The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-06 00:00:00

RAI LW AY SII A REHOLDE.RS.

Yesterday a deputation of the proprietors of
shares in the• railways of the United Kiugdom
waited ou Lord Stanley, President of the Board
Trade, and the Right Honourable R. Lowe,
Vice-President of the Board of Trade, to present a
memorial 'on pertain matters of grievance which the
railway proprietors were of opinion •demanded the
serious consideration of the Government. The de-
putation consisted-of Mr. G. Hadfield, M. P., Mr.
Wickham, M.P.', Mr. E. Ball, M.P., Mr. H. Pease,
M.P., Mr. Coningham, M.P., Mr. Garnett, M.P.,
Mr. Wa• kin M.P. Hon. IL Dutton; M. P. , Mr.
C. Bailey, 1V1.P., Mr. Gregson, M.P., Mr. J. Caird,
M.P., Mr. W. F; Price, M.P. Mr. S. Beale,
M.P., Mr. Peat, Mr. M'Garrell, Mr. Leo Schuster,
Capt. Johnston, Sir W. Gore Ousley, Capt. Man-
gles, Mr. J. Scott, Mr. Coles Child, Mr. Crombie,
Mr. Mill, Mr. Wright, Mr. Lee, Mr. T. Broad-
wood, Mr. It. Dawson, Mr. 'G. Th3mpson' Mr. J.
E. Vance, Mr. Towart, Mr. Adams, Mr. Tegg, and
a great many other gentlemen connected with rail-
ways.
Mr. HADFIELD introduced the deputation from
the body of railway shareholders, whose property
was the subject of discussion, and he hoped the
proprietors would receive from the Government
that relief which they 'now sought. He had made
an estimate of the receipts and expenditure of 11.
companies, and found that the working expenses
amounted on the average to 50 per cent. The pas-
senger tax was levied on the gross receipt, which
amounted to a tax of 10 per cent. on the profits.
No such tax was imposed in Ireland. Of the rating
to the poor and other rates the railway compa-
nies did not so much complain as of the unequal
and unjust mode in which the rate was levied. It
was raised' not upon the property, but upon the
profits, and there was no right of appeal. These
were charges which presse I most heavily upon the
shareholders, whose profits were estimated at an
average of not more than 3/. 12s. 4d. upon the
300,000,0001.
Mr. VANCE—I wish to point out an error in the
statement made in the memorial in that respect.
The dividend has amounted to 31. and a decimal
twelfth, which would make the sum about 3/. 35.,
and not 3/. 12s. 4d., as set forth in the memorial.
Mr. HADFIELD said another grievance was the
abs•raction of the carriage of parcels by the Post-
office, although railway companies were obliged to
carry soldiers, police, and others at a low fare.
After adverting to the other matters set forth in
the memorial, the hon.. member hoped the noble
lord would aid in relieving this class of property
from the excessive burden to which it was now sub-
jectel.
Mr. VANCE, after apologising to Lord Stanley for ,
the memorial being addressed to Mr. Lowe, as Vice-
President of the Board of Trade, instead of to his
lordship, proceeded to observe that the memo-
riabsts were traders representing 300,000,0001.
sterling, which had been expended for the benefit
of the country, and the proprietors of which had
not received any benefit whatever from the capital.:
This, they affirmed, had not arisen from mismanage-
ment on their part, buthadbeen caiised by the mode
in which the Legislature had dealt with rail-,
way property. Competition was good in all other]
trades, but not in reference to railways. In other!
trades competition regulated prices, but in regard
to railways the Legislature had fixed the limits o
charges for which they should carry passengers
Various committees had sat and discussed the ques
tion. The committee of 1814, presided over by WI
Gladstone, was of opinion that the question should
be referred in the first instance to the Board rtl
Trade, and on that occasion Lord Dalhousie ex.
pressed an opinion that competition, which wa
then very rife, should be restricted. But, instead
of paying any attention to this suggestion, Parlial
mentary committees, acting under the influence of
Sir R. Peel's dictum, that competition should be
the order of the day, granted agreat number of coal
pting lines, the result of which was that many o
them never paid even theirworking expenses. Comr
petition, therefore, had proved equally detrimental
to the shareholders and to the public. On the sub
ject of ra' ing he submitted that the railway comp a+
vies had very strong grounds of complaint. Th
law in regard to rating other property was alto-
gether inapplicable to railways. This had been ad-
mitted by Lord Campbell in the Court of Queen'is
Bench. The only mode in which it was possible to
arrive at the value of a portion of a railway was t;
make a conjectural estimate of its profits, but th
was regarded as grossly unjust. The question was
raised in the Rouse of Lords some time ago, wheii
the Matquis of Lansdowne pledged the GovernmeUt
that he would introduce a measure to remedy the
evil complained of.
Lord STANLEY—You are speaking of some years
Ago.
AZ " -.NcE--It was in 1849. In addition to that

f A..
a committee of the House of Commons recor s
mended that whenever a general bill relating io
railways came before Parliament the subject Of
rating should be specially attended to. He might,
however, state that so long back as 1844, when
some of the leading men connected with railways
met Mr. Gladstone on the subject of carrying pas-
sengers at the rate of a penny a mile, and also of
carrying soldiers and policem'n at a cheap rate,
an arrangement was made that if the com-
panies conformed to that regulation Sir J. Graham
should bring in a bial that would give the share-
holders relief from the oppression which they la-
boured under in reference to the poor rates. This
had never been done.
Lord STANLEY—I wish you would point out to
us what is the distinction you complain of in the
mode pursued in the rating of railways and in that
pursued in rating gas companies, water companies,
canal companies, and other such like public com-
panies.
Mr. VANCE—Water companies go under the
ground, and therefore pay no rates at all. But if
you take a large manufactory you can estimate its
letable value, which would be its rateable, only
that you pass a special act of Parliament by which
it is exempted from duty.
Lord STANLEY—Is not gas rated at so much a
mile that it passes through the pipes ?
Mr. WATKIN—No ; the gas companies aro rated
for the land they occupy, and not fur the property
that passes through their pipes.
Lord STANLEY.-....1107T would youpropose to rate
railways ?
Mr. TANCE:—I would propose to rate them in
the same mode as turnpike roads are rated.
Lord STANLEY.—You mean you would rate them
for so much land that they possess?
Mr. ADAMS did not think that that was the
prayer of the memorialists. It was a question to
be inquired into. •
Mr. VANCE—If I am asked toprescribe a remedy,
I would respectfully say that I am not the Legisla-
ture.
Lord STANLEY—If lunderstand you rightly, you
do not say that there is any new ia*affecting your
rating, but that there is a distinction in the appli-
cation of the present law to your case !
Mr. VANCE—Precisely so.
Lord STANLEY—What I wish to arrive at is the
distinction between yours and other cases. Ido
not think there is such a distinction as would make
it necessary to alter the law.
Mr. VANCE—Lord Campbell had frequently
pointed out the necessity of some remedy being
provided by the Legislature for the evil of which
we now complain.
Lord STANLEY—I think Mr. Hadfield said there
was no appeal.
Mr. W ATKIN said, be did not expect that in wait-
ing on his lordship the deputation would be called
_
upon to suggest specific remedies for the evils
tof
which they complained. They came to the bola_ dte..
state their grievances. If his lordship s.hooufd
why
1
them they had no grievances to com
eel:11111er hand,
then they must submit. But if,
ongtentleman, Mr.
his lordship and the right
Lowe, should be of opinion tbh°ant. there wore griev-
ances of which the railway shareholders might rea-
sociably complain, then he would say that the me
morialists had a rightto call upon them to apply a
ampbell said
remedy. In regard ton ating, Lord
up to apply a law to railway
that he was called
property which when the law was passed, had no
application whatever to such property, there being
property then in existence. Besides, it
no railway
warsimpossible to ascertain the letable
be let at all
value of a
portion of railway which coulie ld never .
knew a case where 4-sths of the rates of the
parish were paid by the railway company, although
there was no station iu the parish, nor was a shil-
ling received in the parish by way of passenger ;
nor, on the other hand, was there any person im-
posed on the parish from the company. Railway
property was altogether an exceptional case, as
shown by Lord Campbell. It was a newly created
property that required obe dealt with in a manner
different from the old-established possessions ; and
that property having been devoted to the creation of
magnificent public works, the holders of it were en-
titled to come to the Government and ask them to
afford redress for any grievances to which by the
existing law they were subjected.
Mr. VANCE said there was one grievance of which
he thought the railway companies bad great remen.