The Parliamentary Debates (Authorized Edition) Volume 28 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1894 Excerpt: ... and he (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) hoped the House would limit itself to those Amendments which had been agreed to by both parties. Mr. BRYCE said, he must refuse to accept the Amendment, uot because the Railway Companies objected to it, hut because he thought on its merits it was not a desirable proposal. He thought that the Debates that had taken place, and the opinions that had been expressed by the traders, would be a sufficient record of the fact that they had not accepted this Bill as one that was satisfactory to them. As to the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Channing), he did not think it advisable to overload the Expiring Laws Continuance Act with Bills. Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. BRYCE moved the following new clause: --(Rebate on sidings rates.) "Whenever merchandise is received or delivered by a Railway Company at any siding or branch railway not belonging to the Company and a dispute arises between the Railway Company and the consignor or consignee of such merchandise as to any allowance or rebate to be made from the rates charged to such consignor or consignee in respect that the Railway Company does not provide station accommodation or perform terminal services, the Railway and Canal Commissioners shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine such dispute, and to determine what, if any, is a reasonable and just allowance or rebate." Clause brought up, and read the first time. Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause be read a second time." MB. TOMLINSON asked for an explanation of the differences between the proposed new clause and one on the same subject which had been placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Leicester (Sir J. Whitehead). He wished to know whether the words "at any siding ...