Brancepeth, which is 106 miles from Hull, and the charge is 14 s. 7 d.; it is 5 s. 10 d. for 30 miles, from West Hartle- pool, and 5 s. for 21 miles from Newcastle. Now there is a difference there of 76 miles as against Hull. When we want to go North, and the dis- tance there is against us, there is an addition of 8 s. 9 d. for 76 miles, but when the northern ports, Newcastle, for example, want to come South, they carry 59 miles further for 10 d. extra. 9617. I think you stated that you could multiply those illustrations almost indefinitely ? — I could multiply them indefinitely, but I will hand in the Tables. ( Timber hnport Rate Tables were handed in.') Now we may take it, to shorten this evidence, that these rates of carriage which apply to timber and deals, apply to wheat, they apply to maize, and they apply to grain and seed of all descriptions ; they refer and apply to every article that we import. Of course the rates will vary for those articles, but the basis of charge does not vary. 9618. Has the Chamber of Commerce or have the ti-aders of Hull made complaints to the North Eastern Railway Company with regard to this un- fair system of charges ? — Yes, it has been a source of complaint and remonstrance for years and years past, but I was asked what the effect of it was. If my view of things is right it would drive the trade to West Hartlepool and the Tyne from Hull. Now let us look at the facts and see what it does. I have dealt with timber rates more especially, and now 1 will deal with the article of timber as imported into West Hartlepool and Hull. lu 1853 there were only sent into West Hartlepool 1,234 loads of timber, whereas in Hull we had 165,000 loads for the same year. Now in 1860, West Hartlepool imported 76,000 loads, and Hull 201,000 loads. In 1870 West Hartlepool imported 260,000 loads of timber, and Hull 323,000 loads. In 1880, 334,000 loads were imported into West Hartlepool, and 372,000 into Hull. Mr. Barclay^ 9619. When were the Hartlepool Docks opened? — It would have been in 1843 or 1844; it was about ten years prior to 1853, when the first Hartlepool Dock was made. Now in the first four months in 1881 there are 21,000 loads imported into West Hartlepool, and 19,000 into Hull ; so that as a matter of fact in this race they have entirely beaten us. 0.54. Mr. Bolton. 9620. That is the quantity for four months only in this year ? — It is four months only of this year ; but as a matter of fact the import into Hartlepool is more than we have imported into Hull with all the advantages that we enjoy. I put forward first the theory that those rates would do that, and I put forward afterwards the fact that they have done it. Mr. Caine. 9621. Is not the 20,000 loads a very small proportion for the whole year ; perhaps that is a season trade ? — I think the figures would be right. It just strikes me what the explanation is ; the Baltic ports would be frozen up and the importation would not go at all during the winter ; but then it will be recollected that the Baltic is frozen for both places. Mr. Monk. 9622. Are lower dock rates charged by the North Eastern Company at West Hartlepool and the Tyne than are charged at Hull? — Yes, they are very much lower, because at West Hartlepool the docks are in the hands of the railway com- pany, so that it is not a matter of such very great moment to them so long as they can get the trade there, what they charge in dock dues ; but for us in Hull, with 3,000,000 1. of invested capital belonging to the public and all sorts of people, it is a matter of moment ; we are bound to charge in Hull, dues which will return those people who have invested their money some sort of remunera- tion. 9623. Will you give the Committee the dock dues in each place? — Mr. Massey, who follows me, is a shipowner, and he has a statement of the actual dues upon one of his vessels at each port, so that I think I would rather, if you would allow me, not mix the things up ; but I pledge myself to this, that the rates are much lower in the North Eastern Docks than in Hull. 9624. Have you any statement to make to the Committee with regard to rhe freights from the Baltic to the northern ports? — Yes; that is another advantage the North enjoys. The freights from the Baltic to West Hartlepool are lower than they are to Hull. 9625. What difference would there be ? — They would be from 2 s. 6 d. to 5 s. a standard lower to Hartlepool than to Hull; that should be a reason, according to what we have heard, why the railway rates should be lower from Hull, as we have to suffer the disadvantage of higher sea freight and the longer distance. 9626. Could you slate what percentage that would be upon the freight? — It would be some- thing like from 7 to 10 per cent, but the freights vary so much that it would be impossible to say accurately what it is. 9627. Have you any statement to make with regard to the collieries in the north-eastern dis- trict ; are there any advantages given to certain collieries ? — In Hull we have, of course, over the North Eastern Company’s lines, to pay very much more for the coal which is brought down to Hull for export than is charged by the North Eastern Company upon their lines to the Tyne and Hartlepool. 3 ii 4 9628. Do 432 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 June ISSl.'] Mr. Grotrian, [Continued. Mr. Bolton. 9628. Do you mean that it is very much more per ton gross, or per ton per mile ? — It is very much more per ton, and it is in some cases, I be- lieve, even more per mile. Mr. Monk. 9629. Have you given in any scale of charges for the carriage of coal? — Mr. Massey, who is a coal exporter, will give the Committee evidence upon that point. 9630. The consequence of that is this, that there is a great inducement to ships to go to the northern ports, and the Tyne instead of to Hull? — There is every inducement ; there is the in- ducement of the doek dues, and there is the in- ducement of the lower rates for coal, in addition to which, at the northern ports, they can get return cargoes. 9631. And you say that the remonstrances which you have made to the North Eastern Rail- way Company have not been attended with success? — No ; I should say with regard to this timber, and I believe it is a fact that they do something for us in Hull which is not done for the merchants in the north ; that is to say, the North Eastern Railway Company give the Hull merchants an advantage upon a cei’tain class of round timber ; there is Is. 3 d. charged ujion that in Hartlepool for craneage, while it, is not charged but is done free for the Hull merchants. That is no set-off whatever against the difference in freight and the other points, but still, as it is made a good deal of sometimes, I think it is only fair to give the North Eastern Railway Company the benefit of it. Mr. Bolton. 9632. What is the 1 s. 3 h that is not a very desirable undertaking on the part of merchants, and is only done under circum- stances of very great pressure and necessity, be- cause it involves a great expenditure of time and money. Now, in 1862, they promoted the Hull and South Junction Railway. That line passed the Committee of the House of Commons, but it 3 I was 434 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 20 Jxine 1881.] Mr. Grotrian. [ Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. was rejected In the House of Lords on account of the engineering difficulties connected with the tunnel under the Humber. Lord Randolph Churchill. 9656. Did the North Eastern Company oppose the Bill ? — To the death. 9657. Tooth and nail ? — Tooth and nail. Mr. Monk. 9658. Practically these attempts have not been carried out? — With the exception of the Hull and Barnsley line. 9659. Is that line in course of construction ? — It is in course of construction. 9660. As the Hull traders have not applied to the Railway Commissioners, have you ajiy obser- vations to make with regard to that tribunal ; do you think it ought to be altered in any way, and made more accessible to the public? — 1 should put the matter shortly thus: Parliament has given to these railway companies enormous powers and privileges, and I think we, as representing the public, have the right to claim from Parlia- ment who has given these railway companies these enormous powers, privileges, and mono- polies, that Parliament should devise some means of protecting the public against the abuse of them. 9661. Are you acquainted with the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1873 ?— Yes. I think that Parliament has recognised the difficulty, and ■ I think anyone reading the various Acts which have been passed by Parliament will recognise in them a well-intentioned endeavour on the part of Parliament to meet the difficulties of the case. But these Acts are rendered absolutely inopera- tive ; there must be some one to administer them on behalf of the public. Chairman. 9662. You do not mean to administer them ; you mean to put them in motion, because the Railway Commissioners administer them ? — The question is who is to take this matter up ; am I to take it up on the part of the public, because that is a very unthankful office; I say that the case I have made out ought to be met by the pre- sent Acts of Parliament, and that there is no need for further Acts of Parliament if those existing could be administered. Clause 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, says : “ Every railway company, canal company, and railway and canal company, shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivering of traffic upon and from the several railways and canals belonging to or worked by such com- panies resj)ectlvely, and for the return of car- riages, trucks, boats, and other vehicles, and no such company shall make or give any undue or unreasonable j)reference or advantage to or in favour of any jiarticular j)erson or company, or anv particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever ; nor shall any such company subject any particular person or company ; or any par- ticular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable ])rejudice or disadvantage in any Chairman — continued. respect whatsoever we want nothing better than that. 9663. The carrying out of these powers was confided to the Railway Commissioners under the Act of 1873, and they have been carrying out those provisions during the last seven years? — Yes, lam perfectly aware of that, but I say the public really have not the power and the ability to avail themselves of it ; I can quote a case in illustration from the Sixth Amnual Re- port of the Railway Commissioners, page 5 ; it is the Commissioners’ Report for last year’, 1880. This is the case of the Newington Local Board V. The North Eastern Railway Com.pany (Ap- pendix 1, No. 2; : “ the complaint was that the inhabitants of Newington (which is a subui’b of Plull, that is to say, it is in the Parliamentary borough of Hull, but it is not in the municipal borough ; it has its own local board, although it is practically part of Hull), a district in the neighbourhood of Hull, were not afforded reason- able facilities for their traffic, because they re- quired a station nearer than Hull, and the accom- modation was refused them. The local board, who were the applicants, represented a popu- lation of 7,500.” Mr. Monk. 9664. What was the result of that case ? — Tlie result of it is this : “ The Attorney General showed cause against this rule on 5th May, but the matter ultimately was adjourned upon a sug- gestion by the Court that it would be more con- venient to determine it upon a declaration in prohibition, or upon a special case, than upon the rule nisi." What is the effect of that? The thing, has been fought so determinedly by the railway company, who have so much power and money and privilege, that they have exhausted the funds of the Newington local board. So here is a case where it has been decided by the proper tribunal that they were suffering injustice and Avrong, and they have a decision in their favour, but it cannot be carried any further, because the Newington local board have no funds. 9665. Can you suggest any remedy for that state of ihings ? — It might possibly be met in this way, that there should be a department of the Board of Trade, or perhaps under the coming Minister of Commerce, to take up these cases, that where a primd facie case of contravention of any of the present Acts of Parliament can be shown, that department of the Board of Trade should become as it Avere the public prosecutor in the case, or in other Avords that they should protect the public against an infringement by the raihvay com])anies of the various Acts of Parlia- ment, and that Avhere the department decide that it is a good case, they should carry it on and pay for it; they should provide the means and the funds. 9666. Yfhat you complain of is the expense of carrying a case through the RaiLvay Commis- sioners’ Court? — It is perfectly impossible for the public to do so ; it is all very Avell to say that you can go before the Railway Commissioners Avith a solicitor, or anyone else you can pick up, but there the case does not stop; there is appeal upon appeal, and it ahvays ends in the House of Lords, SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 435 , 20 June 1881.] Mr. Grotrian. \_Continued. Mr. Monk — continued. Lords, and you cannot go before a superior court with a solicitor, so that it is not possible for the public to fight the case out with the railway companies. 9667. Do you contend that it is contrary to the public interest that railway companies should make j)rivata agreements between themselves with reference to charging differential rates be- tween the different ports upon their systems? — I think the power which the railway companies possess, or claim to possess and act upon, in making private agreements among themselves is a thing that should be vetoed ; it should not be allowed. 9668. Do you consider that the action of the North Eastern Railway Company is a du’ect violation and contravention of the Act of 1854 ? — I think so. 9669. Is there any other point which you wish to bring before the notice oJt‘ the Committee ? — I think there is one with regard to an article which has become a new article of traffic, as it were, namely, esparto ; we find that this esparto grass, which is used for paper-making purposes, all gravitates towards the northern port of New- castle ; we do not get it to Hull ; it would be a vei'y great advantage if we got it, but we are prevented by preferential rates, which are actually for esparto in some cases lower from Newcastle for a longer distance than they are from Hull ; the rates are not only lower per ton per mile, but they are actually lower in money for the longer distance, which has, of course, diverted the trade from Hull ; that is not a case of an old trade taken away ; it is the case of a new trade acquired, and if we apply to the North Eastern Railway Company for low rates they may truly say, Lou have no esparto traffic, what is the use of quoting rates to you ; you do not do any business therein.” Of course we do not ; we cannot do any business on account of the rates. Mr. Barclay. 9670. Where does the esparto grass go to ? — To the Lancashire district, to Barnsley and thereabouts, Mr. Monk. 9671. Will you hand in any further tables you have prepared for the information of the Com- mittee ? — I will, ( Tables skowi/is, rates on cotton and wheat loere handed in.) Mr. Bolton. 9672. You wei’e going to give the Committee one exception which deprived the North Easteim Railway of the complete monopoly of Hull ; which was that? — They have in this sense a com- plete monopoly, that they own absolutely all the lines. 9673. You stated in your evidence that there was one exception ? — Yes, that is the Act which the Hull and Barnsley Company have got. 9674. That line is now in course of construc- tion, 1 think ? — It is in course of construction. 9675. The Hull Docks, I think you stated, have cost something like 3,000,000 1. ? — I think 0.51. Mr. Bolton — continued. the capital will be very nearly 3,000,000 1. with debentures. 9676. It is the Hull Docks, or their proprietors, who suffer as much as any one, through the pre- ferential rates given to Hartlepool and the Tyne ? — 'fhey suffer, no doubt. 9677. The Hull Dock Company is a very wealthy corporation, is it not, with its 3,000,000 1. of capital ? — It is. 9678. Is that company too small to take upon itself an application to the Railway Commis- sioners ? — No, I should think it is not. 9679. Then can you tell the Committee why the company has never applied ? — I think that I can give a very good guess. 9680. Do not give us guesses if you can state the facts? — I will state the facts as far as I know them. Upon the board of the dock company there are two directors of the North Eastern Railway Company ; there is one director of the Lancashire and Yorkshire who is a director of the Hull Docks Board, and there is one director of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, who is a director of the Hull Docks Board; that is four. 9681. Out of how many, what is the total number of the directors of the dock board? — I do noc know. 9682. You give the Committee that as a fact; I want to know the reason? — I think that is a very good reason; I give it quantum vuleat\ it is quite sufficient, I should think, to prevent those gentle- men who are themselves directors of railways going and framing a case against themselves, 9683. Could you say whether the interest of those gentlemen in these railways is larger than their interest in the docks? — I do not know what their private interest is. 9684. You do not know how many directors there are in the docks ; whether those four form a majority or a minority ? — I should think that they formed the minority. 9685. Then how would the minority rule the majority ? — I do not know, but it sometimes does. 9686. How are the directors of the docks ap- pointed? — They are appointed by reason of the capital which they hold in the Hull Dock Com- pany. 9687. That only accounts for three ; you told me that the North Eastern Railway Company appointed one director; the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company one director, and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Company one director, in virtue of their subscriptions to the docks ; how are the other directors appointed? — There are two North Eastern Railway Company directors, one by virtue of their subscription to the docks, and the other by virtue of his happening to be a director of the North Eastern Railway Com- pany. 9688. But that director cannot be placed at the board by virtue of the 100,000 /. subscription, seeing that they have already availed themselves of their privilege by appointing another gentle- man ? — I do not know how he is appointed ; I should think tlie plan followed would be a recom- mendation by the directors themselves. 9689. Have the shareholders nothing to do with it? — Only to confirm the appoinrment. 3 I 2 9690. Have 436 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 c/M? 2 e 1881.] Mr. Grotrian. ^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 9690. Have they no pov^er of electing a direc- tor ? — Not in the first instance. 9691. Have the shareholders no power of electing a director on the dock board ? — They have this power, that when there is a vacancy to fill up, the board select, and the shareholders have power possibly to veto his election ; that is a power which would very rarely be exercised. Mr. Monk. 9692. Do you^know whether they have the power or not to veto his election? — I believe they have. Mr. Bolton. 9693. And they did not exercise it in this case? — No. 9694. Now, with regard to these differential I’ates, let us take them up; do you remember the amalfjamation of the lines which now constitute the North Eastern system ? — I do not remember it, but I know, of course, historically, the fact. 9695. Do you know, for a fact, that before the amalgamation, the different lines made certain charges ; the same charges, in fact, as are now made from many of those ports as to which you have complained of preferential rates being now given ; and that it Avas a promise on the part of the Nortli Eastern Eailway Company that they would not disturb that arrangement ? — Yes, I know that. 9696. This was on the part of the traders ; you are now complaining of the arrangement made by the traders with the North Eastern Railway Company at the time of the amalgamation? — Certainly I am. 9697. But that was an arrangement which the North Eastern Railway Company assented to at the request of the traders? — Of the traders in the north of course. 9698. And in Hull also? — Not that I am aware. 9699. Are you not aware of that? — I should say that they did not. Noav with regard to that question, I know a little more. It has been often alleged that the North Eastern Company Avere under a Parliamentary obligation to continue those rates. 9700. I have not alluded to that; I have merely asked the other question? — But it has been alleged often, though nobody has been able to find the clause in the Act of Parliament, but I would say this, that if the North Eastern Com- pany promised a thing which Avas unjust and un- fair, the sooner it is cancelled the better. 9701. You say the public suffered very much through the preferential rates given to the Tyne and Hartle])ool ? — But with regard to these pro- mises, I should like to say something else ; I should like to read the promise Avhich the Chair- man of the North Eastern Raihvay Company made to the i)eople of Hull ; this Avas at a meet- ing in Hull, and he said, “I am not prepared to offer any pledges.” 9702. AVhen Avas this? — U])on the 2nd of October 1849: “ I am not prepared to offer here any ])le(lges Avhich 1 have not previously Avell considered and seriously thought upon, but I can tell the peo])le of Hull, and I fairly tell it to the chairman of the Dock Company, that if it Mr. Bolton — continued. rests Avith the York and North Midland Company, which I have the honour to represent, if it rests Avith us Avhere the goods coming from the AA’’est Riding shall be shipped to the Continent, Ave are fully prepared for a vigorous but honourable competition ; we, I say, are prepared to carry those goods on such terms as Avill secure to the port of Hull that j^re-eminence to Avhich it is entitled. I say this publicly, I think the claims of 80,000 inhabitants, I think the claims of those Avhohave so much capital invested in the district, are so strong on the raihvay world that we shall feel it our duty fairly to give to the immense capital interested in the port, and to the immense number of people dependent upon its prosperity, those advantages Avhich they have a fair right to possess, and if they do not rightly avail them- selves of it, the fault shall not lie Avith the rail- Avay company. I pledge the company, Avhich I represent, that it shall not be our fault if the port of Hull does not maijitain that position Avhicli it has hitherto occupied as the third port of the kingdom.” Now railway companies can break a distinct pledge and promise Avhen it suits them, and I ask them to break that one to which you have referred. 9703. You stated, in your evidence, that Hull was the third port in the kingdom ? — It is. 9704. So that the railway company have ap- peared to maintain that pledge ? Mr. Barclay. 9705. What occasioned that speech? — It Avas on the occasion of the opening of the Hull and Bridlington line. The mayor of Hull Avas afraid of the consequences of the North Eastern Com- pany’s amalgamation, and the taking up of the lines, and he said, “ Do not let us have one of our legs tied up in the race Ave are going to run ;” and this Avas the reply of the chairman : Noav, Hull h as been the third port of the Kingdom by reason of its magnificent Avater communica- tion, not in consequence of North Eastern action, but in spite of it; it is because Hull has the benefit of the rivers Humber, Trent, and Ouse ; an enormous portion of the Hull imports are sent by Avater, and but for the advantage of that position Ave should have been annihilated by the raihvay comjiany ; there is no doubt about it. As a matter of fact, one-half of the traffic goes by Avater over the rivers. IMr. Bolton. 9706. AYe must not go on to the rivers? — Then Ave Avill go on to the canals Avhich the rail- Avay companies have acquired ; the railway com- panies have acquired certain canals from Hull, and Avhenever a railway company acquires a canal it puts up the rates, so that the raihvay should not be at a disadvantage, as a matter of fact. Chairman. 9707. Aon are not saying that the raihA'ays running out of Hull have acquired the canals? — A'es, I do ; I say that avc have still the advan- tage of sending over rivers Avhicli the raihvay companies cannot acquire, but Avherever the rail- way SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 437 20JMHel88L] Mr. Grotrian. {^Continued. Chairman — continued. way companies have the power of acquiring a canal, they do acquire it. Mr. Boh on. 9708. Whenever railway companies acquire canals, they come under the schedule of tolls, do they not? — Yes, they come under a schedule of tolls, no doubt. 9709. And to them they adhere ? — They will have a maximum rate. 9710. Of tolls ? — Yes. 9711. Is the rate very high upon the canal ? — The Kiver Don navigation was acquired by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Com- pany, and there is water traffic upon that between Hull and Sheffield. 1 venture to say that the dues upon the River Don, owned by the Man- chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, are not nominal things at all, but they amount to 50 per cent, of the freight, so that you cannot call that a very independent water com- munication. Sir Edioard Wathin. 9712. Is not there moi’e trade upon it now than there ever was ; is not there more trade between Sheffield and Hull by independent car- riers than ever there was ? — I think there is more trade, but the carriers are not very inde- pendent if they have to pay 50 per cent, of the freight in tolls. Mr. Bolton. 9713. However, it is quite apparent from your remarks that the people of Hull were quite alive to the risk they were running ? — In what way ? 9714. Of having one leg tied up ? — Yes; they were quite alive to it in 1846. 9715. What steps did they take to protect themselves then ? — I do not know what steps they took to protect themselves then, but I know what they have done in later years. 9716. You do not know that they did not agree to those differential rates between the dif- ferent ports ? — I know, as a matter of fact, during the last 10 years, that they have not agreed. 9717. You say that there has been a great in- crease to the trade of the port of Hull, notwith- standing all these great disadvantages; how has that increase been carried ; has it been carried by the free navigation of the river, or has it been carried by the canals, or has it been carried by the railways ? — It will have been partly carried by the railway, a good deal by the river, and partly by the canals. 9718. Could you give the Committee any idea of the proportions carried by each, then and now ? — I cannot. If you like I will admit at once that we are not quite annihilated, and are doing fairly well. 9719. Will you admit that the increase has been upon the railway, and not upon the canals, and the free navigation ? — I cannot say that. 9720. Do you know whether there has been any increase, tospeak of, upon the free navigation; that is to say, these free rivers that you are 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. speaking of ?— I should think there is no doubt Avhatever that there has. 9721. You do not know that? — I do not know it, and nobody could possibl}' tell you. 9722. But there has been an enormous in- crease in the railway traffic, has there not ? — No doubt. Hull has established lines of stea- mers. I see before me Mr. Wilson, whose entei’- prise in running these regular lines brings an enormous amount of traffic to the port ; there must be a general increase of traffic in Hull, as there is in other ports ; but the increase in re- gard to Hull is not so striking as it would have •been if Hull had not been deprived of the ad- vantaues of its position. But my case is this, that this wood trade has been abstracted from Hull and sent to Hartlepool ; it has been filched from Hull. 9723. With regard to that grand speech Avhich you read to the Committee; Avho do you think it Avas read by ? — Mr. Hudson, I think, the chair- man for the time being. 9724. You spoke of the interests of the public being very much injured by this preference to the Tyne and Hartlepool ; hoAA'’ do you show that. I can understand that the interest of Hull may possibly be in some way affected ; but hoAv is the interest of the general public affected ? — I Avill try to shoAV that. The interest of the public, certainly all the public, Avho have any vested in- terest in Hull. 9725. It is not difficult to see hoAV Hull has suffered, but when you say that the general public, not the public of Hull, has suffered, hoAV has the interest of the genei-al public been in- jured by the advantages which you allege have been given to the Tyne and Hartlepool? — It is abundantly clear that those high rates charged by the North Eastern Company upon their Hull traffic must abstract from the pockets of the public an unfair rate, and consequently deprive the public of a good deal of trade ; these high rates divert trade Avhich Avould otherAvise come to Hull and they also annihilate the trade ; they apply to import and export, and they drive the trade to the Continent and other countries. 9726. Suppose Ave take the case of a consumer resident at Leeds ; hoAv is he injured by the fact that he has the choice at the same ])rice of the port of PIull and a port upon the Tyne ? — He may not be very much injured. 9727. Is he injured at all ? — Perhaps not. 9728. Is he not benefited? — Except in this way, that the rate to Leeds is based upon a rate charged for a much greater distance, and I say that the rate to Leeds from Hull ought to be very much lower. 9729. Do you assert that the rate to Leeds is above the statutory powers of the railway com- pany ? — No, but it is very much more than it ought to be, and it is a rate that Avill pay the North Eastern Raihvay Company, upon the Hull and Selby Raihvay, something like 23 or 24 per cent. 9730. But you do not allege that it is above the statutory jroAvers of the raihvay company to charge a rate of 7 s. 11 d. to Leeds ? — 1 should think it is not. 9731. Then Avhy do you say that the rate to 3 13 Hull 438 ailNUTES OE EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 JMKel 881 .] Mr, Geotrian. \_Continued. Mr. Bolton — coiitiuued. Hull should be based upon the rate to the Tyne; are you going to restrict the railway comjianies from the exercise of the powers which Parlia- ment has given them ? — 1 will tell you what I would do ; I would give them the power to charge anything they liked ; I would do away at once with maximum rates; they are all a delusion and a snare ; they simply benefit the railway com- panies, because they give the railway companies something t ^ fall back upon. It is always the old tale, “ Would you interfere with the privi- leges which Parliament has granted to us ?” 9732. That is one of the remedies Avhich you would suggest for this state of things? — Yes, I would do away with all the maximum rates ; I would give a competent tribunal the power to fix a reasonable and proper rate. 9733. But how Avould that be doing away' with maximum rates; you would vest in spine tribunal all the powers of Parliament ; is that what you would say? — would vest in some competent tribunal all the powers of Parliament with re- spect to the rates, and with respect to the carry- ing out of the various Acts of Parliament. 9734. What do you mean by that? — I mean the interpretation of the Acts, “To make such reasonable charges.” For instance, the Railway's Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, says, “And for that purpose to make such reasonable charges in respect thereof as they may from time to time determine upon, not exceeding the tolls in the special Act authorised to be taken by them.” Now Parliament says, “ To make such reasonable cliarge not exceeding.” 9735. That means to say they are not to charge any rates exceeding what Paidiament has autho- rised? — But you know better than I do that if all the railway companies were to charge the maximum rates, both we and they would be wiped out ; those maximum rates are a perfect delusion ; they are only good for the railway com- panies to fall back upon. 9736. Now 1 will go back to the question I put to you some time ago ; how are the merchants at Leeds, and the public at Leeds, iujuriously affected by the fact that they have the choice of Hull, Hartlepool, and the Tyne for the export of their goods at the same rate ? — Because the rate to Leeds is too high, and because the public who reside in Pontefract, and the public who reside in Brancepeth, and the public who reside in all those other places, have not the same ad- vantage. They, at all events, are a portion of the public who are placed at a very serious dis- advantage. 9737. You want to preserve to Hull what you may term the geogra])hical position of Hull, but you do not want to preserve to other places their geographical position ? — Yes, I do ; 1 say if you preserve this system, let ps have reasonable rates, or let us have mileage rates. Chairnmn. 9738. What I understand then is, that if you could have equal rates to the northeim ports, Darlington and Durham, you would not object, but what you complain of, is equal rates down towards Hull, and mileage rates up from Hull? Chairman — continued. — That is so; I should ask that as a right, if this system is to prevail ; but that would not fully compensate us, because it is opening up our rich trading ground, and giving us some- thing which is not equal to it. Mr. Bolton. 9739. \ ou have studied these Hull rates very fully, have you not? — I know a little about them. 9740. You have given the Committee places in connection with which Hull is at a disad- vantage ; are there any places where Hull has the advantage over Hartlepool, the Tyne, and other places ?--- There are no other places at all that I am aware of except those just immediately ad j acent. 9741. Do you know the rate from Scotland to Hull, and from Scotland to Hartlepool ; take Glasgow, for instance ? — I know the Glasgow rate, and I know the rate from Middlesbro’ to Hull. 9742. What is the Glasgow rate to Hull and the distance ? — I cannot give you tlie exact figures. 9743. Do you know the rate for pig iron from Cumbei’land to Hull, and the distance? — From Whitehaven to Hull, the distance is 183 miles, and the rate is 8 s. 6 d. 9744. And from Whitehaven to Hartlepool? — The distance is 132 miles, and the rate is 8 s. 4 d. 9745. Then Hull in that case, has a great ad- vantage ? — Yes, it has an advantage. 9746. That is not one of the places you com- jilain of; you think that in the Cumberland rate, so far as regards Hull, Hull has the advantage over Hartlepool ? — Yes, that is obvious. Then as regards from Middlesbro’ to Hull, 93 miles, the rate is 5 s. 9747. What is the rate from Middlesbro’ to Hartlepool ? — That I do not know, but from Aliddlesbro’ to Hull, the rate is very low, and it is so often quoted against us, that I want to give this explanation with regard to it ; that it was given some years ago when the port of Middles- bro’ was not accessible ; when they were dredging it, and it was a very great advantage to the people in Midalesbro’, but it is inoperative ; although it is quoted as a set off, yet it is dead ; nothing comes from there. These rates are always quoted against us, but they are no use to us Avhatever, being practically dead. 9748. Is there no traffic from Cumberland now ? — There is very little from Whitehaven ; it goes direct by steamer; from Glasgow it goes direct by steamer. From Middlesbro’ they run a line of steamers, and they take it nil direct ; we get very little of it except as ballast. 9749. You would submit that Hull is in all other respects at a disadvantage as regards Hartlepool and the Tyne ? — It is. 975(). You stated that Hull was the best port of all ? — It is naturally. 9751. Do you mean that it might be the best jiort, or that it is the best port? — I said that it might be the best port. 9752. Is it actually the best port ? — Yes, natu- rally ; actually it is open to improvement, but naturally SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 439 20 June 1881.] Mr. Grotrian. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. Chairman. naturally it has all the advantages which ousht to belong to a port. 9753. Could you account for the fact that the freiglits to Hull are 2 s. 6 d. higher than to other ports ? — I think it is partly owing to the high coal rates which are charged to Hull. 9754. They charge a little more for the ship too ; now would it not rather have the effect of reducing the sea foreight to Hull if the coal rate was higher, because, I presume the consumer upon the Continent does not care whether it comes by the JN'orth Eastern Railway; all he wants is cheap delivery of coal ? — I think if the North Eastern Railway Company gave us lower railway rates we should have lower sea freights. 9755. You think that a merchant goes to Hull, paying a higher rate for sea freight, in preference to the Tyne, because the railway rates are higher? — He is obliged to pay a higher sea freight ; he does not pay it because he likes it. 9756. Why should he pay it, if Hull is the best port ? — I say it is the best port, naturally ; 1 mean this, that it has been set up that some jiorts ought not to have advantages because they have got bars or bar harbours, and that, if they are placed at a disadvantage, well they deserve it. 9757. But, taking a good harbour, vessels prefer to go there ? — They do. 9758. Whereas to this best port goods pay 2 s. 6 d. more freight ? — I have explained that already. 9759. Your explanation is that they pay more to Hull, because they have to pay more after the goods get away from Hull ? — They always have to pay 2 s. 6 d. more freight ; unless the merchant sacrifices himself to that extent, he cannot get the ships there at all. Chairman. 9760. But why do vessels go to the northern ports at all when the freight is so much less ? — Because they can get return cargoes of coal. Mr. Bolton. 9761. Now you spoke of remedies ; you stated that there was no need of further Acts of Parliament ; what you want is some public pro- secutor, I think, to put it shortly ? — I think that the Acts of Parliament apparently are capable of meeting a good deal of the disadvantage that Hull suffers from. 9762. You have now the courts of law open to you, and you have the Railway Commissioners open to you ? — W e have the courts of law open to us. 9763. And your objection is, that it is too cxpensive^to appeal to one or other? — You might as w'ell say that the London Tavern is open to a man who is starving. 9764. What remedy would you suggest in lieu of the courts that are now open to you ? — I would suo-west a department of the Board of Trade. 9765. That is the public prosecutor again ? — I would rather not use the term ‘’public prose- cutor ” in a matter of this sort, 0.54. 9766. Call him the “public pursuer”?— I would prefer that term. Mr. Bolton. 9767. You cited, in support of your view, the unsatisfactory termination of your case which came before the Railway Commissioners’ Court ? — I cited that case as having come within my own knowledge. 9768. Would you say that there was a statu- tory obligation upon the North Eastern Railway Company to make a station at Newington ? — You want me to try that case over again, but it has been before the Railway Commissioners, and I would rather not go into it. 9769. You say you only want a tribunal for the jjurpose of putting those Acts into force where they are contravened ? — It is no use having a tribunal only ; the public cannot pro- tect themselves ; the onus must be upon Parlia- ment to devise some department which can and will protect them. 9770. Do you w’ant a tribunal to make new Acts as well as to interpret them, or do you want a tribunal to compel observance of existing Acts ? — I would try, in the first instance, whether matters could not be met by the observance of existing Acts, and, if 1 found that to fail, I would try something else ; but, at all events, for the present, it is no use going so very far afield. 9771. Are you quite sure that you know your position as regards the Railway Commissioners’ Court, because you told the Committee that there was “ appeal upon appeal is that a fact ; i.s that possible from that Coui’t, because those were the words you used ? — As a matter of fact it does come to that. 9772. Are you aware that the Railway Com- missioners can, if they please, prevent an appeal, and only allow an appeal upon questions of law ? — Yes, I know, upon questions of law. 9773. Then what did you mean by saying there was “ appeal upon appeal ” ? — I mean that when a question of law arises, it comes before the court in one shape, and then before another court in another shape ; the matter assumes a different shape ; for instance, the judge says, “ I will not try this question in its present form, you must state a special case.” So that practi- cally it is “ appeal upon appeal.” Chairman. 9774. "VYith regard to this Newington case, as a matter of fact, has that station been constructed by the North Eastern Railway Company ? — No. 9775. I have looked into this case, and 1 see that the Railway Commissioners made an order for the construction »f this new station, and then the appeal was carried ; a case was given for the Superior Court of Queen’s Bench Division, on the ground that the. words “facilities” in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1854, could not sustain the decision of the Railway Commis- sioners in ordering a new station, but I see no absolute rule probibiting the order of the Com- 3 14 missioners 440 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20/M»el88L] Mr. Grotrian. \_Continued. Chairman — contiaued. missioners, there was only a rule nisi "^ — I take it that the position of things is, that the case can- not be carried on unless a rate is imposed to procure the funds to carry on the case ; it is a question of money, and you know how very dif- ferent it is when you come to the question of the ratepayers’ jiockets. 9776. You bring this forward to show the failure of the Railway Commissioners, but as far as I can make out, the Railway Commissioners ha^e made an order which has been upheld ; there was no rule absolute made, therefore that order of the Railway Commissioners still holds good? — I am not complaining of the Railway Commissioners ; I appreciate the action of the Railway Commissioners, but I quoted the case as an instance illustrating how the individual mem- bers of the public cannot help themselves, and how even local boards are sometimes deprived of justice by reason of their not having sufficient means to prosecute. Mr. Massey is the chair- man of the local board at Newington, and he will explain the case. Mr. Phipps. 9777. I think you admit that the general public are not injured by the comparatively low rates to Hatlepool ? — They are not. 9778. What you want is, not that the Hartle- pool rate should be raised, but that the Hull rate should be reduced in the same proportion ; taking into consideration the geographical posi- tion of Hull, and the distance, and that then the public would be benefited? — No doubt, and something further should be taken into considera- tion. The North Eastern Company have shown that they can carry this same traffic for consider- ably less, and therefore we ask, not for the Hartlepool rates to be put up, but for the Hull rates to be put dow'ii to something like a fair proportion. 9779. And, in your opinion, the Hull rates might still be reduced, and leave a fair profit to the railway company ? — My opinion is that the Hull and Selby Railway pays 23 or 24 per cent., and that, therefore, I think the rates might be materially reduced, and still leave a handsome profit upon the work. • 9780. I understand you to say that the Rail- Avay Commissionei's’ Court is too expensive to be resorted to as frequently as the disputes be- tween railway companies and private individuals Avould render necessary ? — No doubt it becomes so, as a matter of fact, in practice, or by reason of this, that sometimes there are appeals going from one court to another, so that it is not open to the public upon the score of expense ; but I do not see how you could alter that very Avell unless some department will take it up, and jirosecute any good prirnd facie case. , 9781. Your contention is this, I believe, that Parliament having given to railway companies certain privileges and imposed upon them certain obligations, there ought to be some means Avhereby Parliament should see that the obligations they are under, and for which they receive certain privileges, are carried out? — That is exactly my contention. Sir Edward Watkin. 9782. You stated that the railways were re- presented upon the Hull Dock Board? — Yes. 9783. 1 think it is a private corporation with shareholders ? — It is. 9784. Are not you a shareholder? — I am not now ; I was. 9785. Am I wrong in saying that while it is quite true there is one Lancashire and Yorkshire director, one INorth Eastern Railway director, and one Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire director; there are 11 independent directors? — I think that would he so. 9786. Then, in j)oint of fact, there is a majo- rity of independent directors against the railway directors? — No doubt. 9787. And those directors would have an interest in making the best dividend they could for their constituents? — No doubt. 9788. Do you complain that the trade of Hull is decreasing, or that it is not increasing as fast as you wish ? — I complain that it is not increasing so fast as I think it ought to increase, compared wdth the other ports. 9789. Were you a party to a memorial which was sent up asking for a third Member for Hull, upon the ground that the port had increased of late years in a greater ratio than any other port in the kingdom i — I remember the memorial, but I was no party to it. 9790. You stated that PIull was naturally the best port upon the Humber? — Yes. 9791. Is not Grimsby 20 miles nearer to the sea ? — Yes. 9792. Is it not accessible two tides in advance of Hull? — No, never. 9793. Is it not always one and sometimes two tides? — Hardly ever, in fact I should say never; and a ship can get to PIull certainly upon the same tide as she can get to Grimsby ; she cannot get to Grimsby a tide before she can get to Hull, besides Grimsby has the Burcombe Sand in front of it, Avhich is a very aivkward thing to get round. 9794. The PIull ships have to pass that Sand, have they not ? — They do, but they go outside it and not around it : nevertheless I think that Grimsby has a perfect right to have every advan- tage she possesses, which I am quite certain in your hands she will obtain. 9795. As you are kind enough to admit that Grimsby has the right to every advantage she possesses, she has the right to every market she possesses ? — Yes. 9796. Then Iioav is it that from Grimsby to all jilaces south of London, and about a fourth of England, although Grimsby is nearer consider- ably than Hull to those places, yet the Hull and Grimsby rates to those places are the same ; take the port of London, although you at Hull ai’e very much further from the port of London than Grimsby, still you have the advantage of the same rate for the same articles that the Grimsby people have ? — I should think that that is in consequence of the Humber agreement. 9797. Is it so to begin Avith ? — It is, and it is not; to begin Avith, the dock dues at Grimsby are lower than at Hull. 9798. We Avill come to dock dues in a minute ; take SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 441 20 June 1881.] Mr. Grotrian. [ Continued. Sir Edward Wuthin — continued. take tlie railway rates at present ? — I think it is possible that the railway rates may be the same. 9799. Is it the fact that upon the article you are quoting, viz., timber, Grimsby has to pay the same rate though it is nearer the market, whereas Hull h as the advantage of tlie rate, though it is farther from the market ? — No, that is not so. 9800. I take again, as an illustration, the port of London, which you may take as a sample of a large class of cases; although Hull is much farther than Grimsby from London, Hull has the advan- tage of the same rate as Grimsby ? — That is no doubt so. 9801. Have you taken the trouble to take the whole number of places, and not a selected num- ber, and sec whether Hull is not on the whole better off under tlie principle adopted than if the mileage principle were adopted i* — I am sure it is not so. 9802. Are you in favour of an equal mileage rate i' — Not as a mechanical arrangement, but I am in favour of milea.ge being, to some extent, the basis of the arrangement. 9803. Take Hull and London, Grimsl^ being nearer Loudon than Hull, would you charge a lower rate from Grimsby to London th.au from Hull ? — If it were a substantial difference of dis- tance most certainly I would. 9804. You wmuld apply that principle gene- rally, would you? — I would apply the basis of mileage to rates generally. 9805. Whether it was for you or whether it • was against you? — Yes, whether it was for me or whether it was against me. 9806. Did you happen to read the evidence given by the Mayor of Liverpool before this honourable Committee ? — I did not. 9807. The Mayor of Liverpool, I may tell you, contended that inasmucli as there were only 31 miles between bis j)ort and the great market of Manchester, he ought to have either a lower rate then at present, or that the rate to Hull and Grimsby should be increased ; would you join in that contention ? — I am not able to deal with that, because so many other elements come in to affect the question there, and that is the difficulty of dealing with only a few rates, which are just the fringe, as it were, of the business, because although Liverpool may have a comparatively high rate to IManchester, there ma«y be some good and substantial reason which a properly consti- tuted court would recognise ; but, however low the rate may be from Liverpool to Hull, it is still lower proportionately from Liverpool to Hartle- pool and the Tyne, so that there again we get the disadvantage. 9808. Take the article of cotton, what is the rate now ^m Liverpool ? — I think the rate has just been reduced to 12 s. 6 f?. ; it Avas 15 s. 9809. Taking it at 12 s. 6 rf. ; that is a rate Avithout Avhich you Avould not probably get the cotton at Hull from Liverpool for shipment to foreign ports ? — No doubt; 9810. Hoav Avould you deal Avith that. If you Avere the arbitrator, how Avould you alter it in the interest of the port of Hull ? — In the interest of the port of Hull, having regard to the fact, that hoAvever Ioav the rate is from Liverpool to Hull, it is proportionately much loAver to Hartle- pool and the Tyne by arrangement Avith the 0.54. Sir Edward Watldn — continued. North Eastern Railway Company ; I should not object to alter it upon somewhat the basis of mileage ; because noAv the advantage which you allege LIull gets, is sacrificed by the same rate being charged from Liverpool to Hartlepool and the Tyne, a much longer distance. 9811. But how can it be sacrificed, if you get your share of the traffic ? — The vessels coming to the port of Newcastle, and the traders from the Baltic having advantages in Newcastle Avhieh Hull cannot offer; having a shorter distance, and a lower freight from Newcastle to the Baltic; Hull is certainly placed under a disadvantage Avith regard to this Liverpool rate. 9812. Take the port you have mentioned, viz., Newcastle; is not the town of Newcastle a great local market, and is not there a great manufac- turing market close behind that, close to the sea? — Are you speaking of cotton, may I ask ? 9813. No, I am speaking of timber and general goods of all kinds? — No doubt that is so. 9814. Has the toAvn of Newcastle to be sup- plied through the port of Hull ? — Certainly not; but there are many places in the immediate vicinity. 9815. Take the town itself, and its own dis- trict; is that supplied from Hull? — Certainly not. 9816. Therefore there is no complaint as far as NcAVcastle and its district are affected? — Cer- tainly not, Avith regard to Newcastle itself, but I should not like to say Avith regard to its o'wn dis- trict. 9817. Noav taking timber, you have shown the progress of the timber trade, and it appears that, Avhereas in 1860 there Avere 201,000 loads of timber imported into Hull, in 1880 there were 372,000 loads, so that the import has very nearly doubled in 20 year's, has it not? — It has not quite doubled ; it has very nearly doubled. 9818; Am I right in saying that the timber trade requires two things ; one is space, and the other is very eheap charges? — No doubt that is an adA'antage ; cheap charges are generally an advantage to any trade. 9819. But is not the greatest question cheap space ? — Space is an important element. 9820. Assuming that there are nearly 400,000 loads of timber at LIull, adding the quantities at other ports Avould make nearly 1,000,000 loads per annum? — Yes. 9821. AVill you tell me Avhere you could ac- commodate in Hull 1,000,000 loads of timber? — Adjoining the old citadel site of the docks there Avas a large space Avhich was intended, I believe, for the accommodation of the timber ti’ade, and it has neA'er been more than half occupied, or anything like full, since I have knoAvn it. 9822. Why do not the people of Hull then make the manipulation of timber so cheap and so easy as to attract the trade Avhich other ports noAv attract? — But a dock company in the hands of private shareholders cannot possibly compete with docks in the hands of a raihvay company, Avhere a raihvay company is using the dock as a feeder to the line, just as it is not possible as betAveen Liverpool and Manchester. Your allegation Avould be that “ The terminals are ex|)cnsive, and Ave are obliged to charge a high rate ; the Manehester Station cost us a lot of money and 3 K Ave 442 MIXTTTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 20 June 1881.] Mr. Gkotrian. \Continued. Sir Edward Watkin — continued. ve are obliged to charge high,” and I suppose the Dock Companies would say the same. 9823. Then why do not the spirited munici- pality of Hull acquire the docks? — If they did acquire the docks they would require to pay some interest upon the money they laid out for them. Your docks at Grimsby have never paid you any dividend, as far as I can make out. 9824. We will not go into that, but is it not the fact that at Grimsby, when the port of Grimsby was opened, it was opened with the means of bringing all traffic alongside the ship ; it was 0 ])ened with the condition that the loading of vessels was performed by hydraulic cranes at the cheapest ]iossible rate, and that the rates were very low? — No doubt that was so. 9825. And was there a single hydraulic facility in Hull like that at Grimsby? — No, I am bound to say that the facilities offered at Grimsby were very great. 9826. And Hull has followed the example? — I think you have stirred us up a little. jMr, Nicholson. 9827. Do not the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company come now by running powers into Hull ? — They do come by running powers into Hull ; they give us two very well appointed passenger trains every day, and they have a goods station Avhich was constructed for them by the North Eastern Railway Company. They got in behind our hacks in 1872, when Ave were promoting an independent raihvay before Parliament. 9828. YMu Avere promoting a Midland line, which I suppose Avas throAvn out because of the enfiinecrins: difficulties, and durinf? the time that was promoted, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company had running powers con- ceded to them, and came into Hull ? — Y"es, in the House of Commons they Avere not opposing us ; they did not appear by counsel, but betAveen the passage of the Bill from the House of Commons to the House of Lords (we got throAvn out in the Lords unfortunately), a private agreement Avas made betAveen the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company and the North Eastern Company, and as a consequence we found them in fierce opposition to us in the House of Lords ; and, as I say, it turned out afterwards, behind our backs, Avhile Ave Avere fighting for the inde- pendent line, the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire got in by a jrrivate agreement Avith the North Eastern Railway Company. 9829. Has that been of any advantage to you ? — No doubt it has; Ave have two aa'cII appointed passenger trains a day, and a goods station, but it is of no advantage to the public really, because after all, one company running over the lines of another company and into their station, are in the hands of that company. 9830. You get no competition rate? — No, Ave do not. 9831. Is it not the fixct that the Grimsby and the Hull rates are not competition rates? — They are not competition rates ; the Manchester, Shef- field, and Lincolnshire Company in fact share the Hull traffic ; they get a share of it whether they carry it or not. IMr. Barclay. 9832. Do you think that the rates charged at the Hartlepool docks pay a fair per-centage upon the money expended at those docks ? — I should say that they pay no 2Aer-centage Avhatever ; the dock area and the dock Avorks are so enormous and so extensive, that it is impossible they can pay any jier-centage. 9833. The railway comijany must pay the in- terest of their inAmstment in the Hartlepool Docks out of the general traffic receipts, and not out of the dock receipts ? — I have no doubt Avhat- ever that that must be so. 9834. Could the Hartlepool Docks, if they Avere in private hands or separate hands from the railway companies, afford to give the same ser- vices as you do at Hull ? — They could not do it at the same jirice as they do now if they wished to pay a dividend. 9835. What dlA’ldend have you paid ? — I think Ave haA'e paid, of late years, 5 jier cent., but lately the dividend has been reduced. The dividend liaying power of the Hull Dock Company has been g^ng down. I believe last year the divi- dend Avas only 4 per cent. 9836. I do not understand that you complain of the low rates from Hartlepool, but of the higher mileage rates from Hull? — We do not com^xlain of the Ioav rates ; if the railway com- jxany can aftbrd to do the Avork for the money let them do it. 9837. Y^ou think that you are entitled to have your goods carried at the same mileage rates as the people at Hartlepool? — We do not ask for absolute mileage rates, but that the rates should be iqAon some kind of principle, haA'ing some regard to the distance travelled and the service jAcrformed. 9838. Do you contend that for equal distances between Hull and Hartlepool, and the centre jiarts of England, you ought to be charged equal rates? — Y^es, for about equal distances. 9839. Do you think, further, that if a raihvay company can carry at these Ioav mileage rates from Hartlei)ool, they should be able to carry at equally Ioav rates from Hull under similar cir- cumstances ? — They can carry at lower rates from Hull for this reason, that the Hull and Selby Railway is upon a dead level, and the haulage ujaou that Avould be Amry much less than upon the Hartle^iool and NcAVcastle lines. 9840. Do you contend that the basis of the charges made by raihvay companies should be the cost of jAcrformlug the service to the railway company I - — That should be undoubtedly an ele- ment in the case ; I Avould not have any of these things carried out Avith strictly mathematical accuracy, but that that should be regarded as an element Avhich should regulate the rate. 9841. Is that the lu-incijAal upon which jwiA'ate traders carry on their business ? — Undoubtedly. 9842. Then are forced to adopt that lArincijffe by competition amongst each other? — Y"es. 9843. Is there any comjAetitiou amongst the raihvay companies to produce the same results as comjietition does betAveen ju'ivate traders? — Competition has greatly died out ; thei’e are so many private agreements betAveen railway com- panies, and so many amalgamations, the North Eastern Raihvay Com{)any has acquired so many lines that jiractically there is no coinjACtition. 9844. Do SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILIVAYS. 443 20 June 1881.] Mr. Gkotuian. [ Continued. Mr. Barclai/ — continued. 9844. Do you give it as your opinion that Parliament should take such measures as to ap- proximate more nearly to the results wliich are obtained in private business by private compe- tition ? — Tliat is so. 9845. And the method of arriving at such con- clusion would be upon the basis that the raihvay com 2 )any’s charge should be in proportion to the cost to them of performing the servicer — Yes, having regard to the cost of stations, the amount of haulage, and the level of the line. 9846. Taking everything into account? — Yes, taking everything into account. 9847. And you contend that the raihvay com- pany should be able to carry as chea])]y from Hull as they do from Hartlepool? — I contend that they can carry more cheaply for the reason I gave, namely, that the line from Hull is a dead level. 9848. And you presume that tlie North East- ern Hallway Con: 2 )any have a satisfactory profit upon this Hartlepool business, because they seem anxious to get a great deal of it ? — I presume that is so. 9849. If you were charged a reasonable profit by the North Eastern Line for goods from Hull to Leeds, you would have the carriage cheaper than you have at the present moment? — YYs. 9850. And that there would be a considerable reduction upon the Leeds rate? — Yes, certainly. 985L Who would get the benefit of that? — The public generally ; certainly the Leeds people or the Hull people. 9852. AYould that go into the hands of the dock company or into the hands of the private traders at Leeds ? — A reduction in the rate be- tween Hull and Leeds would benefit the con- sumer in Leeds undoubtedly. 9853. YYur contention generally is that Hull is in a most advantageous geographical position for suj'plying the central districts of England? — Most advantageous. 9854. And that by this system of charging a higher rate from Hull, you, the Hull Docks, and the people in Hull, and the public generally, lose these geographical advantages, anti that this geographical advantage is sacrificed to make up for the natural deficiencies of Hartlepool ? — There is no doubt, whatever, that that is so. 9855. And that Instead of the public getting the natural advantages of Hull, they are appro- priated in higher rates by the railway company? — That is so. 9856. And that if you were put in the same position by the company as Hartlepool, then the public woul^ derive considerable advantage? — No doubt. 9857. Would the public derive the advantages of the lower rates, or would it be appropriated by the Hull Docks ? — I think the public would derive the advantage of the lower rates, because the Hull Dock Company being in competition with the other docks, would be bound to keep the rates witliin moderate compass ; there is only competition between the docks when they are in the hands of independent shareholders and com- panies, so that the dock company would, as a rule, only be able to get a fair charge for the service they perform. 9858. As regards the future, you are prepared 0.54. Mr. HareZay — continued. in the meantime lo stand upon the present legis- lation in regard to railways?— I think I would give that a trial without making any radical change or wrench in the matter. 9859. When you said you were prepared to dispense Avitli maximum rates, did I understand you to dej)end upon the 86th section of the Act of 1845, which provides that railway companies shall charge a reasonable toll ? — Y^es. , 9860. Do you depend in saying so, upon the belief that that clause means that the railway company shall carry at reasonable rates very considerably under the maximum tolls?- — I think so, because with regard to maximum rates there is not, in the passage of a Bill, any control at all. 9861. YYu contend that railway companies under the Act of 1845, are bound to carry under their maximum rate, if it is a reasonable charge ? — Yes, as I said, “ such reasonable charge within the maximum rates I so interpret it. Chairman. 9862. But putting aside the fact that the same rate is charged for a greater distance from Hartle- pool, what is there unreasonable in the charge you have from Hull ? — Because, as I calculate, the company is charging a higher rate than any other railway company is charging for a like service ; their rates are enormously high, and we have reason to believe that they pa}’ something like 23 or 24 per cent, on the Hull and Selby line ; of course we can never get at that abso- lutely, because the railway company never tell ns what they pay, and the railway managers always mix it up with something else. 9863. YYu maintain that it is unreasonable, because it is higher per ton per mile than on any other railway? — It is higher per ton per mile than any other railway charges from or t") any other port, as shown by the comparative state- ment i have put in. Mr. Barclay. 9864. Would you contend further, that if the railway company carry from Hartlepool to Leeds at a certain sum, they should be bound to carry from Hull to Leeds at the same rate, and that if they did not do so, they were making an unreasonable charge ? — I think so. 9865. Is it the principle of all railway legis- lation, that every individual should be placed upon the same footing under the same circum- stances? — Yes, undoubtedly. 9866. And that, therefore, if any one indi- vidual, or town, is charged more than another in the same circumstances, such difference is unreasonable? — I think it should apply to places as well as to individuals. 9867. Then with regard to keeping railway companies within the law in future, you contend that there should bo some public body to con- sider complaints, and to see that the railway companies did keep within their legal power ? — Yes ; ordinary pi’actitioners are not capable of dealing with this question. 9868. Do you know anything about the system that has been adopted in some of the States of America to accomplish this (ibject? — 1 do not 3 K 2 know 444 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20JM«el881.] Mr. Grotrian. ^Continued. INIr, Barclay — continued, know specifically, but I know generally that they have attempted legislation upon these lines. 9869. But you cannot speak of that of your own knowledge? — No; I cannot. Mr. O'Sullivan. 9870. Uo you believe that many of the present maximum rates are too high on the different railways? — There can be no doubt that they are, if the present maximum rates were universally charged ; suppose the companies were to agree to charge the maximum rates, it would annihilate the whole business. 9871. You think, generally, that the maximum rates allowed by Act of Parliament are too high in many cases? — They allow an enormous margin. 9872. Are there not many classes of goods which are not mentioned in many Acts of Par- liament ? — Yes ; that is so, therefore it is no use having maximum rates, unless you have a distinct classification. 9873. You think that all should be included, or else that none at all should be included? — There are many not included, and while the railway companies have power to classify, it does not matter whether they have maxi- mum rates or not ; as the law at present stands, the maximum rates are fixed, but the classification is not fixed; the classification of many goods is in the hands and the power of railway companies, therefore they may classify a low-priced article, which is not mentioned, under a high rate. If it does not happen to be named in their Act, they can classify it under the highest rate in the schedule, 9874. You would allow the Railway Commis- sioners to classify those goods ? — It is an essential condition that the Railway Commissioners should be allowed to classify the goods. 9875. Would you allow a railway company to be hotel keepers and waggon makers ? — It would be better, perhaps, to confine them to their own ]\Ir. continued. business, but I should have less objection to the hotel keeping. 9876. I think one of your objections was, that railway companies had jjower to give preference to one district over another ? — That is so. 9877. You would put a stop to that? — Yes, I think the same power should apply to places as well as to individuals ; a jilace is only an aggregate of individuals. Mr. Lowther. 9878. You stated that a new line was pro- moted to Hull to put an end to a certain anomaly? — The new lino was promoted to obtain relief for the traders. 9879. Could you tell me the distance from Leeds to the Alexandra Dock by the new line ? — I do not know that. 9880. Do you know what the difference is between the distance by the new line from the Alexandra Dock and the West Dock ? — I do not know, but it would be a longer distance by the new line. 9881. Take the distance at 14 miles? — I know it would be longer; I cannot say how much. 9882. Supposing the rate was He?, per ton per mile, would you consider that there should be a difference of 1 s. 9 d., as between the two systems of docks at Hull to Leeds ? — No ; I think that Avas a case Avhich was contemplated by the Joint Committee on Railway Amalgamations. Where you have from one place in the interior two com- peting lines to a port, and the difference of dis- stance is not very great, I do not see that there is any particular objection to giving them the same rate. 9883. Therefore they should be the same? — I do not think that there is any objection, pro- vided it is within a moderate and fair difference ; the public in a case of that sort would get tlie advantage of the competition, but in the cases I have quoted, they are deprived of the advantage of comjietitiou. Mr, AYatson Arton Massey, called in ; and Examined. Air. Monk. 9884. You are a partner in the firm of Massey and Sawyer, steamship owners and coal exporters, and you are also a member of the Hull Corpora- tion, and a member of the Hull Chamber of Commerce ? — I am. 9885. Are you also Chairman of the Newington Local Board? — Yes, 9886. Questions Avere ashed, just noAV, of the former Avitness, Avith regard to the rates for the conveyance of coal ; can you give tlie Committee any information Avith regard to that subject? — Yes, I Avill endeavour to do so. In the course of my travels as a coal merchant, selling coals abroad, I have found that the North Eastern IlailAvay Company iuA'ariably foster their trade in the north by giving cheap rates to the northern coal OAvners, and I Avill give tAvo or three instances of that fact, briefly. 9887. Will you state to the Committee the rates from the South and West Yorkshire Collieries to Hull? — From Monk Bretton Colliery to Hull, a distance of 58 miles, the rate Air. Monk — continued. is 3 s. 1 d. ; that Avorks out to a rate per ton per mile of ’638 d. exclusive of Avaggon hire. From the Denaby Alain to Hull, 47 miles, the rate is 2 s. 10 d., or -723 d. per ton per mile. That colliery is in South Yorkshire, and they do a large business Avith Hull ; Ave have found, as importers, that the collieries in the north com- pete very strongly Avith us by reason of the cheap rates Avhlch they have given them. For instance, the Radcllffe Colliery, in Northumberland, to the Tyne Dock, a distance of 43 miles, has a rate of 1 s 6 ^ d., or -436 rf. per ton per mile. The Asshington Colliery, to the Tyne, a distance of 30 miles, has a rate of IQ c/., or 'SOO J. per ton per mile. Broomhill Collieiy, to the Tyne, a distance of 42 miles, has a rate of 1 s. 63 f?., or •440 d. per ton per mile. 9888, Are those rates in favour of the northern ports? — A."es, they are, and I Avould venture to throw in here this observation, tlmt iq)on the main line of the North Eastern RailAA'ay to Hull, from the Fryston Colliery, the route being their absolute SELECT COMMITTEE ON HAILWAYS. 445 20 Jwr/e 1881.1 Mr. Massey. \_Contivued. Mr. Monk — continued. absolute property the -whole of the distance to Hull, the charge is -622 d. per ton per mile. The highest rate we have is the Denaby Main, which is -723 d to Hull, against the charge from Asshington to Newcastle of *391)6/. 9889. I think you seated that you were acquainted witli the charges upon the foreign rail- ways ; in what way do those rates compare with the rates at home ?— For the supply of the French metropolis from Calais to Paris, the distance being 183 miles, the rate on the imported coal is 5 5. 11 d. per ton, which is equal to *387 d. per ton per mile. 9890. Is not that rather less than any of the charges to tlie Tyne Docks ? — It is the lowest rate we can find in the country (England), and with regard to the Belgian coaifields I will give an example from Mons to Antwerp ; the distance is 69^ miles, and the rate is 1 s. 9| d., or *309 d. per ton per mile including the waggon hire; to compare that with the rate of coal to Hull, say the Wheldalc Colliery Company for example, a dis- tance of 54 miles, the rate is 2 s. If d., or *572 d. per ton jier mile upon English coal to compete with the Belgian coal carried to Antwerp. 9890. * I will come now to the question of the conveyance of goods from the manuhicturing centres of England to Hnll and the northern ports : does the same preference shown in the case of coal apply also in that case? — I beg to crive two instances of that. D Chairman. 9891. You have prepared tables of charges upon the Belgian, French, Khenish, Russian, and Finnish railways ; do you vouch for the accuracy of the tables f — Yes; I prepared those tables myself, and I can vouch for them. {The same loere handed in.) Sir Edward Wat kin. 9892. Are those sjiecial cases, or are those general averages of districts ? — They are the general averages of districts from a given centre ; say from the Westphalian coalfields in Germany, or the Silesian coalfields, or the French coalfields, or a Belgian coalfield. Mr. Bolton. 9893. Are the charges the same in both di- rections? — They are the same in both cases. 9894. I thought the rates were different for export from those for home use ? — Not on coals. Mr. Monk. 9895. Will you explain how the North Eastei’n Company prejudices Hull by carrying goods from the manufacturing districts to the north- ern ports at lower rates than to Hull? — The ground u})on that point has already been well covered by my predecessor ; but, having a line of regular steamers from Hull to Finland, we feel it very strongly, having the same rates from Birmingham and Sheffield and the Lancashire districts to the Tyne Docks, as we have to Hull. Fi'om Birmingham to Hull the distance is 135 miles; the rate on hardw'are is 25 s. per ton. From Birmingham to the Tyne Dock, a distance of 207 miles, the same rate is charged, although 72 miles further ; and from Sheffield to Hull, a distance of 58 miles, the 0.54. Mr. Monk — continued. charge for hardware is 22 s. 6 d. a ton ; and from Sheffield to Newcastle, a distance of 131 miles, the same rate is charged. 9890. Are you aware whether otlier railway companies adopt the same system whenever they are the owners of docks on their lines? — I can- not speak positively to that point. Sir Edward IVatkin. 9897. Could you give the Committee the hard- ware rate from Birmingham to Gloucester? — I am hardly acquainted with that; but whilst upo]) this particular point I should just like to mention the rates that are charged upon the German railways, from some of the German manufacturing centres to the sea-board, in order to enable the German manufacturers to compete with the English manufacturei'S in foreign markets from Birmingham to Newcastle, which is the longest haidage that I can conveniently lay my hands upon for hardware, a distance of 207 miles, the rate is 25 5. per ton, or 1*449 6/. per ton per mile. Now, given this low rate, and comparing it with what the Germans have from Dortmund, which is a large hardware manufac- turing centre, to Rotterdam ( the port of shipment for this centre), a distance of 153 miles, the rate charged is 10 s. per ton for the whole distance, or 0*784 ./. per ton per mile. Then we will deal with Essen, another large manufacturing centre, to Rotterdam, the ])ort of shi[)ment ; the distance is 132.j miles, and the rate is 8 s. 4 d., or 0*760 6/. per ton per mile. 9898. Can you give the Committee any idea of the difference of cost in the construction of the lines?— No, I am not a practical railway constructor, but I have been frequently over the roads myself, and they appear to be as well con- structed as the English roads. 9899. But was not the cost of the acquisition of the land upon which the railway runs less in the case of the foreign lines than in the case of the English lines? — Take the Dutch-Rhenish Railway, which carries the goods from Dortmund and Essen, the approaches from Rotterdam and Amsterdam were very expensive to construct; there were so many bridges over the canals to be crossed, and so much piling to be done. I have also handed in a statement of rates from the Lancashire spinning and w*eaving and ma- terial making districts. I will give two examples from the Lancashire manufactiu’ing centres; from Bolton to Hull the distance is 101 miles, from Bolton to Tyne Dock the distance is 144 miles, while the rates iqjon this description of machinery are the same, namely 20 s. 9900. Can you state the rate charged on rails from Sheffield to Hull? — On rails the rate from Sheffield to Hull, a distance of 58 miles, is Is. 6d. a ton. 9901. Does that rate compare unfavourably with the carriage of rails on foreign railways ? — Very unfavourably indeed. The Sheffield to Hull rate is equal to l*552f/. per ton per mile. The rate from Essen, where Messrs. Krupp’s works ai’e, to Rotterdam, a distance of 132| miles, is 6s 3d., or equal to *5706/. per ton per mile. Then from Dortmund to Rotterdam, a distance of 153 miles, the rate is 7 s. 1 6/., or equal to *557 d. per ton per mile. 3 K 3 9902. Is 446 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOUE THE 20 June 1881.] Mr. Massey. [ Continued . Mr. Bolton. 9902. Is the rate back the same from the port inland? — Yes. This shows that the lowest English rates are 50 per cent, higher than Messrs. Krupp’s have to pay to get their goods to the seaboard for shipment. Mr. Monli. 990.3. You do not know whether the rate which is charged from Sheffield to Hull, namely, 1 J d. i)er ton per mile, is an unusual charge as compared with that on other railways in this country ? — I cannot say how that may be. 9904. Could you state what the cost of con- veying ore from Hull to Sheffield is.'' — From Hull to Sheffield for ore the railway rate is 5 s. 8^/. per ton. Sir Edtoard Wathin. 9905. Is that hematite ? — It is Spanish ore. Mr. Monk. 9906. And that rate compares unfavourably with the continental charges? — -Yes, very un- favourably. I will give the rates which Messrs. Krupp have for their ore, imiiorted from Bilbao. The rate from liotterdam, whicli is the port of receipt for the Spanish ore, to Essen, a distance of 132^ miles, is 4 s. lOrf., or equal to 0*444 d. per ton per mile, and the rate to Dortmunil, a distance of 153 miles, is 5s. \d., or equal to 0*400 d. per ton per mile, so that it will be readily seen that the Sheffield people have very great difficulty with such railway rates as they have to pay now in holding their own against the con- tinental makers. 9907. But do not the Sheffield manufacturers use the canals ? — To a certain extent they do for the raw material, and also for the conveyance of rails. 9908. Are the charges much lower upon the canals than upon the railway ? — No; the Sheffield canal being under the administration of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Bailway Company, and the dues being so high upon goods, really their expenses amount to as much as con- veying the goods by rail. 9909. Have the railway companies the mono- polv over the canals? — Yes, in South Yorkshire from Sheffield to Hull ; consequently they have always a check upon the rate. Sir Edward Wathin. 9910. You say that the railway companies have a monopoly of the water communication ? — It is under tlieir complete control. Mr. Monk. 9911. Do the same rates api)ly to the con- veyance of ])ig iron from Hull to Sheffield ? — From Hull to Sheffield upon pig iron the rate is 8 s. per ton, a distance of 58 miles. 9912. And what is the decimal rate ? — 1*655 d. 9913. Have you compared that with the carriage upon German and Russian railways ? — Yes, from Revel to St. Petersburgh, a distance of 243 miles, the rate upon pig iron is 9 s., or *45 d. per ton per mile, and then to Moscow, where there is a very large traffic in ])ig iron, from Revel the same decimal figure applies ; the rate Mr. 3Ioiik — continued. on pig iron from Essen to Rotterdam is *543 d. per ton per mile. 9914. The rate is about four times as much upon the English railways as upon the Russian railways ? — It is about four times as much. 9915. Is the wire-making industry of the country prejudiced by the high rates charged by railway companies? — Yes, the Warrington manu- facturers lose a large amount of orders in com- peting with the German makers of wire. I have frequently met Warrington travellers in Russia, and they tell me that the manufactures in Dort- mund district run the Warrington manufactures very close. The distance from Warrington to Hull is 109 miles, and the rate is 15 s. a ton, and from Dortmund to Rotterdam, which is a strongly competing centre in the manufacture of wire, the rate upon wire is 8 s. ‘6d. per ton, the English rate being 1*651 r/. per ton per mile, and the German being 0*651 d. per ton jier mile, the English rate being 150 per cent, the higher rate. I have put in a return of iron wire and other cargoes im- ported into Cronstadt of foreign manufacture, to show how the English manufactures are affected by the competition. 9916. Are the Lancashire cotton spinners affected by the rates? — Yes, from Havre to Rouen the distance is 57 miles, and the rate of carriage upon cotton is 5 s. 7 ^7. a ton, or 1*176 d. per ton per mile. From Liverpool to Bolton, a distance of 28 miles, the rate is 9 s. 4 d. per ton, or 4 d. per ton per mile *, from Liverpool to Old- ham, a distance of 45 miles, the rate is 11s. per ton, or 2*933 d. per ton per mile. In one instance the English rate is 200 per cent, over the French, and in the other it is 100 per cent, over the French rates, and the same will ajiply still more strongly to the Russian spinners for their im- ports of cotton. (^Reference to Tables put in will shoro this.) 9917. Have you handed in the rates on grain in France, Denmark, Sweden, and Holland? — 1 have. 9918. And have you compared those with the English rates ? — Yes, I have. 9919. I may ask you, generally, do the English rates compare unfavourably with the others ? — They compare very unfavourably indeed. From Rouen to Paris, a distance of 77 miles, the car- riage is 6s. 4c?., or *998 the rates by^ steamer, I think. I do not quite follow y’Ou. I want some rule to guide the Committee ; that sy’stem would suit y’Ou exactly’, so long as that is applied to Hull, but when it is applied to Goole, it does not suit y’OU? — I would say’ nothing further than that the whole of the Humber ports should be grouped together. Sir Edward Wntidn. 9969. You are of opinion that the whole of the Humber ports should have the same total rate, and not a mileage price? — Yes, the same total rate. 9970. However SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVAYS. 449 20 June 1881.] Mr. Massey. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton. 9970. However far up the river they may be ? —Yes. 9971. I understand that Goole is some 30 miles or so nearer the market than Hull, and if I understood you correctly, you stated that 30 miles was not material? — Not to make an altera- tion of rates, but Goole is not 30 miles beyond Hull. 9972. But I asked you what would be ma- terial, because I would apply it to Hull ? — I could not answer that question except by saying that all the Humber ports should be grouped to- gether. 9973. You would make the Humber stand by itself : you Avould uot take a port along the coast and apply the same principle to that? — No. 9974. A port 30 miles north or south, you would not like to have grouped in the same way ? — It would depend upon the distance of the port from the receiving centre. 9975. Just now you stated that Goole was 30 miles Avest of Hull ; suppose there were a port 30 miles north of Hull, would you not include that ? — N o. 9976. There is water in both cases; I cannot understand Avhy if water in the river should count, Avater in the sea should not count ? — I cannot giA'e a further explanation of my view. 9977. I think you complained of the Newing- ton Local Board having been put to the expense of 2,500 1. ; there was practically no result, and you lost the money ? — Up to the j)resent time there has been no result whatever. 9978. What is that owing to? — That is owing to the Avant of jurisdiction on the part of the Kailway Commissioners to order new structural Avorks, as far as I am informed. 9979. That should be rather a complaint, not against the North Eastern Kailway Company, but against the Kailway Commissioners, for assuming a jurisdiction Avhich they did not possess ? — There was the admitted necessity, but the North East- ern Kaihvay Company said that the Kailway Commissioners had no poAver to order it. 9980. This absence of result from the expendi- ture of 2,500 1. arose from a deficiency in the jui’isdictlon of the Kaihvay Commissioners, that they^ were unable to order the construction of new works ? — Certainly ; I make no complaint of the Commissioners. 9981. The judges on appeal found the North Eastern Kailway Company in the right, and the Railway Commissioners in the Avrong ; was not that so ? — I had rather not answer the question. Chairman. 9982. In fact it turned out that you paid your money in order to clear up the meaning of the word “ facilities ” ? — Quite so. Mr. Bolton. 9983. Are you quite sure that the German rates you have quoted from Essen and Dort- mund to Rotterdam, and to other ports upon the North Sea, are the same both ways; that is to say, from the ports and to the ports? — Quite sure. 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. 9984. That applies to all articles, does it ? — It applies to the articles of which I have put in a statement; I cannot say that it applies to all goods generally, but to the specific goods that I have put in statements about. 9985. In looking through to find the rates on those articles, I daresay you AA’ould have found whether other goods were charged differently ? — I did not find out such a case; I confined my inquiries to goods manufactured in Germany, which Avere sold in opposition to the English manufacturers. 9986. And as regarded those goods which are manufactured in Germany and sold in opposition to English manufacturers in the English market, you found that the goods from the ports to the places of consumption, and vice versa, Avere the same? — Yes, in the case of all the articles that I inquired into. 9987. You did not go into the question of other articles ? — No. 9988. You have given the Committee the verv low rates charged in France and Germany and other countries on cotton as compared Avith Eng- land; Avhat inference do you draAV from those rates ? — I scarcely knoAv ; the fact is, that the Avork is done for less money, and the inference is that it must encourage industry more than the rates given in England. 9989. The rates charged on goods of all kinds are actually loAver?--On all kinds of goods that I have put in tabulated statements for. 9990. Do those quotations of yours apply to goods sea-borne or to goods produced in the country ? — They apply to goods sea-borne as far as imports are concerned, and to those produced in the country for the exports. 9991. You stated that you were not aAvare Avhether the same rates Avere charged for home grain or home-produced goods? — No ; but I can exemplify the position I take up in this Avay, by giA'ing a single example. The Finnish Govern- ment required 16,000 tons of steel rails ; English manufacturers tendered, and so did Messrs. Krupp, of Essen, and so did Messrs. Black, of Dortmund. The order was taken by Messrs. Krupp, of Essen, at A'ery little under Sheffield prices, and comparing the rate from Essen to Rotterdam, if anything like the proportionate I’ate had been charged from Sheffield to Hull, the order AAnuld, undoubtedly, have come to England, and then the carriage and the expenditure for about 16,000 tons of steel rails would have bene- fited England and given employment to the Sheffield manufacturers, Avhich Avent othei'Avise to Germany. 9992. But Ave have other manufacturers on the east coast, as at Middlesbrough; did not they compete? — At that time I do not think Messrs. Bolckow & Vaughans Avere ready with their works for making steel rails. 9993. When Avas this? — It Avas in 1879, I think. 9994. Have you to go back to 1869 for an example ? — No, not necessarily ; but it Avas a case of Avhich I took special note, as it excited par- ticular attention at the time. 3 I. 9995. What 450 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 June 1881.] Mr, Massey. \_Continued. Mr. Bolton — contiaued. 9995 . What was the distance from Messrs. Krupp’s works to Finland, as compared with SheflBeld?— Their port is Rotterdam, and the distance from there to Finland is the same as from Hull to Finland, and the sea freight is tlie same. 9996. If the Middlesbrough works had been ready at the time there would have been no rail- way freight at all ?— That would have been so. 9997. The Middlesbrough works are on the sea coast? — Yes. 9998. And with regard to Messrs. Krupp’s works, however few shillings they may pay of railway rates, the sea distance being the same, they would be at a disadvantage ; they wOuld have so much added to their cost, which would not be added to the cost of the Middlesbrough steel rails ? — That is for the manufacture on the coast. Now, as far as rates are concerned from the manufacturing centres in the interior of England, say from Dudley, I complain that the railway companies have made no concessions in the rates to meet the strong foreign opposition ; whereas we, as shipowners, are compelled to reduce our sea freights for the purpose of enabling English interior manufacturers to hold their own, and I give the following instance ; Our sea freights on iron from Hull to Finland were formerly 15 s., and 10 per cent, per ton. An English merchant wrote to us saying, “ You must really reduce your sea freights on iron, otherwise we cannot compete with the foreigner. There is no alteration in the railway rates from Dudley to Hull, and unless we can get a reduc- tion from you of the sea freight, we cannot get the order to England.” Upon the Friday morn- ing before I came here, I received another letter from the same merchant, stating that he could possibly get an order for 600 tons of iron (which would be manufactured in Dudley), provided we could reduce our sea freight for conveying it to Finland, from 15 s. to 8 s. 6 d. per ton. 1 men- tion this as one amongst many cases to show that we, as shipowners, really feel the pinch in competing with the foreigners in keeping the trade of the country together, and no concessions are made by the railway companies with a like object, to assist the manufacturers of the in- terior. 9999. Would the rate from Sheffield to Hartle- pool, or to any of the other ports, have been less than to Hull ? — No, it w'ould have been the same, but we say, compared ndth the German rail- way rates, the English railway rates are too high, and we, as shipowners, have to take less sea freights in order to keep the trade at all in Eng- land. 10000 . Is it your opinion that the English rates should be reduced to a level with the rates upon the German railways? — 1 believe that com- petition, intinae, will cause the railway directors to reduce the freights if they wish to uphold the competition of this country with foreigners. 10001 . Then the English railway companies will be at a disadvantage ? — If they do not reduce their rates there will be no freight to carry. 10002 . The original cost per mile of English railways is very much greater than the cost of M r. Bolton — continued. the German and French, is it not? — It is, no doubt. 10003. You could, therefore, hardly anticipate that the carriage in this country could be at the same low rate as in Germany and in France ? — We have to deal with the question as shipowners and ship 2 :)ers competing for orders. 10004. What is the system upon which conces- sions for railways are granted upon the Conti- nent, in France and Germany ; is unlimited competition allowed as it is here ? — I do not know how that may be. 10005. Between Essen, Dortmund, and Rotter- dam is there railway competition ? — That I can- not say. 10006. You have only one line to do the busi- ness, have you ? — That, I cannot say. 10007. You say that you are a steamship owner, and the owner of a line of vessels trading between Hull and Finland ? — Yes. 10008. Are you the owner of steamers trading elsewhere than to Finland? — Yes. 10009. Are those steamers subjected to differ- ential rates also? — No, those steamers are employed in the general coal trade. 10010 . There you are under no disadvantage from the railway charges? — No, we trade where- ever we can get freights. 10011 . But from Hull, which I am speaking of, you are only owner of one line of steamers, I believe? — Tliat is all. 10012 . And there you are placed at a consider- able disadvantage as regards railw'ay rates? — Yes, as compared with the Tyne and Hartlepool. 10013. Why do you not shift these steamers to the Tyne ? — Because we have a business esta- blished in Hull. 10014. How long have you carried on business there? — For 12 years. 10015. How long have the present differential rates been in existence, as far as Hull is con- cei’ued ? — I cannot say from memory. 10016. Am I to understand that you only complain of Goole ? — No. 10017. You complain of Hartlepool and the Tyne ? — Yes. 10018. You cannot really remember how long the rates have been in existence ? — No. 10019. But your recollection will extend fur- ther back than 12 years, when you established the steamers? — No, it was nine years ago that our steamers first ran. 10020 . At that date were those differential rates in force ? — I cannot say from memory. 10021 . Will you say they were not in force then ? — I cannot say they were not. 10022 . Will you take it from me that they were in force then, and will you tell me why you selected Hull as your port under those circum- stances? — Because I was brought up in Hull. 10023. And you could not have gone to the Tyne ? — YYs, I could have gone to the Tyne. jMr. Phipps. 10024. Have any shipowners, to 5 ’our know- ledge, shifted the jiort of entry and departure of their vessels from Hull to Hartlepool ? — I have no SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWATS. 451 20 June 1881.] Mr. Massey. [ Continued. Mr. Phipps — continued. no recollection of any Hull shipowners having absolutely shifted their business, 10025. Have you done so in any way ?— Our steamers frequently leave Hull for Newcastle to ship coals there, but we have not shifted the locale of our business. 10026. Will you give the Committee the reason why you go to Newcastle to load ? — Because sometimes we cannot got coal cargoes at PIull, and are compelled to go to Hartlepool and the Tyne Dock to get cargoes. Sir Edward Wathiu. 10027. Have you ever been to Essen ? — Yes, I have. 10028. Do not you know that there is a free river nearly all the way from a point near Essen to Rotterdam? — Yes, but I have quoted the ex- clusive railway rates, 1 0029. So that there is water competition ? — Yes, there is, 10030. In your opinion would not that account for the low rate ? — No, because it is not water competition the whole of the way ; a portion of the route is by railway. 10031. Was the rate you gave before by rail- way and water ? — No, it is absolutely by rail. 10032. Will you give the Committee the rate the other way ? — I cannot give it exactly. 10033. Is it not even less than the railway rate? — No, it it not very much less; it is almost on all fours, and the delay in transit is so slow that on many goods it does not amount to a com- petition. 10034. You think that the water in that case is not a competitor with the railway? — It may be directly or indirectly, but it is not a very material competitor. 10035. You have given the Committee certain rates by railway as you tell us throughout ; what services are performed which those rates include ? — Upon what particular goods? 10036. Take the steel rails ; what does the 7 s. 6 d. charged upon steel rails from Sheffield to Hull include; is it not haulage, cartage, collec- tion at the works, loading and unloading, and delivery alongside the ship in Hull ? — The trucks are put alongside the ship in Hull. 10037. Does not the 7 s. 6 d. Include these services, collection at the works at Sheffield, and delivery free alongside the ship at Hull ? — I believe the railway company have sidings into the majority of the works at Sheffield, so that the goods are put directly into the trucks. 10038. Whatever it is, the Is. Qd. includes the whole service direct from the works to the ship ? — No, indeed not, because when the rails are dis- charged from the trucks, they are frequently 40 or 50 yards from the ship, and there is expense incurred to get them on board. 10039. Whose fault is that ; is it because you do not berth your ship at the right place ? — It is because of tlie distance between the one and the other, so that when they are shot out of the truck they are frequently short of the ship, and have to be carried the intervening distance. 0.54. Sir Edward Wathin — continued. 10040. Now as regards the foreign rate which you have given the Committee, is not that the rate for the bare haulage of the material ? — It is the rate alongside the ship in Rotterdam. 10041. Have you seen anything to show I am wrong in saying that the rate you have given us as the foreign rate is not a rate such as I have mentioned to Hull, but the simple haulage of the material ? — It includes, I believe, the same services as are rendered by the English companies to the Sheffield rails. 10042. Will you take upon yourself to say that it does ? — I would not say so, but I think so, because I do not see what other expenses are in- curred. 10043. I want to know about the coals ; you say that you are very intimately connected with the coal trade ; are you aware that the jtorts of Grimsby, New Holland, and Keadby, in the year 1880, exported as much coal as was ex- ported from Hull ? — Of course the Keadby coal is Hull coal ; it is conveyed to Hull by lighter for home use, or for bunkering steamers at Hull. 10044. But I mean for export ? — I do not think that there is any difference in the returns made from Keadby as between export and home consumption. 10045. In 1880 was the quantity shipped from Hull 588,000 tons ? — The quantity was 595,260. 10046. Is it the fact that in 1876 only 70,000 tons of South Yorkshire coal were shipped from Hull, and that in this year, 1880, 154,000 tons were shipped ? — As far as the official returns are concerned from Hull, there is no distinction made between South Yorkshire and West Y^orkshire coal. I can give you the aggregate shipment of coal from Hull in every year. 10047. Is it not a complaint made by the Spanish and Portuguese in the case of the shijoping of coal that you ship, nominally. South Y’orkshire and send West Yorkshire? — Fourteen or fifteen years ago in Spain, 1 fancy they did make com- plaints of that sort, but not of late years. 10048. Are you quite certain that there is such a thing as rails being loaded alongside the quay at Rotterdam ; you stated that you had seen the rails being loaded alongside the ship at Rotter- dam ; have you really seen it? — The rails run alongside the ship. 10049. Are the rails put in the ship direct from the waggon? — No, not direct from the waggon, but from the quay ; I have never in Hull seen rails loaded direct from the waggon to the ship. 10050. Was not there recently a serious com- plaint from Lisbon with regard to shipping one kind of coal, and calling it another? — I do not know that ; I have not shipped any coal there for years. Mr. Nicholson. 10051. When the railway company give you a special rate for conveyance, do tliey not in their note or form, the invoice, state that they reserve 3 L 2 to 452 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 20 June 1881.] Mr. Massey. [ Continued. Mr. Nicholson — continued- to themselves the right to alter the rates without notice ?— Yes, tliey do. 10052. An honourable Member put to you a question as to whether you would not agree that the carriage could not be at so low a rate as in Germany or France, because of the difference in the cost of construction of railways in the two countries; do }ou not think that the quantity carried might be held to compensate for that difference ? — Yes, and the cheaper coal for fuel also, as well as the larger quantity carried. 10053. As a matter of fact, have not the steam- ship owners in Hull run screw steamers to New- castle? — Yes, Messrs. Wilson do run a line from Newcastle ; Messrs. Baily & Leetham of Hull also. 10054. Although keeping open their offices in Hull ? — Yes. 10055. And do they not do a large amount of the timber trade in Hartlepool ? — Yes; Messrs. Wade & Sons, of Hull, do a large proportion of their business via Hartlepool. 10056. You think that that is to some extent caused by the unusually high rates to Hull ? — Yes. For instance, as a shipmvner, I -would sooner take a freight of SO s. sti aight to Hartle- pool, than I w'oukl a freight of 32 s. 6 d. to Hull, because after I come to Hull I have my ship to move for the return cargo, whereas at Hartlepool I have my return cargo on the spot. Mr. Lowther. 10057. You would not wish it to be under- stood, that after a railway company had once made a rate for their customers, they alter it be- fore the oi’der is completed ? — I -wish it to be understood that a contract being made based upon the rate quoted by the railway company, the rate should not be altered without notice being given to the parties, because it might re- sult to a loss in the fulfilment of the order. 10058. Suppose you ask for a rate, and a rate is given to you, is that ever altered ? — The rail- way company reserve to themselves the right to alter the rates without notice, so that they have it in their power to alter the rates -^vithout notice, and as a matter of fact alterations are continually being made in the rates. 10059. Upon which line? — Upon the North Eastern Railway the rates are being altered day by day. 10060. But is that after the rate has been made?— Yes; the comjiany simply give day-to- day quotations. 10061. Now, you have talked about the Fin- nish railways ; are there any raihvays in Finland ? — There are, at present, from about 1,400 to 1,500 miles of railway in the country. 10062. Are you in favour of the publication of the rates? — Yes. 10063. No-w, the rates are continually changing on account of the opening of the new lines, are they not? — Yes. 10064. Those rates could not be published so as never to be altered? — The alterations could be published the same as alterations in the time tables. Mr. Lowther — continued. 10065. That is to say, once a month you would have new rate-tables ? — I would not have new rate-tables, but I would have notice given of any alteration in the rate. 10066. On how many miles of railway do those calculations extend which you have given -with respect to the German railways? — About 1,153 miles. 10067. Is there any short alphabetical list or catalogue of the goods that are sent ? — Yes. 10068. Supposing you want to send furniture, you must look through each of those special tariffs to find furniture ; the list is not arranged alphabetically? — No; but on the Finnish raiN ways it is given alphabetically. (A rute-hook was handed in for examination.^ 10069. I see here, “ Allgemeine IVagen-La- dungs Classen ” ; what is that — That is the general classification of waggon goods. 10070. There are two separate columns ? — Yes. 10071. You think that would simplify the matter ? — I have not studied the detail, as far as the arrangement is concerned, of the German one, but I can give the Finnish one, where the classification is most distinct. 10072. You do not give this in as a mode of classification ? — No, I give it simply as an ex- ample of the book. Mr. Barclay. 10073. Did it cost the local board, of Avhich you are now chairman, viz., the Newington Local Board, 2,500 1. to get a decision alone from the Railway Commissioners? — Yes. 10074. Were there no other legal proceedings connected with the case ? — No, except simply getting up the evidence to lay the case before the Railway Commissioners. 10075. It appeared afterwards that there was a dispute as regards the meaning of a word in the Act of Parliament from which it appeared that the Railway Commissioners had not the power to order works? — Yes. 10076. And you think that 2,500 /. was too much for that ? — I think that 2,500 shillings was too much. 10077. I suppose we may take it for granted that if cheaper railway rates brought more goods to Hull you would be able to bring in cheaper cargoes to Hull? — As a necessary consequence we could take a less freight as we should have return cargoes. Mr. Gregory. 10078. You spoke of the traffic upon English and foreign lines ; is not the traffic larger upon English lines than upon foreign lines ? — It is much larger no doubt in some instances, but not in others. 10079. You think that the foreign companies can aflbrd to carry at those rates independently of their traffic ? — Of course the amount of traffic they do would guide them in fixing the rate. 10080. And SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 453 20 June 1881.] Mr. Massey. \_Continued. Mr. Gregory — contmued. 10080. And you think that the traffic upon the foreign railways is sufficiently large to regulate the cheapness of the rates ? — I think so. The Finland Railway, for instance, which I have mentioned, last year paid 5 per cent, upon the capital expended in the construction of the railway. Mr. Gregory — continued. 10081. That may arise from the cheapness of the construction, as well as the smallness of the capital? — No doubt it might. 10082. You could not compare the foreign railways with English railways in that respeet ? — No, I have not the means or data before me. Mr. Henry Bennett, called in; and Examined. Chairman. 10083. You are the Mayor of Grimsby, I believe ? — I am. 10084. And your business conneetions with various trades have been very extensive, and spread over a great number of years? — That is so, and I have been largely connected with the timber trade. I am also a chemical manure manufacturer. 10085. You have come here to state that the port of Grimsby is in direct competition with the port of Hull? — I do. 10086. The port of Grimsby has rapidly de- veloped of late years ? — It has very much so. 10087. Will you hand in any figures to show that ? — I will. In 1860 the coaj trade was 98,857 tons exported, and in 1880 it was 393,875 tons. 10088. To what do you attribute the develop- ment of the trade of Grimsby ? — I attribute it to the construction of the railway, and the facilities whieh the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway have given to us. 10089. Have you anything to say about the rates for export and import traffic to and from Grimsby ? — 1 think we are fairly content with them. 10090. Are you an advocate or an opponent of the principle of equal mileage rate ? — I am against an equal mileage rate, certainly. 10091. For what reason are you against an equal mileage rate ? — I think it might shut up some ports entirely, and carry all the traffic into certain other districts. 10092. Is your coming here to give evidence the result of any corporate or united action on the part of the merchants and traders of Grimsby? — 'f he merchants and traders met together, and I was desired to represent them here, and to expi-ess the opinion that I have done on their behalf. 10093. You have no complaint to make either as regards railway rates or arrangement? — No, we are very fairly served. 10094. Do the merchants of Grimsby agree with the view you have enunciated about equal mileage rates ? — Certainly. 10095. Have you anything to say with regard to any special rates which have been made by the railway companies with any of the traders of Grimsby? — We have found in special cases that the railway company has met us, and given us special rates for the carrying on of our busi- ness. 10096. Are you an advocate for retaining the 0.54. Chairman — continued. power to make those special rates ? — Yes, I am. 10097. Have you been listening to the evidence of the gentleman from Hull? — I have. 10098. Have you anything to say with regard to the fish and timber trade of Grimsby ? — Simply that I agree with their evidence as to the undesirability of equal mileage rates. 10099. Can you give us any further figures as to the trade of Grimsby? — With regard to the importation of fish and timber, I may say that of fish in 1868, 21,621 tons were imported, whereas in 1880 it had risen to 46,930; and of timber, in 1870 the total import was 175,309 tons, and in 1880 it had risen to 265,507 tons. Then as to the imports and exports, exclusive of fish, salt, and minerals, in 1870 the total quantity was 189,780 tons, and in 1880 it had risen to 278,107 tons. Mr. Barclay. 10100. I understand that the railway com- panies give Grimsby special rates, low rates, into the country ? — We are satisfied Avith them. 10101. And you do not want to pay any higher rate; you do not want to change ? — AYe do not want to change in the direction of ad- vance. 10102. An equal mileage rate Avould increase the rates paid by people in Grimsby ? — It Avould. Mr. Gregory. 10103. Your dock rates are low for Grimsby, are they not ? — They are. 10104. Do they contrast favourably with the rates charged from Hull ? — They do. Sir Edward Watkin. 10105. I think the special rates that the honourable Member alluded to as given to Grimsby, are exactly the same as those given to Hull ? — Precisely. 10106. Therefore, there is no favouritism to one port over another? — Not at all. 10107. As a rule. In Grimsby Dock a ship comes alongside, they load her by hydraulic ma- chinery ? — 'fhat is so. 10108. Therefore, I suppose, increase of trade arises from the facilities given at the port ? — The 3 L 3 companies 454 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFOKE THE 20 June 1881.] Mr. Bennett. [ Continued. Sir Edward Wat.kin — continued. companies have given great faeilities for the carrying on of our business. 10109. Suppose the views of the gentlemen at Liverpool were to be applied to the ^ port of Grimsby, what would happen ? — I think it would shut up the ports. Mr. Bolton. 10110. I suppose that if the equal mileage Mr. Bolton — continued. rate, which you do not approve of, were applied to Grimsby, they might leave you pretty much as you were before, but damage other ports ? — It would close some ports. 10111. An equal mileage rate would be an advantage to Grimsby in some particular in- stances, but in others it would be a great dis- advantage ? — It would be a great disadvan- tage. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 455 Wednesday, 22nd June 1881 . MEMBERS PRESENT : Mr. Ashley. Mr. Barclay. Mr. Barnes. Mr. Bolton. Mr. Callan. Lord Randol[)h Churchill. Mr. Gregory. Mr. Lowther. Mr. Monk. Mr. W. N. Nicholson. Mr. O’Sullivan. Mr. Richard Paget. Mr. PeU. Mr. Phipps. Sir Henry Watkln. The Honourable EVELYN ASHLEY, in the Chair. Mr. Edward John Lloyd, was called in; and Examined. Chairman. 10112. You are engineer and general manager of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal Com- pany ? — I am. 10113. And also to the Birmingham and War- wick Junction Canal Company ? — Yes. 10114. What places do the canals which you represent principally connect ? — {After handing in a Maf). The map which I have put in repre- sents the canals generally from South Stafford- shire to the port of London. The canals coloured red are the canals I represent, namely, the W ar- wick and Birmingham, and the Warwick and Napton. The green canals to the north are all of them either owned or leased by railway com- panies; the blue canals throughout the map are independent of railway control altogether. 10115. Then your red canals, the Warwick and Birmingham and the Warwick and Napton canals, are an important link in system of canal navigation between Liverpool and London? — Yes, the red portion is the nearest, and I may say the best route between South Staffordshire and London. 10116. There is a considerable traffic still upon that canal, is there not ? — Yes. 10117. Will you please give for the year 1838, and the year 1878 (I do not think we need go into intermediate years), what the traffic carried in tons, and the receipts were ? — In the year 1838 the total traffic over the canal was 309,832 tons, and the tonnage receipts were 31,100 Z., leaving out the fractions. Now, in 1858, the total number had fallen to 297,391 tons, and the receipts had fallen to 11,982 /. In 1878 the ton- nage carried had risen to the greatest amount which we ever carried, namely, 399,005 tons, and the tonnage receipts were the lowest we had ever received, with the exception of one year, and they were 11,194 Z. I should mention, that I have excluded from these figures short traffic, which merely enters the canal, and passes to the wharves in the town of Birmingham, which do not affect the question of the railway charges ; this is the general traffic of the canal, 0.54. Mr. Barclay. 10118. And which traffic competes with the railways ? — Yes. Chairman. 10119. Can you tell the Committee how much of it was through traffic passing from South Staf- fordshire to London ? —In 1838 the thorough traffic was 164,447 tons; in 1858 it was 52,621 tons, and in 1878 it was 25,634 tons ; that Avas to and towards the port of London. In the oppo- site direction in 1838, the total trafiic was 39,477 tons ; in 1858 it was 47,621 tons; and in 1878 it was 61,094 tons. Here I would like to observe upon that, that you will see that of the traffic derived from South Staffordshire, and passing to and towards the port of London, when the Bir- mingham Canal, now owned by the London and North Western Company, or controlled by the London and Northwestern Company, was inde- pendent, we carried 164,000 tons ; after they had lost their independence it fell to 52,000 tons, and 25,000 respectively. On the other hand, the comparatively independent traffic arising in Lon- don, and passing only over the independent canals to places at and about Birmingham, has risen from 39,000 to 61,000, in the same time, shoAving that the control of the railways over even one canal, had very materially affected the amount of traffic which passed over the canals. 10120. This control influencing your traffic by the high rate of toll charged virtually by the railway company, though nominally by the canal company ?— Yes, upon this point 1 may mention another fact. In the amount of traffic for 1838, a very large quantity of coals is in eluded, which passed through the canal entirely from the South Staffordshire district, passing beyond our canal into the districts of Bucking hamshire and other districts nearer to London, and in fact some portion of it right through into London ; that traffic is utterly and entirel}" ex- tinct ; there is no such thing as a through coal boat on the canal, if you except, perhaps, one boat in the year for some particular gentleman Avho likes 3 L 4 South 456 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. \Continued. Chairman — continued. South Staffordshire coal, but as a traffic it is utterly and entirely extinct ; no coals pass through our canal whatever. 10121. It was in 1846, I think, that the Lon- don and North Western Company obtained from Parliament the acquisition of these canals? — Yes, it was. 10122. And the London and North Western Company guaranteed the canal proprietors 4 per cent, and take the difference ? — Yes. Mr. Monk. 10123. In whose hands is the Warwick and Birmingham Canal ; is it under the control of the railway comjiany ? — The red canal is inde- pendent; the green is owned by the railway companies, and the blue is also independent. Chairman. 10124. Will you now give the Committee the rates on some of the articles of which you have a list upon the railway canals and the indepen- dent canals ? — I will take first bar-iron ; the rate upon the railway canals is 1‘50 d., with a limita- tion to 1 s. 6 d. Mr. Barclay. 10125. Is that a toll or a carrying rate ? — A toll. Mr. Bolton. 10126. Is that for the whole distance? — If the amount of the mileage toll, including a compen- sation of 3 a ton amounts to more than Is. Q d., then they charge no more, although tiie distance would give them a higher rate. 10127. They cannot charge more than 1 s. 6 d. for any bar-iron carried upon the canal as a toll ? — That is so. Chairman. 10128. WTiat is the distance? — Practically about 13 miles. Mr. Phipps. 10129. Could not the company charge more than 1 s. 6 d. ? — No, they could not charge more. Mr. Bolton, 10130. And what do you say is the rate of toll charged? — Three halfpence a ton, with the junc- tion toll of 3 d. or 4 d., according to the direction. Chairman. 10131. Is the junction toll included in the 1 s. 6 (7. ? — Yes, if it so happens. IVlr. Barclay. 10132. What is the maximum distance upon the canal? — The maximum distance upon the canal is 24 miles, but practically it is only 13 miles. Chairman. 10133. Now will you give the Committee the same figures upon the independent canals ? — For bar iron the rate is ’275 d ; j^ig iron is 1-| d. on the Birmingham Canal and T 75 d. on the independent canals. 10134. Have the independent canals a maxi- mum toll ? — The independent canals have a Chairman — continued. maximum, but it is out of the question ; their maximum is 4 5. 1 ?, d. 10135. Does this rate ever amount to as much as that? — No, not at all; that amount would carry that traffic over 250 miles, whereas our whole length is but 37 miles. Now coal is 1^ d., and upon the independent canals the charge is T75 d . ; bricks are 1 d., and upon the indepen- dent canals T75 d , ; merchandise is 1 d., and upon the independent canals it is ‘320 d., and there is a special class charged 1 .4 d. on the Birmingham Canal, and '5 d. on the independent canals. Mr. Barclay. 10136. Do the company make the same charge for local traffic into Birmingham, for instance, as for through traffic ? — Yes, exactly. Chairman. 10137. Then in addition to that there is what they call a bar toll ? — There is a bar toll of 3 d. in one direction, and 4 d. in the other ; goods going into the Warwick and Birmingham Canal pay a bar toll of 4 o?., and goods going out of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal pay 3 d, ; there are some excejffions to the 4 d. rate upon coals and minerals which are charged 3 d. per ton. Mr. Barclay. 10138. Is the 4 d. rate charged at Birming- ham ? — It is charged by the Birmingham Canal Company. 10139. Upon handing over goods to you at Birmingham ? — Yes. 10140. And where is the 3 d. cliai’ged ? — Upon our handing goods over to them ; I should say that the bar loll includes mileage tolls for two miles of canal. 10141. Where? — At the junction; suppose any boat passes from our canal into the Birming- ham, or from the Birmingham Canal into ours ; if it passes only the length of a boat, if it only just crosses the canal, they charge the toll, but if it passes along any portion of the first two miles in round numbers on their canal they charge no more. 10142. Is this bar toll in addition to the \\d. ? — Yes, it is in addition as much as this, that the mileage toll upon their canal does not commence until the traffic has arrived at the end of the little crooked piece which forms the connection. 10143. Who owns those two miles? — The Bir- mingham Canal Comjiany. 10144. But there seems to be a sejiarate under- taking in some way ? — It was a separate under- taking originally, but it is now merged in the North Western; it is all North Western. Chairman. 10145. Would you please, as briefly as you can, tell the Committee about the action of your canal company with regard to a through rate, and what became of it ? — In the year 1877, with the view to the better adjustment of the tolls, wefii’st of all gave notice to the companies of a through rate from South Staffordshire over their canals to the port of London. 10146. What is the principal town in South Staffordshire ? — There are nine or ten towns ; there SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 457 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. \_Continved. Chairman — continued. there is W olverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Stour- bridge, W ednesbury, W est Bromwich, Smethwick, Oldbury, and others ; it is one mass of towns ; it is all a town. 10147. You gave notice of that through rate to whom ? — We gave notice to all the companies between South Staffordshire and London of our intention to make a through rate upon all traffic passing from South Staffordshire through our canals to the south, and vice versa. Some of the comjianies objected to the through rate and the apportionment, and Ave then made an application to the Hallway Commissioners, and the Hallway Commissioners heard us for 13 days, from the 24th of A])ril to the 8th of May in 1877, and upon the 20th of June 1877, gave a judgment entirely in our favour, affirming the through rate in every instance. The traffic Avas divided into a large classification, about 20 different classes, according to its circumstances. The Avhole of the through rates Avere affirmed, but some alteration was made in the apportionment, and I may say Avith regard to the Hegent’s Canal, Avhich is a metropolitan canal, that the Haihvay Commis- sioners considered that they Avere entitled to some larger amount out of the apportionment than a mere mileage rate, and they gave them about double in every case, making some little A'ariation as to the traffic Avhich did pass through the dock, and that Avhich did not pass through the dock, at Limehouse. 10148. Then tlie Haihvay Canal Company appealed ? — The Birmingham Canal Company, A'irtually the London and North Western Com- pany, appealed. First of all there Avas a jAroposi- tion to submit a case upon a point of law, but they eventually Avithdrew that, and there was an appeal ujion a Avrit of prohibition. The ground taken Avas practically this : the London and North Western Company, in the first instance Avhen notice Avas given to them, Avrote by their solicitor, or rather I Avould say, by some one in their soli- citor’s office, but signing their solicitor’s name to the letter, saying that they had no control over the tolls of the Birmingham Canal. Mr. Barclay. 10149. This is the raihvay canal Avhich you are referring to ? — Yes, they stated that they had no control over the navigation, and requested to be AvithdraAvn from the action altogether. That case Avent on, and Avas heard as I have stated. When the case came before the Court of Exchequer upon a Avrit of prohibition, the whole verdict of the court Avent upon that point, that the London and North Western Company being absent, could not be condemned in any action that would in- validate a guarantee that they had given, or injure the security they had in reference to an agree- ment, in respect that they were not parties to the suit. Chairman. 10150. But Avas not the Act of Parliament of 1846 sufficient evidence that they Avere OAvners of the canal ? — The matter Avas brought before the Hailway Commissioners specially. 10151. But I am talking of the action of the Court of Exchequer ; as 1 understand from you the Court of Exchequer decided that as the 0.54. Chairman — continued. London and North Western Company Avere not ])roved to be parties to the suit and interested, they Avould not make an order ? — Certainly ; they said that the Railway Commissioners had ex- ceeded their jiOAvers. It is all set out in the Haihvay Commissioners’ Reports. Mr. Monk. 10152. Will you refer to the case? — It is in the Fourth Annual Report of the Railway Com- missioners. “ The company of proprietors of the Warwick and Birmingham Canal Navigation, and the company of proprietors of the Warwick and Napton Canal Navigation v. The Birmingham Canal,” and so on ; it is at page 30 of the Report. Chairman. 10153. That application of yours failed ? — Yes. 10154. Then you took another step in 1879? — Y es. 10155. Will you tell the Committee Avhat that Avas ? — We appealed, in conjunction Avith some of the other companies interested, to the Board of Trade, and asked them to enforce the 28th section of the 9 & 10 Viet. c. 344, Avhich is the Birmingham Canal Arrangement Act ; Ave con- tended that under that Act the Board of Trade have poAver to bring in an Act for the revision of the terms of the acri-eement. O 10156. In fact, you contended that the Board of Trade had power to revise the tolls charged by the Birmingham Canal Company? — Y^es. 10157. Wliat has happened since then ? — Since that time Ave liave met at the Board of Trade all the parties, and there have been other meetings since, and tlie Blimingham Canal Company haA'e to a certain extent offered to meet us in the other matter. They have offered certain terms, but it is only upon mutual agreement ; it is not any- thing that is to bind them beyond a certain term; that is to say at the end of a certain term (and three years has been proposed) they Avill be able to giA'e notice that the matter is at an end. 10158. You have not been able to come to an absolute agreement upon the matter, but still you find that there is a disposition to yield some- thing? — Yes, and to yield a very considerable jiroportion of Avhat Ave asked. 10159. You say your case is that you are now compelled to carrj^ the tlirough traffic at ruinously loAV rates? — Y^es, at the time the apjilication was made to the Railway Commissioners the Avhole of the trade had entirely changed ; the Grand Junction Canal Company had been the principal traffic carriers over our canals to and from London. They found that they Avere losing a very considerable amount of money under the then existing arrangement, and they AvithdreAV from the trade. 10160. Then Avhat I understand you to say is this, that the raihvay companies are charging these high rates upon their portion of the canal, Avith a vieAV to prevent traffic coming on your canal and instead of that sending it round by rail ; is that your contention ? — YYs, certainly ; our contention is this, that their rates are, upon the same articles, as high or eA^en higher than 3 M their 458 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. {^Continued. Chairman — continued. their vliole charge upon the railway for all services. 10161. Then you come before the Committee to say that unless you get some relief, the con- tinuance of local competition from South Stafford- shire to London by canal will cease ? — There is no doubt about it ; we have practically given up almost the whole of our tolls, to enable the private carriers to go on till either the Railway Com- missioners have further powers given to them, which will enable them to enforce the rates, or on the other hand, such an agreement is entered into between tbe companies as would enable us to get equitable tolls. 10162. Have you any other complaint to make with reference to any other action of the railway company, for examjile, in the direction of imped- ing your navigation ? — Yes, one great means by which the canals are interfered with is this : the adjacent railway-owned canals are allowed to go out of condition very considerably. Take for instance the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, which belongs to the Great Western Railway Company, and which you will see joins ours about in the middle of the red line. The southern portion of that canal is in such condition that a boat would make very good progress if it made about a mile and a ([uarter to a mile and a half an hour. I do not mean to say that a boat could not get down the canal fully laden, but it Avould only be by rubbing ihrough the mud at the bottom at a very slow speed. But then there is another canal belonging to the Great Western Railway Com- pany w'hich is in exactly the same condition, the Hereford and Gloucester Canal ; it is not shown upon the map before you. A man told us a short time ago that he worked hard for 15 hours to get along 12 miles of that canal. Mr. Monk. 10163. Is not that canal practically closed now ? — It is practically closed. 10164. Is there no power to compel the rail- way company to keep that canal open? — Nomi- nally there is, but it is a matter very difficult to set in motion. Mr, Barclay. 10165. Who could enforce it ? — I believe the Railway Commissioners are empow^ered by their Act to do it. Then there is also the question of stoppages ; they stop the canal for repairs. Ujion most of the independent canals, they are stop 2 )ed during one week in the year, and then there are occasional necessary stopj)ages from accident and other things ; it is imj)ossible u])on all occasions to kee^i a canal open, but the rule upon inde- jiendent canals is to minimise the stojqiages by closing from six in the morning till six at night, and then resuming the traffic during the night, closing the next day, and resuming the traffic the next night. Uj^on the Birmingham canal one of the tunnels, namely, the Gosty Hill tunnel, was closed upon the 12th of last August, and it is still closed, and under repair. I do not mean to say but what a very great deal has been done to it, but I think that if it had been a rail- way tunnel, the repair would have been done with very considerable rapidity, and not have been nearly a year in hand. Now, the imme- IMr. Z?arc/c/y— continued. diate connection between the Birmingham canal and our canal w'as closed last year for 25 days, and it was partially stopped, that is to say, some of the lines of communication interfering with our traffic were closed, on 42 additional days, making 67 days upon which our trade was either im^ieded, or actually stopped altogether. Chairman. 10166. Do you happen to know whether there has been any instance in which an application has been made to the Railway Commissioners to compel railway companies to keep up the condi- tion of the canal, not as to receiving or forward- ing, but as to keeping, the course of the stream open and the locks in good order ?— I think not ; an a^jplication was made with regard to the River Avon, but that turned entirely upon another question, and not upon the condition of the canal. 10167. Have you told the Committee any- thing about the railway rates Avith regard to the traffic in lime? — Upon the southern portion of tbe red canal, near its junction Avith the Oxford Canal, there is a A^ery large quantity of lime burnt ujion the bank of the canal. About from two-and-a-half to four miles aAvay, accord- ing to the location of the Avorks, the London and North Western Leamington and Rugby line passes : that traffic used yeai’s ago to go almost entirely, or a large portion of it, to Bir- mingham, and Avas there transferred on to the raihvays for distribution, A^ery considei’ably to the Midland Raib.vay, Avith which Ave have a joint station at Saltley, close to Birmingham, and also to the joint stations upon the London and North Western Raihvay and Canal. So long as the rates were anything like fair, that went on ; but the raihvay has regulated the tolls so that it is impossible for that traffic now to go any longer by the canal at all. Mr. Dolton. 10168. By the “railway,” do you mean the Loudon and North Western Raihvay? — Yes; the rate to Manchester from Marton is 7 s. 6 d., and from Birmingham it is 14 s. 2 d. ; that is to say, if we take the traffic 35 miles ujion the road they charge double. Chairman. 10169. Whereabouts is jMarton? — Marton is at the southern end of the red canal, close to Hugby, nearly ojrposlte to the junction ; to Pres- ton the rate is 8 s. from Marton, and 16 s. 8 d. from Birmingham ; to Hereford it is 7 s. 9 d. from Marton, and 11 s. 8 d. from Bii'mingham ; and to Carlisle the rate is 12 s. 1 d. from Marton, and 20 s. 10 d. from Birmingham, so that you Avill see that if Ave carry the traffic 35 miles ujaou the road toAvards its destination (it is not so in every case, because it might ansAver their juirpose to go to Rugby and thence to Stafford), but, practically, Ave forward the traffic, part of the route, and for our doing so they charge the customers double the rate, and so annihilate the traffic. 10170. These lime Avorks are some distance from the station, are they not ? — The nearest are about SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. 459 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Chairman — continued. about two-and-a-balf miles, and the farthest about four miles. 10171. What do they do for cartage ? — There is a large cartage carried on between the works and the railway ; the lime is carted over land by contractors principally. 10172. I think you have told the Committee about the rates for coal upon the Stratford-on- Avon Canal ? — I told the Committee about the mileage rates. 10173. Generally speaking, you say that the tolls on all these canals which you have men- tioned are considerably higher than the corre- sponding railway rate ? — They are considerably higher, comparatively speaking. 10174. Will you just tell the Committee what you have to say about these junction or bar-tolls upon the canal ; what their object was, and how they work at present? — These junction or bar- tolls on canals were originally the almost invari- able system; it was not one which has originated in any way in the possession of canals by rail- ways, but was a sort of protective system originally granted to the existing canals whenever any new canal foi’med a junction with them, and they were in some instances of extraordinary amount. I could give you one instance independent al- together of railway interference. Upon the Oxford Canal, at our southern junction at Napton, the Oxford Canal Company are entitled by the original Act to take a toll of 2 s. 9 d. ; the toll was originally on coals 2 s. 9 d. a ton, and upon all other articles 4 s. 4 d. per ton, not for any service rendered, but merely for the act of traffic passing from one canal to the other. 10175. Was that as compensation for the diversion of traffic? — Even if the traffic were not diverted, and did not require compensation. To show how onerous it was, 1 may mention that in the first twenty years from the opening of our Canal the Oxford Canal actually received a quarter of a million in bar-tolls at that junction ; sufficient to pay a 10 per cent, dividend upon their entire capital for the construction of 92 miles of canal with a considerable lockage. Mr. Barclay. 10176. Were you taking any traffiefrom them? — No, none at all ; we were adding to their traffic. Now, tlie Grand Junction was a still more extra- ordinary instance; the Grand Junction Canal joined the Oxford Canal seven miles from their junction at Napton, and there was a compensation toll of 6 rf. a tou leviable upon all coals turning towards Oxford, which never went, in point of fact,Avithin seven miles of their canal, and in which they never could have any possible interest. Chairman- 10177. These bar tolls have been abolished by the independent canals, have they not ? — They have been abolished by the independent canals, but not by the railway canals. The Great Western charge Is. ^d. at their Kings wood J unc- tion. Now, we are entitled to a compensation toll of 2 s. 3 d. at Kingswood under certain cir- cumstances, but we have never taken that com- 0.54. Chairman — continued. pensation toll; the Great Western Company con- tinue to take theirs, and the effect of that has been that it has annihilated the trade. 10178. The London and North Western take the toll, do they not? — They take the Zd. and 4f/. 10179. Is their junction at Birmingham? — Yes, in the town of Birmingham. 10180. Then of course the possession of this control over lines in the canal route, and these com])ensation tolls, must do a great injury to your traffic? — The injury is very great. Thetraffic upon the Stratford-on-Avon Canal, which is in direct communication with us, immediately at the time when it -was purchased by the Great Western Railway in 1848, ivas then about what it liad been for many years. I have looked back to the half- yearly returns and they do not give the amount of tons carried ; but they give the amount of the receipts of the canal, and they varied very slightly for many years ; they were about 13,000/. a year; and in 1848, which was two years after the acquisition of the canal by the Great Western Railway Company, the receipts were 13,273/.; in 1858, they were 8,200/. ; in 1868, they were 5,100/. ; and in 1878, they were 3,100/. ; and the same will apply in a stronger degree to the Kennet and Avon Canal. 10181. You have a striking statement to make about the sum invested by the Great Western Railway Company in canal pro]ierty, and what they receive from it ? — Yes, the Great Western Railway Company have, practically, a million of money invested in canals ; they own the Kennet and Avon, the Stourbridge Extension, the Strat- ford-on-Avon, the Swansea, the Monmouthshire Railway and Canal, the Bridgwater and Taunton, and the Grand Western Canals. With reference to the Hereford and Gloucester Canals, the Great Western Company pay 5,000/. a-year for it; it is a rent- charge in addition to the capital. The total amount of capital invested in those canals (excluding the Monmouthshire Railway and Canal, which is a mixed amount and is not divisi- ble), is 633,036 /., and the total amount includ- ing the Monmouthshire Railway and Canal is 1,019,486 /., and the net revenue of tlie whole of that invested capital last year was 276 /., and the rent-charges payable in addition were 8,243 /., so that, practically, the company lost 7,966 /. by the working of the canals. 10182. I would like to have that clearly; you argue from that tliat the company have spent money upon those canals, not to utilise them for the public, but to shut them up and bring the traffic upon the railways?— Precisely so; I would like to add, as contrasted with that, that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company also possesses a considerable qiiantity of canals. In the year 1880 their revenue from tliese canals was 99,665 /., and the cost in expcn.-cs was 50,222 /., leaving a net I’evenue of 49,443 /. In fact they actually made a slightly larger profit on their canals than they did upon their railways, so that it shows that if a railway possesses them- selves of canals with the view to utilising them for their own benefit, and the benefit of the public, it can be done. 3 M 2 10183. You 460 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued, Mr. Barclay. 10188. You admit that the Manchester, Shef- field, and Lincolnshire Company have utilised their canals for the benefit of the public? — Yes, be- cause you vill see that the Manchester, Sheffield, and Licolnshire Company, possessing a similar amount of canal to the Great Western Company, have got a larger amount outof the canals than they have out of their railway. In 1875 their canals were by far the most valuable property they had. Ckahman. 10184. Will you tell the Committee what you have to say about railway companies making engagements to control tlie navigation over canals, and afterwai'ds repudiating them ? — On that point we have had a very remarkable instance in our neighbourhood. The Kiver Avon from Stratford to Tewkesbury Avas originally divided into the upper and loAver Avon navigation ; the upper navigation was formerly the property of ^Ir. Whateley, and the lower Avon naA'igation Avas the property of Mr. Perrott. The upper Avon navigation fell into the hands of the Gi'eat \Yest- ern Raihvay Company ; it Avas nominally pur- chased by a Mr. Broughton, Avho Avas their nominee, and an official in their serviee ; he handed it over to the raihvay company, the rail- waj" company passed the traffic upon the naviga- tion, issued accounts to the traders, charged the toll, received it, repaired the navigation par- tially, and actually went to the milloAvners and the riparian OAvners, and asked them for subscrip- tions towards' the reparation of tlie navigation Avorks ; they carried this on for some years, and eventually they turned round and said Ave Avill have no more to do Avith this; Ave have allowed it to go into such a condition that nobody can repair it; they threw the whole thing up, and the traffic Avas stopped. The loAver Avon navigation was leased l)y the Worcester and Birmingham Canal Company, and the reason Avhy they leased it Avas this, at the time the Stratford Canal Avas made it Avas thought that a very considerable portion of the traffic to Stratford-on-Avon and the upper portion of the navigation Avould go by the Biver Severn and the Worcester Canal as a better route, and use the' Stratford Canal into the navigation, adding very materially to the value of the Worcester Canal. The Woreester Canal Company agreed Avith Mr. Perrott, to give 400 1. a year in perpetuity as compensa- tion for this loss. Of course, they are bound by that, and Mr, Perrott is to haA^e his 400 1. a 5 'ear for ever, but the upper Avon navigation, Avhich Avas to be the source of the benefit to the Wor- cester Canal Company, is closed by the raihvay company, and therefore they have no means by which they can recoup themselves for that 400 1. a year. 10185. Have any other Independent or private parties offered to repair this upper navigation and been refused? — Yes, Mr. Forster, of Evesham, offered to repair the navigation. I do not knoAV what the circumstances Avere, but the Great Western Hallway Comjiany placed some impedi- ment in his Avay ; they did not choose to have it done. He made an application to the Railway Commissioners, and the Commissioners held that Chairman — continued. they could not force upon the Great Western Company, under the circumstances, any liability to I’epair. 10186. That is a case in Avhich the Raihvay Commissioners have declared that they have not the power ? — But that Avas not Avith regard to the jffiysical condition of the navigation alto- gether, but as to the liability of the railway company to continue the ownership ; they left the navigation derelict, and refused to have any- thing to do with it. 10187. Do the Great Western Company disown ownership? — Certainly they do. 10188. If they disown the OAvnership, they Avould haAm no right to prevent a party coming in to repair the canal ? — 1 do not knoAv the cir- cumstances, but I understood that Mr. Forster of Evesham had come forward to repair the locks, and that some obstacle had been put in his Avay either by Mr. Broughton or some nominee of the raihvay company. 10189. What do you put before the Committee to urge, as your view, for improving the relations betAveen railAvay eoinpanies and canal companies ? — I urge, first of all (taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case), that all rail- Avay companies Avho OAvn links in any canal system should charge no higher rate than that charged on the average by the independent canals over Avhich the traffic passes, either before it passes over the raihvay-OAvned canals or after it passes from them ; that is to say, supposing the traffic to originate upon a raihvay-OAvned canal, that navigation shall have no poAver to charge any higher rate than the independent canals through Avhose channels it reaches its final destination. Mr. Monk. 10190. Who is to decide that? — It could be decided by the facts. Supposing the Avhole rate charged to be 5 *■., and the raihvay-owned canal is one-fifth of the Avhole mileage, they should not charge more than 1 s. O Mr. Barclay. 10191. Would that be a power over canals similar to Avhat raihvay companies haA'e over one another to enforce a through rate? — It is not similar, because this would be compulsory, and I believe through rates are almost ahvays by agree- ment. 10192. But have not the Rallwa)^ Commis- sioners poAvers to compel raihvay companies to make through rates ? — Yes, they haA'e. 10193. And have not the Raihvay Commis- sioners poAver to make a through rate betAveen raihvay and canal companies ? — That is disputed. It has been said that a canal company taking tolls is not in the position of carriers. Chairman. 10194. Now, upon the question of mainten- ance : under the Act of 1873 (Clause 17), you Avill find that “ Every raihvay company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, Avorks and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good AAmrking con- dition, SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 461 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Chairman — continued. dition, and shall 2 M'eserve the sup^ilies of water to the same, so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay.” That seems comjilete enough? — Yes, it does a^xpear to be a very complete iirovision, but I believe there is one instance, in which a railway company owned a tunnel, and there was a bricklayer and a labourer sent into it to repair it, and that was kept on week after Aveek, and the conujany con- tended that they were using “ due diligence.” 10195. The second point you have to urge is, about what you would jiropose with regard to enforcing the ju’cservation of the navigation upon the railway companies ; would you advo- cate that the Railway Commissioners should have jiower to issue a mandamus ? — I think there should be a summary proceeding where a com- plaint was made that a railway-owned canal had gone out of condition, or that its works were not properly maintained ; that either the adjacent canal, having an interchange of traffic with it, or the traders, should have iiower to complain, and if the complaint were found to be an undue complaint, of course, they would pay the ex- penses, having made an improj)er complaint ; but that if it were found •prima facie to have been a jn’Oiier complaint, the Railway Commissioners should have {)ower to inspect, and that the whole of the jirocecdings should then be at the cost of the railway comjiany, owning the canal, and that the Railway Commissioners should have sum- mary jmwer, either to mulct them in heavy damages, so as to bring them really to book, or to issue a mandamus com^ielling them to l epair forthwith. Anything short of a heavy penalty would have no etl'ect at all upon a railway com- pany, because they might say, w^e are receiving 500 /. a day with one hand, and we can well afford to pay 50 1. with the other. 10196.- Then with reference to a dei’elict canal, what would you recommend? — With re- gard to derelict navigations, I think they should all of them go, if iiossible, into the hands of adjacent com^ianies, if they are willing to take them u}!. 10197. You would advocate that a neighbour- ing caual, which is part of the through route, should have power to take and assume the ownership of the derelict canal, and work it ? — Yes, without jiayment; if the railway company do not kee^i it up, and say it is not worth keeping up, then, if any adjacent canal comjiany says that it is worth their while to keep it ojien, they should have pow'er upon application to the Rail- way Commissionei's to assume the ownership of it. I w'ould like to call your attention ujion that point, to the Rivers Conservancy Bill ; the 31st section of that Bill says, “ Where, owing to the neighbourhood of a railway, or other local cir- cumstances, any I'iver, stream, or canal, subject to the jurisdiction of any commissioners,” and so on, “ has become disused, or is but little used for navigation, such navigation authority may, by a resolution passed by a majority of their whole number ; at a meeting specially convened for the 0.54. Chairman — continued. purpose, declare it to be expedient that their poAvers, rights, and duties under such local Act should cease, and that they should be dissolved, and they may apply by petition to the Local Govern- ment Boai’dfor a Provisional Order. ” Now, if such a clause as that slips through in an Act, which really does not refer to the navigable conditions of canals or rivers, we shall have the railway companies letting their canals get out of condition, as the Hereford and Gloucester has, and then going for a Provisional Order, and saying we have all agreed that this should cease to be a canal, let us shut it up. 10198. Have you any further observations to make to the Committee ? — I would like to make a few further observations ujion the Act of 1873 generally._ In the Act of 1873, section 11, sub- section 8, it says, “ It shall not be lawful for the Commissioners in any case to compel any coin- 2 )any to accept lower mileage rates than the mileage rates which such company may for the time being legally be charging for like traffic carried by a like mode of transit on any other line of communication between the same points, being tlie points of departure and arrival of the through route.” Now it has been held that where a circuitous line not being the nearest and most direct route is in the hands of a railway company, and upon that circuitous and indirect route, they are charging high rates, the Railway Commissioners would not have po'vor to reduce the rate charged u 2 )on a more direct and shorter route. The same difficulty crop 2 ied iqt in 1844, when the Act to empower canal companies to vary their tolls, Avas before Parliament. Mr. Gladstone Avas then at the Board of trade; and he saAV this difficulty ; it was pointed out to him, and he scheduled our canals in particular as being exempted from the operation of the Act. He Aveut out of office in 1845, and then Mr. Cardivell, Avho followed him at the Board of Trade, did not take the same view as Mr. Glad- stone, and tliei’e was a clause put into the Act, varying the terms of this sub-section that I have read to you, Avhich is almost identical Avith the Bill of 1844. That Bill of 1844 Avas not 2 Aassed; but in the 1845 Bill there Avas a modification of the clause passed, Avhich saved the rights in some respects in the 4th clause of the 8th and 9th Victoria ; but noAV there is a resum 2 ')tion of the same difficulty in the Act of 1873; it is altogether inap2Allcable to canals, and Ave think that in any re-adjustment or amendment of the powers of the Railway Commissioners, sub-seetion 8 of clause 11 should be struck out as relating to canals. 10199. Would you mind ex 2 Alaining that a little more fully, as I think Ave do not quite understand your point ; take this a 2 A[)lication that you made for a through rate. What do I understand you to say as to that ? — The Birming- ham Canal Com 2 )any contended that if they con- veyed the traffic upon their OAvn green line round by Coventry, which you Avill sec to the right at the top of the map, continuing I’ound to the blue line u2)on their OAvn line, and evading our line altogether, if they charged 1 1 dl. a ton, or any lesser toll in excess of the through toll, the Railway Commissioners had no power to modify that. 3 M 3 10200. How 462 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 J/f7ie 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Mr. Barclay. 10200. How would the London traffic go? — The Loudon traffic would go first to Fazeley Junction, then down the Coventry Canal, and then by the Oxford Canal to Braunston Junction, and then by the Grand Junction Canal onwards to London. 10201. AVhere do you suj)pose the traffic to begin ? — In the South Staffordshire district. 10202. But taking tins particular case, Avith respect to which you wish to force a through rate ? — They wish to force the through rate ; they say that if we, by a more circuitous route, charge a higher mileage rate to that ])oint, you have no right to enforce a lower rate upon us by the traffic which goes upon the red lines. 10203. That is to say, so long as they maintain the higher rate upon their canals you could not maintain a reasonable rate upon yours? — Pre- ciseL'. Mr. Bolton. 10204. Did the Railway Commissioners uphold that contention ? — No, they gave a judgment in our favour. Mr. Barclay. 10205. Did the Railway Commissioners say that you were entitled to get a lower rate upon the green canals of the railway canal company than you were entitled to get as through rates? — Yes, the Railway Commissioners said we were entitled to call upon them to 2 Lass the traffic on at the same mileage rates, jiractically, as we, ourselves, were charging. Chairman. 1020G. Is there anything else which you wish to mention? — I wish to refer again to the com- pensation tolls, to say that they have been pretty generally condemned by all 2 )arties ; I find that in 1872 Sir Edward Watkin condemned them, and Mr. Cawkwell also, before the Select Com- mittee on Railway Companies Amalgamation. Sir Edward AYatkln was asked ujjon that subject. Question 4668, (Q.) “I suppose that the same system of through tolls, Avhich you think so desirable with regard to railways, would be reasonable to require with regard to canals?” And his re 2 )ly was, “I think so. Many canals have got what are called bar tolls, and I think that when canals come to Parliament they ought to be carefully looked at, for many of them, I have no doubt, do obstruct the traffic.” And he was fuither asked in the next question, “Do not you think that Avhen bar tolls have been jmt on for the iturpose of obstructing traffic, it is a just cause for interference?” And he said, “ Yes, I do.” And Mr. Cawkwell, at Questions 6725 and 6727, was asked by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, “ What do you carry ; is it ^tottery chiefly ?” And his reply was, “We carry iro)i traffic from Staff'U'dshire to Liverpool, and crate traffic from North Staffordshire. That is to a considerable extent, i)erha{is, limited by the expensive toll that we have to pay for entering into the North Staffordshire Canal, a sort of bar toll, which rather limits our operations in that direction.” Then he is asked by Lord Redesdale, “ To whom does the North Staffordshire Canal belong?” Chairman — continued. (A.) “To the North Staffordshire Railway Com- pany.” Then at Question 6727, he is asked by Mr. Chichester Fortescue, “ When was that bar toll im^iosed?” To which he replied, “ I cannot tell; I fancy a considerable time since ; before the North Staffordshire Company took the canal, I have no doubt.” Mr. Barclay. 10207. As resjiects the traffic between Bir- mingham and London, without taking into account the traffic beyond Birmingham, have the canal companies been able to maintain the canal traffic upon the line ?^ — Yes, I shall show you by their returns that the independent traffic has ^tracti- cally doubled since 1846. 10208. It is in res^iect of traffic beyond Bir- mingham that you conijilaiu of the railway companies ? — Yes; where either the London and North Western Comjiany’s canal at Birmingham, and beyond to the north, or the Great Western Com^^any’s canals are necessarily a part of the route, the traffic is diminished. 10209. Have you a connection with the Wor- cester and Birmingham canal ? — Yes, through a railway canal in two directions ; but not an in- dejiendent coneection. 10210. That must be a short distance ? — It is two miles, for which they charge 8 d. 10211. That is the bar which they practically erect between you and your connection with the Worcester and Birmingham Canal ? — Yes, 10212. Would the traffic considerably develop if it were not for that bar toll between you and thatindejiendent line? — We have reason to believe that it would, because our large indejiendent traffic has developed. 10213. I understand you to say that with resjiect to traffic from London, northwards, be- yond Birmingham, it has increased, while the traffic from northwards of Birmingham to London has decreased considerably dui'ing the last 30 years ? — That is so. 10214. You attribute this, I suptiose, to the fact that you get hold of the traffic at London, whereas if the railway company get hold of the traffic at the other end, they send it by railway, not by canal? — 'fake the Birmingham Canal, and see their rate of toll ujion a large jrortion of the traffic, over a fraction of the distance ; if we got the same rate of toll, the whole toll to London would be 17 s. Qd., which would be more than the railway rate for the whole service. 10215. Do you think that goods can be carried cheaply in competition with the railway? — I think they can be carried in comjjetition with the railways ; that is to say, heavy goods can, but whether they can be carried cheaper, I cannot say. I do not know enough of railway manage- ment to know what the actual cost is. I should be sorry to say that I know a railway corajiany could not, under certain circumstances, carry at the same ])rice as a canal company. 10216. Have you seen that rejjort which has been made to the French Government within the last year or two with reference to the cost of carrying upon railwaj’s and canals ? — I have not seen that report. 10217. Have SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 463 22 June 1881.1 Mr. Lloyd. \^Conthmed. Mr. Barclay — continued. 10217. Have you an active competition in goods between Binningliam and London ? — Yes. 10218. Do the traders upon your canal carry cheaper than the railways ? — The traders upon canals arc bound pretty generally by the railway rates. There is a conference at Birmingham for the South StalFordshire district. 10219. A conference of whom? — Of canal and railway carriers. If an independent man sets up, they either run him off the road or buy him off it; there are, however, independent carriers. 10220. You say that the canal traders have now gone into the railway combination to keep up the rates? — Yes, the canal carriers have been, I suppose I may say, compelled by the circum- stances to join the conference, knowing that if they did not, the railways would destroy their traffic. 10221. Have you any idea what is the jndn- cipal class of goods carried between Birmingham and London? — From Birmingham to London it is iron and iron goods principally'. 10222. Cannot the canals carry heavy iron goods very much cheaper, or am I to understand that you cannot say^ whether the canals could take the iron cheaper from Birmingham to London than the railways ? — I do not know how I can say that, because I am not aware what the actual cost by the raihvays is ; but we can carry in com- petition. 10223. What do you consider a fair toll upon a canal ; you have told the Committee that you are charging -275 d. a mile ? — Yes. 10224. Does the carrier’s charge in addition, bear any proportion to the mileage ; could you give the Committee any indication of what rate would pay the carrier ? — The rale by water varies considerably, according to the railway classification, and the canal carriers pretty gener- ally adopt the railway classification and charge about the same as the railways do ; but the in- dependent carriers certainly carry for less than the railway companies carry for. 10225. Could not you give the Committee an idea of what is the charge per mile, in addition to your charge of "275 d., say for pig-iron or heavy undamageable iron? — By the canal mileage, about 1 a ton as nearly as possible. 10226. That is to say, the carrier charges in addition to this '216 d., how much? — Three farthings, the *275 d. would practically mean ^d. to the canal company, and | d. to the traders. 10227. Do I understand that heavy goods such as iron and coals might be carried by canal between Birmingham and London profitably at id. Si ton per mile ? — Yes. 10228. Is the canal longer than the railway ? — Yes, the distance is about 140 miles by the canal. 10229. And how much is it by the railway? — It is about 96 miles, I think. 10230. The \ d. & ton a mile Includes the tolls and corresponds with the railway rate ? — It does. 10231. You talked of being obliged, if the present state of matters continued, to shut up your canal? — No, to give up this portion of our traffic. 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued. 10232. Which portion do you refer to ? — The through traffic to London. 10233. Why should you give it up? — Be- cause the carriers wfill not continue it. Ml*. Phipps. 10234. It will give Itself up, will it not? — It will give itself up. Mr. Barclay. 10235. That is to say, the trade (fom beyond Birmingham to London? — Yes, the trade from beyond Birmingham to London. 10236. In consequence of the very large por- tion of the total freight that the carriers have to pay to the railway canals? — Yes, j)recisely ; our rate upon a very large portion of the traffic on the canal is 0*175 d., and the railway toll is 1 *50 d. for their jjortion. 10237. Then as the railway carriers from be- yond Birmingham have to pay so much out of the freight they get for the carriage of the goods to the railway canals, they can only afford very little to you ? — That is so ; and if it fell much below what it is now, it w*ould fall to a point below which it would not remuuera,te us to carry on the traffie. 10238. The 17th Section of the Act of 1873 has been referred to ; that section which em- pow'ers the Railway Commissioners to order a railway company to keep open a canal. Whose interest would it be to prosecute a railw'ay com- pany to compel them to keep up a canal ? — Pri- marily it w'ould appear to be the interest of the traders, but it does not necessarily follow ; there is still a traffic, though not a large one, upon the Stratford-on-Avon Canal, the Great Western Company’s Canal into Stratford ; they are now seeking to get the traders, all of them, to go to the railway, and to close the last half mile or mile of the canal altogether, so as to cut off its physical communication with the river. They say, we will offer you such facilities by railway that it shall answer your purpose to allow us to sever your connection by canal betw’een Strat- ford and the South Staffordshire district. 10239. Do you say that it would be your interest, taking everything into account as a canal manager, or the interest of the company you manage, to prosecute the railway company before the Railway Commissioners to make them keep open the canal ? — It would be a very costly proceeding as we have found to our cost ; the proceedings ■we have been engaged in have cost us a very large amount. 10240. What did this case before the Railway Commissioners cost you ? — £. 6,000. 10241. Could you tell the Committee how much of that was spent before the Railway Com- missioners, and how much elsewhere ? — About 4,000 1. was spent before the Raihvay Commis- sioners. 10242. It was a very tedious case; you stated that it lasted 13 days? — The case lasted 13 days. 10243. I suppose your experience before the Railway Commissioners would deter you from entering any other case ? — I do not think so ; 3 M 4 I think 464 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued, Mr. Barclay — continued. I think we are determined, let it cost what it will, to get an alteration. 10244. Then you have it in contemplation to go before the Ilailway Commissioners again upon the same question? — Or the courts, or both. 10245. What is the annual revenue of your company ? — £. ll,00o a year. Mr. Barnes. 10246. Is that the net ? — Yes, the net. hlr. Barclay. 10247. I suppose the railway canals, north of Birmingham, are not all more expensive and troublesome to keep up than your canals ? — That depends upon how you consider the matter; if you take the mileage of the canal they would be more troublesome and expensive ; but if you take the traffic into consideration, their cost per cent, upon their traffic is less ; less considerably than ours is. 10248. Their charge per ton, for repairs, would be less ? — It would be considerably less. Ours is a very expensive canal, with 65 locks ; we pump nearly all our Avater ; we run over the very highest ridge in the kingdom, and we have feeders and reservoirs in every possible direction, but practically we depend entirely upon pumping from a dee]) adit. 10249. With regard to enforcing a through rate upon another canal company ; would you be pre- pared to give a higher rate in respect of that other canal being more expensive to maintain, and the large cajutal involved in its construction ? — I think that should be so. 10250. Would you propose that the Railway Commissioners should take that into account in fixing the through rate ? — Certainly. 10251. But the grounds upon which you Avould go to the Railway Commissioners ivould be, that unless the other canal company could prove to the contrary, it would be assumed that the rate you were willing to charge Avould pay them as well as you? — Certainly; I think that a fair ground, and that unless special circumstances are proved, it ought to be a mileage rate. 10252. Would you allow anything more for a short distance than for a long one ? — 1 think that must be taken into consideration upon a canal, because a very small distance might involve as much cost for the provision of water as a long one ; it would in our own case. 10253. Y^ou contem 2 )late that the Railway Commissioners, in exercising this power, which you say that they should have, should take this consideration into account? — No doubt they should. 10254. I suppose you would be Avilling, as a canal jiroprietor, to submit yourself to the same power as you ask as against the railway com- panies? — Yes, cei'tainly. 10255. You referred to lime, the outcome of which, I think, Avas shortly this, that after you had carried this lime 35 miles towards its destina- tion, the lime in respect of its carriage by the raihvay, Avould be in a worse position than Avhen it started ? — That is so. 10256. With regard to the prosecution of a raihvay comj)any or a raihvay canal before the Railway Commissioners, Avhat I Avished to ask Mr. Barclay — continued, your opinion about Avas this ; except in the case of very large companies, Avould it be the interest of any private traders or individuals, taking all the circumstances into account, to raise this action before the Raihvay Commissioners? — Ido not think you Avould get any private company to prosecute a raihvay company before the Raihvay Commissionei's. I think the decisions of the Raihvay Commissioners have been challenged to such effect that it has practically placed the Avhole trade of the country in the position that they are deterred from coming before the Railway Commissioners Avith such actions. 10257. Have the plaintiffs before the Railway Commissioners been satisfied Avith fhe decisions of the Raihvay Commissioners generally? — Yes, I think they have Avith the decisions; but the decisions have not been upheld. 10258. What they complain of specially is the great number of appeals and the various grounds upon Avhich appeals may be taken, either ground- less or Avith some ground, from the Raihvay Com- missioners to the laAv courts ? — Y"es, quite so ; the immensely costly and recurring appeals which a raihvay company is enabled to undertake as against a private OAAmer. 10259. Do you think that it is the duty of the State or Parliament to provide that a raihvay company shall not abuse the privileges that they have under their special Act of Parliament? — I think so, certainly ; a raihvay company has prac- tically a monopoly. 11’ you give a man a monopoly in any Avay, Avhatever that monopoly may be, it ought to be subject to revision ; and I think that Avherever a monopoly is placed in the hands of anyone, whether it be a raihvay company, or a canal company, or anyone else, if they are found to abuse their power there ought to be general poAver to revise in the interest of the public. 10260. Do you think that anybody less poAver- ful than the State is able to keep a railway com- pany Avithin their Acts of Parliament ? — I think it very doubtful. Mr. Lowther. 10261. You say that if an independent man sets up they run him off the road, or buy him off. I suppose that induces a good many to start, does it not, in order to be bought off? — No; but I have knoAvn that to be done. 10262. I did not understand from you that Mr. CawkAvell gave his opinion Avith regard to bar tolls ; he merely stated that a sum was paid, but he did not give any opinion upon it? — He said that the traffic Avas “ limited to a consider- able extent by the expensive toll which Ave have to pay on entering into the North Staffordshire Canal.” 10263. He did not say Avhether he thought it good or bad ? — He did not express any opinion upon it ; perhaps he Avas thinking of the toll Avhich he himself received elseAvhere. 10264. You told the Committee a story about a raihvay tunnel Avhich was repaired by a man and a boy, and the railwa}’- company contended that they used due diligence ; did you state that as a fact, or was it merely a story ? — I gave it merely from report. 10265. Tliere Avas an arrangement made, was there SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 465 22 June 1881.] Mr. Llotd. [ Continued. Mr. Loiotlier — continued. there not ; the Birmingham Canal was formerly in the hands of a company ? — Yes, an independent company. 10266. And they came to some arrangement, did they not, with the London and North West- ern Company ? — That was so. 10267. Do you know what year that was in? — In the year 1845 ; the Bill was passed in 1846. 10268. Do you know the substance of that arrangement? — Yes; it was that. the governing body should be divided into an equal number. 10269. But the London and North Western Company guaranteed a certain payment, did they not? — They guaranteed a certain payment of 4 per cent., to be increased up to 5 per cent, in case the traffic permitted of the payment of such additional amount. 10270. When the payment came up to 4 per cent, they were to give back the management, were they not, to the Birmingham Canal Com- pany? — No, certainly not; if you look at the Act you will find that it is not so. The railway com- pany were to have power to appoint five mem- bers upon the committee of management, and the canal company an equal number, making 10 in all. 10271. And the railway company guaranteed 4 per cent. ? — Yes. 10272. And when the sum of 4 per cent, was earned, then I take it that it goes back to the Birmingham Canal? — No, certainly not. 10273. Are you quiie sure of that? — I am quite sure of it ; the London and Northwestern Company have had five members upon that board, and the canal has earned the guaranteed dividend continuously till within the last few years. 10274. Do you know what are the average earnings upon canals in general; do you know what they pay ? — You mean the per-centage of dividend ; it varies very much. Many of the canals have very small nominal capitals ; the Birmingham Canal, for Instance, has a very large nominal capital, but a very small sum sub- scribed. 10275. Could you tell me, for example, what your own canal pays upon the actual amount of capital expended? — About 2| per cent. Mr, Barnes. 10276. Do you mean per cent, upon the nominal or upon the real capital ? — Upon the real capital. 10277. And not upon the nominal capital ? — No ; upon the nominal capital it pays more. Mr. Lowther. 10278. What does the Canal pay upon the nominal capital ? — One section of it pays 2 per cent., and the other 3. 10279. You mentioned the case of the Gosty Hill tunnel, which was closed ; do you know why it was closed ? — Some portion of it subsided from the working of mines underneath it. 1 0280. Though the tunnel was closed, was not the traffic sent round by another canal? — Yes; upon which the canal company got an increased rate of toll. 0.54. Mr. Lowther — continued. 10281. And the Birmingham company are re- pairing the tunnel ? — Yes, I believe so. 10282. Do you know wlicther it will be soon finished ? — I have not leaimed when it will be finished. 10283. It is usual lo close tlie canals at Easter and Whitsuntide, is it not ? — It is usual to close all canals three days at Easter, and four or five days at Whitsuntide, for the necessary re- pairs. Mr. Nicholson. 10284. Do you think it is desirable to increase the powers of the Railway Commissioners ? — I would like to see the Act made more cleai’, and their j)owers more thoroughly defined. 10285. And you would be of 02 )inlon, pro- bably, that there should be only one appeal from the Railw'ay Commissioners?—! think one appeal should be final. 10286. Would you have that appeal to the House of Lords ? — To 'whomsoever the Legis- lature might direct. 10287. So that, after the hearing before the Railway Commissioners, one apj)eal should be final? — Yes, I think one appeal should be final. 10288. You would be, as I gather, in favour of a permanent department connected with the Rail- way Commissioners, ro whom preliminary com- plaints should be taken? — That would be a matter of detail. I do not see why complaints should not be made to the Railway Commis- sioners direct. M r. Bolton. 10289. I understand that your complaint is, that the action of the railway companies, as owners of railway canals, as you have called them, has militated it very much against the in- terest ot the canals which you represent, so much as almost to destroy your canal, or tending in tlie direction of rendering it practically use- less ? — I did not go quite so far as that, 1 think. 10290. To what extent did you go ? — I went to the extent of saying, with regarcl to through traffic, that the action of the railway companies has militated against our interest to such an ex- tent as to, practically, extinguish it. 10291. I am not sure that I put your state- ment correctly, but I tliink you stated that your charge upon the canal u])on coal and ])ig-iron, in- cluding the toll and the trader, was 1 d. a ton a mile, in round numbers ? — Yes, in round num- bers. 10292. And you anticipate that, if you had fair treatment from the railway canals, you could supply some portion of the coal used in London? — I do not know that we could to London. 10293. Where would you take it to ? — I would take it to a very large portion of the district short of London ; that district to which we used to take it, say to Aylesbury, until we meet the seaborne coal round by London. 10294. Then the inducement you would hold out would be that you could supply short dis- tances where the railway charges exceeded vours? —Yes. 10295. Are you aware of the charges of the 3 N railway 466 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 Jane IdSl.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Mr. .Su/fo?! — continued. railway companies to London from long dis- tances ? — I am not. 10296. Are you not aware that the South Staffordshire coal is taken to London, a distance of 153 miles, at 0’53 r/. a mile? — At any point where a railway company carried for 0'50 d., it would be practically impossible for a canal com- pany to compete with them. 10297. So that under any circumstances it would be impossible for you to compete with the railway companies for traflic to London? — Cei’- tainly, at that rate. 10298. It would be merely for the short traffic that you could compete ? — Yes, for the compara- tively short distance traffic. 10299. Do you know whether the action of the railway companies has interfered with your local traffic ? — The railway canals have. 10300. How do they interfere with your local traffic ; that is to say, traffic arising and terminat- ing upon your canal ? — No, they certainly have not interfered with traffic arising and terminating upon our canal. 10301. Could you explain how the public Interest suffers by this action of the railway canals ? — The public interest suffers by the action of the railway companies, they being en- abled to charge a higher rate than they would do if there were perfectly free communication. 10302. To the extent of 1 d. per ton per mile upon articles such as coal and jjig-iron ? — Yes. 10303. That is the whole extent to which you allege the public can ])0ssibly suffer in conse- quence of this action ? — ^Tes ; if it be found that 1 d. is the least amount at which the canal can do the work, it is evident that any competition by canal is impossible, if the railway rate is less for coal and iron. 10304. So that the railway companies could practically close the canals entirely, because they showed by that table which we had before us the other day, that all the coals supplied by railway to London are carried at the highest at 0*55 d. a mile, and at the lowest, 0-^9 d. a mile ? — That rate only ajiplies to the carriage of coal to London. 10395. Still, I presume, if they can carry it to London, as the distances are here from 202 to 260 miles, the railways if they were put to it, could carry at something less than 1 d. a ton a mile, or at all events at 1 d. for less distances? — Yes, from station to station, but they could not com])ete with our traffic where we have continu- ous lines of wharves, and could deliver to each of the parties at his own place. 10306. Is coal as easily handled by boats as by railway trucks ? — Perfectly. 10307. Do you think that you have canals already as convenient for coal de])6ts in towns and works as railways? — Yes, far more con- venient. 10308. Is it as easy to make a canal into a work as to make a railway siding into a work ? — The cost is very little ; we have many instances of works where the boats are laid alongside the lines of boilers ; the coal is thrown out of the boat in front of the boilers, and then on to the furnace. 10309. Is it your opinion that public works Mr. Bolton — continued. could be as easily supplied by canal sidings as by railway sidings ? — I think so, certainly. 10310. However, your com[)lalnt is that it Is the canal Interest which is injured, and not the public interest? — I am looking to the canal interest certainly ; 1 want the railway-oivned canals to be placed upon the same footing as ourselves. 10311. Now, let me ask you a question with reference to your ajiplication to the Railway Commissioners. In 1877 I think you applied, and this I think must be tken to be a case in which the Railway Commissioners in their decision vrere found to have exceeded their powers ? — Yes. 10312. And I think you spent a very large sum of money, I think you said 6,000/., in prose- cuting that case ? — Yes, I should like to mention exactly what the circumstances were. We gave notice to the London and North Western Com- pany in the first instance, as parties to the suit, that we proposed to make a through rate, and they replied that they had no control over the Birmingham Canal Company’s tolls. Upon that the decision was given that they, not having been brought before the Railway Commissioners, could not be held to be liable to their judgment. 10313. Was it not pointed out to you as soon as you ap])lied to the Railway Commissioners, that whiit you were ashing the Railway Com- missioners to do was beyond their power to grant? — Itwas contended, certainly, that it was so. 10314. It was pointed out that it was so? — It was contended distinctly. 10315. You remember that it was so con- tended ? — It was, there is no doubt of that. 10316. Then I think you referred to the deci- sion of the Court of Exchequer ; the Lord Chief Baron Kelly, I think, gave the decision of the Court, and he stated, The short ground upon which I base my report is, that the Railway Commissioners have by their order virtually ordered the canal company to do something which they have no power to do, and which they have no power to agree to without ihe sanction and consent of the London and North Western Railway Company ? — Yes, that is so. 10317. Is not that practically a confirmation of the statement made by the counsel of the Birmingham Canal Company when 3’ou first brought 3'our action against them before the Railway Commissioners ?— The matter was brought before the Ralwaj' Commissioners, and they decided (it was clearlj' left to the Ralhvay Commissioners) that the London and North Western Railway Company having repudiated any control over the Birmingham Canal, must be held to have assented to the arrangement. 10318. M3' question was this, whether it was not pointed out to you at once as soon as you went befoie the Railwa3’^ Commissioners, that 3'ou were asking the Rallwa3' Commissioners to do something which the3’ had not the jiower to do ? — That was so. 10319. And did not Chief Baron Kelly, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Exche- quer, completcl3' confirm that statement ? — There is no doubt at all about it, but 3’ou must take the explanation, if 3'ou please, that we were willing that the suit should be deferred and that SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILAVATS, 467 22 Jane 1S81.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Mr. JJoUoii — continued. the London and North Western Company as having- control over the Birmingham Lanai should be summoned, and the decision of the llailway Commissioners was that that was unnecessary. Chairman. 10320. You fell between two stools, that is what It comes to ? — Yes. Mr. Bolton. 10321. Now, you complain of the great cost of the application to the Railway Commissioners ; was not the great cost of this a})plication entirely your OArn fault ; did you not state in answer to Mr. Barclay that the State alone is powerful enough to keep railway companies within their Acts? — Yes. 10322. And that the railway companies Avere so jiOAveiful that they could pu’osecute appeal upon appeal, so that practically the private traders, or anybody else, have no chance Avith them. Now in this particular case to which you refer, I think you were the party Avho appealed ? — No, the London and Northwestern Company appealed ; we were satisfied. 10323. And then tlie result of the appeal entirely proved the correctness of the statement, Avhich the canal or the railway company orignally made to the Railway Commissioners? — That was so, subject to my explanation. 10324. You gave the Committee an instance of Avhat you termed the bad faith of railway companies in allowing canals to become derelict, and I think the only instance you named as a case in point Avas the case of the Avon navigation? — ! named that case, because I Avas best acquainted Avith it. 10325. Have you shown, I am not aware Avhether you did or not, that the navigation is owned by the raihvay companies ? — The railway company repudiated the oAvnership, but they cellected the tolls and gave receipts in their own name. 10326. Have you yet been able to prove that any railway company is the owner of that navi- gation ? —They exercise the rights of ownership; they repair the navigation; they receive the tolls, and they give receipts in the name of the Great Western Railway Company. 10327. ! ask whether you have been able to prove that any railway company OAvns the Avon NaAugation? — The only proof is that they exer- cise the act of ownership. 10328. Or it might be the act of leaseholders, or the act of hirers ? — Quite so ; they act as the ostensible owners. 10329. But if you Avere able to prove that they were the owners, is not the law sufficient as it at present exists to enable you to compel them to keep the naA'igation open ? — I think that Avould be a very costly proceeding, and one also as to which it would be very doubtful if it Avould answer the purpose. 10330. How would you propose to remedy the existing mode of proceeding? — By giving more summary poAver to the Railway Commissionei’s. 10331. But supposing the railway company were found to be in the right, and the applicants 0.54. Mr. continued. Avere found to be in the Avrong, would you still make the company pay the costs of the applica- tion ? — Certainly not. 10332. You would make the costs follow the eA’cnt ? — Yes, certainly. 10333. As I think they did formerly, in your appeal to the Court of Exchequer ? — Yes, they did, and we paid them ; I believe there is no complaint about that. 10334. You hiive spoken of a conference Avhich keeps up the rates ? — Wiiich regulates the rates. 10335. Hoav has the conference regulated the rates ; has it increased or decreased or reduced them ? — I should think that they have generally reduced them ; there is very seldom an instance now of a rale being raised by the conference. 10336. Therefore the action of the conference, as fiir as respects rates, has been beneficial to the traders? — It has been beneficial to the public ; Ave should be jierfectly satisfied if Ave got the same rates as other people. 10337. You spoke of the necessity of power being given to the Raihvay Commissioners to grant a through rate ; have they not power to do so noAv ; I ask for information ? — Their poAvers have failed. 10338. They have failed, perhaps, in your estimate to give such a decision as suited your purpose ? — N o ; their decision was all that Ave asked ; we Avere perfectly satisfied Avith their de- cision. 10339. Noav Avith regard to this Birmingham Canal, Avhich Avas taken over by the London and North Western Company, is that so comjdetely dependent as you say ? — It is absolutely de- pendent. 10340. Upon AARat is the canal dependent? — Upon the railway. 10341. Then for Avhat purpose are these Di- rectors appointed ? — One of them told me; I do not knoAV whether his estimate of his position is the correct one. 10342. I think you stated that there Avere an equal number appointed by the canal company and an equal number by the raihvay company ? — That Avas so originally, but at the present time the canal directors have no poAver to vote. 10343. So that it is entirely in the hands of the raihvay company ? — Yes. 10344. Do you find that the public have suf- fered through that ? — Certainly. 10345. Have the public suffered materially? — Yes, materially ; it is the subject of general complaint. 10346. You recollect the Act of amalgama- tion? — I do. 10347. Was there no poAver contained in that Act by Avhich the public could get redress ? — Yes ; there are the clauses I have mentioned. 10348. I think. If you refer to the 28th clause, you Avill see that there Avas considerable poAver given ? — That is one, but the 23rd clause also gives certain poAvers with regard to the reparation of tlie canal. 10349. But we are speaking of the public in- terest suffering through any cause Avhatcvcr ; it says : “ If at any time it shall appear to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, or the 3 N 2 officers 4G8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 Jime 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Contin uecl. Mr. Bolton — continued. officers of a Government Department, to be necessary for the interest of the public, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners to proceed to the correction of any inconveniences, and to require the introduction into Parliament of Bills to amend the Act in the next Session of Parlia- ment” ? — Yes. 10350. Could you tell us whether there has been any application on the part of the public to amend the Act ? — There has been an application on our ])art. 10351. But you are not the public? — There has been no application from the public that I know of; the public have declined to make the application to the Board of Trade upon the ground that it was more our interest than theirs ; but we have been urged upon by the public to do so; there is no doubt about that. 10352. "What sort of urging have you had? — Representations from large tradei’S, and also from IHiblic bodies. 10353. You spoke of your capital as being real and nominal ; what is the meaning (i'that? — We have a nominal capital of 250,000/.; the actual amount raised in shares is 242,000/. ; the actual amount expended upon the canals is something like about 400,000 /. The Birmingham Canal is in exactly an opposite ])osition. 10354. But let us have your canal? — I wish to give to the Committee the case of the Birming- ham Canal. 10355. I only want you to let me understand what is the meaning of real and nominal capital as aj)plied to dividend ? — I was speaking of capital upon which dividend is paid, and the amount which Avas expended upon the canal. 10356. What portion of the capital is that which receives 3 per cent. ? — £. 150,000. 10357. Is that preference capital? — No, it is all equal capital, but in tw'O sections. 10358. Three per cent, is a higher dividend than a good many railway companies are paying in this country at present, is it not ? — It is not higher than those companies which are competing with us are paying. 10359. Are you acquainted with the Scotch railways ? — Not at all, except that I have been upon them. 10360. Could you say that either of the Bvo main routes in Scotland is paying at the present time over 3 per cent. ? — Those raihvay companies are in a very different position from the great railways in the Midlands of England competing Avith us. 10361. Still, they do exist? — Certainly. Mr. Moult. 10362. Your dividend, I understand you to say, Avas not 3 per cent., but that it averaged 2^ per cent. ? — The Avhole diA’idend averages per cent., or thereabouts. Mr. Bolton. 10363. I think avo should clear uj) this matter of the directors; if you Avill refer to the Amal- gamation Act, Clause 10, Avhich says, “ Mode of determining diff’eiences of opinion in Committee.” I think there are five Birmingham Canal Ui- Mr. Bolton — continued. rectors, five London and North AVestern Com- pany’s Directors ; and, I think. Section 10, il' you Avill refer to it, Avill shoAv to you that, if there is a difference of opinion betAveen those Directors, the Birmingham Canal Directors shall have the deciding vote, Avhen the canal company earn the 4 per cent. ; is not tliat so ? — Practically, it is so. 10364. Then, how ai-e they so completely in the hands of the London and North AYestern Rail- Avay Company ? — Because they do not earn the 4 per cent. ; but, you will understand, that is not 4 j)er cent, upon the actual capital, but 4 per cent. U{)on the nominal amount. Mr. Monk. 10365. AA'ould you enumerate the canals owned by the Great AA^estern Railway Company? — The Kenaet and Avon, the Stourbridge Extension, the Stratford-on-Avon, the Swansea, the Bridg- Avater and Taunton, the Grand AAYstern, and the Monmouthshire Railways and Canal. Then the Great AA^estern Company guarantee 5,000 1. a year dividend upon the Hereford and Gloucester Canal. 10366. And Avhat interest have they, or have they anv interest in the Avon Navigation? — The Avon Navigation is derelict; ihey declare that they have none. 10367. Can the Independent canals carry at a fair profit if they charge the same rates as are usually charged upon the canals owned or rented by the raihvays? — No; if Ave charged the same rates as the railway-OAvned canals charge, avc should close our traffic altogether. Take, for in- stance, the point you have already spoken of, the Stratford-on-Avon Canal are charging 2f d. ])er mile on a portion of their traffic at the present moment. 10368. Do the tolls vary considerably upon some of the canals owned by the railway com- panies, or do they charge a similar mileage toll on all their canals ? — No, cei’tainly not ; there are some of the railway-owned canals Avhere the tolls are limited. The Moira Canal, for instance, whatever rate the Oxford Canal Company charge, the Moira Canal, Avhich is OAvned by the Midland Company, is bound to charge the same rate. But if the Oxford rate falls beloAv \d. a ton, then the Midland Company are not bound to folloAV them beyond that point. 10369. Do you find that the company charge in some cases unusually high tolls in order to prevent the Iraffic passing orer their canal system and coming on to the private canals? — Un- doubtedly that is so. 10370. I think you stated that you Avould give summary jurisdiction to the Raihvay Com- missioners upon application from the canal com- panies? — Yes, ujion application either by the canal companies, or the traders using the canals. 1C371. And you Avould give the Raihvay Commissioners poAver to inspect the canals, or send assistant commissioners to inspect the canals? — Yes, cert.iinly. 10372. lias not the Board of Trade any such jurisdiction at the ju’csent time? — The Board of Trade have no funds, 1 think, to carry out any- thing of the kind, and I am not aAvare that they have ever exercised the poAver. 10373. You SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 4G9 22 June 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Ml’. Monh — continued. 10373. You consider that the public is deterred from coming before the Kailway Commissioners, by the facilities ^iven to the railway companies to challenge the jurisdiction of the Kailway Commissioners ? — 1 think there is no doubt of it, 10374. And that you think ought to be reme- died in any future Act of Parliament? — I think so, certainly ; there should be an appeal, but, 1 think, it ought to be limited. 10375. At present you consider that there is practically a denial of justice ? — Yes, certainly. 10376. You say that tlie average amount of your dividend is 2^ per cent. ; is that after paying the interest on the preference shares ? — We have no debt ; we had a large debt, about 50 per cent, of our capital, but some years ago the directors or committee of management decided that it was wise to cease paying dividend altogether, until we had extinguished our pi’eference charges, and we paid everyone. 10377. what is the amount of your actual paid up capital ? — Our actual paid up capital is about 400,000 1. Mr, Pidpjjs. 10378. I think you stated that tlie Great "Western Company guaranteed 5,000 1. a year upon the Hereford and Gloucester Canal? — Yes. 10379. Does not that clearly prove that the Great Western Company are not the owners of the canal, else they would not guarantee an income to the owners? — It is an agreement in perpetuity : the shareholders continue to exist as a separate Ijody, 10380. Do you mean the original shareholders? — Yes; the original shareholders of the canal, and so they do partially upon the Stratford-on- Avon Canal. I am myself an original proprietor, therefore, I know something of il, Tire railway companies aoreed to pay 5,000 /. per annum in perpetuity, for the entire absolute ownership of the canal. Mr. Monk. 10381. Would you not rather say control over it ? — Yes, for the control over the canal. Mr. Phipps. 10382. Technically, the railway company are in the right when they say they are not the owners of the canal, if their construction is true ? — They may not be owners in the legal sense. 10383. That being the case accounts for the suggestion which I made, that if they were the owners of the canal there ■was sufficient power in the Kailway and Canal Traffic Act, in Clause 17, to compel them to maintain the canal ? — That possibly might be so. Mr. Monk. 10384. It is contemplated to close that canal, is it not ? — Yes, it is closed, or at all events if it is not closed, it will be closed in a very short space of time. 10385. Is it not to be converted into a rail- way ? — They are proposing now to ask for power to convert it into a raihva-v. 0.54. Mr, Phipps. 10386. You state that the decisions of the Kailway Commissioners are in your opinion generally equitable, and ajjpreciated by the public ? — They have been, certainly. 10387. The great want is power, on the part of the Kailway Commissioners, to enforce their decisions, when given ? — Quite so. 10388. Their decisions are very often appealed against successfully by those against whom they are given ? — Yes. 10389. And that destroys the confidence of the complainants, the public, in the power of that tribunal? — That is so; they fear the expense, first of all, and the chance of an adverse verdict ; secondly, they fear, having got what they con- sider an equitable verdict, lest it should then be challenged in the courts. 10390. Tour impression is that they fear more the liability of the opinion of the Commissioners being set aside, than of the opinion of the Com- missioners being against them ? — I think so ; I think there is a general consensus of opinion that the decisions of the Kailway Commissioners have been equitable, just, and lair, to the public. 10391. If the Kailway Commissioners’ powers were strengthened very considerably, would the protection be sufficient for the canal couqranies and also for the traders? — ! think we should have every proper protection. The Kailway Commissioners are not supposed to be affected by any improper intluence. 10392. Should you say that the Kaihvay Com- missioners, if materially strengthened, would be sufficient for the protection of, and ensure confi- dence on the jiart of the public ? — Yes, I think so. 10393. I think you are acquainted with the Act of 1873, wdiich was pa.ssed for the purpose of carrying out the Kailway and Canal Traffic Act of 1854, more efficiently ; can you suggest any ju’ovision in that Act which is prejudicial, first to the traders, and secondly to the public? — I think there are certain portions of the Act which are not defined with sufficient clearness, and I think I could suggest several alterations ivliich would tend more clearly to define what the intention of the Act is. 10394. But taking generally the Act as it stands, if it were carried into effect, -would if, in your opinion, be effectual ? — I tlilnk so. 10395. And it provides for all the reasonable wants that may arise, both of the companies and of the public ? — I think so, certainly ; thei’e may be, as I said before, some questions with refer- ence to definition, and so on, which might re- quire a little more clear and full explanation. 10396. For instance, in Clause No. 7, if either a canal or railway company is complained of by a third party, the Kailway Commissioners can, before allowing any proceedings to be taken, consider the whole question ? — Yes. 10397. Should you consider that clause suffi- cient as it stands ? — Yes, I think so. 10398. Then, if any difference arises between a canal and a railway com})any as happened in your case, the Commissioners may be apjminted arbitrators ? — Yes. 10399. Would you like that clause altered at all ? — i think the power of arbitration is a very 3 N 3 valuable 470 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE] 22 June. 1881.] Mr. Lloyd. [ Continued. Mr. Phipps — continued. valuable one, because there are cases in which it might be unnecessary to make formal appli- cations, and then you frequently want an arbi- trator, and this is a provision of one without further delay. 10400. You think the Railway Commissioners might he ai’hitrators ? — I do. 10401. And then any difference arising be- tween a canal and a railway company and a third party may, by Clause 9 of the Act of 1873, be referred to the Railway Commissioners? — Yes. 10402. Would you say that it ‘‘should” be the Railway Commissioners in every case in- stead of saying “may ?” — Yes, that Avould be an enlargement of the Railway Commissioners’ powers to determine all questions before them b}’ arbitration. 10403. Do you see no objection to that? — I do not. 10404. Then, according to Clause 11 and Clause 12, the through rate for the traffic over a canal or railwa,y may be arranged by the Com- missioners; would you give them greater power with regard to determining what is through traffic as between canal and railway companies combined ?^ — With regard to tha.t I have already given my evidence that it should be so. 10405. Then, with the exception of the sug- gestion which you h.ave made with regard to Sub-section 8, you think that Clause 11 is satis- factory? — Yes, I think so. 10406. Then, with regard to canals being allowed to fall into disuse to the prejudice of the public, can you suggest any alteration in Clause 17 which provides that such things shall not be allowed ? — I have already suggested that the powers of the Railway Commissioners should be enlarged in that respect. 10407. But you could not enlarge the powers of the Railway Commissioners to such an extent as to say that a person, or a company, having nothing to do with the canal, sha,ll be compelled to keep it open ? — I am afraid I fail to under- stand the question. 10408. The Great Western Company have allowed the Hereford and Gloucester Canal to fall into disuse ? — Yes. 10409. It has never yet been proved, at least you have not shown, that the Great Western Company are legally the owners of that canal? — They are not the owners legally, I believe. Chairman. 10410. What the honourable Member is ask- ing you is, with regard to Clause 17, whether, as I understand, you would advocate the Railway Commissioners having power to order somebody to keep a canal in order, which they did not own ? — Certainly. Mr. Phipps. 10411. But that somebody must be the owner? — That somebody must be the primCi facia owner, Mr. Phipps — continued. 10412. Then what I gather is, that by Clause 17 the Railway Commissioners have the power to compel the owners ? Chairman. 10413. And more than that, “any railway com23any owning or having the management,” so that the rvords are the largest possible words ? — That is so. ]\Ir. J Japps. 10414. Have the Great Western Company the management of the canal ? — Certainly ; it is entirely in their hands. 10415. Then I must ask you whether reading over Clause 17, you would consider Clause 17 suffi- cient, providing there were greater power given to the Railway Commissioners to carry it out? — I think so ; I think the failing is, that there is really no one whose duty it is to see that the canals are kept open ; no one will go to the expense of making these applications with the liability of being involved in law. Mr. Sullivan. 10416. Do you think that if railway compa- nies were to work canals as they did formerly, they would lose by so doing ? — Certainly not. 10417. Do you think that they would save money? — There is the proof that they do do it. I have instanced the case of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, who work their canals at a larger profit than they do their railway. 10418. And would )'ou wish to give more power to the Railway Commissioners to classify all goods going by railways and canals? — It would be of advantage if we had a re-classifica- tion, but that is not a large difficulty. 10419. How do you manage in cases where the goods are not classified and are not regu- lated by Act of Parliament? — Our goods are not classified by Act of Parliament; ours is a voluntary classification. Mr. Lowiher. 10420. (Through the Chaiiman). During the time that the London and N orth W estern Company has had the Birmingham canal, how many jmars has it paid 4 per cent. ?— It has paid the full dividend, I believe, with the exception of one year; there were about 400/. deficient up to 1877, and since that time it has not earned that dividend. 10421. How many years has it paid the 4 per cent.: — The whole of the remainder of the period. Chairman. 10422. That is to say from 1847 to 1877? — Y'es. 10423. You SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 471 22 June 1881. Mr, Peter Spence, called in ; and Examined. Mr. Barclay. 10423. You are tlie proprietor of chemical works at Manchester, are you not? — I am. 10424. And you are interested largely in chemical v/orks also, at Birmingham, Bradford, and Goole ? — I am. 10425. And I believe you produce about the largest quantity of one chemical article, alum, of any manufactnrer in the world?-— Yes, I suppose I am the largest maker of alum. 10426. You turn out about 10,000 tons of that annually, do you not? — Yes. 10427. You also manufacture copperas, sul- phate of ammonia, aud various other chemical products ? — Yes. 10428. And the views which you have upon this question of railway rates, you have embodied in a memorandum as I understand ; wdll you now proceed to make your statement ? — I will ; I have brought it under different headings. The first is, “Excessive rates for alum, copperas, aud other chemicals, between Manchester and Liver- pool.” The rate for alum and copperas from Manchester to Liverpool, a distance of 31^ miles, is 7 5. 6 d. per ton ; but if proportioned to the rate from Manchester to London, which is 186 miles for f8 s. 4 d., it would be 3 s. \ d.-, if pro- portioned to the rate from Manchester to Bristol, which is 178 miles for 15 s., it would be 2 s. 8 d. ; if to the rate from Manchester to Glasgow, which is 2254 miles for 15 a'., it would be 2s. Id. Alum manufacturers in other towns get to Liverpool at a much lower rate per mile than the Manchester maker. Manufacturers at Wake- field, 78 miles, and Tamworrh, 80 miles distant, each pay 12 s. 6d; another at Rotherham, 80 miles distant, pays 9 s. 2 d . ; the proportionate rate in all three cases on the Manchester to Liverpool basis, being 10 5. 1 cZ. A manufacturer at Goole, 105 miles distant, pays 12 5. It/.; the propor- tionate rate in this case being 23 5. 10 rf. Mr. Monk. 10429. Is that a special rate? — They are got as special rates practically, for we have to plead for all our rates, but there is no difference in this respect ; this is a station to station rate ; we do not include the deliveries in either case, we de- liver and take away. This high rate for alum from Manchester to Liverpool, has very seriously crippled my foreign trade. Mr. Bolton. 10430. I understand those quotations are all upon the same basis, station to station? — Yes, they are all from station to station. In conse- quence of this, I am now very heavily handi- capped in competing with French and Italian manufacturers in the Indian market. My next point is, as to “ Oppressive rates also to inland manufacturing towns.” The alum rates from Manchester to towns in the manufacturin£r dis- • • 1 ® tricts are m most cases upon the same oppressive scale; the charge to Burnley, Blackburn, Chor- ley, St. Helens, Runcorn, Huddersfield, and Darwen, all of them from 22 to 28 miles from Manchester, ranges from threepence to 3 '8 pence per ton per mile. Row, these are not explained 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. bj" alleged greater cost of carriage upon short distances ; nothing could justify such excessive charges, but the absurd contention that these journeys are relatively 300 to 400 iier cent, more costly than long ones. This point has, however, already been settled by the Legislature in the parallel case of passenger traffic by the enforce- ment of the Parliamentary train fare of a penny per mile for long or short distances. Chairman. 10431. But I may interpose here, to point out that a railway passenger loa,ds and unload.s him- self? — :Yes, so do I ; I load and unload my own goods ; the company have nothing to do with that. With regard to the long distance carriage of coal from the Durham and South Lancashire coal fields to London for a halfpenny per ton per mile, and the privilege of taking back empty trucks, I think I have a right to say to the com- panies, I give you the choice of three positions ; either, first, you do not know whether this traffic yields you a profit or not, or, second, you know that it incurs a loss, but do it from a sinister motive, or, third, you know that it is profitable, and so continue it. I accept the third as least discreditable to you; and I say, why do you do a large amount of carriage at a half- penny per ton per mile, where you have double mileage with your engines and empty wagons, and where therefore you only get in reality a farthing per ton per mile, whilst Avith a trade such as mine, where you only run your Avagons one Avay, you charge 12 times your coal rate, or 3 d. per ton per mile. I characterize this simply as ex- tortion. Even the cheap long distance theory of the companies cannot, however, pretend to ex- plain inequalities in rates like the folIoAving : Ramsbottom is 22 miles from Manchester, and pays 2'3r/. per ton per mile; whereas York, which is 65 miles, pays 2'5 d. ; and FleetAvood, Avhich is 50 miles, pays only 1’8 d. 10432. I think you may pass from that point, as Ave have ah’eady had a considerable number of instances of these differential rates ? — Then I Avill go on to say that the charges per mile are not only unequal as betwixt different towns and dis- tricts, but that the rates generally upon chemical raw materials and manufactured products are ex- tremely arbitrary and oppressive, as compared Avith those upon other goods. The rate betAA’ixt Garston or Livei’pool and Manchester for man- ganese ore imported, and for alum and copperas exported, is 7 s. 6 d. per ton. The rate betwixt the same toAvns for lime, firebricks, and tiles is 4 5. 2 cZ. per ton, and it costs the carrying com- panies precisely the same to carry these goods as to carry those for Avhich they charge 7 5. 6 d. My next point is, that “ the higher rates are not jus- tified by additional carriage cost of any kind.” Although I have sent scores of thousands of tons of alum and other goods to Liverpool, I have never yet made a single claim upon the Liver- pool carriers for loss ; and as a truck or boat loaded Avithmy manufactures carries its maximum weight, and therefore involves not a fraction of cost in carrying over that of the lowest rated 3 N 4 good , 472 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Spence. [ Continued, Chairman — conlluuecl. goods, I submit that I am being regularly taxed to the extent of 3 s. 4 d. per ton upon every ton of Liverpool goods I send away. As the same distinction in the rating prevails throughout the kingdom, the aggregate loss upon my inland trade is very serious indeed. But I consider that my loss is even greater than this, and that the true measure of it is the amount of the excess levied upon me in every case over the statutory penny per ton per mile for heavy undamageable goods. Kates like the following must, I presume, comidetely upset the pretension that an extra premium has to be included for the risk of loss when carrying expensive goods. The station to station rate from Manchester to Glasgow in two- ton lots for copperas, an article worth less than 30 s. per ton, is 21 s. 8 d. per ton ; and for raw sugar, worth 20/. per ton, it is (after deducting 3 s. 4 d. for terminal expenses, this being a col- lected and delivered rate,) 13 s. 4 d. ; and this, too, for either small or large quantities. I have also to notice a serious overcharge upon gas coke by the Great Northern Railway Company ; they charge 20 per cent, more for gas coke than coal, while other companies have but one mineral rate ; this effects the sale of gas coke from large towns to Newark and other places for malting or iron purposes. The Great Northern Company con- tend that they do not carry as much weight of coke as coal in a truck ; but it is no argument to satisfy the public, as they should make suitable trucks. IMr. Monk. 10433. Do you complain that these charges are higher than the company are entitled to charge? — AVe do not know what they are en- titled to charge ; we cannot really ff nd out what they are entitled to charge. 10434. Have you tried to find out? — We have tried to ascertain it over and over again. 10435. And you have been unable to obtain the information ? — Practically we have been un- able to obtain the information. AYe have just to go to them and obtain a special rate to any place, and it is just what they think it will bear, as it appears to us. There is no matter of justice or equality ill it. Now, for alurii, worth 5 1. 10s. per ton, the rate is 15 s. I have made the most strenuous efforts to get the companies to carry alum at the sugar rate, but without result. Mr. Holton. 10436. AVould that be to the same places? — A'es. Now my next point is, “Proportionate amount of claims for loss or damage paid to me by carriers.” Having carefully gone over the whole of the claims paid me by all the railway companies of the kingdom for loss upon goods of all kinds manufactured by me during the last 10 years, I find that the one-thousandth of a penny per ton jier mile would considerably more than recoup them for all they have been out of pocket. I have to complain also of the ])resent prolubitory rates of the railway companies for the carriage of ammonia Avaler. T his article is pro- duced in enormous quantities by the gas works, and is manufactured into the well-known manure, sulphate of ammonia. NotAvithstanding that it Mr. Bolton — continued. is merely the raw material of a manure, and is in- variably carried in owners' trucks, the carriage rates fixed for it are always greatly in excess of a penny jier ton per mile. Now, as regards new products brought out since the passage of most of the comjianies’ Acts, it is notorious that a large number of important chemical and other products have sprung into existence since most of the Railway Acts Avere obtained; and the raihvay companies have, in nearly every instance, ranked these, irrespectively of value, in the highest class. In fact, the incidents attending the ob- taining of a rate for any kind of goods Avhich are not already in the rate books, shoAv the Avhole system of railway classification to be a gigantic farce. Passing on in tlie next place to the rail- Avay mode of procedure in making a new rate, I Avould say that, upon receiving an application, the railway company, instead of referring the matter to an expert in London, Avhom the com- panies might retain for the purpose, sends out a scout to make some ludicrous inquiries as to the nature and character of the goods. 'I he crass ignorance and credulity displayed by these men leads to a great deal of false statement; and, indeed, consignors are themselves not unfre- quently asked by the railAvay repi’esentative to lie, in order that his company may get a Ioav rate, and thus secure the benefit of his suggestion. A new product Avhich I brought out a fcAv years ago at a A'ery low price, I Avas recommended to call “ alum AA'aste,” but refused to do so ; and after persistent efforts, extending over tAvo years, I at last got it specially rated. After I had enjoyed this for a feAv months, my trade rivals are noAV using an imitation of my trade mark to get an article of tAvice its cost carried at the same figure. I need scarcely add that they have done so Avith perfect impunity so far as the raihvay companies, are concerned. AVith regard to loss of business in Avaiting for rate quotations, that is another seiious evil connected Avith the present system. Manufacturers nre often unable to make a definite offer of pi’ice to a distant con- sumer until the existing rate, if any, has been ascertained. Very commonly it is found that no rate has been arranged; and as by universal raihvay practice no comjiany can quote until the other interested companies have been consulted ; Aveeks may elapse before the raihvay “ con- ference” meets; and the consumer, unable to wait, goes to another locality for his goods. AA'hen the “conference” does come together, the representatives of the other companies often re- gard Avith the utmost jealousy a proposal Avhich Avill bring business only to the initiating company; and they accordingly do their best to get the rate pitched high. So evident is this motive at times, that I IniA'e in some cases been advised by a raihva)' company’s reimesentative to apjily for a rate simultaneously to another company. My next point is as to injury to the public from sudden and arbitrary changes in rates. Another pernicious feature of the existing regime is the Av.ay in Avhich the railway companies raise rates at times, not only Avithout conferring Avlth the interested jiarties, but Avithout giving them even a moment’s notice. I am acquainted Avith agents who often purchase a year’s supply of goods SELFXT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 473 22 June 1881.] Mr. Spence. [^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. goods delivered monthly at a consumer’s station, with so small a margin for commission, that a change in the railway rate may more than sweep away their profit, and land them in a loss. Now it is my belief that there is no remedy possible under the present state of things. Manufactu- rers and merchants are alike helpless in the midst of these arbitrary and inequitable arrangements. They have no relief from competition, for it does not anywhere exist. Though I am almostdaily cor- responding all over the country for rates, I do not know a single case where the railway monopoly is not complete, and where there are two railway com- panies offering competitive rates. I now beg to cite an illustration afforded by the Manchester and Liverpool case. Although the men of Man- chester and Liverpool were the first to construct a great railway, I speak advisedly when I say that, so far as goods transit between these cities is concerned, the invention of the locomotive has proved to be an unmixed evil. The charges per ton per mile, of the four railway companies who are fattening upon this traffic, are nearly four times those between Manchester and Glasgow, and the South Lancashire trader is in this way annually fleeced of hundreds of thousands of pounds. The following figures show that a waggon and horses road service could carry the goods for 25 per cent, less than the present charges of the companies. On the nearly level road beLveen Manchester and Liverpool a man, two horses, and a waggon could, in three days, take four tons of goods from Manchester to Liverpool, and bring four tons back, at a cost of 15 s. per day, or 45 s. in all. As the station to sta- tion rate of the companies is 7 s. Qd. per ton their charge for. carrying four tons to Liverpool, and bringing four tons back, is 60 s. I he saving by a horse tram-road, as existing before the days of Stephenson, would be much more than this, as a horse can draw upon rails nearly eight times more than upon an ordinary road. A plate rail- way has recently been proposed, which would admit of tlie use of ordinary road Avagon wheels, and thus save all terminal expenses at stations. By a ship canal betwixt Manchester and Liver- pool, the economy of carriage would obviously be far greater than by any other system ; steam navigation being beyond controversy, the cheapest known mode of inland transit. I may add, that tbe Manchester ship canal scheme has the ap- proval of able engineers. All three modes of relief are, however, practically denied to the South Lancashire manufacturer. If a Bill Avere promoted in Parliament for a horse tram av ay or ship canal, either proposal Avould meet Avith the determined oppositition of four poAverful railway companies ; and if any one of the three schemes Avere actually inaugurated, it would have to face a long struggle Avith the companies, Avho Avould reduce their rates in the hope of starv- ing it into the “ conference,” and the consequent acceptance of their former oppressive tariff. This actually took place' under a spurt of com- petition 20 years ago, Avhen the rate Avas reduced to 2 s. 6 d. per ton. Noav, since Parliament has interfered Avith the laAvs of supply and demand to the extent of protecting these four companies against unlimited competition by other railway promoters, I submit that the Lancashire manu- 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. facturer has a right to demand that it shall require them to make reasonable rates, and also to abstain from using their enormous capital to crush any attempt he may make to j)rovide a radically cheaper mode of carriage. On this branch of the suliject I Avould say that, if the result of this Committee’s labours is to fix the raihvay rates of the country, and to prevent them being loAvered merely for the sake of destroying Avater carriage competition, there is no doubt that the scheme of a Manchester Ship Canal Avill be undertaken at once, and I for one Avill be happy to take shares in it. Mr. Barclay. 10437. Having so far stated in detail the facts as they affect you, Avill you give the Committee a statement as to Avhat reforms might, in your opinion, advaritageously be adopted to remedy the existing defects? — The folloAvlng changes appear to me necessary to put the railway classifi- calion and rates upon a basis Avhich would be just and equitable both to the public and the com- panies, namely : Firstly, that the Avhole of the raihvay companies of the United Kingdom should be required to caiTy at a rate not exceeding a penny per ton per mile for distances of six miles and over, for limestone, road metal, clay, sand, dung, compost, and all other goods Avhich are unstealable, uninflammable, imperishable and otherwise undamageable, and Avhich are at the same time heavy enough to give the truck its maximum load. Secondly, that all actual addi- tional expense to the companies, Avhether arising from these or other risks or costs, should, under the ])OAvers given to the Railway Commissioners by the Act of 1873, be accurately ascertained by them by inspection of the companies’ cost books and accounts of claims paid during the last ten years, and by any other available means ; and that these extra risks, and costs, being precisely determined by them for each class of goods should in each case be discounted and added to the standard rate. Thirdly, that as the companies are restricted by their Acts to the same rates for the carriage of lots of 500 lbs. as for larger quan- tities, and as it is desirable that a scale of rates should be adopted Avhich Avould give consignors of large lots the full benefit of the lesser cost of carrying their merchandise, the Commissioners should be empoAvered to ascertain the compara- tive costs upon lots of 500 lbs. and over, two tons and over, four tons and over, truck loads, train loads, and other quantities ; and to fix the stan- dard rate in a just average position Avith a scale of increase or decrease for smaller or larger con- signments. Fourthly, that they should also fix the scale of charges to be paid in all cases for terminal expenses, namely, sheeting, loading and unloading, collecting and delivering, storing and demurrage. Fifthly, that they should have poAver to detei’mine all other additions to or deductions from the standard rate, and generally to fix all rates, charges, and other traffic regulations Avhich concern foi’Avarders or receivers of goods ; that the Avhole of such rates and regulations should be in force for one year, and be published annually in a single A'olume to be sold at cost price for the benefit of all concerned. Sixthly, that any com- panies whose Acts do not limit them to a penny per 3 O ton 474 MINUTES OP EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 22 June 1881.] Mr. Spence. [ Continued, Mr. Barclay — continued, ton ])cr mile for heavy undamageable goods and who decline to be bound by this rate, should have the privilege of retaining their present charges, but that they should he permanently held to these, and not permitted to reduce them if any new company should construct a competitive line to carry at the standard rate. Seventhly. That the various companies by a majority vote repre- senting two-thirds of the total mileage, should, after dnlj^ notifying the Commissioners, he em- powered to make general reduetions in rates on the basis of the standard scale; but that . as it is contrary to the piddic interest to permit a powerful I'ailway company to temporarily reduce its rates in order to cxTlnguish the local competi- tion of a steamboat line or canal, they should henceforth he permitted to make only simulta- neous and hona fide reductions. Eighthly. That in quoting or charging rates, the companies should in all cases be required to state the dis- tance, and specify the terminal expenses. Ninthly. That the loading of all goods should be supervised by the companies’ servants ; or that the companie.s should be responsible for the con- sequences of any shifting of the load. Tenthly. That the Railway Commissioners should now be made a permanent court, with power to adjudi- cate and make awards in all cases of grievance against the companies, including claims for past overcharges ; and also upon all other railway or canal questions. Eleventhly. That the Board of Trade should first receive and examine all complaints against the companies ; and, whenever after due investigation it should appear that the law is being violated by them, and that redress is refused, that the Board should commence jiro- ceedings against them before the Commissioners. If the Commissioners should sustain the action of the Board, and their verdict should be ap- pealed against, that the appeal should then lie direct to the House of Lords ; and that the Board and not the ag:ffrieved individual should defend the case. Twelfthl 3 ^ That the Board should not require that any complaint shall be submitted through a solicitor ; but that this should he left optional ivith the individual, as in the case of the ordinary courts. 10438. Having so far dealt with railways, have you anything to sa}" with regard to the present method of levjdng canal tolls? — The present mode of levying tolls upon the canals is in- equitable in the extreme ; and I am informed by the secretary of one of the largest companies not under railway control, that his people would be glad to be relieved from the requirements in their Act, which comjiel their adherence to the present system. At present toll is charged, not upon the boat as it shoidd be, but upon the actual numl)er of tons carried, large or small ; empty boats paying a merely nominal sum. The classification of goods also follows the absurd lines of the railway sj'stem, notwithstanding that the conditions of transit in the two cases are essentially different. In tlie case of railways in addition to the element of rolling stock, which is at its minimum with heavy goods, the railway company has to bear the risk of fire, theft, damage, perishability, loss of market through delay, &c. ; but in the case of canals, the owners of the navigation have only two points to consider, the wear and tear of the canal caused by the jMr. Barclay — continued, passing of a boat, and the quantity of water ex- pended by its descent through the locks. Next, with regard to the just method of levying- canal tolls. Asa boat passing down a single lock ex- pends as much water as one going through fifty; and os a liglit boat requires as much water as a loaded one, it is obvious that each boat should be charged for a lockful of water, whether it is full or empty, and whether it has jiassed through one lock or a hundred. As moreover the wear and tear of the navigation is as great with empty boats as with full ones, it is equally clear that the true mode of levying dues is to ascertain the maximum number of tons of heavy goods which the largest boat can carry upon the canal and take through its locks, and to make this the un- varying standard of charge per mile for all boats traversing the canal, whether light or loaded, and altogether irrespective of the kind of goods they carry. The j'l'nctical operation of this arrange- ment rvould be to economise water to the utmost, to discourage light loads, and to put a premium upon full ones ; any increased revenue received from the light boats being available for a general reduction of the tolls. As, moreover, it rvould be only necessary under this system for the canal company to record the passage of each boat ; the canal clerks and others noxv employed to check the declarations of cargo might be dispensed with altogether. This method of levying tolls would also greatly simplify the calculations of public carriers upon canals, and thus facilitate trade. They would know at once what dues they rvould have to pay over a given distance, instead of, as now, having to face a complication of tolls for different kinds of goods ; and often varying with each canal over which they pass. The injurious operation of the present canal classification of goods is seen in facts like the following : Upon the Bridgewater navigation from Manchester to Runcorn, a distance of 30 miles, the dues upon limestone are 6d. per ton. Upon pyrites, raw and calcined, and minerals of similar low value, of which, at Manchester, I receive or send away about 150 tons per week ; they average 2 s. per ton ; and this, notwithstanding that a boat loaded with such materials carries its maximum weight, and therefore takes no more "water per ton than limestone, nor involves an iota of increased cost in any other way to the canal company. These facts apply equally to the case of alum, but the toll upon this product is 2 s. 6 d. per ton. Such tolls are, I take it, a clear violation of the spirit of the proviso in the Act of 1873 as to pi-e- ferential arrangements. The Railwaj" Com- missioners and the Court of Queen’s Bench have also ruled that increased charges cannot be sustained where there is no element of in- creased cost to the comjiany. That was Ever- shed’s case. The 2 s. unjustly imposed upon my export trade in alum is a very serious matter to me at the present moment, as alum is now selling at a lower price than it has ever previously reached, hly next point will be to endeavour to show the results of allouing canal comjianies to be carriers as well as toll collectors. As the Bridgewater Company are not only toll collectors but also carriers on a very large scale betwixt Manchester and Liverpool, having a ffeet of tugs and also extensive quays and warehouses, of which they have the practical monopoly, I have no SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 475 22 June 1881.] Mr. Spence. [ Continued. Mr. Bardaij — continued, no doubt the object of this excessive toll is to drive my Liverpool consignments into their boats. I consider it a very vicious principle that canal owners should also be canal carriers ; as, besides practically reserving to themselves the quays and warehouses, competitive carriers feel that in one way or another they are sure to be handicapped by the preferential arrangements made in its own favour by their more fortunately situated rival. I think the same arguments a])piy to a large ex- tent to railway ports and docks. Be this as it ma-\', the result of the system in the case of the Bridgewater Canal is, that the canal company {having at the time of its formation, eight or nine years ago, bought up the interests of all the exist- ing carriers but two, and both of these are in the ‘‘conference” and emjdoy the Bridgewater tugs) has ])ractically now no competitors for the car- riage of general traffic betwixt Manchester and Liverpool. My next point is, as to how the rail- Avay interest manages to evade Section 16 of the Act of 1873. The history of the Bridgewater Company illustrates how completely the spirit of Section 16 of the Act of 1873, which makes it illegal for railway companies to take over, or in any way control the traffic of, a canal may be evaded by the railway interest. The company was formed by railway men at the time of the passing of that Act, and with the direct object of overcoming the difficulty it jirescnted. Its capital was subscribed mainly by shareholders of the Midland, and Manchester, Sheffield, and Lin- colnshire Bail way Companies. Its directors are all, or nearly all of them, railway men ; and both in the management of its tolls and in its carrying department it has, throughout, exhibited all the worst Ceatures of the railway policy. It has, in fact, in every way realised the fears expressed Avith regard to it by the Railway Companies Amalgamation Committee of 1872 (page xx). So far from promoting water competition with the railways, its representative upon the so-called Railway Conference ” (or “ ring,” as I prefer to designate it), Avhich controls the whole of the rates betAvixt Manchester and Liverpool and elseAvherc, has, in my experience, shoAvn himself to be decidedly the most re-actionary member of that body. Not very long ago I brought out a neAV chemical product for the purification of scAvage and other waste Avaters. The material Avas sold at a A'ery Ioav price ; Avas heaAW, un- stealable, uninflammable, imperishable, and, being otherwise an article upon which no claims could possibly arise against the carriers, Avas every Avay entitled to be carried at a low rate. After great efforts I got the railway companies to agree that it should be carried at a reduced figure. Not long after, the agent of the Bridgewater Com- pany having called atmyAvorks, mention Avas made to him in the course of conversation, of the ueAV rate. He denied that any such rate had been arranged; but a Avritten quotation of it by one of the com- panies having been shoAvn him, he said he Avould look into the matter. The result was that I speedily received an intimation from one of the railAvay companies that the rate had been raised. Tlie simple fact was, that the “Conference ” had reduced the rate Avithout consulting the Bridge- Avater representative, and he subsequently pro- testing, the rate Avas advanced. So completely has this company bound itself to the raihvay com- panies’ arrangements, and levelled itself up to 0.54. Mr. Barclay — continued, their high rates, that it actually levies the rail- Avay companies’ charge upon goods in Liverpool, in cases Avhen they are taken by its boats direct from the ship, and Avhen no cartage service has been performed. The precise amount of black- mail imposed upon the Manchester consumer by this monopoly of carrying companies Avill be evi- dent Avhen I say that an experienced firm of cai'riei's by Avater oft'ered, if the dues Avere re- duced to Q d. per ton, to carry me 1,000 tons of goods per Aveek betwixt Manchester and Liver- pool for 3 5. 9 d. per ton, Avhich is exactly half the present charge. '1 he spirit of Sections 16 and 11 of the Act of 1873, prohibiting any rall- AA'ay company from conti’oliing or interfering Avith the traffic of a canal company, and requiring them to afford all reasonable facilities tor the foi’Avarding of through traffic, is I consider dis- tinctly evaded by the railway com{)anies in such cases as the following : — There are two lines of water communication betAvixt Manchester and Birmingham, and many years ago I Avas enabled to forward alum by canal from my Manchester Avorks to the Midland metropolis. As hoAvever the Avhole of the seven intervening canals are noAV under railway control, the tolls have been so leA'elled up, that Avater carriage com])etition has been entirely destroyed. The carriage rates are jirecisely the same as those by rail ; so the canals, instead of getting justice, are actually handicapped by their comparative sloAvness of transit. I may illustrate the railway mode of facilitating through traffic on canals by stating my experience in connection Avith a recent inquiry. A fcAV Aveeks ago my representative, having called on the agent of the INlanchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company to ascertain the through rate of dues for alum to Birmingham, Avas informed that they could not quote them except for their OAvn canal, as the other canal OAvners Avould object to supply them Avith the informa- tion, and that my only course Avas to Avrite to each of the other three companies. On Avriting to these, I found that tAvo of them quoted not a rate per ton, but per 2,400 lbs. As the IMau- chester to Birmingham Canal competition has been dealt Avith in this fashion, it Avill readily be understood that the Manchester to London traffic has fiired even Avorse. Formerly there Avas an excellent canal goods service betAA'ixt the tAvo places, the through journey being done in three days and nights. There is noAV not even the j)retence of any through traffic by this route. Last year I made a strenuous effort to get a boat load of goods through from Manchester as far as Aylesbury to a customer there, but I found that OAving to high dues it Avould cost me 16 s. ^d. per ton by water, against 13 s. 4 d. by rail. The facts regarding the obstructive and o])pressive policy of the Birmingham Canal navigations, controlled by the London and North Western Company, are notorious in the black country, and 1 need give only one example of its charges for toll. From the Stourbridge Canal to Bir- mingham, a distarxe of 10 miles over this company’s navigation, Stourbridge bricks pay 2 s. Oi d. per ton, or 4-lOths of a mile for 1 d. The same goods from Birmingham to London, a distance of 150 miles over four independent canals, pay 2 s. IJ ete Avlth those places, and they Avould never have started those AVorks at the outports, but Avould have started them in the south. 10832. Are not the rates upon galvanised iron and black iron the same betAveen South Stafford- shire and Liverpool? — YYs. 10833. Is it not also the fact, that all the black sheet-iron that is galvanised in Liverpool, goes from Staffordshire to Liverpool ? — A good deal of it comes from Warrino-ton. O 10834. But the bulk of it comes from South Staffordshire ? — Some of it comes from South Staffordshire. ^ 10835. Hoav can you make out, AA-hen the bulk of the black sheet-iron comes from Staffordshire to Liverpool, at the same price as your galvanised iron goes from South Staffordshire to Liverpool, that these high rates have prevented yovr ? — Be- cause they get their miu'iatic acid at a cheap rate, Avhereas Ave have to pay a high rate for acid in our district. The people in St. Helen’s, I under- stand, are glad to get rid of the acid almost for nothing. 10836. Then they have started these Avorks in Liverpool on account of the Ioav price of miu'iatic acid, and not on account of the exceptional rates ? — Except that Ave say, that if Ave had the same loAV rate to Liverpool as Avas charged to Cardiff, and those “ nursed ” ports, Ave should be able to compete Avith the outsiders. 10837. But if the rate Avas reduced upon gal- A’anised iron, it Avould also be reduced upon black sheet-iron, Avould it not ? —But Llverj)ool is hardly the port to take for the purpose of this comparison. 10838. I think you have shoAvn clearly that five out of the eleven neAv Avorks Avhich have been started, as you said to begin Avlth, OAving to the high rates have been started owing to the muriatic acid being cheaper there? — I am afraid you rather score off me there. 10839. I do not see hoAV, Avlth the exception of muriatic acid, you can shoAV that the Liver])Ool Galvanised IronAVorks are more favourably situated than you are, as they have to pay the 3 Q 4 same Mr. Heathfield. 496 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 June 1881.] Mr. Heathfield. \_Continued, Mr. Caine — continued. same rate upon their black iron, as you have to pay upon galvanised iron? — But they have a large quantity of their sheets from Warrington. 10840. Now, where do the Middlesbro’ gal- vanisers buy their sheets ? — They make them in Middlesbro’. 10841. Then again I do not see that you could complain ? — If we could get cheaply to an out- port we could beat all these people ; w'e have better plant for making sheet-iron than Mid- dlesbro’. I would say that if we could get 5 s. off the rates I should not have the least hesitation in saying that we could beat Middlesbro’, owdng to our sui)erior plant for making slieet-iron. 10842. I do not see that you have made out your case for saying that eleven new works have been started elsewhere, owing to the high rates ? — 1 hope you think I have made it out that we are entitled to the same rates to the principal outjjorts as we get to Cardiff. 10843. You complain of the rates between the Great M estern and the North Western, both carrying at 9 s. 2 d. to Cardiff, but do not you think that one railway company ought to be allowed to compete with another at the same rate to the same place ?— I do not object to that, but I say that if it pays them to carry, 169 miles, to Cardiff at five-eighths of a penny a ton a mile, they surely can carry the same distance for us for f d. to London. 1 -want them to carry to London for 9 s. 2 d. 10844. Is not there a very great difference between the cost of the goods stations at Cardiff and the cost of the large goods stations in Lon- don ? — You must admit that Camden Station, wdien the railway was made, must have been out in the green fields, therefore your heavy expense of getting into London begins at Camden wm will say. I can tell you exactly what the rail- way conqjanies consider that expense is, it is Is. 6 d. a ton ; now' if you take delivery at Car- dift' Station the company will allow you 1 s. a ton drawback, therefore that brings the Cardiff rate down to 8 s. 2d. If you add to that the 1 s. 6 d., which is the cost of going from Camden to Pojdar, you get a rate of say 9 s. 6 d, for delivery at Poplar, and you have to add another 1 s. for boatage alongside the ship, and that makes 10s. 6d., even if you pay the railway company for the expense of going through Lon- don. But then they have a heavy traffic in exchange for that heavy expense. 10845. How ditl you get those figures? — I got them in this way. I wrote to the railway company and asked what drawback they would allow' if I took delivery at Camden, and they said 2 s. 6 d., and I then asked the drawback, if I would take delivery at Poplar, because, of course, delivery at Poplar means saving the ex- pense of boating alongside to them, and they said that for delivery at Poplar they would allow' 1 s. drawback, the difference between 1 s. and 2 s. G d. is 1 s. 6 d., and that 1 s. 6 d. is for car- riage from Camden to Poplar. 10846. Now with regard to nails, there is one little point which it is worth wdiile emphasizing ; you said the railway couipanies allow you 1 s. a ton for doing your own cartage on nails, but that they would allow you 1 s. 6 d. for doing the same Mr. Caine — continued. with tin plates? — The railway company allow Is. on galvanized iron, and 1 s. on nails to London ; to all other places they allow Is. 6 d. on nails. I do not know why, because the cost of cartage is the same whei'ever it soes to. 10847. Are not tin plates made up in exactly the same weight of package as nails ? — Yes, in cwt. boxes. 10848. They are just as easy to handle, and easier, in fact? — Yes ; and then again much gal- vanized iron is in half ton cases, and a truck is more easily loaded w'ith galvanized iron than with tin jfiates. 10849. Now, do not you think that the whole classification of iron wants very careful going over in the classification book? — I have the classification book, but I have looked at very little exce])t the iron list in Class B. 10850. Do you make rivets? — 1 do not. 10851. Do you buy rivets? — Yes, I do. 10852. Rivets are charged at the same rate as spikes, special, are they not? — I do not know'. 10853. Is there any substantial difference between rivets, spikes, and nails? — Not for the purpose of carriage. 10854. Are they not all the same articles, that is to say, about the same w'eight, price, and risk of carriage? — About the same. 10855. When you send nails from Birmingham to New'port at double the rate of spikes, do the railway company' take any special care of the nails ; do they sheet them or put them in covered waggons? — I'hey may do so, because I believe they put them on the damageable rate. 10856. Do the company' sheet spikes ? — Yes; and I am told take bright locomotive nuts and bolts at the same rate, and they are sheeted most carefully to preserve them from injury. 10857. Locomotive nuts are taken at the bar iron rate, are they not ? — I understand so. 10858. Now galvanised wire is classed No. 1, while fencing wire at ow'ners’ risk is classed special, is it not? — It is. 10859. If galvanised wire was classed special at owner’s risk, would you not send every pound of it at owner’s risk ?— Certainly. 10860. It is almost impossible to damage galva- nised iron w'ire by w'et? — Entirely; you know' you see the telegraph wire lying along the lines unprotected. 10861. Then here is an undamageable article classed as a damageable article, virtually' ? — It is. 10862. Do you do much in general in iron ware ? — No. 10863. I w’ould like to ask you about this question of rates from Antw'erp to Birmingham, and to other great centres in England. I do not ask for details, but is it within your knowledge that the rates from Antwerp on nails to various other great centres, such for instance, as to Leeds or Newcastle, are exceptionally low' as compared with the rates the other way ? — I have never had occasion to take these rates because they do not belong to the district. 10864. You try' to sell nails in London, do you not? — No, we do not much, as it is useless now'. 10865. Can you not? — No, exce})t for export. 10866. As regards that iiarticular trade in London the Germans and Belgians have got it, have SELECT COMMITTEE ON EAILWAYS. 497 23 Ju7l^ 1881.] Mr. Heathfield. \_Conlimied. Mr. Caine — continued. have tliey not? — Yes, but by a very small margin ; 5 a ton would carry it in favour of Birnungliam. 10867. Do any nails come from Antwerp to Birmingham ? — No, not now, but they did at one time. 10868. You ean keep foreign nails out of Bir- mingham ? — Yes. 10869. But you cannot keep them out of London? — We could keep them out at 5 s. a ton less carriage. 10870. If the carriage of nails were reduced to the rate of spikes, could you do it? — No. 10871. A reduction of 3 s. 4 d. would not do it? — No, it wants 5 s. ; I think we could do it at that. 10872. The ordinaiy nail trade of Liverpool has gone very much to Belgium, has it not ? — Yes. 10873. That trade comes very much by sea ? — Yes. 10874. Would a reduction of 3 5. 4 c?. enable you to keep that trade out there? — There is 4 5. 4 c?, difference in the rates between nails and spikes to Liverpool. 10875. But as a matter of fact, the Germans are eating your trade up ? — They are in those ports. Mr. Monk. 10876. Have you made any complaints to the Hallway Commissioners upon the subject of these rates? — No, we have not done so ; it is very diffi- cult for a single trader to do so. 10877. Have the railway companies any legis- lative sanction to the peculiar classification to which you object? — I never heard that they have ; it is impossible, almost, to wade through all their Acts ; they might wedge in sanction for it into some entirely different Act, where you would least think to look for it. 10878. Then what is the authority for this general classification of goods ? — I understand that they have w'hat they call a railway com- mittee, and that those people all meet and settle what they shall charge for the various classes of goods. 10879. Would you give the Railway Commis- sioners power to deal with the different elasses ? — Yes, most decidedly, where it can be proved, as I have proved, that a railway company can afford to carry 115 miles for a certain sum, I should compel them to carry 115 miles in another direction for a similar sum where the circum- stances are much alike. 10880. Would you give the Railway Commis- sioners, by legislation, power to settle and revise the different classes of goods? — Yes, I think so. 10881. Have you any special contracts your- self with-any of these railway companies? — No, you cannot have them ; it is impossible to make a contraet with them ; they will not give you the slightest preference. Mr. Bolton. 10882. Would it be desirable that traders should have that power? — No ; I would not ask to make a special contract. 10883. But would it be desirable in the interest 0.54. Mr. Bolton — continued. of the public, that traders should have the power of making special contracts ? — I do not think it would at all. I think that all traders who send over a given weight, should send at one rate. 10884. I think I understood you to say, that the London market was closed to you for nails ? — The London market is virtually closed to us except for export. 10885. And Belgium as well as London ? — Yes, for the class of nails they require, 10886. If you got a reduction of 5 5. a ton in the railway rate, you could exclude Belgium, could you ? — I know we could at the present time. 10887. But you could not do it for 3 5. Ad. ? — W e could not do it for 3 5. 4 (?. 10888. What is the present value of the nails? — It is SI. 155. for the English nails, and for the Belgian nails SI. IO5. 10889. That is less than one per cent, differ- ence? — Yes; but the nail trade is very finely cut. I should much prefer having a larger mar- gin, because, although the present rate of 5 5 , a ton would now compete as against Belgium, it does not follow that it would do so always. 10890. I think you stated that you supplied American nails? — We have a number of ma- chines for making the same kind of nails as the Americans do ; we have cut the Americans out of Cuba and other places. 10891, Are the nails which you make in Bir- mingham particularly suitable for the London market? — Yes; they are exactly the same kind. We have our machines so arranged that we can either make American nails or nails suited to the London market. 10892. Could you give the Committee the reason wdiy, if the Belgians can cut you out in London, they have not cut you out in Cuba ? — Because they have not the right kind of ma- chinery. 10893. So that all the Belgians have to do is to obtain new machinery, is that so? — They could cut us out of the American market then. 10894, You spoke of girders sent from Ant- werp to Birmingham, via Hartlepool ; is there a steamer from Hartlepool to Belgium? — There must be, because Messrs. Sutcliffe are the owners of the steamers. 10895, I am informed that there is no such thing as a steamer running from Hartlepool to Antwerp ?. — There must be, because I can give you the date of the transaction. 10896. Did you try any other place, because, I suppose, it did not matter to you whether they went back by Hartlepool or any other port ? — I merely got the rate to Hartlepool out of curiosity, to check it, as against the Antwerp rate, via Hartlepool. I have it here, 3,103 kilos, weighing 3 tons 1 cwt. 0 quarters 17 lbs., w'ere charged to me, 21. 10 5 , 11 d. from Antwerp, v/d Hartlepool, to Birmingham. Then, I said, what is the rate back to Hartlepool only? 10897. An honourable Member has suggested, probably, a solution of the difficulty, that it Avas a chance sending by Hartlepool, and that for returning it there Avas no ship ? — But the agents must have had a Ioav rate to enable them to charge only 16 5 , 8 d, a ton. 3 R 10898. I am 498 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 June 1881.] Mr. Heathfield. [ Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 10898. I am told that there have been no steamers between Hartlepool and Antwerp for years? — I cannot tell you whether the ^irdei’s came by a regular steamer or not, but the day the girders came was 8th May, so that it can be inquired into. 10899. I think it is abundantly clear that, as regards nails, spikes, and iron work genei'ally, about which we have been taking your evidence, a revision of the classification is necessai’y ? — I agree with that. 10900. I presume you would also admit that the revision should not be entirely downwards, it might be upwards as well? — I hardly see how it could be ; for instance, you could hardly revise the rate for galvanised iron so as to go upwards; still there may be things that are classified too low. 10901. Take spikes, as compared with nails? — No.- 10902. A railway company probably could not afford to carry everything at the low rate of spikes, because, at present, averaging sjukes and nails, they^ get a larger rate, do they not? — They may upon the two together, but they do very little nail trade ; they have killed the nail trade, so to speak, owing to the high rates which they have charged ; spikes are charged exactly the same as galvanised iron. Now the railway' com- pany get very heavy loads of galvanised iron, and if it pays them to carry galvanised iron and spikes at these very low rates, it must pay' them to carry' nails. 10903. It would be desirable, in your opinion, to have a revision of the rates, although the revision should end in averaging those articles ? — I think the railway company ought to be treated fairly ; if they allow the traders to have a revision, they ought to be entitled to the benefit of it themselves. 10904. It would be of advantage to the manu- facturers and to the public to have a revision of these rates, although the revision should raise the fates in some cases, as in the case of averag- ing the nails and spikes? — In my case I could not find anything that ought to be revised upwards. 10905. You want a reduction of the railway rate as respects galvanised iron to enable y'Oii to compete with such a port as Glasgow ? — Glasgow has to go to London for a great many ship- ments, and they pay about 10 s. a ton. 10906. To what ports do they go? — They do not ship to every port from Glasgow ; if you look at the shipping list you will find the ship- ments from London are 10 times the number that go from Glasgow. 10907. There is only one port in 10 to which ships go from Glasgow as compared with London ; is that what you would say ? — I would not say that absolutely; but practically that is the case. 10908. Where do you send your galvanised iron ? — The Australian market is the largest for us. 10909. Are there no steamers from Glasgow to Australia ? — No doubt there are a few, and they fill up very quickly. 10910. Could you give the names of any ports to which there is not shipping communication Mr. Bolton — continued. -with Glasgow ? — I think, if you look through the shipping list, you will find I am right in what I state. 10911. With reference to the cartage rate, do you think that the 1 s. and the 1 a. 6 d. to which you referred as the amount which the railway companies allow you if you do your own cartage as respects the work which you would do, is fairly to be compared with the work which the agents do for the railway companies for 2 s. 6 (/. ? — I took the trouble to find out what the agent did for the company at Greatbridge ; tlie agent finds one man w'ith his cart, and finds another man to assist in loading, and w'e find two men with a boat, and if it is wanted -n'e would find a third man, or a fourth man, for the allow'ance which they give to the agent ; I understand that the railway companies’ agents do absolutely nothing at Greatbridge beyond merely finding the man to load, and the man with the w'aggon ; I do not know what the company alloAV to Messrs. Pickford and Messrs. Chaplin and Horne, because they probably do clerkage work. 10912. Do they do nothing else than that? — I do not know that they do not ; I am perfectly willing to do anything they do if they give me the 2 s. Qd. 10913. Is not the agent bound to cart for the same rate from all round the town ? — Yes, or from the registered wdiarf, 10914. But is not the agent who collects for the railway company bound to collect for any distance, whether it be long or short? — The stations lie so close together in our district that he cannot have a very long distance to go in any case. 10915. But, if he had, he w'ould have to carry it ? — Yes, if he had. 10916. You spoke about the difficulty of ob- taining evidence, as one reason for not appealing to the Railway Commissioners; would not the Railway Commissioners compel the production of necessary evidence ? — I can hardly say what the pow'ers of the Railway Commissioners are ; if they have the power, I should be very much inclined to try a case against the railway companies. 13917. You are not aware whether they have or have not the power ? — I am not sure, but if you w'ill show me that they have the power I will undertake to try a case against them. 10918. In giving the rates, have you given the terminals? — They all, unless the contrary is stated, include collection and delivery except at Plymouth, where the goods are carted only. 10919. You seem to aigue that the present system by which the shortest route governs the rate should be abolished ? — I do not argue that at all ; I am willing to take the Great Western rate to Cardiff, which is the shortest route. 10920. But you base something upon the fact that the North Western Railway from Birming- ham to Cardiff, carry at '65 d. per ton per mile ; you argue from that that it must be a paying rate ? — But I only ask you to carry for me to London at ‘95 d. I do not ask you to carry at •65 d. per ton per mile. 10921. But for what reason did you give that evidence ? — I gave the evidence to show how low it was possible to carry. 10922. Ho-w SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 499 23 June 1881 .J Mr. Heathfield. l^Continued. Mr. Bolton — continued. 10922. How do you know that it pays the company to carry to Cardiff’ at that rate? — Be- cause my clerk tells me that the company are always pleased to get an order to carry to Car- diff, so I presume it pays them. 10923. Are you opposed to that system or in favour of it? — I am perfectly willing to take the shortest route and be charged at the rate charged for the shortest route. 10924. You would take the route and take it at so maii}^ fractions of a penny a mile, and say “ The Railway Company carry at that rate” ? — You would naturally take the best evidence you could. 10925. Is that what you would call good evidence? — I think so. 10926. But you argue from the fact that a railway company having a very long route still quotes a rate as against the short route probably for the convenience of the traders; is that to be used as evidence against the railway company, that every rate through the country is to be reduced to that rate? — I have asked you to carry me to London, a distance of 112 miles, at 9s. 2d., being the same price as you carry 169 miles for. 10927. In answer to the honourable Chairman, you have told us that all these low rates are by the long route ? • — But when the honourable Chairman asked me what rate I wanted to be carried at, I told him that I wanted to be carried at the same rate as to Cardiff, which is about the same distance as from Birmingham to London. I just made the best of my case by showing you that it is possible for a railway company to carry at g d. per ton per mile. Mr. Nicholson. 10928. You are a manufacturer, as I under- stand, of cut nails, but not of railway spikes? — We do not make railway spikes. 10929. Do you think it is fair that you should make up the profit to the railway company by your nails, which are alow-priced article, because they carry railway spikes for less than they can afford? — I do not think it is less than they can afford, because they cai’ry railway spikes at identically the same rate as galvanised iron. 10930, But the honourable Member put it to you in that way, supposing they carried them at a loss ? — Then I prove to you that they cannot be carrrying them at a loss, because they take the whole cf the galvanised iron and the bar iron in Staffordshire at the same rate. 10931. Are your firm members of the Bir- mingham Chamber of Commerce? — Yes, we belong to the Birmingham Chamber of Com- merce. 10932. Would you think it advisable that your Chamber of Commerce should have the power to go before the Railway Commissioners ? — No, because the Chamber of Commerce goes in too much for corn and timber and that sort of thing ; that is why I come here ; they might quarrel with the railway company’s rate for cocoa- nuts to Birmingham. In the Chamber of Com- merce they discussed those rates for corn and so on; they did not touch much upon hardware; they said hardware had no case, so I thought I would come here myself. 0.54. Mr. Lowther. 10933. I think you stated that in consequence of high rates, new works were started in various places, and that you have to compete also with foreign countries ? — Yes, we have. 10934. Do you think that the strikes have had nothing to do with foreign countries coming in to your markets? — Our men never strike; we pay less wages than the Ironmasters Association pay because we have a better plant, but then Ave find the men full work whether we are busy or slack ; we always make for stock if we are slack, so that the men never strike. 10935. You have complained against the Great Western, and the London and Nortli Western Companies at Birmingham ; have you any com- plaint about the Midland Company’s rates? — I never send by the Midland Raihvay, as the station is so far from us ; Ave have steam cranes upon oiir AA'harves, and aa'O load our goods ourselves; it Avould not suit us to send our goods by the Midland Railway. 10936. Y^ou have not got a very large business Avith London and Liverpool on account of those rates ? — We haA'e a large export trade necessarily in galvanized iron, which goes to Ijondon and Liverpool, and Ave say that the export trade might be larger still if we had loAver rates, and that the trade is also imperilled in the future by the fact, that the Belgians and Germans can come so cheaply into that market. 10937. Is the chief part of your business noAV with London and Liverpool ? — Y’es, much the largest quantity is with those places. 10938. I think you stated that Mr. Lovell Avas put into communication Avlth you by the Great Western Railway Company ? — I do not knoAV hoAV it Avas ; it is possible that there Avas a letter Avritten upon the subject, but our clerk could not find out that there Avas ; it might have been in this Avay, that we buy wire nails from Brussels, and it is possible that the Great Western Company might have made a mistake, saying Birmingham to Brussels, Instead of Brus- sels to Birmingham. * 10939. Or it is possible that Mr. Lovell might have volunteered his services ? — That might have been possible. 10940. Have you ever complained to the rail- Avay company themselves of the rate charged ? — Constantly ; I am very good friends Avith all the managers of the railway, and I sometimes chaff them about their rates, but it is no use objecting ; they have us under their thumb, and they mean to keep us there. 10941. Do you talk seriously to them, as Avell as chaff them ? — Yes, I do talk seriously to them; we are on friendly terms together, and I think they regard it as rather a joke, that they are able to get these high rates out of us ; they ahvays treat it rather in that Avay. Lord Randolph Churchill. 10942. Like the frogs in the fable, it may be sport to them, but it is death to you ? — Precisely so; we Avant to prevent ourselves from being gradually extinguished. Mr. Loxother. 10943. I think you have given the difference of price between Belgian and German, and 3 R 2 English 500 MIXUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 ^/o/e 1881.] Mr. IIeatiifield. \_Continiied, Mr. iMxcther — continued. Englisli nails? — The present price of Belgian nails in London is 8 5. 6 cL, and English nails 8 s. 9 d. ; I was told that this morning. 10944. What do you pay your men compared with the Belgians? — I have got the Belgian rates, and there is very little difference in price, this way, the Belgian are all hand-feeJing in machines, while ours are self-feeding ; they re- quire to have a man to each machine, where we have one man to six machines, so that we save in labour very much. 10945. Did you say that the Belgian sea freight was 5s. a ton? — ^The (General Steam Navigation Company said that the rate from Antwerp to London for Birmingham, was 5 s. a ton, and 15 per cent, primage. 1094G. That is the sea freight ; but nails come from otiier places, as from Charleroi and Liege ? — That is so. 10947. Therefore they are subject to a railway rate in Belgium? — Yes, that is so. 10948. .Now, these agents give the whole of their time to the railwaj^ companies, do they not ? — No ; I will tell you one wlio does not. There is a man named Bantock, who is agent for the Great Western Railway Company ; he is a colliery owner, and he has also trucks upon the line under another name. I forget the name of his firm, but he does haulage upon the line, and everything else, so that he does not give all his time to the railway. 1 do not mean to say anything disparaging to Mr. Bantock, but I merely mention him because he is the agent at Great Bridge of whom I have spoken. 10949. The railway companies’ agents collect goods in any quantities, and they deliver them at any distances? — Yes; they do it if it is necessary. 10950. You stated that it was impossible to wade throuQ:h all the railway Acts, did you not? —Yes, I did. 10951, It is a serious matter to you that those rates should be looked into, and reduced ? — Yes. 10952. AVould it not be worth your while to look into those Acts ? — I asked my lawyer to look into the Canal Act, and he said it would cost about 100 1. to see what their freights were, they were so complicated. 10953. Su])posing it did, you would soon make up 100/.? — Yes; but it would cost much more to look into the Kailway Acts, there are so many more of them. I do not say that the railway company have not the right to charge us 1^ d. a ton a mile, but I argue that if it pays them to do it for under 1 d., they ought to carry for us at under 1 d. 10951. It is not impossible to wade through Kailway Acts ; a man would survive that ? — I was ratlicr frightened of undertaking it. Mr. Cross. 10955, I think, in reply to an honourable !M ember, you stated that the cost of making nails in Belgium is not less than it was in Birming- ham ? — 1 don’t think it was. I had the rates over once ; in some sizes they were rather less, and in some rather more. 10956. Can you tell the Committee what are the wages paid for the making per ton? — No; Mr. Cross — continued. because there are a hundred sizes or so, and they Avould vary. 10957. But on an average compared Avitli yours ? — I should say the average price in Bel- gium would be 10 .s. a ton, and ours would be very much the same. 10958. What would it be on cut nails ? — The value of three-inch cut nails is 8 /. 15 s. in Lon- don, and the Belgian, 8 /. 10 s. 10959. Their that would substantiate your statement with regard to carriage being an item Avhich tells very heavily against you ? — Yes. 10960, Now there is a question with reference to bridge work and roof work ; when the classifi- cations were frst fixed, is it not quite possible that roof work was not of the same kind as it is now? — It is quite possible. 10961. That roof work was of a lighter descrip- tion, and generally used more for houses than bridge work ? — No ; if you look at the old sta- tions upon the North Western line, you will see a heavier class of goods than is put up now. 10962. And you wish that roof and bridge work should be classified together ? — Y^es, Ml'. Diilwyn. 10963. AVith regard to trade between Ant- werp and Hartlepool, I think you stated that you did not know that there was any existing trade between Antwerp and Hartlepool? — I only tell you that in this instance there appeared to be a trade between Antwerp and Hartlepool, and that the railway company must have given a low rate in consequence ; moreover we often have spelter from the continent to Hartlepool, so that there must be a number of steamers running from the continent to Hartlepool. 10964. If there were a regular trade, probably there would be a better arrangement about the rates? — There must be a trade, because they have a rate. I believe Hull, Hartlepool, and Grimsby, are all charged one rate. 10965. YYu stated that you had never had any strikes among your men? — We have not had a strike for 10 years. 10966. Is that because you always find them work ? — Yes. 10967. YYu said the ari-angement between the railway company, though it might be sport to them was death to you ; it would appear, how- ever, that it did not quite kill you? — We have manajied to crawl along, but we want to be able to do something in the future ; what we are afraid of is that we may be extinguished alto- gether. Mr. Pease. 10968. You stated just now that the price of a certain class of nails was 8 /. 15s,; Avhat is the highest price you have known these nails reach ? — I think they went up to about 20 s. in what we called the boom. 10969. They are all an exceptionally low price, are they not? — They are about as low as ever they were. 10970. And there is very little margin of profit upon that pi'lce ? — Very little; thei'e is absolutely none. 10971, Is SELECT COMMITTEE OX RAILWAYS. 501 23 June 1881.] Mr. Heathfield. [ Continued. ]\I r. Pease — continued. 10071. Is not that the case with many trades in the district ? — No doubt. 10972. Therefore the carriage comes very much more into consideration now than it did Avhen the price of nails was half as high again f — We naturally want to save every farthing Ave can. 10973. Do you watch the ralhvay companies’ expenditure, as shown by their returns? — No, I have not made a practice of doing so. 10974. You are not perhaps a railway share- holder? — I am not. 10975. Are you aware that generally railway companies Avorking expenses are 7 or 8 per cenr. at least higher than they Avere 10 or 12 years afro ? — I have seen that stated in the ncAvs- O papers. 10976. You have spoken of several ports as “nursed” jiorts ; may I ask AAdiat you mean by Mr. Pease — continued. “ nursed ” ports ? — I call them so, because they are treated so tenderly by the railAvay compa- nies. 10977. You spoke also of the galvanised iron manufacture at Middlesborough ; is there any there? — Yes, there is one manufactory there. 10978. Do you knoAV where that gentleman gets his plates from ? — They are rolled in Mid- dlesborough. 10979. If I told you that he got every plate he used from Staffordshire, Avould you be sur- prised to hear it ? — Yes, I should ; because I believe there are sheet mills in Middlesboroimh. O 10980. Would you be surprised to hear that he gets every sheet he uses from Staffordshire ? — Yes, I should be ; I should say it AA'as A'ery little to the credit of Middlesborougli if it Avere O so. Mr. William Hall, called in; and Examined. Mr. Gregory. 10981. You are Chairman, I think, of the Shoreham Harbour Trustees? — I am. 10982. Shoreham is near Brighton, is it not? — Yes, between Brighton and Littlehampton. 10983. Shoreham Harbour, I think, is con- nected Avith the inland by means of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Baihvay ? — Yes, it is. 10984. Have you investigated the rates of that raihvay comjiany ? — I haA'e to some extent ; I made a special point of visiting 39 stations towards the end of 1879. 10985. And Avhat Avas the result of that? — The principal thing that I found Avas, that there Avere at those stations 100 particular firms or persons having special rates. 10986. And those, in fact, Avere preferential rates as against the general public ? — As against the general public. 10987. Do you believe that those rates still continue, as far as you knoAv ? — To the best of my belief ; I have heard that some of them have been altered, but I have not visited the stations again. 10988. Those rates you found in the com- pany’s books on your investigation ? — Yes, all of them, or in the rate tickets in the hands of the station master ; Avhere I could get the rate ticket, I examined the rate ticket itself, taking that as the authority for the charge, and in most cases the rates were found in the book itself. 10989. Had you reason to believe that pre- ference rates Avere granted? — I had. 10990. In consequence of that you made this investigation? — I did. 10991. And that was the result of it? — That was the result. 10992. I think you have also looked to the rates betAveen Littlehampton, Avhich is the port beyond you and Brighton, and other points Avith which you are connected? — Yes, that is, of course, Avith regard to the application of the rates in reference to places, Avhich is also a com- 0.54. Mr. 67rc^o/7/— continued, plaint Avhich I make against the London and Brighton Company ; that is to say, that they have rates Avhich have the effect of favouring one place at the expense of another. 10993. Can you give the Committee the rate, taking Brighton, from Shoreham to Brighton and from NeAvhaven to Brighton ? — I Avill take, as a sample, the article of coals : the company charge the same sum for coals from NewhaA^en to Brighton, Avliich is a distance of 14 miles 58 chains, as they do from Kingston Wharf, Shoreham, to Brighton, Avhich is a distance of five miles and 10 chains, the charge being 2 s. 9 rf. in each case. 10994. NeAvhaA’en is to the eastAvard of Brighton, I think? — Yes. 10995. And the other port is on the AvestAA'ard ? — Yes. 10996. Noav taking Littlehampton, Avill you give the Committee the rate upon any article you like from Littlehampton, giving us first of all the distance from Littlehampton to Brighton ? — The distance from Littlehampton to Brighton is 21 miles, seA-en chains. 10997. And Shoreham? — The distance from Kingston station to Brighton is five miles, 10 chains. 10998. Kingston is the station for Shoreham Harbour ? — Yes, it is the station Avhere the Lon- don and Brighton rails connect Avith the harbour. Noav, taking the rate on sugar, the company charge 14 s. a ton for sugar from Honfleur to Littlehampton ; they are in the possession of a line of steamers Avhich run across the Channel to Honfleur. What I Avish to submit to the Com- mittee is this, that although the rate from Hon- fieur to Littlehampton for sugar is 14 s., for 15 s., AvhIch is 1 5. more, they Avill, in respect of that extra charge of 1 s., distribute the sugar free over their entire system, and that is a charge which tells against other harbours and places Avhich they serve; it does not affect the sugar question only. 3 R 3 10999. They 502 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 23 June 1881 .] Mr. Hall. ontinued. Mr. Gregory — continued. 10999. They will distribute from Littlehamp- tou? — For nothing, except for that 1 s. 11000. While they will not distribute from Shoreham ?— Not for this charge 11001. Therefore Littlebampton has a differ- ential rate to that extent ? — Precisely. Mr. Bolton. 11002. But this is a sea rate ? — No, 1 beg your pardon, it is a railway rate. 11003. What has the railway got to do with a rate between Honfleur and Littlebampton ? — Because the steamers are the property of the railway company, and are run by them. The contention is this, that whereas for 1 s. a ton they distribute sugar from Littlebampton station over the Brighton line, they charge their ordi- nary rates for distributing sugar from every other station upon the Brighton line. I mean to say that if a trader pays 15 s. a ton for his sugar from Horndeur, which is only 1 s. beyond the sea rate, he can send his sugar to every station, except London, for nothing ; London is ex- cluded. Chairnian. 11004. You put it that the charge being the same, the carriage beyond Littlebampton comes to nothing at all ? — Having paid the 1 s. at Lit- tlehampton, you can keep the sugar there as long as you like, and then distribute it for nothing. Lord Randolph Churchill. 11005. Does this rate apply to other places besides Littlebampton ; does it apply for instance to Shoreham ? — It does not ; Littlebampton is the only port or station at which that rate is made. Mr. Gregory. 11006. The company having the line of steamers from Honfleur to Littlebampton? — That is so. 11007. The extra 1 5. a ton beyond the rate from Flonfleur to Littlebampton covers the de- livery at any station upon the Brighton system ? . — U ndoubtedly . Mr. Caine. 11008. Who gives you the through rate from Honfleur ; the railway company or the steamship company ? — This rate is quoted as the arrange- ment in the company’s books at Littlebampton; those are the conditions of the contract entered in the railway company’s books at Littlebampton, and they are the owners of the steamers. Mr. Gregory. 11009. If I ship sugar from Honfleur to Little- hampton I get it carried all over the Brighton company’s system for 1 s. extra? — Yes, and de- livered ; and if you leave it at Littlebampton only, you pay 14 s,; if you shipped it to Shore- ham you would pay a great variety of rates. It would be, for example, 10 s. b d. to Hastings, whereas you would only pay 1 s. from Little- hampton. Mr. Gregory — continued. 11010. What Is the effect of that? — The effect of that is that it has destroyed all sugar importa- tion into Shoreham harbour. 11011. I do not know whether there is any other article which you would like to mention which is subject to the same conditions? — No, I took this as a sample of the effect of the through- rate system. I do not think it would be neces- sary to give any further details. 11012. And I think you do not 6nd the classi- fication of the rates satisfactoiy to you ?— Not at all ; I venture to submit to the Committee that there is a Avant of definition in the scale of charges. 1 find upon looking into the Mitcham and Tooting Act, which is the Act now regula- ting the rates of the Brighton Railway Company, that there are 129 articles mentioned. I think in the Clearing House classification book you will find about 34,080 different articles, and in the London and Bi-Ighton Company’s books there are 20,022. For the protection of the traders Ave want a more complete definition in the Acts. There are a great many articles Avhich you can- not find at all in the Act of Parliament, therefore traders have no means of protecting themselves against excessive charges. 11013. Take an article AvhIch is increasing yearly in value, the article of milk? — You Avill not find that in the Railway Comjiany’s Act at all. 11014. There is no rate at all for It? — There is no rate at all for it, except so far as that in Class 8, milk would be included as “ all other merchandise,” that is a sort of general clearing up class. 11015. You Avish to have the rates more clearly and better specified ? — I wish to have them more accurately defined. 11016. Do you know any instances of the rates upon milk operating prejudicially to the trade ? — I have heard of them, and I have had correspon- dence about them. I know there have been complaints at CraAvley, not very far from London, about 30 miles, from which station they charge 1| cZ. per gallon. 11017. What is the rate for milk from Derby? — It is rather less than 1 d, 11018. The milk comes up from Derby for 1 d., and from CraAvley for 1^ d. ? —Yes, but that is not the measure of the complaint, because they have stations upon the Brighton line further from London than CraAvley, which pay less. 11019. Derby being upwards of 100 miles? — Dei’by, by the Midland, is about 128 miles. 11020. Do you know what those stations are which pay less than CraAvley for the carriage of their milk? — They do not pay so much at East Grinstead, Avhich is further from London. Mr. iSamuelson. 11021. You stated that you ascertained from the books of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Comjjany, that they granted preferential rates to firms ; the Committee would like you to state a little more in detail how you ascertained that fact, and in fact Avhat you mean by pre- ferential rates given to firms? — 1 will read you the first case on my list. I have a list of 100 of them; the person in whose name the rate is granted. SELECT COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS. 503 23 June 1881.] Mr, Hall. [ Continued. Mr. Samuelson — continued. granted, is Mr. Addis; it was given by a rate ticket, marked A 4,598, and signed upon the 2nd of July 1877, granting him a rate, from Tun- brid