The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-03-21 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY PASSENGER DUTY.

On Tuesday a large and influential deputation, re-
presenting nearly the whole of the railway interest in
the kingdom, had an interview with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in Downing-street, urging the total
abolition of taxis upon locomotion. Among those
present were Mr. Leeman, M.P., Mr. Denison, M.P.,
Mr. Lowther, M.P., Mr. Laing, IS] .P., Mr. Thomas
Gladstone, and Messrs. Mitchell, Ellis, Oakley,
Knight, Searle, Griersoo, Wood, Birch°ll, Adams, &c.
Mr. Leeman introduced the deputation, which, he
said, represented £500,000,000 of railway capital, nearly
the whole of the United Kingdom. They had been
last year before the late Government, which had led
them to suppose that their interests would be favourably
considered. One ground of complaint was that the
Inland Revenue had for some time past claimed a duty
on third class passengers carried in third clam trains.
Mr. Leeman went into the history of the Cheap Trains
Act to show that this was not intended. He was backed
by three of the leading lawyers of the day, including
the present Lord Cnancellor. The case was down for
hearing in the Court of Exchequer, but the late
Government did not seem to care to try it. If it was
enforced after being 25 years in abeyance it would
deprive some railway companies of dividends altogether.
The only satisfactory way of removing the difficulty
was to abolish taxes on locomotion altogether as being
opposed to the interests of the country. The hon.
gentleman having dwelt on the subject at some length,
Mr. Moon, Mr. Laing, M.P., Mr. Michell, and Mr.
Adams addreshed Sir Stafford Northcote. They pointed
out the inequality of the tax, purely passenger lines
paying much more than goods traffic lines. Mr. Adams
said they had a repealing association consisting of
200,000 or 3C0,000 shareholders, who were determined
to agitate till the tax was taken off.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, said, I
feel it a very great advantage, coming newly into the
cfliee, to have a question cf this magnitude and im.
portance al very ably set forward as it has been by those
who have taken part in this deputation. I am sure
you will synorathise with me when I say how very
difficult I find it to take up the lines of argument which
have been opened, and to attempt to enter upon them
at the present moment. As far as I understand there
are three points which are particularly dwelt urion.
In the first place, there is the broad question which
has been raised whether taxes on locomotion alto.
gether ought not, in the interests of the com-
munity, to be done away with as rapidly as pos-
sible. Then there is the question whether, supposing
that was not the case, the particular construction that
is put now upon the Cheap Trains Act ought to be
maintained. Assuming that we cannot take off all
the taxes upon locomotion, then comes the question
whether some new eyetem or better construction can
be devised for adjusting that tax. With regard to
the great uuestion of the tax upon locomotion
generally, I think I can only be expected to say
that it is one of those points which must engage the
attention of a.,y Chancellor of the Erchequer when be
is considering the mode in which the Budget of the
year is to be arranged. The dnty of a Government
when they have to arrange a Budget is to take into
meideration the whole range of questions connected
with finance that are of importance—to give due weight
and importance to each question, and to endeavour as
far as possible to adjust the claims of different interests
with reference to the interests of the community.
Nobody can doubt that, taking the question of Is 0
motion by itself, it is one of national importance
that locomotion should be made as free as possible.
Nobody can doubt that a very large proportion of the
progress of the last 30 or 40 years has been due
to the enormoue development of the facilities for
locemotisn which have been given by the railway
system ; and, therefore, nobody can doubt that it is for
toe interests of the public, speaking in general terms,
that any burden upon that system should be as far as
possible, and consistently with other claims, taken off
or reduced. But, at the same time, I must point out
to you that we have to balance other claims, and also,
with regard to the railway 113 stem generally, there are
a great many points to be tail, n into consideration.
For instance, there is the new state of relations which
the railway system bears to the general business of
the country and to the relations of the Government
and its own carrying department. One of the
speakers pointed out net now how much advan-

tage the Government derived fro al the( conveyance-
of the made and so forth. When we are con-
sidering any queetlon with regard to the relief of
the railways from any of them burdens we should also
have to take into consideration the question how far
the Goverument ought to ask for any revision of the
terms upon whioh any of the services which are done
for the Govan:tweet by the railway companies shou'd
be carried on. There are many questions ot that ont
which I only allude to as showing that this Is part of a
great question which must be dealt with as a whole,
and of course there are other questions in connexion
with the whole system of the railways of this coun-
try which do demand very careful attention, and
which, I am sure, the public would feel that we
were neglecting our.daty it we did not attend to—the
question as to the general security and convenience of
traffic throughout the country. You know that the
whole state of the traffic of the 'country has been ma-
terially changed by the practical virtual monopoly
which, to a great extent, has fallen into the Sands of
the railway companies, and you are aware that there I
is a natural desire on the part of the public that the I
inconvenience and the drawbacks which arise in conse•
quence of the monopoly should be very carefully I
considered when we are dealing with the whole
railway se stem. Ido not go further into this point
but I wish to draw your attention to it because I
think that a Government would hardly be doing their '
duty to the public if they did not take the opportunity
ot any measure that they might propose for re-
lieving the railway companies of any great burdens of
this sort to consider whether they could secure to the
public at the same tune any advantages in respect of
those particulate to which I have alluded. Then, let
nie advert to the next point, at to the uncertainty
that prevails with regard to the construction which is
to be put upon the Cheap Trains Act, Now, I am
very glad to have had the matter pnt before me as it
has been. All I can promises is that I will ascertain
how it stanils, and we will see how it beet can be
brought to a close, because I feel very strongly the I
Injustice, as well as the inconvenience, of leaving I
a question of that sort open and hanging over the I
Ilea :a of the railway companies. I think you are
perfectly right in saying that It should be settled
as speedily as 'imitable. Now the history you have
given of that difficulty does Bugg,* that a very different
state of things now prevails from that which formerly
prevailed, and which was the occasion iif that Act
being passed. As I understand, the object of the
framers of that Act was to provide certain facilities
fur third-class passengers which it was suppomd railway
(P,u.paules would not be waling to give of their own
accord, because third-class passengers were not then
thought likely to be remunerative. But it new appears
that the extension of railway travelling—an', especially
the railway travelling of those who go third-clam—ls ,
such that it actually becomes the interest of the com-
panies themselves to give facilities very much larger
than were dreamt of when the Cheap Trains Act was
passed ; and accordiog to your showing, which lain not
prepared to di-pute, all the facilities which you are now
prepared to give, and do give, in many cams are much
greater than the facilities for which the Government
then stipulated, and therefore that exemption which
the Government proposed at the tin e when that Act
was passed has become an unnecessary exemption.
That exemption in the particular form in which it was
given was very applicable at the time when the Act
was passed, but it has ceased to be applicable, and
rather injures those intended to benefit by forcing the
railway companies to give it in a particular form instead
of in afe rm conducive to their general interests. I
think that there is a good deal to be said for the aro.
'Lent that was very fairly pressed, that the circumstances
of the day have so much altered that if the Govern.
oent were now (mewing to give any special induce-
ment to railway courpanies to carry third-class passen-
gers that particular form would not be the form which
they would choose. Supposing that some tax was still
to be kept on, in what way would it be fairest, and
most for the interest of the whole community, that the
tax should be adjusted? We have not had any rug-
geetione VA to what would be considered satisfactory
by railway companies. 110 I understand that it would
, be thought better that the tax should be upuu the moss
receipts ?
Several klembere of the ILputation : No, no.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer : Of course, I un-
derstand everybody in this room, including myself-,
thinks that by far toe most 'satisfactory settlement
would be the entire abandonment of this tax, Perhaps
I feel more strongly than you that the positive and
simple and unconditional abandonment of the tax
would be by no means a matter that must be taken for
granted, because such a measure could not be very well
adopted without reference Co the other considerations
to which I have referred. Supposing that alternative
Is set aside, and that a tax of some sort is continued
upon railway traffic, what would be the form in which
it would be feat oppressive to the railway con-
palsies ?
Mr. Leeman' M.P., said they had come entirely un-
prepared to make any suggestion to the Government
of a mode of continuing the tax. (Applause.) They
hoped to see the tax done away with altogether, satis-
fied, as he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was, as to its injustice.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: So that if we
cannot take the tax off we must leave it as it is.
(Laughter.) The matter shall have the fullest con-
sideration.

The deputation then withdrew, after returning
thanks for the ccurteoua reception they had 'net with.