LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAIL -WAY BILL. (Hansard, 25 April 1895)

§ MR. D. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon District)
said, that he should object to a Second Reading being given to the Bill until the Directors of the Company had had an opportunity of reconsidering their attitude in regard to certain action of their officials in that part of the country which the new powers were asked for—namely, North Wales. The Company had used the powers it already possessed in a way prejudicial to the interests of the inhabitants. He was 1606 aware that, under the ruling of the late Speaker, given in 1891, it would be out of order to discuss a question of the general policy of the railway company when the remedy rested not with the company but with some outside authority. With regard to the crying grievance which he now brought before the House, the redress rested entirely and alone with the London and North Western Railway. Some time ago it was observed that the Directors were weeding out their Welsh-speaking workmen on this railway. The Directors, with whom he entered into communication on the subject, asked him to submit specific instances of workmen who had been discharged because they were unable to speak English; and he gave a number of cases, into which the Directors professed to institute an inquiry. They stated in a letter that the reason for the dismissal of these men was not that they were unable to speak English; but what it was they would not divulge. That left the impression on other employers of labour that the men had been dismissed for incompetence. The Directors, however, promised that nothing of the kind should occur again; and for two years there was no ground for complaint. But a short time ago they resumed the old policy. Their attention was again called to the matter, and he would read to the House a letter written in reply by one of the chief officials of the company.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Order, order! I understand the hon. Member proposes to object to the Third Reading of this Bill on the ground that the railway company have adopted a certain policy as regards the non-employment of what the hon. Gentleman describes as monoglot Welsh platelayers. It seems to me that would be a course that would be out of order [Opposition cheers] on a Bill of this kind and at this hour. It is my duty to see that the time devoted to private business is consumed solely with those matters which are relevant to private business. I quite understand the hon. Gentleman is seeking to show that the case he has in mind is relevant. So far I quite understand what his point is; but it seems to me it would be out of order to raise the question on this private Bill. The conditions of employment is a matter of general policy not confined 1607 to a single railway company; it does not affect the making of this particular line; it does not affect the particular locality or the particular public for whom the line is to be made; it is a question of policy which refers to all railway companies, at least, in all parts of Wales. It should be applicable not to any one company only, but to all companies working railways in any part of the country. ["Hear, hear."] Under these circumstances it appears to me that the course of argument which the hon. Member is adopting is out of order on this occasion. [Opposition cheers.]

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said he would bow absolutely to the Speaker's ruling, but he might be permitted to point out he was objecting more particularly to the 11th and 13th Sections of the Bill. The London and North-Western Railway Company asked the House of Commons to give them special powers with regard to the acquisition of lands in a particular part of the Principality where he thought they had already misused their powers. As he could not go into the reasons why he objected to those clauses he would move that the Debate be adjourned for a month [hear, hear], in order to give the directors of the company an opportunity of reconsidering their decision.

§ MR. DAVID PLUNKET (Dublin University)
said it was not possible for him to enter into the subject upon which the hon. Member who moved the adjournment was about to proceed, because the Speaker had ruled it out of order, but he desired to say a word with regard to one statement the hon. Gentleman had made. The hon. Member spoke of an earlier occasion on which he brought certain cases of alleged hardships before the London and North-Western Railway Company. These cases were most carefully gone into, and he assured the House they had nothing to do with the employment of men as Welshmen or as Welsh-speaking Welshmen, or in any other respect as regarded their nationality or their language. He had also to say there was, so far as he was informed, no foundation whatever for the statement that the railway company admitted anything—

§ *MR. BRYNMOR JONES (Gloucester, Stroud)
I rise to order, Mr. Speaker. Is the right hon. Gentleman in order in 1608 referring to topics which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and which you said ought not to be touched upon?

§ *MR. SPEAKER
Of course, the policy of the company cannot be argued, but, at the same time, the hon. Member having made reference to a certain point—an attack upon the company—I think I ought not to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in what, I am sure, will be a short statement.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)
May we reply to it?

§ *Mr. SPEAKER
There cannot be anything in the nature of a general discussion.

§ MR. PLUNKET
said he was not referring to a question of policy, but to a statement of fact, which he challenged.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
What about the circular?

§ MR. PLUNKET
said, that the statement of fact was that the Railway Company so far admitted the grounds of the charges made that they gave an undertaking that no such thing should occur again. So far as he was informed, no such undertaking or condition of any kind was ever given. As to the Motion for Adjournment, he had only to say that the main object of the Bill in all its clauses, and especially in the clauses referring to Wales, was to give additional facilities to the public. If the Bill were adjourned, or if it were thrown out, the results would be much more injurious to the people of Wales and of the other portions of the country affected than to the London and North Western Company. He would be ready at any time to meet the hon. Member's charges, if they were the charges which he had seen in the newspapers and elsewhere.

§ *MR. BRYNMOR JONES
thought the right hon. Gentleman had furnished the best argument for the Adjournment of the Debate for, at any rate, a short period, inasmuch as he had challenged the accuracy of the statement of fact made by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs. It was well to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was one of the directors of the London and North Western Railway Company; he was a man peculiarly interested in that great monopoly, and the fact that he had made statements which hon. Members disputed was the very best 1609 ground for the Adjournment of the Debate.

§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)
hoped the right hon. Gentleman, who was generally very fair, would consent to the Adjournment of the Debate, not necessarily for a month, but for a few days, in order that the directors of the company and the hon. Members from Wales might have an opportunity of coming to terms. He understood that they could not discuss this matter on this Bill, but if necessary he should be glad to join the hon. Gentleman from Wales and throw out a Bill without giving their reasons; but he hoped that with an adjournment the London and North-Western Railway would do what was right in this case.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS
said, that, as a Welshman, a Welsh-speaking Welshman, and also as a shareholder in the London and North Western Railway, and as a Member of the House of Commons, he was quite prepared to accept the result of throwing out the Bill until the directors of the company, which he could not but denominate as a most arrogant company, could be brought to their senses.

§ MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)
said, it seemed to him bad policy on the part of the London and North Western Railway Company to fly in the face of local public opinion upon a matter that evoked national sentiment to an extraordinary degree. In his opinion the right hon. Gentleman who supported the Third Reading of the Bill had, in the face of his traversing the facts alleged by the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, no choice but to accept the Adjournment of the Debate. If in the meantime the right hon. Gentleman could prove that the statements of the hon. Members were untrue, he would win many hon. Members to his side.

§ MR. PLUNKET
said, he and the Railway Company had not the least objection to any amount of inquiry. He had only to repeat that he trusted the adjournment would not be of a kind that would baffle a Bill, the passing of which was much more to the interest of the public than of the company.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to an adjournment for a month?

§ MR. PLUNKET
That is a very long time. [Cries of "A week."]

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. J. BRYCE, Aberdeen, S.)
suggested that the hon. Member for Carnarvon had been met in a fair way by the right hon. Gentleman, and thought the object would be attained if there were an adjournment for a fortnight.